Pro-Israel billionaires Adelson and Saban muse over buying the New York Times

US Politics
on 46 Comments

Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino magnate and his co-horts at the Israeli American Council (IAC), launched off their first ever inaugural “Israeli-American Conference” in D.C. over the weekend (because Israel deserves another annual event for supporters in Washington, no doubt). Conveniently timed right after our elections, Haaretz reported last week we should expect some “gloating and Schadenfreude at [the] groundbreaking meeting”, and they were right.

The talk of the town is the “spirited public discussion” between Adelson and Haim Saban, the billionaire Democratic fundraiser and media mogul. Adelson was in his element throughout the event, dazzling the crowd with his enlightened perspective on a whole range of topics from Palestinians (the purpose of their existence is to destroy Israel and they should be given 5 years to prove otherwise or get the heck out) to democracy (it’s no big deal, nothing to lose so get used to it people, not even mentioned in the Torah). Saban said he would bomb the living daylights” out of Iran only he used a more colorful expression calling Iranians “sons of bitches”.

But my favorite part was hearing Adelson challenged Haim Saban to team up and purchase The New York Times because the Times is so mean to Israel. It sounds like they’re jealous Amazon’s Jeff Bezos swept in and bought the Washington Post right out from under their noses.

IsraelUSA.net:

The subject came up in a pubic discussion about media bias and Israel. Saban marveled at how Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos had purchased the Washington Post for a mere $250 million, which Saban called “bupkis,” and that he was sorry that he did not try to buy it himself. At that point Adelson pounced on Saban and challenged him on the spot to join with him to buy the New York Times from the Sulzberger family.

Saban expressed an openness to the idea, but was concerned that the Sulzberger family would not sell. Adelson dismissed that concern, “You pay significantly more than it’s worth, then the non-family shareholders have the right to bring a suit between the real value and what’s been offered.” Adelson suggested that he and Saban team up and make them an offer that cannot be refused; “There’s only one way to buy it, money…. but it’s not going to be one of those deals where I put up 10 times more than you” Adelson said.

Saban expressed an interest… and then the panel moved on to other subjects.

Gossip gossip gossip, this conversation garnered “wild applause” from conference attendees, and Adelson said he didn’t like journalism.

About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Other posts by .


Posted In:

46 Responses

  1. just
    November 10, 2014, 12:56 pm

    pukes.

    Please, Americans… Wake up!

    • Kay24
      November 10, 2014, 1:05 pm

      I am sad to say America will never wake up just, it is in a zio induce coma, and it will never, ever, wake up and face the reality. The American who is really an Israeli firster, should buy the NYT.
      It is full of pro Israeli journalists anyway, and has lost it’s credibility long ago. David Brooks and Judi Rudoren will be ecstatic.
      An interesting article about the NYT and Jewish journalists:

      link to jewishpress.com

    • American
      November 10, 2014, 5:13 pm

      Oh, they will wake up eventually.
      When they have the proverbial nothing left to lose.
      BWTTGASO

  2. Marnie
    November 10, 2014, 1:43 pm

    What’s adelson trying to do – turn the US into an israeli settlement? WTF is happening to the US? That SOB is a monster, owns 4 israeli newspapers already. How is that space-occupying lesion able to sleep at night?

    • RoHa
      November 10, 2014, 7:55 pm

      “What’s adelson trying to do – turn the US into an israeli settlement?”

      Too late. Already been done.

      • Horizontal
        November 12, 2014, 7:39 pm

        No wonder the food suddenly sucks.

  3. surewin
    November 10, 2014, 2:07 pm

    This would be a great thing! The world according to the Times is a gross distortion of the truth, but the paper has a huge throng of believing readers. Many people, especially in the New York area, relate to the outside world primarily through the Times, they dwell in its virtual reality. For Sheldon Adelson to become its dominant shareholder would be a move in the direction of honesty.

    • lysias
      November 10, 2014, 5:06 pm

      If Adelson became the dominant shareholder, the NYT’s diminishing circulation would turn into a death spiral. He might keep it alive with subsidies, but what would that get him?

      • surewin
        November 10, 2014, 5:36 pm

        lysias: I’m eagerly awaiting the death spiral, whatever its proximate cause. There are individuals with twitter feeds that give us a more accurate view of the world than the New York Times does. People should wean themselves of all institutional news media. There’s no news organ of any size that can’t be pressured into craven cooperation with the powers that be.

      • Horizontal
        November 12, 2014, 8:05 pm

        He might keep it alive with subsidies, but what would that get him?

        A massage for his huge ego?

  4. David Doppler
    November 10, 2014, 2:39 pm

    “Saban expressed an openness to the idea, but was concerned that the Sulzberger family would not sell. Adelson dismissed that concern, ‘You pay significantly more than it’s worth, then the non-family shareholders have the right to bring a suit between the real value and what’s been offered.’”

