Trending Topics:

JJ Goldberg says Adelson’s influence fulfills anti-Semitic belief

on 137 Comments
Sheldon Adelson wearing Romney button in Hebrew, at King David Hotel Jerusalem, 2012

Sheldon Adelson wearing Romney button in Hebrew, at King David Hotel Jerusalem, 2012

Yesterday we picked up The Washington Post’s report on the “Adelson primary:” four Republican presidential hopefuls are going to a Las Vegas hotel this week to kiss Sheldon Adelson’s ring so as to gain his financial backing for a run.

Two opinion-writers have landed on the report from different points of view (liberal Zionist, national interest), both stating the frightening implications of someone exercising such influence out of concern for what he deems a Jewish interest.

First, J.J. Goldberg, a liberal Zionist, is alarmed that Republican Jewish influence-peddlers are fulfilling an anti-Semitic belief about Jews. His piece at the Forward is titled, “A GOP Plan to Save the Jews: Buy the White House.”

Amid mounting alarm that anti-Semitism is on the rise in key spots around the globe — and fears that Israel could be a prime target — a prominent Republican group has come up with a unique approach to fighting back: gather a bunch of Jewish zillionaires at a casino in Las Vegas, announce plans to buy the White House in 2016 and invite leading politicians to come, hat in hand, and beg for permission to be the candidate.

Goldberg notes Adelson’s company, per the Post: “The RJC [Republican Jewish Coalition] board also includes private-equity executive Lewis Eisenberg; hedge fund founder Paul Singer; Washington insider and lobbyist Wayne Berman; former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman; and former ambassadors Sam Fox and Mel Sembler.”

Then Goldberg writes:

before you go accusing the Post (or me) of spreading anti-Semitic stereotypes, consider what the word means. Merriam-Webster defines “stereotype” as “an often unfair and untrue belief.” The World English Dictionary calls it “a set of inaccurate, simplistic generalizations.” Cardwell’s 1996 Dictionary of Psychology defines it rather more broadly as “a fixed, over generalized belief.” Nobody’s definition seems to include a straightforward recitation of facts that one would prefer remain hidden.

This was also the thrust of Walt and Mearsheimer’s book. Though they were careful to describe the Israel lobby as diverse, they were factually describing conservative Jewish influence, corrupting the political process. The same issue is at the heart of John Judis’s book on Truman: Zionists who were dedicated to saving Jews, and who regarded Arabs as a lesser form of life, corrupted American policy-making by forcing Truman’s hand, applying political pressure in advance of elections in 1946 and 1948.

Paul Pillar in the National Interest is also made extremely uncomfortable by the Adelson primary. He begins by comparing Adelson’s outsize influence to the political control of the white power structure in Jim Crow days.

From the 1890s until finally outlawed by the Supreme Court some fifty years later, one device used in the segregated South to maintain the white power structure and to prevent blacks from any effective political role was called the white primary. This was a sort of preliminary election, open only to white Democrats, that ostensibly was a nonofficial event not run by the state and thus did not adhere to laws and constitutional principles providing for equal treatment and universal voting rights. There would be a later official election in which blacks could vote, but it usually was meaningless because electoral contests had in effect already been decided in the white primary.

Now we have a procedure reminiscent of the white primary that is being called the “Sheldon primary,” as in political bankroller Sheldon Adelson. Republican presidential hopefuls are kneeling at the feet of the casino magnate in the hope of receiving his blessing, and thus his money, as the party’s nominee for 2016.

Pillar regards this as an issue of dual loyalty:

For this man who will likely have such enormous influence on who will be the Republican presidential nominee, the Republican party isn’t even his first love among political parties. That would be the Likud party. Adelson’s money also plays a very big role in Israeli politics…

Nor is the United States Adelson’s first love among countries. He has said that when he performed military service as a young man it “unfortunately” was in a U.S. uniform rather than an Israeli one. He has expressed the wish that his son become a sniper in the Israeli Defense Forces.

John Judis states in his book that the Zionist movement in the U.S. was bedeviled by the dual loyalty issue; they cared more about a Jewish state in Palestine than the American one they were living in. For instance, in early 1948, when it was obvious that the U.N. partition plan would unleash bloodshed in Palestine, the State Department resolved that an American trusteeship of the territory was the answer, leading to some type of federated or binational polity. The leading American Zionist, Abba Silver, said that Jews would fire on American troops who sought to enforce such a trusteeship. And today MJ Rosenberg accuses neoconservatives of dual loyalty in their opposition to Russia’s occupation of the Crimean peninsula: “Israel Firsters r anti-Russian because ANY show of force by US anywhere is a precedent for US using force 4 Israel.”


About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

137 Responses

  1. seafoid
    March 27, 2014, 12:44 pm

    Imagine how this looks in places like Ansar province .
    The old trope comes to life.

    • Krauss
      March 27, 2014, 3:22 pm

      Didn’t Wall Street Journal do a piece a year or so back that stated that 60-70% of all political money donated to the GOP was Jewish? The figure for Democrats was in the 50-60% range. It induced the same kind of handwringing.

      I mean, journalists always learn to “follow the money” but this issue has been unexplored for such a long time because it was sensitive due to Jewish history.

      Still, I think Adelson is an outlier in terms of Jewish megadonors. Most Jewish megadonors have some degree of dual loyalty – Zionism forces you to – while Adelson doesn’t have any dual loyalty. He has one loyalty: that to Israel.

      At same time, what should people be doing? Target Jewish donors? That sounds pretty anti-Semitic to me, if those are the only people you are targeting. The system is broken and Jews are just very political people; it’s enough for me to look in my own family for that, even if I see it every day in other Jews.

      The best way is to reform the entire political process, which everyone says will happen but is very unlikely to happen, because you have to take on every single special interest group at once. Has there ever been a president powerful enough to do that? Not even FDR managed to do it, but Teddy Roosevelt came close.

      • Scott
        March 27, 2014, 5:09 pm

        Didn’t Wall Street Journal do a piece a year or so back that stated that 60-70% of all political money donated to the GOP was Jewish? The figure for Democrats was in the 50-60% range.
        I’d like to see the link, if anyone has access. This seems incorrect to me–as GOP fundraising has historically come much more from “Middle American” corporate sources, giving figures like George HW Bush more autonomy vis a vis the Lobby than most dems. If it’s changed to this extent, it’s very recent. For instance, Koch brothers, despite ambiguity of name, are just garden variety gentile class warriors.

      • Citizen
        March 27, 2014, 6:48 pm

        @ Scott,
        I don’t know if Koch Brothers are Jewish. Attempts to find out are on-going. I do know that over 60% of Democratic donations come from Jewish organizations. Last time I looked, for GOP it was only 25% but this was before types like Adelson came into the picture. All this in context of US with 2% of the American demography. Help, anyone? I also see that Koch Bros are demonized, but nobody has demonized George Soros since Beck left the TV stage. Beck use to use his chalk board to show the pattern of Jewish power without ever mentioning it was Jewish–then Fox cancelled him, even though he was a Christian Zionist in Mormon cover.

      • piotr
        March 27, 2014, 6:54 pm

        I stumbled once on a commentary on some website ( or something like that) that this whole Israel-first shtick is simple a cover for his true agenda, which is to outlaw online poker. This guy is a clear and present danger to our freedom. (I do not give a squat about online poker, but clearly Adelson does not just hate unions and Palestinians, and his fellow tycoons have their agendas as well.)

        More seriously, the only way to cut the influence of guys like Adelson or Koch brothers is to make deference to tycoons toxic to the public.

        Of course, some tycoons are perfectly reasonable human beings, say Warren Buffet, but he does not throw his money into political process, so neither media nor politicians pay him much attention.

  2. K Renner
    March 27, 2014, 12:58 pm

    Well, Sheldon Adelson is disgusting, that much is obvious.

    Kind of makes the GOP look even more pathetic and fragmented and far-fallen if the hopefuls for the candidacy are lining up for Adelson’s blessing.

    >> “And today MJ Rosenberg accuses neoconservatives of dual loyalty in their opposition to Russia’s occupation of the Crimean peninsula: “Israel Firsters r anti-Russian because ANY show of force by US anywhere is a precedent for US using force 4 Israel.” ”

    Here I think there is a divide. The members of the GOP that are accusing Obama of being “soft” on Russia are really those old guys who have their equivalent in the Kremlin of rich ex-Soviet military men hissing in Putin’s ear– they have, on both sides, this idea that the Cold War didn’t die and now it needs to come back to prominence again. I don’t think the ones who’re really all about Israel first are focusing all too much on the actions of the Russian Federation in Ukraine and Crimea in particular.