    This is a great insight into why Obama’s let’s-not-hold-anybody-accountable-for-the-2008-financial-meltdown approach was such a fiasco for the country. The rich got much richer ($60 trillion in derivatives bet on whether $4 trillion in publicly-traded sub-prime-mortgages would fall in value), and they know how to use their wealth to control governments, control media, control financial markets (and which assets will decline in value), and control anybody else whose own assets are big enough to be exposed on public markets. Anything we want, we can buy, and if anyone controlling an asset we want that is publicly traded but doesn’t want to sell, we can take it anyway.

    It is the devil the US Constitution was supposed to protect us against: unaccountable power. Although the oath of office is to uphold and defend the constitution, we increasingly hear our public officials say their first responsibility is to keep us “safe.”

    Safe for those who have all the power.

    • American
      November 10, 2014, 5:18 pm

      We don’t have a government, we have a system of taxpayer provided politicians and lawyers for legalized crime.

      ”Meet the woman JPMorgan Chase paid one of the largest fines in American history to keep from talking”

      By Matt Taibbi | November 6, 2014

      She tried to stay quiet, she really did. But after eight years of keeping a
      heavy secret, the day came when Alayne Fleischmann couldn’t take it anymore.

      “It was like watching an old lady get mugged on the street,” she says. “I
      thought, ‘I can’t sit by any longer.'”

      Fleischmann is a tall, thin, quick-witted securities lawyer in her late
      thirties, with long blond hair, pale-blue eyes and an infectious sense of
      humor that has survived some very tough times. She’s had to struggle to find
      work despite some striking skills and qualifications, a common symptom of a
      not-so-common condition called being a whistle-blower.

      Fleischmann is the central witness in one of the biggest cases of
      white-collar crime in American history, possessing secrets that JPMorgan
      Chase CEO Jamie Dimon late last year paid $9 billion (not $13 billion as
      regularly reported – more on that later) to keep the public from hearing.

      Back in 2006, as a deal manager at the gigantic bank, Fleischmann first
      witnessed, then tried to stop, what she describes as “massive criminal
      securities fraud” in the bank’s mortgage operations.

      Thanks to a confidentiality agreement, she’s kept her mouth shut since then.
      “My closest family and friends don’t know what I’ve been living with,” she
      says. “Even my brother will only find out for the first time when he sees
      this interview.”

      Six years after the crisis that cratered the global economy, it’s not
      exactly news that the country’s biggest banks stole on a grand scale. That’s
      why the more important part of Fleischmann’s story is in the pains Chase and
      the Justice Department took to silence her

      Read more:
      link to rollingstone.com
      Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

  5. American
    November 10, 2014, 2:50 pm

    The first thing that popped in my mind when I saw this picture was three neanderthals .

    • Annie Robbins
      November 10, 2014, 3:44 pm

      lol, that’s pretty close to what i was thinking too. ;)

      • Bornajoo
        November 10, 2014, 7:35 pm

        Grotesque monsters! And they are billionaires able to buy power and brainwashing media. How sick is this??
        I despair.

      • hophmi
        November 12, 2014, 12:02 pm

        That’s pretty racist.

      • Kay24
        November 12, 2014, 12:19 pm

        Hophni, THIS is racist:

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        Ugly too.

      • hophmi
        November 12, 2014, 12:22 pm

        Where I come from, referring to people as Neanderthals, particularly when they’re all from the same ethnic group, is extraordinarily racist.

      • eljay
        November 12, 2014, 12:41 pm

        >> Kay24: Hophni, THIS is racist:
        >> link to en.wikipedia.org

        When that sort of thing is done *by* Jews, Zio-supremacists refer to it as “morality” (goal + methods).

        When it’s done *to* Jews, it’s anti-Semitism.

      • Mooser
        November 12, 2014, 6:36 pm

        “Where I come from, referring to people as Neanderthals, particularly when they’re all from the same ethnic group, is extraordinarily racist.”

        That’s right! You tell ’em, Hophmi! Where we come from, we only refer to people of other ethnicities as “Neanderthals”!

        Still, they did invent skiing, and the sauna. Lotta people like those.

      • American
        November 12, 2014, 7:19 pm

        hophmi
        November 12, 2014, 12:22 pm

        Where I come from, referring to people as Neanderthals, particularly when they’re all from the same ethnic group, is extraordinarily racist.
        >>>>>>

        Where are you from btw? ……where I’m from a Neanderthal is a Neanderthal no matter what ethnic group he’s in.

        And ‘extraordinarily racist’?….really?…extraordinarily?

        Hum…….let me think of a trio I can call Neanderthals that aren’t Jewish…….how about McCain, Cruz and Graham?

        Does that make you happy?

      • Horizontal
        November 12, 2014, 7:27 pm

        Neanderthals was a lot nicer than what I was thinking.

        Seriously, my comment concerned who dressed Adelson before he went out?