    I don’t know if they’ve even bothered to debunk the lies about a “neo Nazi/fascist takeover” that some of Putin’s people were trying to sell to the world.

    • American
      March 27, 2014, 1:48 pm

      ” “Israel Firsters r anti-Russian because ANY show of force by US anywhere is a precedent for US using force 4 Israel.”

      As screwed up as MJ is in his anti gentile/Christians and Israel/ Jewish exceptionalism, he does at least state the obvious about I-Firstdom.
      Employing US power is what keeps Israel alive and they know it, therefore it must be constantly demonstrated before the world…no matter what it cost Americans..or anyone.

    • puppies
      March 27, 2014, 3:27 pm

      @Renner – “debunk the lies about a “neo Nazi/fascist takeover” ”
      Why lies and why quote marks? There has been just such a takeover by the US, foremost fascist power on the planet.

      • K Renner
        March 27, 2014, 8:21 pm

        I think that criticism, and regular criticism, of America is a must when the government or the state ends up doing something unjustifiable or otherwise wrong, and I’m not at all a fan of that particular brand of American “hyper-nationalism” espoused by certain elements of society–

        but what you wrote just sounds demented and likely is the by-product of being in the furthest corner of the far left.

        Especially when stacking up against the likes of Putin.

        So, yes. I will continue to deride the lies of the Kremlin and the far, far left in the case of Ukraine because it’s rubbish. America has done a lot of dirty things, to be sure (and so has Russia), but they didn’t cause the situation in the Ukraine.

        They could’ve handled themselves far more tactfully, to be sure, in terms of their official response.

      • puppies
        March 28, 2014, 12:31 pm

        @Renner – Not much to do with my personal world view. It is a fact that US intervention in most of the world does answer to recognized criteria defining fascism; particularly glaring in the Ukrainian putsch. Didn’t **cause the situation in Ukraine but used it without even bothering to hide its hand.

      • K Renner
        March 29, 2014, 3:32 pm

        Elements of the American government did want to hop on board after the fact, but played no role in creating the circumstances that led to the de-facto abdication of Yanukovich.

        Americans are trying to get in on the situation there by throwing their support behind the Ukrainians, and they do look like hypocrites in their public statements of condemnation– but that fact doesn’t absolve Putin or the Kremlin of anything.

        There are plenty of states that have condemned Russia’s actions in regard to the Ukrainian situation and the Crimea in particular, or at least have expressed their support for Ukrainian territorial integrity– and realistically (not from an extreme far left perspective) many of this states are not toadies to America and don’t put American interests before their own on any field.

      • puppies
        March 29, 2014, 10:32 pm

        @Renner – First, the US seems to have been extremely active since 2008 or so and a major factor in starting the violent overthrow. Even without that, that “Ukrainian territorial integrity” bullshit is a real howler. No outsider knew that the Crimea, of all Russian regions, had been silently and bureaucratically transferred to another SSR. If you want to argue that the plebiscite was not spontaneous and overwhelming, go ahead and make a case. As for US ass-kissing, no doubt: it’s the same bunch that supported Russia’s quasi-genocidal repression of the Chechens that now is making a federal case out of an entirely peaceful protective move agreeable to a majority.
        Anyway, I am sorry for having taken the bait: Mondoweiss is not there for such discussions; we should be talking about how to support the Palestinian people and avoid only feebly-related controversy.

      • James Canning
        March 30, 2014, 1:39 pm

        The transfer of Crimea to Ukraine was a PR programme, and it commemorated the 300th anniversary of a treaty between some Ukrainian cossacks and Muscovy.

    • Citizen
      March 27, 2014, 6:53 pm

      @ K Renner

      The US Jewish Zionist agenda is to always be US war mongers; to urge US war hawks (chicken hawks in fact usually). The basic value is to always prepare the day when US military might is used to support Israel’s transgressions.

  3. Chu
    March 27, 2014, 1:02 pm

    Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan aided William McKinley to the U.S. presidency by paying for his 1896 campaign, to avoid a possible attack on monopolies.

    Adleson and Friends are doing the same, looking out for Israel and it’s illegal occupation.
    Billionaires will always game the system for their whims.

    • ritzl
      March 27, 2014, 1:38 pm

      @Chu- Yep. If memory serves, that initiated a chain of popular realizations, movements, and events that led to the Progressive Era, TR, and the Bull Moose party. I think we’re on the verge of Gilded Age II political corrections, of which our relationship with Israel, and the Adelson-type machinations in support of it, are a deeply-embedded part.

      When food stamps and unemployment are being cut and aid to Israel is sacrosanct, it’s blowback time.

      • pabelmont
        March 27, 2014, 3:43 pm

        It may well be blow-back time, because the I-First crowd are so stupidly blatant. No messing around behind the scenes for them, Oh! No!.

        However, the monopolists (some of the same people, some others: together I call them the oligarchy and their projects the BIGs, as BIG-OIL, BIG-ZION, BIG-PHARMA, etc.) have many projects that come in under the popular radar: the refusal by Obama and Congress to rein-in the BANKS even after 2008; the new “free trade” agreement being made for the Pacific, which puts foreign corporations OVER (local) governments and thereby guts labor laws, environmental laws, and many more; fracking (against the environment in a big way); the pipelines (ditto); ignoring climate change (again, ditto and DITTO); and many etc.

        The BIGs pay for their lobbyists to push for what they want, but there is no organized (big) money to sound the call to arms for a populist uprising against all this oligarchic trends. All of the BIGs can buy what they want — including it would seem dear Mr. Adelson.

      • ritzl
        March 27, 2014, 5:50 pm

        Aye, pa. When I was growing up, that’s what unions were for. To counter the money with votes. Not so much now. But no unions doesn’t mean no pain (I think that makes sense.). I just means the pain takes longer to effervesce, imo. But it eventually does.

        As in I/P, actual reality eventually has affect and effect. As seafoid said once, everything’s connected. I don’t mean to be superficial, but to me it’s close to a metaphysical balancing process. Or is that political entropy? I don’t know, but I’m way OT.


      • Citizen
        March 27, 2014, 6:58 pm

        @ pabelmont

      • Citizen
        March 27, 2014, 6:56 pm

        @ ritzl

    • Krauss
      March 27, 2014, 3:29 pm

      Adleson and Friends are doing the same, looking out for Israel and it’s illegal occupation.
      Billionaires will always game the system for their whims.

      Speaking of which, I chuckled as I was reading Romney’s moralizing morass in the WSJ these past few weeks. He was accusing Obama was being weak and servile, yet he allowed his entire campaign to get co-opted by Adelson.

      Phew, we dodged that bullet.

      • Citizen
        March 27, 2014, 7:02 pm

        @ Krauss
        Romney’s still playing the same game, the Adelson game. Yes, we did doge the bullet a tad; it’s always in the Jewish Zionist interest at the present time to be chicken hawks. Romney’s just a go-along goy; he likes money,

      • James Canning
        March 28, 2014, 2:15 pm

        Mitt Romney of course was an opportunist, but a much large problem was his lack of understanding of international affairs.

  4. bilal a
    March 27, 2014, 1:04 pm

    It is important to remember that not long ago , amassing billions in an international syndicate running loan sharking usury, numbers ,prostitution, and pornography was considered organized crime. The last American century coincides with the glamorization and legalization of businesses exploiting these human vices.

    Arnold Rothstein

    The Jewish Century with Yuri Slezkine (Conversations with History)

    • Krauss
      March 27, 2014, 3:26 pm

      There has been glaromization of prostituion? What are you yapping about?

      Porn was never “organized crime”. In many ways, the post-WWII America, at the height of its power, was very moralistic in domestic politics. Kennedy’s dad was a bootlegger and a Nazi. The Bush family built its fortune on smuggling drugs.

      All that happened before WWII, after that, it became indecent, which is why both families abandoned that trade and moved into politics.

      Now, what the US did abroad is another story, but there was no such cultural glamorization inside America as the nation’s power increased. Get your facts right.

      • kalithea
        March 27, 2014, 5:19 pm

        Methinks thou dost protest too much. Why so defensive when bilal has links and you have none?

      • Giles
        March 27, 2014, 6:29 pm

        “Kennedy’s dad was a bootlegger and a Nazi. The Bush family built its fortune on smuggling drugs.”

        Objection. Facts not in evidence.

      • puppies
        March 27, 2014, 8:36 pm

        Krauss – You may want to think a second. Prostitution is not “organized crime”, in fact no crime at all except in our puritan states.
        Pimping is, though. In almost any country you can name. Corporate pimping makes it even worse.

      • American
        March 28, 2014, 10:56 am

        ‘Kennedy’s dad was a bootlegger and a Nazi. The Bush family built its fortune on smuggling drugs. ‘…Krauss

        Your mouth is getting a little too big for your britches.
        You are destroying your credibility with wild and inaccurate statements.