      • Annie Robbins
        November 12, 2014, 10:34 pm

        particularly when they’re all from the same ethnic group, is extraordinarily racist.

        all 3 of them. wow, those are some fightin words hops.

        what about the 3 stooges? if i called them neanderthals would that also qualify as racist? maybe it’s racist just calling them stooges since they are of the same ethnic group. and what about my siblings. they are all from the same ethnic group, it is extraordinarily racist to call them emotional neanderthals ? or idiots? because i’ve sure done that a few times. just recently actually.

    • RoHa
      November 10, 2014, 11:34 pm

      That picture makes me think of Louis Buchalter, Meyer Lansky, “Bugsy” Siegel, and Arnold Rothstein.

    • Mooser
      November 11, 2014, 11:00 am

      There’s a big Neanderthal community here in Warshington State, mostly centering around Poulsbo. They are very nice people. And I’m pretty sure my wife’s family is part Neanderthal, and I love them.

  6. Talkback
    November 10, 2014, 3:02 pm

    Good news for the Zion York Times.

  7. Marco
    November 10, 2014, 4:15 pm

    It’s simple – after his comment disparaging democracy, taking Adelson’s campaign donations should be political suicide.

    The media would cover this were Adelson the spokesman for any other nation’s lobby.

  8. JLewisDickerson
    November 10, 2014, 5:53 pm

    RE: “Saban said he would ‘bomb the living daylights’ out of Iran only he used a more colorful expression calling Iranians ‘sons of bitches”. ~ Annie Robbins

    A LITTLE BACKGROUND: “Haim Saban”, by Matthew Yglesias, The Atlantic, June 10, 2007

    [EXCERPT] If you’re interested in the foreign policy views of major Hillary Clinton financial backer Haim Saban, there’s no need to follow the Atrios path of attempting guilt by association with Kenneth Pollack. He [Saban] discussed his views on the Middle East and Persian Gulf region in great detail in a reasonably recent interview with ‘Haaretz’:
    “When I see Ahmadinejad, I see Hitler. They speak the same language. His motivation is also clear: the return of the Mahdi is a supreme goal. And for a religious person of deep self-persuasion, that supreme goal is worth the liquidation of five and a half million Jews. We cannot allow ourselves that. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a religious leadership that is convinced that the annihilation of Israel will bring about the emergence of a new Muslim caliphate? Israel cannot allow that. This is no game. It’s truly an existential danger.” . . .

    . . . Saban was the largest overall contributor to the Democratic National Committee during the 2001-2002 cycle, when the party leadership was backing the Iraq War and Terry McAuliffe was DNC chair, and if Clinton becomes president, they’ll be back in the positions of influence they enjoyed back then. I doubt this all means that Hillary Clinton’s secretly itching for war with Iran, but it’s yet another illustration of the fact that her views on national security policy are too neoconnish for my tastes.

    SOURCE – link to theatlantic.com

    • JLewisDickerson
      November 10, 2014, 7:39 pm

      P.S. ALSO SEE: “Why (Some) Psychopaths Make Great CEOs”, Jeff Bercovici, Forbes.com, 5/14/2011

      [EXCERPTS] British journalist Jon Ronson immersed himself in the world of mental health diagnosis and criminal profiling to understand what makes some people psychopaths — dangerous predators who lack the behavioral controls and tender feelings the rest of us take for granted. Among the things he learned while researching his new book, “The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry”: the incidence of psychopathy among CEOs is about 4 percent, four times what it is in the population at large. I spoke with him recently about what that means and its implications for the business world and wider society.

      Are we really to understand that there’s some connection between what makes people psychopaths and what makes them CEO material?

      At first I was really skeptical because it seemed like an easy thing to say, almost like a conspiracy theorist’s type of thing to say. I remember years and years ago a conspiracy theorist telling me the world was ruled by blood-drinking, baby-sacrificing lizards. These psychologists were essentially saying the same thing. Basically, when you get them talking, these people [ie. psychopaths] are different than human beings. They lack the things that make you human: empathy, remorse, loving kindness. . .

      . . . I think my book offers really good evidence that the way that capitalism is structured really is a physical manifestation of the brain anomaly known as psychopathy. However, I woudn’t say every Fortune 500 chief is a psychopath. That would turn me into an ideologue and I abhor ideologues.

      Is it an either/or thing? It seems to me, thinking about it, that a lot of the traits on the checklist would be be useful in a corporate ladder-climbing situation. So maybe there are a lot of CEOs who simply have some psychopathic tendencies.

      It is a spectrum, but there’s a cutoff point. If you’re going by the Hare checklist [the standard inventory used in law enforcement, devised by leading researcher Robert Hare], where the top score is 40, the average anxiety-ridden business failure like me — although the fact that my book just made the Times best sellers list makes it difficult to call myself that — would score a 4 or 5. Somebody you have to be wary of would be in early 20s and a really hard core damaged person, a really dangerous psychopath, would score around a 30. In law the cutoff is 29.