  5. Kathleen
    March 27, 2014, 1:18 pm

    More sunlight. Paul Pillar has been speaking the truth about this issue for some time.

    This morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe they were discussing Obama’s speech in Brussels yesterday. Heated exchange. Brought up Obama’s statement about how Putin (and many others) have been bring up the hypocrisy embedded in U.S. leaders calling out Russia for invading another nation. They got into the unrest and mess in the middle east. Axelrod brought up that Obama and Kerry were deeply engaged in what they referred to as the “middle east” process. Scarborough said something like “what process?” Then Axelrod when onto say how the Israeli Palestinian conflict is one of if not the root cause of a great deal of the tension , anger etc in the middle east. I was really thrown off by Axelrod’s willingness to be so blunt about the issue. Quite the exchange this morning (Thursday)

    • kalithea
      March 27, 2014, 5:24 pm

      Yes but Axelrod no doubt didn’t mention how Avigdor Lieberman wants to transfer a Zionist-contaminated piece of land in Israel where Palestinians are forced to live without their prior consent (which they’d never agree to anyway) in exchange for rich stolen Palestinian land with settlements. That didn’t enter his Zionist doublespeak.

  6. Walid
    March 27, 2014, 1:19 pm

    How much did Adelson spend backing losing horses in the last primaries and elections? It will happen again.

  7. chet
    March 27, 2014, 1:31 pm

    Why all the outrage?

    Sheldon is only doing publicly what has been done behind closed doors for generations.

    • Krauss
      March 27, 2014, 3:28 pm

      There’s something to that.

      He’s very open and unashamed about his corruption. Which is also a sign that the system is so corrupt that you don’t have to pretend anymore. At the same time, it also helps people fight it.

      The corporate media will have a hard time dismissing “conspiracy theories” when it’s out in the open.

      • kalithea
        March 27, 2014, 5:33 pm

        Ahh…the ‘ol: system’s at fault switcheroo! FYI, the discussion here is about powerful Zionists subverting U.S. democracy with their billions, buying the candidates; Zionist-friendly candidates. Quit with the obvious deflection.

      • chet
        March 27, 2014, 7:54 pm

        kalithea — “…the discussion here is about powerful Zionists subverting U.S. democracy ”

        If the words “by extremely wealthy Jews” were to have been used in my original post, I would have been branded by many as an anti-semite and a proponent of the Protocols.

        While it appears that sea change is coming about regarding discussion of the topic, disproportionate Jewish influence in politics and the media has been a radioactive topic on this site.

      • kalithea
        March 27, 2014, 10:46 pm

        While it appears that sea change is coming about regarding discussion of the topic, disproportionate Jewish influence in politics and the media has been a radioactive topic on this site.

        There comes a point when denying reality starts to be a detriment to one’s conscience even one’s reputation as a person of integrity.

        There comes a point when one must choose between 1. protecting one’s tribe when their actions and even their silence directly perpetuate the suffering of others, and 2. bringing justice to those others. You can’t have two opposing masters; you can’t have it both ways.

        Trying to protect anyone from them self is a full-time job and a conflict of interest when that someone is destroying your own reputation and the lives of others. If they persist in their destructive path; eventually you have to cut them loose and do what you gotta do: save yourself and those who suffer at this someone’s hands. It’s not easy but that choice is inevitable.

        I hope I made my point.

      • American
        March 28, 2014, 9:10 am

        ”disproportionate Jewish influence in politics and the media has been a radioactive topic on this site.” ….chet

        Not really , Phil has written about it many times.

      • James Canning
        March 28, 2014, 7:36 pm

        Indeed, Phil has any number of times.

      • ritzl
        March 27, 2014, 6:02 pm

        Agree, Krauss. Same with the Stand With Us crowing about their media and campus clout. Hard to ignore and/or bury.

  8. American
    March 27, 2014, 1:34 pm

    ”First, J.J. Goldberg, a liberal Zionist, is alarmed that the Jewish influence-peddlers are fulfilling an anti-Semitic belief about Jews.”

    ”Nobody’s definition seems to include a straightforward recitation of facts that one would prefer remain hidden.”

    Welcome to the club JJ.
    I have said for ages that the Organized Jewish/Zionist groups were literally living up to the Protocols of the Elders and all the old canards.
    No one who is even slightly familiar with the Israel and the Lobby and I/P issues can deny this. It is impossible to not see it.
    I have also said that I don’t understand how the rank and file Jews cannot see what the US Zionist are doing in the US, much less in Palestine.
    Maybe some like JJ are beginning to ‘get it.’

    You also cant stop I/P without stopping the Zionist in the US and cant you stop them unless you stop the bought politicians and parties.

  9. MHughes976
    March 27, 2014, 1:36 pm

    Resentment against certain individuals who are Jewish is not the same thing as resentment against people on the ground that they are Jewish. I don’t think that the one will lead to the other.
    I’ve heard that it’s always very difficult to say what the very rich actually own, and that the thing about being rich is that you never know how rich you are. Does Mr. Adelson really put his own money at risk? Or he does he just represent forces and resources aligned with the Israeli government? I don’t, of course, mean ‘aligned with Jewish people in general’ – Jewish people in general do not have and never have had any corporate agency outside anti-Semitic fantasy.
    Of course it’s not the fault of Mr. Adelson or of Jewish people in general that we have all, or at least by a massive majority, chosen with fairly open eyes to live in a capitalist society where everything but everything is, for good or ill, for sale.

    • The JillyBeans
      March 27, 2014, 2:49 pm

      The problem is that being against Israeli policy and disapproving of prominent individuals who happen to be Jewish will get you called out as antisemetic. It’s a short circuiting device for killing all discussion. Goodwin’s principle variant. It’s obviously quite effective.

      Ironically I think though by calling people antisemite instead of engaging in discussion will ultimately lead non-Jews to dislike all Jews on principle, as tribalists people who put “America” last. Self fulfilling prophecy.

    • kalithea
      March 27, 2014, 5:46 pm

      And this one deflects to the society.

      Jewish people in general do not have and never have had any corporate agency….

      But then neither is that issue the subject of discussion here. The issue discussed here is Jewish Zionist billionaires like Adelson and Saban proving that Zionist big money pays for political outcomes.

      Here’s an article for you, despite the usual Zionist Jewish-victim stereotyping propaganda :,7340,L-4099803,00.html

    • kalithea
      March 27, 2014, 6:08 pm

      (I don’t know what happened but this is the comment I tried to post.)

      And your comment deflects to the capitalist society.

      Jewish people in general do not have and never have had any corporate agency….

      But then neither is that issue Jewish corporate agency the subject of discussion here. The issue being discussed is Jewish Zionist billionaires like Adelson and Saban proving that Zionist big money pays for political outcomes.

      Here’s an article for you, despite the usual Zionist Jewish-victim stereotyping hasbara/propaganda claptrap:,7340,L-4099803,00.html

      • MHughes976
        March 28, 2014, 7:25 am

        Thanks for the article, kalithea, which is quite perceptive, I would say. I’m fully in agreement that we are not talking about any corporate agency of Jews as a racial group, since a race cannot be represented. So we’re not going along with those fantasies that appeal to anti-Semites.
        And I’m sure Jilly is right to say that the word ‘anti-Semite’ will always be used against us. I think that our reply (or our disdaining to reply) should be based on the fact that admiration for/dislike of certain people who are Jewish is not the same thing as admiration for/dislike of people because they are Jewish. No more is rejection of false claims made for Jews rejection of Jews. No more is reasonable argument an expression of prejudice.

      • irishmoses
        March 28, 2014, 12:20 pm

        Here’s how one gets accused of antisemitism by JeffB:

        But really your big question is should I kneel beg and scrape considering myself blessed that real Americans are letting kikes like me live in their country safely?

        He’s referring to my comments on

        The reply buttons are gone so I’ll post my response here. It begins with his cite to HUAC (the House Un-American Activities Committee) as a more authoritative source than Wikipedia,

        JeffB: “First off I’m going to go with HUAC and the FBI not wikipedia. HUAC involved sworn testimony before a congressional committee with subpoena power wikipedia is random people.”

        I-M (me): “You cite as authoritative HUAC, an organization best known for its modern versions of witch hunts and black lists (which falsely tarred many Jews as communists), while ignoring the cites in the Wikipedia piece to an article by an historian which cites to several works by historians. It also quotes the head of HUAC at that time making wild claims that half a million German Americans were members of the Bund. You clearly will stoop to any level or source to support your viewpoints.”

        JeffB: “But really your big question is should I kneel beg and scrape considering myself blessed that real Americans are letting kikes like me live in their country safely?”

        I-M (me): “What a scurrilous comment. You have no basis whatsoever for implying that I consider myself, a non-Jew, as a “real American”, somehow superior to Jews, or that I refer to Jews as “kikes” and think you or they should “kneel beg and scrape…” and consider yourselves blessed that “real Americans” are allowing Jews to live in this country safely. As an Irish-American, I hardly qualify for some sort of “blue blood” “real American” status if that’s what you were alluding to.

        If you are going to call me an antisemite, please have the guts to do so directly, and have the decency to cite to the comments you consider evidence of my antisemitism.

        Yours was a truly offensive comment. You would have fit in well as a member of HUAC.”

        [End of Angry Rant]

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 28, 2014, 12:33 pm

        “Here’s how one gets accused of antisemitism by JeffB:”

        Well, with his massive dump of lies against Desmond Tutu and his cowardly refusal to even try to support his lies (other than displaying his ignorance of intercessory prayer) is anyone surprised how off the deep end he is?

    • MRW
      March 28, 2014, 3:39 am

      Resentment against certain individuals who are Jewish is not the same thing as resentment against people on the ground that they are Jewish. I don’t think that the one will lead to the other.

      Exactly. Although in an effort to deflect resentment at the former–which is coming–the latter will be invoked.

      • American
        March 28, 2014, 1:03 pm

        ”JeffB: “But really your big question is should I kneel beg and scrape considering myself blessed that real Americans are letting kikes like me live in their country safely?”” >>>>

        That really displays a lot of resentment of those jeffb considers ‘real Americans’ and a huge inferiority complex on his part.
        I was having a conversation yesterday with a guy who is opposed to all immigration because he says immigrants have a chip on their shoulder and are hostile to Americans even though we have allowed them into the US. I said that hadn’t been my experience with immigrants but clearly jeffb represents what he was talking about in some immigrant attitudes.

      • JeffB
        March 30, 2014, 4:11 am


        I think the best response here is to note, I’m not even an immigrant. So maybe your ability to read people’s psychology ain’t so hot.

      • American
        March 30, 2014, 3:33 pm

        @ jeffb

        ”real Americans are letting kikes like me live in their country safely?”” >>>>

        Clearly you are. And clearly you have some resentment against what you call real Americans. The ‘their country’ sort of gives you away.

      • American
        March 29, 2014, 2:38 pm

        “There clear enough for you” ….jeffb

        Let me unconfused you.

        1) AIPAC lobbies for the interest of a ‘foreign country’, the NRA lobbies for a “US’ (this country) gun policy.

        2) Jews ‘are’ like every other US citizen so we get to talk about, criticize, even condemn whatever Jewish groups political agenda if we don’t like it, just like we do everyone else and other interest groups in political disagreements or fights.

        3) You don’t get to define anti Semitism for other people. Different people have different definitions of what anti Semitism is. Most people see anti Semitism as believing ALL Jews are alike in some negative way so dislike ALL Jews. I understand those of you who use the anti Semitism thing don’t want to use that definition because you’d have a hard time finding many people who actually believe All Jews are alike and dislike them because they are All alike.

        Especially on MW where we constantly condemn and bash some Jews and admire and champion another Jews……LOL..

        Does this clear it up some for you?

      • JeffB
        March 30, 2014, 4:29 am


        AIPAC lobbies for the interest of a ‘foreign country’, the NRA lobbies for a “US’ (this country) gun policy.

        Well first off that isn’t true. NRA most certainly does lobby on foreign policy related issues. For example they’ve strongly opposed USA efforts towards African disarmament and UN disarmament. African bans on small munitions which would be damaging to American gun manufacturers and the NRA has most certainly supported the right of various gangs / governments in Africa to buy lots of American manufactured weapons.

        As for the rest. AIPAC lobbies for for particular USA policies, which happen to be foreign policy. The people in it are Americans. Here are a few other examples of interest group lobbies where the topic of foreign policy comes up regularly:

        American Farm Bureau Federation
        Amnesty International
        Chamber of Commerce USA
        Concord Coalition
        Feminist Majority
        Motion Picture Association of America
        National Association of Manufacturers
        National Right to Life Committee
        Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
        Population Action International
        Recording Industry Association of America

        And I could go on and on and on. There is nothing unusual about AIPAC.

      • American
        March 30, 2014, 12:08 pm

        @ jeffb

        Those orgs are lobbying for their “US business interest” as it may regard another country. They are promoting their interest, “not the interest of the foreign country” in question.
        AIPAC lobbies STRICTLY for the interest of a foreign country, not for US business, not for US interest in any sector.
        That, oh dense one, is the difference.

      • James Canning
        March 30, 2014, 1:34 pm

        @American – – Aipac also advances the economic and social interests of a considerable number of rich and powerful Americans.

      • American
        March 30, 2014, 2:19 pm

        James Canning says:

        March 30, 2014 at 1:34 pm

        @American – – Aipac also advances the economic and social interests of a considerable number of rich and powerful Americans.>>>>

        Still fails.
        Because that is NOT the GOAL or ACTIVITY of AIPAC—unless it enriches certain Jewish or other orgs or individuals that support their agenda for Israel and enriching them will ensure their support.
        If you are referring to defense elite or others, their enrichment is only a BY-PRODUCT, a RESULT, not an AIM, of their agenda in lobbying for Israel.
        There is no way to spin the lobby or its agenda as anything but what it is–an org dedicated solely to benefiting the foreign country of Israel.

      • James Canning
        March 30, 2014, 6:46 pm

        I agree Aipac’s backers would say the purpose is to benefit Israel by influencing US policies, foreign and domestic. Even if Israel at times does not benefit from the programmes pushed by Aipac.

        Any number of wrinkes in US laws and regulations exist, and can be tweaked, or ignored, etc etc, to benefit certain rich and powerful individuals in the US with close ties to Israel.

      • irishmoses
        March 30, 2014, 3:25 pm


        Let me deconstruct your desperate bullshit reply at 12:40pm above. I’ll do this from top to bottom with your comments in quotes:

        “You cut the comment out I was responding to.”

        False. I provided a link to your entire quote above which was mine. You should have quoted the comment of mine that you found antisemitic, particularly when making such an inflammatory accusation.

        “Your point was pretty clear that Jewish lobbying was somehow fundamentally any different than other American groups forming lobbies to have their interest addressed by government. An agricultural lobby is fine, the NRA is fine, the NEA lobby is fine…”

        A straw man. I never said Jews should not lobby, nor that they should be excluded from lobbying. My comment was specifically addressed at lobbying by a subset of American Jews who are promoting the extremes of Zionism and trying to influence American foreign policy to promote the interests of another country. I am critical of their lobbying efforts to the extent that they are damaging US interests and encouraging the continuing oppression of the Palestinians. My criticism may be misguided or based on faulty analysis but that doesn’t make my motive antisemitic. Being critical of Israel’s leaders or policies, or of American Jewish organizations that support or enable those policies is not antisemitic any more than being critical of China’s policies towards Tibet or the Uighurs is anti-Asian.

        “… a Jewish lobby is justifiable grounds for a resurgence in anti-Jewish violence”.

        I never said a Jewish lobby justifies antisemitism, nor did I use the term “anti-Jewish violence”. What I said was:

        “By failing to be out in front in opposing Israel and its US supporters on a very clear-cut human rights issue that is causing great harm to their own country, American Jews are potentially putting all their accomplishments, contributions, credibility and loyalty at stake. What happens if perceptions of Jewish privilege, Jewish influence, and Jewish power get attached to something truly nefarious like Jewish disloyalty to this country? Fairly or unfairly, those dots could be connected into a litany of charges, mostly unfair, that could be devastating to American Jews. Their visceral fear of a potential for a wave of antisemitism in this country could well become a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

        You said: “Damn right it is anti-Semitic to promote special discriminatory laws or policies towards Jews.”

        Another JeffB straw man. I said nothing remotely approximating any promotion of “special discriminatory laws or policies toward Jews.” Nor did I say anything that would suggest I have a core belief that Jews are not like other Americans.

        You then string together your false statements and straw men to jump to the remarkable conclusion that:

        “Holding one or even a few views that are anti-Semitic does not make you anti-Semite so I’m not accusing you of that, yet. But your view on that issue is clear cut anti-Semitism. I have no problem saying that much.”

        I suppose it’s comforting to know that you don’t yet consider me a full blown antisemite, just that my “view on that issue is clear cut anti-Semitism”.

        If my view is so fucking clear cut, why don’t you have the decency to use my words as evidence of my antisemitism on this issue rather than making false statements about what I said and then throwing in a pack of straw dogs to support your scurrilous claim? Is that too much to ask? It’s simple. Just say: “Irish, this statement by you [verbatim quote by me inserted] seems to be antisemitic because …. Could you please explain?”