      There are absolutes in psychopathy and the main absolute is a literal absence of empathy. It’s just not there. In higher-scoring psychopaths, what grows in the vacant field where that empathy should be is a joy in manipulating people, a lack of remorse, a lack of guilt. If you’ve got a little bit of empathy, you’re kind of not a psychopath. . .

      ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to forbes.com

    • JLewisDickerson
      November 10, 2014, 8:50 pm

      P.P.S. AND SEE: ‘You made it big, you jerk!’ ~ By Ari Shavit, Haaretz.com, 3/22/2009

      [EXCERPT] . . . You meet frequently and quite intimately with Israeli and American decision-makers. What do you tell than about the situation regarding Iran?

      “The Iranians are serious. They mean business. Ahmadinejad is not a madman. And every Jew who feels himself to be a Jew lives under the shadow of the Holocaust. That is something that does not leave us. The Holocaust never leaves us. So we are treating Ahmadinejad’s declarations like those of Hitler in the 1930s.”

      You too?

      “Yes, of course. When I see Ahmadinejad, I see Hitler. They speak the same language. His motivation is also clear: the return of the Mahdi is a supreme goal. And for a religious person of deep self-persuasion, that supreme goal is worth the liquidation of five and a half million Jews. We cannot allow ourselves that. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a religious leadership that is convinced that the annihilation of Israel will bring about the emergence of a new Muslim caliphate? Israel cannot allow that. This is no game. It’s truly an existential danger.”

      You have a deep knowledge of the United States – will the U.S. take action to stop Iran?

      “President Bush has no capital. He doesn’t have the political capital to take a drastic step. We know what the Chinese and the Russians think, and a move by the United States alone – I doubt it. And now, with the Democrats in control of both Houses? I don’t believe it will happen.”

      If so, Israel will remain alone. Do you think that in this situation Israel should attack?

      “I don’t know how much we can do alone. Can our planes refuel in midair? Can understandings be reached with Turkey? I spoke to all kinds of people who know, or claim they know. They say that we will not permit a situation in which Iran goes nuclear, and that we have answers. How do they put it? The problem has an answer. I don’t know. We had a tiny problem of Katyushas, and that paralyzed half a country. But maybe we have an answer for the big problems and not the small ones. Maybe we will succeed with the nuclear issue where we failed with the Katyushas. But if there is an answer, then I say yes, certainly. I would try other things first, but if they don’t work – then attack.”

      Even if the risk is high? Even if the price will be very high?

      “Is there a higher price than two nuclear bombs on Israel? So they will fire missiles, all right then. Iran is not Lebanon, where you pinpoint specific targets: this bridge here, that building, half of that courtyard over there. In Iran you go in and wipe out their infrastructure completely. Plunge them into darkness. Cut off their water.” . . .

      ENTIRE INTERVIEW – link to web.archive.org

    • JLewisDickerson
      November 11, 2014, 12:40 am
      • JLewisDickerson
        November 11, 2014, 6:05 am

        P.P.P.P.S. RE: “Los tres amigos!”

        SEE: “Senate Hawks Eye Veto Power Over Iran Deal”, by Jason Ditz, Antiwar.com, November 09, 2014
        Incoming Senate Leaders Aim to Assure Israel that Deal Won’t Be Made

        Sen. Lindsey Graham (R – SC), the incoming Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Foreign Operations chair, has announced his intentions to push a bill that will give the Senate effect veto power over any nuclear deal reached with Iran.

        Graham and incoming Foreign Relations Committee chair Sen. Bob Corker (R – TN) will cosponsor the bill in January, with Graham vowing to “kill” any deal that he believes is a bad deal.

        Which likely means [he will oppose] any deal, as Graham has been an opponent of negotiations in general, and made the vow before an Israel Lobby faction that similarly opposes any deal. . .

        SOURCE – link to news.antiwar.com

  9. a blah chick
    November 10, 2014, 8:13 pm

    The devil rides…a rascal.

  10. traintosiberia
    November 11, 2014, 12:25 am

    link to blogs.forward.com
    NYT could then become official mouthpiece of the Coalition against Nuclear Iran with daily headline- Bomb Bomb Iran !

  11. Egbert
    November 11, 2014, 3:11 am

    Israeli American Conference?

    Wow, some honesty at last. They are explicitly putting Israel first.

    • Annie Robbins
      November 11, 2014, 12:56 pm

      egbert, initially i though exactly the same thing. but in reading the text of the articles i realized it’s meant as a reference to israeli-americans.