        As to your ending laundry list of hypothetical remarks that would suggest discriminatory animus against a variety of groups, let me reassure you that I have never said nor do I believe:

        1. That “whites”, Jews, or anyone else are entitled to separate bathrooms or front seats in buses,.
        2. That Jews, Muslims or anyone else, “shouldn’t be able to speak equally on the laws of this nation”.
        3. That Jews, Japanese, or anyone else, “can’t be trusted”.
        4. That Jews, or anyone else, “should not be allowed to participate fully equally in the American system of government”.

        If you feel you have evidence to the contrary, please have the decency to provide direct quotes from me that lead you to conclude I do harbor antisemitic tendencies or bias or animus.

        So, no, your response and conclusions are not “clear enough for [me]”. Your response was inadequate, defamatory, scurrilous, and highly offensive. Instead of offering a simple apology for an unwarranted and over-the-top statement, you instead buried yourself even more into the morass of the Hasbara Central antisemitism defense.

        Finally, your comment on HUAC:

        “As for HUAC. You also cut the comment I made about their numbers and how misleading wikipedia was on multiple fronts. Your response was dishonest.”

        False (once again): I didn’t cut any comment. I provided a link to your full response.

        False (once again): You said nothing about Wikipedia being “misleading on multiple fronts”. What you said was you preferred HUAC and the FBI as sources because “Wikipedia is random people.”

        You provided no cites in supporting of your HUAC claims, nor of HUAC’s accuracy or reliability as a source. I provided Wikipedia which cited several other sources that appear reliable.

        How can you conceivably claim or justify your comment that my response was “dishonest”?

        There are few congressional committees that have been ridiculed and vilified as much as HUAC (the McCarthy Senate committee is its only close rival). For you to claim HUAC as a reliable source is both ludicrous and embarrassing.

        Resorting to unsupported claims of antisemitism when you can’t win an argument on the merits, is a despicable, cowardly tactic that is shameful and should be below you.

        To paraphrase Senator Welch’s response to one of Senator Joe McCarthy’s outrageous statements defaming a witness, “Have you no sense of decency Sir? At long last, have you no sense of decency?”

      • Annie Robbins
        March 30, 2014, 4:23 pm

        He’s referring to my comments on link to

        no, he’s referring to his own comment and use of the word. and whatever lazy mod let that pass is beyond me. just because someone is degrading themselves doesn’t make it ok to drag that word in here and let it get bandied about like punching bag. why oh why do these comments ever pass moderation in the first place. jeff is an attention w**** and is constantly writing these long winded comments. peppering it w/this language is gross and uncalled for. i’m so ready for hasbara central to replace this character.

        The reply buttons are gone so I’ll post my response here.

        and btw irishmoses, there’s a reason the comment threads are cut off after 5 days, because it saves on moderation which is an endless job. so rehashing old conversations and dragging them out for the light of a new day, i’m not a fan of this.

        i am just announcing this in case someone else tries it and it doesn’t make it thru. especially when dealing with a professional hasbrat. it’s called feeding the trolls.

      • irishmoses
        March 30, 2014, 5:44 pm

        The thread in question started on the 20th and ended on the 25th. JeffB’s offensive comment was one of the last posted. I tried to respond but had no link available. I finally posted my response on this thread in the middle of a discussion about false accusations of antisemitism where I felt it was an appropriate contribution.

        JeffB’s comment was referring to my prior comment on that thread, a thread of comments that included one by Phil criticizing JeffB’s response to my first comment.

        I wasn’t “rehashing an old conversation”. I was responding to a comment by JeffB that indicted me as an antisemite, something I find very hard to ignore. Rather than simply apologizing for an OTT comment, JeffB then escalated it a new level which included false statements about what I had said. I’m sorry, but I couldn’t let that pass either.

        It’s too bad that the issues Phil raised on that thread got mired in JeffB hasbara. It was an important thread with significant issues. It continues today on Phil’s latest article,

        Moderation is an arduous and thankless task. I don’t envy you and I appreciate your efforts.

    • American
      March 28, 2014, 9:37 am

      ‘MHughes976 says:

      ”Resentment against certain individuals who are Jewish is not the same thing as resentment against people on the ground that they are Jewish. I don’t think that the one will lead to the other.”>>>>>

      It does and it doesn’t where the general public is concerned, depends on how much people know/understand about the Zionist wing and their Jewish ‘establishment’.
      The Jewish ‘defensiveness’ that is practiced by some is imo the wrong way to go about it. Better to say yes the ‘Jewish community has a problem’ in the Zionist element …..than too much claiming of innocence.
      People understand ‘bad elements’ within any group and will accept that.
      Its the old …’its not the crime, its the cover up’…. that ruins people every time.

      • ritzl
        March 28, 2014, 12:43 pm

        Exactly, American. Making that distinction is what this site is doing, or trying to do. Successfully, imho. Important work, but it makes a lot of Jews uncomfortable because nobody (Jewish or otherwise) knows what the next step is going to look like.

        Tough path to navigate particularly given the uncertainty of a potential tribal split on Israel and related manipulations. MW does give everyone the info needed to counter blanket and hateful accusations of “the Jews…” just as it provides similar information on the wrongness of Israel’s hateful treatment of the Palestinians.


      • James Canning
        March 28, 2014, 7:24 pm

        Anyone following the wedding announcements in New York Times would see how extensive intermarriage with non-Jews is, among these relative “achievers”.

  10. American
    March 27, 2014, 2:03 pm

    Unfortunately the MSM was fine with Adelson buying Romney in the last election—said nary a word about Adelson’s loyalty to Israel being his motive.

    Does anyone think for a second that Chris Matthews for instance would say…”Nor is the United States Adelson’s first love among countries. He has said that when he performed military service as a young man it “unfortunately” was in a U.S. uniform rather than an Israeli one. He has expressed the wish that his son become a sniper in the Israeli Defense Forces.”…when mentioning , if he ever mentioned, Adelson’s money in our elections?

    If something like that ever made to the public if would be the beginning of the end for I-Firstdom.

    • unverified__5ilf90kd
      March 27, 2014, 3:16 pm

      Please remember that this stuff does not make it to the mainstream US press because the journalists in power are Zionists. If a non-Zionist says these things he will be severely blackballed by the Zionists in charge. Therefore, people are shying away from the truth because of fear of repercussions. People are still being called anti-Semites for far less.

    • JeffB
      March 28, 2014, 1:20 pm


      I’m a regular MSNBC viewer. During 2012 I watched the Chris Matthews show. He was pretty clear that Adelson’s support for Gingrich as opposed to Romney was because Gingrich explicitly promised a war with Iran while Romney just wanted a tougher stance than Obama’s engagement and diplomacy. I’m not sure how much clearer you could get than that. MSNBC views know that Newt Gingrich got $20m from Adelson for the purpose of starting a USA / Iranian war.

      And contrary to your propaganda Adelson doesn’t hide his view secretly. This was from 2013 but: And let’s be clear. Obama’s position on Iran vs. the Neoconservative position came up repeatedly in the 2008 primary, 2008 general and 2012 Republican Primary. Israel’s support for anti-Iranian action came up in all the discussion. The American people who voted for Republicans did so to the extent that they care about foreign policy with full knowledge and understanding that they were voting for a much more aggressive posture towards Iran that likely would mean a war.

      Most people get that on issues related to the middle east Israelis look like Evangelical Christians. But it is a tough area for anti-Semites to gain ground though because the facts are against them. American Jews and Israeli Jews are at odds with one another. American Jews form 50% of the peace party in the USA. So on Iran one of the groups of Americans most in favor of negotiations and diplomacy are American Jews.

      If you want a better example you should pick the initial war with Iraq where American Jews dropped out of the Peace Party over:
      a) Saddam’s funding of suicide bombings in Israel
      b) The peace party’s pro-Palestinian in the lead-up to the Iraq war.
      There is a place where you can see American Jews changing their mind over Israel.

      • James Canning
        March 29, 2014, 1:52 pm

        Saddam Hussein awarded $25,000 to the families of suiciide bombers attacking targets in Tel Aviv. This fact was one of the primary drivers of the conspiracy to set up the illegal US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

      • puppies
        March 29, 2014, 10:48 pm

        @Canning – That would be a bit too naive. It may have been a part of the poisonous propaganda campaign to get support from the sheeple but certainly not a driver of the conspiracy to commit war of aggression (look up PNAC, etc.)

      • Taxi
        March 30, 2014, 12:09 pm

        I agree with Canning on the Saddam thing, not forgetting of course that Saddam fired scuds at tel aviv which only sealed Iraq’s violent fate in the eyes of the ziocons. You better believe it was personal for them.

        ‘How effing dare that Ayrab touch tel aviv?! We gotta teach him and the region a lesson!’

        p.s. Mindful here that the $25.000 awarded by Saddam to the families of suicide bombers is no different than military compensation/insurance paid to the families of fallen soldiers.

      • James Canning
        March 30, 2014, 1:37 pm

        Thanks, Taxi. The suicide bombers hitting Tel Aviv were eroding property values and deals, and impairing other business matters etc etc etc. This is why the core group who enabled the illegal invasion to take place, acted as they did.

      • James Canning
        March 30, 2014, 1:41 pm

        Wrong Puppies; in fact, it is more than abit naive to fail to see the enormous business angle that drove the conspiracy. Granted, a scheme was afoot for many years, to take out Saddam Hussein if an opportunity presented itself.

      • Taxi
        March 30, 2014, 1:56 pm

        The ziocons evil racism has a lot to do with their brutal invasion of Iraq.

        Abu Ghraib is but a small example of ziocon’s deviant malice towards Arabs.

      • James Canning
        March 30, 2014, 6:31 pm

        I don’t see a “racist” element in the illegal invasion of Iraq. Some of the neocons leading the conspiracy expected to gain immense riches. And they thought Iraq would become an ally of Israel.

      • Taxi
        March 30, 2014, 11:59 pm

        James Canning,

        Imperialism is racism. Colonialism is racism. The devastation and looting of Iraq had everything to do with racism, emotionally and intellectually speaking. The racism of the leaders of ziocon trickled down to even the low-ranked prison guards in Abu Ghraib.

      • James Canning
        March 31, 2014, 2:54 pm

        @Taxi – – The fools who set up the illegal invasion of Iraq thought the result would be a rich Iraq strongly supportive of Israel (and the US). Destroying the country was not the idea.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 31, 2014, 7:45 pm

        – The fools who set up the illegal invasion of Iraq thought the result would be a rich Iraq strongly supportive of Israel (and the US). Destroying the country was not the idea.

        that’s about the stupidest thing i ever heard you say james. i guess you’re not familiar w/the michael ledeen’s caldron of fire. the whole point was to instigate a civil war that would tear the country to shreds and transfer trillions of dollars from our federal funds into the pockets of war profiters, which is exactly what happened.

      • irishmoses
        March 31, 2014, 9:41 pm

        There’s a great quote from General Anthony Zinni who had commanded the Iraq theater pre-invasion and did everything he could to stop the war. He said the wunderkind from the Bush administration that were doing the pre-invasion planning knew damn well it was going to result in an ethnic blood bath but they didn’t care because it would weaken Iraq and turn it into an ethnic-tribal morass that would be no threat to Israel. The quote is near the beginning of Tom Ricks’ Fiasco.

        So the Bushies didn’t invade in the hope that Iraq would emerge as a democracy. They knew that was an impossibility considering the ethnic/tribal rivalries. They just wanted to remove Saddam (who was holding it all together) so it (Iraq) could self destruct. Which it did.

        Zinni was a brilliant guy and presidential caliber but he refused to kiss the right asses so he ended up sidelined.

      • Taxi
        March 31, 2014, 11:47 pm


        I actually think that destroying Iraq on behalf of israel was a premeditated plan. In fact, the grand ziocon plan is all about disintegrating all resistor Arab armies.

        But damn the plan has hit a snag in Syria!

      • JeffB
        March 30, 2014, 4:08 am


        Saddam Hussein awarded $25,000 to the families of suiciide bombers attacking targets in Tel Aviv. This fact was one of the primary drivers of the conspiracy to set up the illegal US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

        On the Bush side I haven’t seen much evidence of that from biographies or press accounts. OTOH it was yet another infuriating thing he did. For congress is was damaging, encouraging suicide bombings was seen as being on the other side on “the war on terror”. For the Democrats though that policy substantially changed things. About 1/2 the peace movement is Jewish and with the support for suicide bombings the Jews in the peace movement (in the aggregate) refused to object to the invasion. I BTW was one of these, I supported the invasion but not the occupation of Iraq.

        When Democratic politicians had to figure out their stand on the war the fact that the peace movement was divided sent them a clear message that opposition was not a safe stance. It also similarly effected the Democratic electorate and made support be sky high:

      • James Canning
        March 30, 2014, 1:43 pm

        @JeffB – – Of course this angle would be hidden, as much as possible. An illegal war was set up on knowingly false pretenses, to benefit property values in Tel Aviv? Not something to shout from the rooftops.

      • JeffB
        March 30, 2014, 9:43 pm


        Up a level

        @JeffB – – Of course this angle would be hidden, as much as possible. An illegal war was set up on knowingly false pretenses, to benefit property values in Tel Aviv? Not something to shout from the rooftops.

        I’m not going there with you. Once you start having secret meeting involving large numbers of people who all have to tell similar lies even when they are out of office you can create whatever secret plans you want. It could be because of suicide bombings and Tel Aviv property values or it could be because they are secretly alien human hybrids, both have the same level of documentary support. But the fact is it would have cost far less to just buy up the property in Tel Aviv than to move the USA army to attack Iraq. So you have the Republicans being both corrupt and stupid while at the same time able to coordinate a common story for years after they leave office….

        So no. Not buying it.

      • James Canning
        March 31, 2014, 2:52 pm

        JeffB – – You apparently do not follow Dennis Ross very closely. Ross has said a handful of rich and powerful men in Manhattan made the war possible. Not “the Republicans”. The illegal invasion offered what appeared to be a chance to gain fabulous riches. For a few insiders. Douglas Feith was one of those hoping to cash in big-time.

  11. James Canning
    March 27, 2014, 2:25 pm

    Sheldon Adelson is producing quite a spectacle. Most Americans of course seem totally unaware of it.

  12. Taxi
    March 27, 2014, 3:24 pm

    “… kiss Sheldon Adelson’s ring” = kiss of death.

    The spunky internet army will make sure that voters know all about Sheldon and his fetishism with israel. Good people will recoil, with outrage and disgust, from any candidate stupid enough to be associated with Sheldon and his evident dual loyalty. Support for israel will be an issue this coming election, for the first time ever. And not in a good way. En fin!

    That’s why I applaud and encourage this zillionaire suffering from acute messianic delusions to be as politically ostentatious as he can luster-muster.

    I’m rubbing my hands together in anticipation of the next election. Obama’s performance has profoundly disappointed millions of American voters and our political environment has become genuinely more cynical for it. I think this is a healthy thing. Poisoned meat the people will not eat, even if it’s served on a gold platter.

    May all the mad bastards lose.

  13. munro
    March 27, 2014, 3:45 pm’s-wars/

    In order to understand what motivates Bill Kristol’s professed hyper-patriotism, with its consistently disastrous prescriptions, it’s worth recalling how his father, Irving Kristol, reacted to Vietnam War critic Senator George McGovern. The presidential contender’s proposed cut in U.S. military expenditure would, according to the “godfather” of neoconservatism, “drive a knife in the heart of Israel.”

    “Jews don’t like big military budgets,” the elder Kristol explained in a Jewish publication in 1973. “But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States … American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.”

  14. Daniel Rich
    March 27, 2014, 3:47 pm

    Did Sheldon Adelson ever see a Palestinian he didn’t hate?

    • kalithea
      March 27, 2014, 6:57 pm

      Someone should ask him whom he hates more Iranians or Palestinians?

  15. DaBakr
    March 27, 2014, 4:21 pm

    If ever there was a character that embodied all the supposed characteristics of the Nazi’s vision of the Jewish stereotype-Sheldon Adelson fits the bill. From his name down to his demeanor. Yet what does that mean? He can’t help how he looks. His name he could change if he wanted but he doesn’t want to. He embodies the American dream of growing up to become a billionaire. And he definitely likes to throw his money around. So, how different is he then:
    Gates (okay, Gates is..?)

    Walton Walton Walton


    and then:

    considering the billions upon billions of US real estate and assets billionaire Arab oil sheiks and families own-who knows how much influence they peddle behind the scenes. Adelsons biggest ‘crime’ is he remains very public and does not cut an attractive figure which we all know is a big weakness for American public opinion

    • piotr
      March 27, 2014, 6:37 pm

      Being a repulsive figure does not help, of course. The guy competes with other tycoons who has the best tchotchke. First he became a king maker in Israel, which is comparatively cheap and easy. Then he thought about having the very own American president, and that is quite a bit harder. The only success in the last election cycle was to get rid of a Democratic senatorial candidate, a perfectly Zionist women by the way, who supporting a union during a strike against his casino.