  12. JLewisDickerson
    November 11, 2014, 3:45 am

    RE: “Adelson was in his element throughout the event, dazzling the crowd with his enlightened perspective on a whole range of topics from Palestinians (the purpose of their existence is to destroy Israel and they should be given 5 years to prove otherwise or get the heck out) to democracy (it’s no big deal, nothing to lose so get used to it people, not even mentioned in the Torah).” ~ Annie Robbins

    FROM WIKIPEDIA AS OF 1/28/14 [Defence mechanisms]:

    [EXCERPTS] . . . In Freudian psychoanalytic theory, defense mechanisms are psychological strategies brought into play by the unconscious mind[4] to manipulate, deny, or distort reality in order to defend against feelings of anxiety and unacceptable impulses to maintain one’s self schema.[5]
    These processes that manipulate, deny, or distort reality may include the following: repression, or the burying of a painful feeling or thought from one’s awareness even though it may resurface in a symbolic form;[3] identification, incorporating an object or thought into oneself;[6] and rationalization, the justification of one’s behavior and motivations by substituting “good” acceptable reasons for the motivations.[3][7] Generally, repression is considered the basis for other defense mechanisms.[3]
    Healthy persons normally use different defences throughout life. An ego defence mechanism becomes pathological only when its persistent use leads to maladaptive behaviour such that the physical or mental health of the individual is adversely affected. The purpose of ego defence mechanisms is to protect the mind/self/ego from anxiety and/or social sanctions and/or to provide a refuge from a situation with which one cannot currently cope.[8]
    Defence mechanisms are unconscious coping mechanisms that reduce anxiety generated by threats from unacceptable impulses.[9] . . .
    . . . The list of defence mechanisms is huge and there is no theoretical consensus on the number of defence mechanisms. . .

    Vaillant’s categorization of defence mechanisms

    Level 1: Pathological
    The mechanisms on this level, when predominating, almost always are severely pathological. These six defences, in conjunction, permit one to effectively rearrange external experiences to eliminate the need to cope with reality. The pathological users of these mechanisms frequently appear irrational or insane to others. These are the “psychotic” defences, common in overt psychosis. However, they are normally found in dreams and throughout childhood as well.[22] They include:
    • Delusional projection: Delusions about external reality, usually of a persecutory nature [i.e., perceiving legitimate criticism of Israel’s actions as “anti-Semitism” ~ J.L.D.].
    • Conversion: The expression of an intrapsychic conflict as a physical symptom; some examples include blindness, deafness, paralysis, or numbness. This phenomena is sometimes called hysteria.[23]
    • Denial: Refusal to accept external reality because it is too threatening; arguing against an anxiety-provoking stimulus by stating it doesn’t exist; resolution of emotional conflict and reduction of anxiety by refusing to perceive or consciously acknowledge the more unpleasant aspects of external reality.
    • Distortion: A gross reshaping of external reality to meet internal needs [i.e., insisting that Israel’s best interests are identical to the best interests of the U.S. ~ J.L.D.].
    • Splitting: A primitive defence. Negative and positive impulses are split off and unintegrated, frequently projected onto someone else. The defended individual segregates experiences into all-good and all-bad categories, with no room for ambiguity and ambivalence. When “splitting” is combined with “projecting”, the negative qualities that you unconsciously perceive yourself as possessing, you consciously attribute to another.[24]
    • Extreme projection: The blatant denial of a moral or psychological deficiency, which is perceived as a deficiency in another individual or group.
    • Superiority complex: A psychological defence mechanism in which a person’s feelings of superiority counter or conceal his or her feelings of inferiority. The inflated feelings of being superior, above the ordinary, and special, along with arrogance lead to difficulties at work and in relationships.
    • Inferiority complex: A behaviour that is displayed through a lack of self-worth, an increase of doubt and uncertainty, and feeling of not measuring up to society’s standards. Despotic control [HINT #1: a certain casino mogul, HINT #2: “Rosebud” ~ J.L.D.] is a compensation for tremendous feelings of inferiority, unworthiness, self-rejection and often feeling unlovable. . .

    SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org

    • JLewisDickerson
      November 11, 2014, 12:46 pm

      P.S. RE: “Despotic control [HINT #1: a certain casino mogul, HINT #2: “Rosebud” ~ J.L.D.] is a compensation for tremendous feelings of inferiority, unworthiness, self-rejection and often feeling unlovable. . .” ~ from “[i]nferiority complex” above

      FOR AN EXAMPLE OF “DESPOTIC CONTROL”, SEE: “Why GOP Mega-Donor Sheldon Adelson Is Mad, Bad and a Danger to the Republic”, By Rick Perlstein, Rolling Stone, 4/10/12