      Adelson is perhaps no worse than Koch brothers, but those have at least enough intelligence to stay away from the spotlight. That this idiot and extremist is treated seriously by a major political party in USA is a sad testimony on our times. Yes, GOP is by no means free of idiots and extremists, but Adelson is definitely not giving credit to his race.

      • crone
        March 27, 2014, 7:35 pm

        “… but Adelson is definitely not giving credit to his race.”

        What “race” would that be?

      • piotr
        March 29, 2014, 1:58 pm

        This is an expression.

        When I read about the Peloponesian war, Greeks referred to Ionians and Dorians as “races”, at least that was the translation. And clearly there were substantial differences, Athenians being more loquacious and Spartans, well, more laconic.

      • puppies
        March 29, 2014, 10:18 pm

        @piotr – hard to say how good a translation that is, considering that the usual word for race and for tribe is the same –depends on your fingertip sensitivity.

  16. German Lefty
    March 27, 2014, 5:00 pm

    Not sure if some other commenter already mentioned this:
    Yesterday, DER SPIEGEL published an English-language article about Naftali Bennett.
    Israel’s Wildcard: The Man Who Could Stop The Peace Process

    • CloakAndDagger
      March 27, 2014, 9:43 pm

      @ German Lefty
      From the article you linked:

      Bennett says “the Jewish heartland, Judea and Samaria,” can never be ceded to “the enemies, the Arabs”. He says the land has belonged to the Jews for more than 3,000 years and that those who speak of an Israeli occupying force do not understand history. “You can’t occupy your own land,” Bennett says, with audible contempt for anyone who doesn’t share his view.

      It never ceases to amaze me that in today’s day and age someone can make such an audacious claim as if it were some legally-binding fact. Even the concept that “… has belonged to the Jews for more than 3,000 years” could at best be restated as “some parts of Palestine have belonged to some jews for some unknown number of years – but not exclusively, as Palestine has been inhabited by others during the same time”.

      • James Canning
        March 28, 2014, 2:13 pm

        Yes, amazing rubbish.

      • piotr
        March 29, 2014, 2:04 pm

        This “3000 years” remind me Harold Bloom’s adage “numbers in the Bible are used for much more profound purposes than mere counting”. Sometimes it is “3500 years”, sometime even “4000 years”, and according to recent studies, the ancestors of Hebrew arrived in Cana’an riding on camels before camels were domesticated.

        However, according to their own mythos, Jewish presence in Cana’an was highly intermittent.

  17. piotr
    March 27, 2014, 6:25 pm

    “four Republican presidential hopefuls are going to a Las Vegas hotel this week to kiss Sheldon Adelson’s ring…”

    This type of inaccurate reporting undermines my trust in the story. What kind of ring does Adelson have? I am sure though that he has a posterior etc.

  18. German Lefty
    March 27, 2014, 7:04 pm

    fears that Israel could be a prime target

    I just followed the link. OMG! The article is so full of paranoia:

    Now anti-Semitism is a global amalgam. Today, Christian anti-Semites, Muslim anti-Semites, leftist anti-Semites, rightest anti-Semites and international human rights anti-Semites all incorporate each other’s false charges against Jews and Israel into their own litanies.

    I especially like the term “international human rights anti-Semites”. I laughed myself to tears.

    Perhaps the most glaring instance of such crossover prejudice is Palestinian and other Islamic-world anti-Semites’ routine characterization of Palestinians, or Palestine itself, as the new Jesus being crucified by the Jews

    I have NEVER heard a Palestinian or any other advocate for Palestinian rights claim that Palestine is the new Jesus.

  19. Zionist Jew
    March 27, 2014, 7:14 pm

    I don’t like Addleson, mainly because of what he is doing to America, using his money to try to ram through the amnesty and immigration surge bill. Zionism in Israel, White displacement at home. Question for the Anti-Zionists here, why should I not expect an Arab-ruled Israel to look like every other Arab ruled country?

    • Annie Robbins
      March 27, 2014, 8:38 pm

      if every ‘arab ruled’ country looks the same to you maybe that says something about you.

      • hophmi
        March 28, 2014, 11:23 am

        “if every every ‘arab ruled’ country looks the same to you maybe that says something about you.”

        If you can’t address the question on the merits, maybe that says something about YOU.

      • K Renner
        March 29, 2014, 9:22 pm

        >> “If you can’t address the question on the merits, maybe that says something about YOU.”

        It’s a worthless question that has not one iota of merit to it.

        What Annie said makes sense– your “response” to her response to “ZionistJew” is just another another valueless, meritless comment.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 29, 2014, 9:40 pm

        If you can’t address the question on the merits, maybe that says something about YOU.

        ok hops, how many times a week do you kick a child in the guts? If you can’t address the question on the merits, maybe that says something about YOU.


        and of course it says something about me that i don’t engage in stupid racist non sensical diversionary questions. it’s says i am not a fool.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 29, 2014, 9:48 pm

        hops, since you thought zionist jew’s question had merit, here’s one in the same vein you should be able to answer like a piece of cake:

        Question for the Zionists here, why should I not expect a Jew-run business to look like every other Jew-run business?

        (and for everyone else, here’s another question. would my ‘question to zionists’ sound less racist, diversionary and out of place if i prefaced it with some on topic yada yada about not liking adelson and what he is doing to America?)

    • eljay
      March 27, 2014, 9:30 pm

      >> Question for the Anti-Zionists here, why should I not expect an Arab-ruled Israel to look like every other Arab ruled country?

      Why should you expect a secular and democratic Israel – a state of and for all Israelis, equally; and ruled by and for Israelis – to look like an “Arab ruled country” at all?

      • Zionist Jew
        March 27, 2014, 10:10 pm

        Because it would be ruled by Arabs. Duh.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 28, 2014, 12:31 pm

        “Because it would be ruled by Arabs. Duh.”

        WTF?? The country would be half Jewish. A secular and democratic state would have protections in place for civil rights for all people, and the Jewish population would have disproportionate economic power (as they do now), so how is it suddenly going to be “ruled by Arabs”???

        Or is this the lie you tell yourself to salve your conscience when you contemplate the injustice that Zionists like yourself inflict on other people: that the alternative to Jewish-led Apartheid is “Arab rule”???

      • JeffB
        March 30, 2014, 6:26 am


        A secular and democratic state would have protections in place for civil rights

        Woody. We have a Palestinian state in Gaza. It is not secular. The secular parties lost in a fair and free election. And it does not have protections in place for civil rights. The PA incidentally also does not protect civil rights.

        If you want to just make stuff up with no basis in the population then why not assert that all the inhabitants have wings and fly to work and thus the future state will also be less polluted?


        It is possible to imagine the current Israelis constructing a secular democratic state that includes the Palestinian population in full equality… but that’s fully consistent with Zionism and thus doesn’t satisfy your anti-colonialist agenda.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 30, 2014, 11:49 am



        JeffB, either apologize to everyone for your lies about Archbishop Tutu or shut the hell up. Until you show you have the minimum character to beg forgiveness for you libels against that great man, I have no interest in conversing with the likes of you.

      • eljay
        March 28, 2014, 1:37 pm

        >> Because it would be ruled by Arabs. Duh.

        Really? A secular and democratic Israel – a state of and for all Israelis, equally; and ruled by and for Israelis – is going to be “ruled by Arabs”? That’s amazing!


      • James Canning
        March 29, 2014, 1:54 pm

        Palestine would be ruled by Palestinians, many of whom would be Jews. (If Israel annexed West Bank)

      • Zionist Jew
        March 29, 2014, 4:33 pm

        No, they would suddenly stop calling themselves Arabs and start calling themselves “Israelis.” Get your head out of the clouds.

      • James Canning
        March 29, 2014, 8:01 pm

        Are we to think Israel would accept millions of Muslims, as citizens? Zero chance, as a practical matter. But one could not imagine the name of the country would not be changed to Palestine, if Muslims (and Christians of Palestinian background) were majority of the voters.

      • puppies
        March 28, 2014, 1:59 pm

        What do you mean by “Arabs”? Define.

      • K Renner
        March 29, 2014, 9:45 pm

        I wasn’t aware that Arab politicians fall into some predefined negative criteria by being Arab.

    • James North
      March 27, 2014, 10:05 pm

      Hasbara Central sends over a new recruit without adequate basic training.

      • Zionist Jew
        March 27, 2014, 10:12 pm

        I actually flunked out of the course, even though I passed the test, because my instructor had a personal vendetta against me.

      • puppies
        March 28, 2014, 2:17 pm

        @North – It’s no more a question of training, they’re now out of people with enough basic brains to be able to get a training. One has to say something good about the Likud and the in-your-face Jabotinskies: they have made Zionist propaganda into a very shameful business. Even some of the hasbaratchiks of MW pretend to disagree with their bosses.