      [EXCERPTS] . . . Adelson’s anti-union mania (I would argue) is the most important thing to know about him. For it reveals just how crazy, and how unscrupulous, the man is.
      Let’s start at the very beginning. Adelson remembers meeting Gingrich in Washington in 1995, when Gingrich was House Speaker and Adelson was lobbying to get the U.S. embassy in Israel moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Other reports have them being introduced in 1996 by a far-right anti-union operative in Nevada who worked for Adelson. Details of the subsequent courtship are murky, although the huge favor Gingrich did for Adelson in 1996 by turning off a federal investigation of the gambling industry probably did a lot to cement their friendship.
      Two years later, Nevada conservatives sponsored a “Paycheck Protection” ballot initiative – the right-wing term for measures weakening unions by banning them from automatically deducting dues from members’ pay. Adelson was gung-ho for it – and “would spend any amount of money,” D. Taylor, secretary-treasurer of Las Vegas’s Culinary Workers Union Local 226, told me . . .
      . . . In 1999, Adelson closed one casino, the Sands, and completed work on a new one, the Venetian, stiffing so many contractors that there were at one time 366 liens against the property. Taylor, of the Culinary Workers, said he and his colleagues presumed that “like every other casino that had done that, workers in the [closed] hotel would be given priority when the [new] hotel was built.” Instead, Adelson refused even to talk. All this, in a union town like Vegas, was unprecedented. “Even when you’re having battles, you continue to have talks. Shit, we’re talking to the North Koreans right now!” he told me. “The Israelis talk to the Arabs. Talking doesn’t necessarily solve anything, but at least you understand the other guy’s position.” Adelson, not much interested in understanding the other guy’s position, proceeded to launch a campaign against the Culinary Workers that Taylor calls “beyond aggressive.”
      Right before the grand opening of the Venetian, in 1999, the Culinary Workers staged a demonstration on the public sidewalk out front. Adelson told the cops to start making arrests; the cops refused. Glen Arnodo, an official at
      the union at the time, relates what happened next: “I was standing on the sidewalk and they had two security guards say I was on private property, and if I didn’t move they’d have to put me under ‘citizen’s arrest.’ I ignored them.” The guards once again told the police to arrest Arnodo and again, he says, they refused. The Civil Rights hero Rep. John Lewis, in town to support the rally, said the whole thing reminded him of living in the South during Jim Crow. . .
      . . . Did I mention Adelson is nuts? But don’t take my word for it – it was George W. Bush who called him “some crazy Jewish billionaire.” . . .

      ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to rollingstone.com

    • JLewisDickerson
      November 12, 2014, 3:20 pm

      P.P.S. FOR ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF “DESPOTIC CONTROL”, SEE:
      “Israel’s sugar daddy, Sheldon Adelson”, by Brad A. Greenberg, JewishJournal.com, June 27, 2008

      [EXCERPT] . . . Adelson’s reach hasn’t been limited to charity. In fact, some say he uses money to meddle in Israeli politics, pushing a right-wing vision void of a peace process through his connections with American politicians—Bush called the Republican donor “some crazy Jewish billionaire”—and his free daily newspaper, Israel Hayom, which observers criticize as being stuffed with propaganda for Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu.
      At a formal dinner attended by more than a hundred senior officials of various Israeli and Jewish organizations, guests were offered the opportunity to tell Peres what they considered the biggest challenge facing the Jewish people. Adelson, according to Ha’aretz, declared, “I think Jews should have lots of sex. That is the solution to our demographic problem.”
      After Adelson addressed the conference, Nahum Barnea wrote in his column in Yedioth Ahronoth, “I saw a gambling tycoon from Las Vegas who bought my country’s birthday with three million dollars. I thought with sorrow: Is the country worth so very little? Were the champagne, wine and sushi that were given out for free in the lobby—breaking convention for such events—worth the humiliation?” Barnea went on:
      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 the 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.

      In Israel, where political, academic, and business leaders tend to be outspoken, there is a striking reticence at the mention of Sheldon Adelson. Even people who are diametrically opposed to his politics refuse to be interviewed. “There is a discernible amount of self-censorship going on,” the liberal Israeli-American writer Bernard Avishai said. “There is no ideological justification for what Sheldon is doing among the Israeli intelligentsia—and a revulsion at an American weighing in so heavily on Israeli politics, in such a crude, reactionary way. But they won’t speak.”

      These details come from Connie Bruck’s masterful and revealing profile of Adelson for this week’s New Yorker. It’s been getting a lot of buzz for its insight into the mindset of a right-wing American Jew whose love for Israel spans from his Lithuanian father too poor to set foot there to his sabra wife. But what really shocked me was a portion a little closer to home for Adelson, whose non-union Venetian was in 1999 being picketed by the Culinary Union:

      Las Vegas’s Temple Beth Sholom was holding a dinner to fête the new mayor of Las Vegas, Oscar Goodman. Adelson, a member of Beth Sholom, had recently pledged two hundred and fifty thousand dollars to the temple’s new-building fund. The dinner was to be held at the Venetian, but Mayor Goodman said that he would not cross the picket line, and synagogue officials decided to go elsewhere. Adelson excoriated Beth Sholom’s rabbi, Felipe Goodman. Rabbi Goodman told the Review-Journal that Adelson had been “so verbally abusive. I was very upset because no one had ever talked to me like he talked to me.” After the dinner took place at the Four Seasons, Adelson withdrew his pledge to Beth Sholom. He gave large sums to the local Chabad, a branch of the Hasidic Chabad-Lubavitchers, for the construction of a new center. . .

      ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to jewishjournal.com

  13. David Doppler
    November 11, 2014, 12:28 pm

    Insights from psychology, sociology, socio-biology and evolutionary psychology are often helpful in understanding what is going with individuals and groups. It makes sense that leadership at times finds lack of empathy and ability to manipulate useful in achieving and exercising power, and that groups reward those who are best at leadership by following them. Positive examples include Steve Jobs’ “reality distortion field” in which he could persuade his team that they could achieve the impossible, inspire them to do so. Nelson Mandela used similar techniques to persuade the Springboks that they might win the Rugby World Cup, against high odds, and thus provided a shared victory for all his people, to build a unified nation upon.

    What is crucial is that leaders be held accountable, that power to challenge leadership be divided up among competing ambitions. That’s the American way, but not necessarily history’s way.

    Right now, Israel’s leadership, including the rich Americans who participate actively in that leadership, have persuaded themselves and their followers that they all face certain death unless leaders and policies are followed blindly. This is “real” delusion, to the Israeli people, and will only be ended when those leaders are disgraced, held accountable for their many crimes, and new leadership takes them in a new direction.

    Trying to manage these delusional fanatics by kissing their asses while trying to nudge them this or that way – the Obama way, the Chamberlain way, the Clinton/Christie/Everyman way – doesn’t work. Direct challenge leading to toppling of leaders in disgrace is essential to change the mood of the country.

    [Oh, and Phil, will you let us know when Sheldon and Haim offer to buy Mondoweiss for more than it’s worth? As is, it’s priceless.]

  14. just
    November 11, 2014, 2:19 pm

    “Trying to manage these delusional fanatics by kissing their asses while trying to nudge them this or that way – the Obama way, the Chamberlain way, the Clinton/Christie/Everyman way – doesn’t work. Direct challenge leading to toppling of leaders in disgrace is essential to change the mood of the country.”

    amen.

    “[Oh, and Phil, will you let us know when Sheldon and Haim offer to buy Mondoweiss for more than it’s worth? As is, it’s priceless.]”

    amen again!

    thank you, DD!

    • Horizontal
      November 12, 2014, 7:33 pm

      Bullies of all stripes only understand a bop on the nose. That’s it.

  15. Shingo
    November 12, 2014, 7:20 am

    Justin Raimondo has an excellent piece on this.

    Oh, it was quite a party, as the two philanthropists did their best to conform to every caricature out of the anti-Semites’ playbook. Complaining that the media is biased against Israel, Adelson suggested to Saban that they “go after the New York Times” by offering “more than it’s worth”: shareholders could then sue the owners if they don’t accept the buyout. Saban told the audience he tried to buy the Washington Post, but Amazon’s Jeff Bezos got it for “bupkis” – a mere $250 million. He went on to say he’d “tried everything” to influence reporting about Israel, “including threats.”
    link to original.antiwar.com

    These thugs are pretty much living up to every anti-Semitic stereotype in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

    – See more at: link to mondoweiss.net

  16. Horizontal
    November 12, 2014, 7:31 pm

    So Adelson wants to buy the New York Times because it’s too anti-Israel?

    This is comedy gold, ladies & gentleman . . . You can’t make this stuff up.

  17. bilal a
    November 13, 2014, 1:59 am

    Hillary’s Sheldon Adelson
    Clinton major donor cavorts with racist warmonger, urges mass bombing. Will she be asked about it?

    But last weekend here was Saban, Democratic mogul, on stage alongside Sheldon Adelson, the two performing sort of duet: One could title it “Pity the Zionist Billionaires Who Can’t Always Get What They Want.” Adelson claimed the Palestinian were an “invented people” Saban came back with the retort that in the event of a “bad” Iran nuclear deal, Bibi “should bomb the living daylights of the sons of bitches [the Iranians].” When Saban mentioned that there were actually a lot of Palestinians between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, Adelson retorted with “So Israel won’t be a democratic state, so what.” (One might at least credit him with candor not usually evident among Israel’s most vociferous right


    Hillary has never paid a political price for her ties to right-wing Israel supporters, though she has reaped the usual benefits. Might the American political culture be ready to turn on this, at least to the extent that she will no longer get a free pass? The Twittersphere agog at the Sheldon and Haim show was largely a liberal Jewish one, journalists and writers who are hardly hostile to Israel, but are increasingly dismayed as the Israeli right wing entrenches itself in power while becoming ever more extreme. Its numbers are small, but it speaks for an influential slice of Democratic Party elite opinion—supportive of the two state solution, of negotiating with Iran. A recent J Street-sponsored poll found that 84 percent of American Jews backed an Iran deal which restricts Iranian nuclear enrichment and subjected Iran’s nuclear sites to inspection. But Adelson and Saban do not.