    • Woody Tanaka
      March 28, 2014, 10:20 am

      “Question for the Anti-Zionists here, why should I not expect an Arab-ruled Israel to look like every other Arab ruled country?”

      Putting all of your mounds of bigotry aside, who said it would be “Arab-ruled”?? When half of the population is Jewish and half Palestinian, it would be jointly ruled. And that fact would make it unique.

      • Zionist Jew
        March 28, 2014, 1:04 pm

        Half the population won’t be Jewish, dumb nuts. Do the math yourself: 4.5 million Pals in the occupied territories+1.6 mill in Israel + 5 million “refugees” in the diaspora(assume that 3 million return). That’s 9.1 million Arabs versus 6 million Jews.

      • eljay
        March 31, 2014, 9:44 am

        >> Half the population won’t be Jewish, dumb nuts.

        But 100% of the population will be Israeli, dumb-ass.

      • puppies
        March 28, 2014, 2:09 pm

        @Woody – Half Zionist and racist, which makes it rather a problem. No need to panic, though, as a sizable proportion is sure to use their original citizenships or the Western welcoming policy. The Zionists in Palestine have in general no commitment to the land but just to the nationalist concept of “Jewish” rule. In the absence of which a return to Brooklyn, Warsaw or Vilnus (or for those with ancestry from blighted places a new life in the US) will certainly be more attractive, if the Algerian experience remains relevant.

    • dont drink the water
      March 31, 2014, 9:16 am

      As an American, why should I care what an Arab ruled Israel would look like?
      Given the way the Israeli’s have treated the Arabs, how would you expect them to treat you if the shoe were on the other foot?

  20. Citizen
    March 27, 2014, 7:24 pm

    It’s always interesting to watch rich jews follow their template:

    • American
      March 27, 2014, 9:03 pm

      @ Citizen

      Interesting. So Israel is afraid of US Jews losing their Jewish identity—but its not about keeping up support for Israel?…Hummm…..for some reason I don’t believe that.

      ”The extent of today’s American Jewish charitable contributions to Israel surprised even the experts, as you’ll see in Josh Nathan-Kazis’s ground-breaking series beginning this week in the Forward. Using newly released data from the IRS, Nathan-Kazis analyzed the tax documents filed by 3,600 Jewish organizations claiming not-for-profit status to better understand an ecosystem with assets of roughly $26 billion.

      What he found was that the largest share of donor dollars outside the federation system — nearly 38% — goes to organizations that focus on Israel. (And this doesn’t include direct donations to Israel Bonds.) That is a higher proportion than any other category the Forward examined. More than health care. More than culture. More than community. And, most critically in our view, much more than education.
      Despite the historic commitment that Jews have for intellectual pursuits, despite the rhetoric that education is a Jewish value, despite the reams of data showing that day schools and summer camps and immersive educational experiences are the very best way to shore up Jewish identity in the next generation, the share of donor dollars toward those causes is only 20%”

  21. kalithea
    March 27, 2014, 8:03 pm

    Here’s the money quote from a translation of an article written in 2008 by Nahum Barnea of Yediot Ahronot:

    Adelson is a Jew who loves Israel. Like some other Jews who live at a safe distance from here, his love is great, passionate, smothering. It is important to him that he influences the policies, decisions and compositions of Israeli governments. He is not alone in this, either: even back in the days of Baron Rothschild, wealthy Jews from the Diaspora felt that this country lay in their pocket, alongside their wallet. Regrettably, in the latest generation, we are being led by politicians who look at these millionaires with calf’s eyes.

    Such deference to the wallets of other people—that is the common denominator of Rabin and Peres, Netanyahu, Barak and Olmert…

    … and George W. Bush, Tom DeLay, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney… and on and on!

    But Zionists have both sides of the aisle well-covered on Zionism’s behalf. Haim Saban has contributed to Jane Harman, Henry Waxman, many other Zionist-friendly representatives, like of course Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons, even George W. Bush in 2004 to name a few! It’s no secret he’s made millions in contributions to the Democratic Party. Here’s a snap-shot of this Zionist Hollywood mogul and political financier.:

    Ironically, both Adelson and Saban have tried to delve, mind you separately, into the newspaper business because both felt that the media narrative needs to be more Israel-aligned. Any more aligned and you can call it Israeli media!

    The U.S. has a two-party system and both parties are on the Zionist take.

    Zionists scream Anti-Semitism whenever people try to connect the dots, see the bigger Zionist influence picture etc., but then, Zionists, have no problem admitting how much influence, money and power supports Zionism. So what are we to do? Zionists are trying to force-feed the view that the Emperor has new clothes and our lying eyes deceive us if we don’t see him in his new suit of clothes!

    But the TRUTH is: the Emperor’s in his birthday suit. The secret’s out and it’s disingenuous to pretend that America isn’t occupied territory, and as someone else put it in so many words: The Palestinians won’t be free until Americans are free of Zionism’s hold.

  22. puppies
    March 27, 2014, 8:50 pm

    This piece was very clear in illustrating that Adelson and Goldberg only differ in that one is a Repucrat and the other a Demolican. Nothing of any interest for Palestine in there.

  23. Kay24
    March 28, 2014, 4:05 am

    Let’s flip this situation, and ask ourselves, would Israel allow an alien nation to interfere in it’s elections? How about an alien nation paying campaign donations for knesset members, and then controlling how they vote? Would they be happy if Obama made an ad endorsing Bibi’s opponent during elections? Would Israel allow an American billionaire who has shown time and time again he puts his money and loyalty for America first, try to buy the Prime Ministership of Israel, by putting in millions of dollars to sell that candidate to the voters? The answer is obvious. Adelson wants to put up a zionist American President, so that Israel can have access to the West Wing, pass resolutions favoring Israeli interests, and fight the wars Israel wants us to finance, and lose Americans lives, for them.
    Adelson is an unpatriotic, shady, and diabolical creature, who should take his casinos and move to Israel.
    He has polluted our political system with his money, by doing Israel’s bidding, even if it is against the interests of the US.

    • JeffB
      March 28, 2014, 12:49 pm


      Sheldon Adelson is from Boston, he’s an American citizen. Unless by alien nation you mean Jews, there is no alien nation involved.

      As for Israel allowing alien nations to pollute their politics absolutely they do to a degree far greater than America would ever tolerate. What do you think Kerry is doing? How do you think Americans would respond to say China trying to dictate where we do or do not put up housing in Arizona? Having regular discussion about where the American capital is and where official business with America on American soil is going to be conducted. I wish Israel tolerated far less interference than it does.

      I wish Israel would react to say European objections to meeting in Jerusalem the way an American president would have reacted to European objections to moving the capitol from Philadelphia to D.C. The Europeans didn’t like that either, and we didn’t care one whit. But no the Israelis tolerate far more interference than we ever would.

      That unfortunately is one of the reasons that people believe BDS will be successful. Americans don’t freak out about anti-American protests in other countries, they have no apparent effect on policy at all and thus don’t happen much. Israel does freak out even about minor protests and so anti-Israeli protests, especially in Europe are more effective.

      • puppies
        March 30, 2014, 1:31 am

        DC was on US soil when it became capital.
        Jerusalem still is not in the Zionist entity.
        Anyway, no one knows yet where exactly the Zionist entity is.

  24. Citizen
    March 28, 2014, 5:53 am

    #ZOA ordered to register as agent of a foreign government under #FARA 7 times:
    It still has not done so!

  25. American
    March 28, 2014, 11:03 am

    ” The Sheldon Adelson Primary” was featured on MSNBC this am.

    Mainly as “money in politics”.
    They promoted his political interest as mainly ‘business’—but did mention his Pro-Israel activity.
    Didn’t quote him on his ‘regret’ that he served in the US military and wishes he had served in the IDF instead or how he wanted his son to be a sniper for Israel.

    • James Canning
      March 28, 2014, 2:02 pm

      But, is Adelson being supportive of Israel, when he does his best to prevent withdrawal from the West Bank?

  26. hophmi
    March 28, 2014, 11:17 am

    Are the Koch brothers Jewish? No?


    It’s not Sheldon Adelson’s fault that Republicans think that they need to knock on his door to get the Republican nomination. It’s theirs. There are billions and billions of dollars flowing into their party, and Adelson is but one of the billionaires peddling influence.

    The RJC certainly mounted quite a campaign during the 2012 election, and it got Mitt Romney next to nothing. So I’m not exactly sure what makes them special, other than that they are rhetorical blowhards. They certainly don’t seem to be much good at marshalling votes.

Leave a Reply