    Where does Hillary stand, with her financial backers or the more mainstream opinion of the Democratic Party? It’s a question worth watching in the presidential year to come.
    link to theamericanconservative.com

  18. American
    November 13, 2014, 8:40 am

    Actually its good that Adelson and Saban are mouthing off.
    Now if we could only get them prime spots on the new pundits shows they would ruin all Frank Lutz’s hard work.

    link to independent.co.uk

    The slickness of Israel’s spokesmen is rooted in directions set down by the pollster Frank Luntz

    Every one of the 112 pages in the booklet is marked “not for distribution or publication” and it is easy to see why. The Luntz report, officially entitled “The Israel project’s 2009 Global Language Dictionary, was leaked almost immediately to Newsweek Online, but its true importance has seldom been appreciated. It should be required reading for everybody, especially journalists, interested in any aspect of Israeli policy because of its “dos and don’ts” for Israeli spokesmen.

    These are highly illuminating about the gap between what Israeli officials and politicians really believe, and what they say, the latter shaped in minute detail by polling to determine what Americans want to hear. Certainly, no journalist interviewing an Israeli spokesman should do so without reading this preview of many of the themes and phrases employed by Mr Regev and his colleagues.

    The booklet is full of meaty advice about how they should shape their answers for different audiences. For example, the study says that “Americans agree that Israel ‘has a right to defensible borders’. But it does you no good to define exactly what those borders should be. Avoid talking about borders in terms of pre- or post-1967, because it only serves to remind Americans of Israel’s military history. Particularly on the left this does you harm. For instance, support for Israel’s right to defensible borders drops from a heady 89 per cent to under 60 per cent when you talk about it in terms of 1967.”

    How about the right of return for Palestinian refugees who were expelled or fled in 1948 and in the following years, and who are not allowed to go back to their homes? Here Dr Luntz has subtle advice for spokesmen, saying that “the right of return is a tough issue for Israelis to communicate
    effectively because much of Israeli language sounds like the ‘separate but equal’ words of the 1950s segregationists and the 1980s advocates of Apartheid. The fact is, Americans don’t like, don’t believe and don’t accept the concept of ‘separate but equal’.”

    So how should spokesmen deal with what the booklet admits is a tough question? They should call it a “demand”, on the grounds that Americans don’t like people who make demands. “Then say ‘Palestinians aren’t content with their own state. Now they’re demanding territory inside Israel’.” Other suggestions for an effective Israeli response include saying that the right of return might become part of a final settlement “at some point in the future”.

    Video: The latest from Gaza
    Dr Luntz notes that Americans as a whole are fearful of mass immigration into the US, so mention of “mass Palestinian immigration” into Israel will not go down well with them. If nothing else works, say that the return of Palestinians would “derail the effort to achieve peace”.

    The Luntz report was written in the aftermath of Operation Cast Lead in December 2008 and January 2009, when 1,387 Palestinians and nine Israelis were killed.

    There is a whole chapter on “isolating Iran-backed Hamas as an obstacle to peace”. Unfortunately, come the current Operation Protective Edge, which began on 6 July, there was a problem for Israeli propagandists because Hamas had quarrelled with Iran over the war in Syria and had no contact with Tehran. Friendly relations have been resumed only in the past few days – thanks to the Israeli invasion.

    Frank Luntz Much of Dr Luntz’s advice is about the tone and presentation of the Israeli case. He says it is absolutely crucial to exude empathy for Palestinians: “Persuadables [sic] won’t care how much you know until they know how much you care. Show Empathy for BOTH sides!” This may explain why a number of Israeli spokesman are almost lachrymose about the plight of Palestinians being pounded by Israeli bombs and shells.

    In a sentence in bold type, underlined and with capitalisation, Dr Luntz says that Israeli spokesmen or political leaders must never, ever justify “the deliberate slaughter of innocent women and children” and they must aggressively challenge those who accuse Israel of such a crime. Israeli spokesmen struggled to be true to this prescription when 16 Palestinians were killed in a UN shelter in Gaza last Thursday.

    There is a list of words and phrases to be used and a list of those to be avoided. Schmaltz is at a premium: “The best way, the only way, to achieve lasting peace is to achieve mutual respect.” Above all, Israel’s desire for peace with the Palestinians should be emphasised at all times because this what Americans overwhelmingly want to happen. But any pressure on Israel to actually make peace can be reduced by saying “one step at a time, one day at a time”, which will be accepted as “a commonsense approach to the land-for-peace equation”.

    Dr Luntz cites as an example of an “effective Israeli sound bite” one which reads: “I particularly want to reach out to Palestinian mothers who have lost their children. No parent should have to bury their child.”

    The study admits that the Israeli government does not really want a two-state solution, but says this should be masked because 78 per cent of Americans do. Hopes for the economic betterment of Palestinians should be emphasised.

Leave a Reply