Top donor to Clinton super PAC is Haim Saban

US Politics
on 54 Comments

The great news is that Palestine has become the central issue in the looming platform battle between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton forces ahead of the Democratic convention. As the New York Times did a few days ago, the LA Times puts the story on its front page and says the fight could “splinter” the Democratic Party. The article is written from Clinton’s perspective: it quotes mainly Israel supporters shaking their heads over the Sanders insurgents as if they’re possessed.

The establishment just doesn’t get it. This fight is important to Sanders’s base because 1, they believe that the issue is yet more evidence of Clinton deferring to big donors. She needs wealthy rightwing Jews to keep her campaign moving. And because 2, the stakes are huge: Clinton’s hawkish positions are driven by her attachment to Israel. The NY Times has reported that Clinton was “swayed by” Benjamin Netanyahu to oppose the Iran deal, and that if it had been up to her there would be no deal. That Times reporter also said that Clinton’s most grievous mistake, support for the Iraq war, came out of concern for Israel, too.

And below I quote a Clinton State Department email showing that a political ally, said to be James P. Rubin, supported a US intervention in Syria in 2012-2013 “to help Israel,” and help the White House ease its “tension” with Israel. I.e., let’s make nice to the Israel lobby and perform another regime change, believe me it will be very easy.

First, the latest news on Hillary Clinton’s super PAC underlines the view that she’s corrupted on foreign policy: her biggest supporter is Haim Saban, the toymaker who has said, “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.”

Forbes reports that  of $76 million her super PAC raised in the first quarter of the year, nearly 15 percent came from Saban and his wife. And Forbes dares to connect that support to Hillary Clinton’s craven speech to AIPAC, the Israel lobby, when she promised she’d invite Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House in her first month as president, and to her pledge to Saban to fight the BDS movement (boycott, divestment and sanctions), which Clinton has said is anti-Semitic.

Haim and Cheryl Saban, who top our list with $10 million in contributions, are longtime supporters of the former Secretary of State. They gave to both her Senate campaigns and donated at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. The couple also co-hosted a fundraiser for Clinton this past April with George and Amal Clooney. Tickets started at $33,400 a person….

What Saban, born to a Jewish family in Egypt, and Clinton have in common is their pro-Israel stance. In March, she gave a speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee saying, “If I’m fortunate enough to be elected president, the United States will reaffirm we have a strong and enduring national interest in Israel’s security.” Clinton also wrote a letter to Saban in July 2015 asking for the billionaire’s “recommendations on how leaders and communities across America can work together to counter BDS [Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions],” a movement aimed to pressure Israel into accommodating Palestine’s demands.

It should be noted that among the other top 20 funders of the super PAC are other Israel supporters, including S. Daniel Abraham, Steven Spielberg ($1 million), Jeffrey Katzenberg ($1 million), Herbert Sandler ($2.5 million), George Soros, who has funded liberal Zionist groups, and Bernard Schwartz ($1 million).

Just how committed is Clinton to Israel as a homegrown political cause that will help her presidential campaign? Look at this State Department email released last year by Wikileaks–which has been going around on leftwing sites, and this Sanders site, as evidence that Clinton stoked the Syrian war. The author’s name was redacted; but Antiwar says that the email was written by Clinton ally James Rubin, who was then serving in the Cuomo administration in New York. Rubin had been on Clinton’s foreign policy team in the 2008 presidential campaign and the email shared the draft of an article he was writing for Foreign Policy. Hillary Clinton then passed the ideas along to unnamed recipients.

The email was evidently written in 2012, before Clinton left the State Department, and makes a strenuous case for regime change in Syria– which was Clinton’s position.

The very first sentence is a bald assertion of Israel’s interest in regime change:

The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.

Before long Rubin addresses Obama’s Israel problem:

With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its, proxies, it is possible that the United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran’s program has crossed an unacceptable threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.

This is an obvious reference to the Israel lobby, which was active against Obama as he signaled a more dovish policy with Iran.

John Kerry was already undertaking negotiations with Iran. But the anonymous author of the Clinton email opposed negotiations with Iran, again citing Israel:

Negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear program will not solve Israel’s security dilemma.

Here is something else very important in the email. Clinton has said during the presidential campaign that Iran is an “existential threat” to Israel. But that’s not the line in this realist email: Iran doesn’t threaten Israel with nuclear destruction, Iran would merely end Israel’s nuclear monopoly. And in order to prevent that outcome, the US and Israel might have to go to war against Iran!

Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted.

Israel’s security means the threat posed by Hezbollah and Hamas, with backing from Iran and Syria:

Israel’s leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests. Speaking on CNN’s Amanpour show last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that “the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran…. It’s the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world…and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza.”

Here is more of Rubin’s analysis that the real problem with Iran going nuclear isn’t that it would attack Israel, it would just shift the power balance:

If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself. Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel’s security — not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance

And for anyone who wonders why neoconservatives like Hillary Clinton, here is the usual ideological claptrap about war won’t be easy but it will remake the middle east and they will greet us with flowers! And help Israel too. At least here Rubin addresses the Syrian people’s needs:

Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes. For Israel, the rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be eased. And a new Syrian regime might well be open to early action on the frozen peace talks with Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance and missiles. All these strategic benefits and the prospect of saving thousands of civilians from murder at the hands of the Assad regime (10,000 have already been killed in this first year of civil war). With the veil of fear lifted from the Syrian people, they seem determine to fight for their freedom. America can and should help them — and by doing so help Israel and help reduce the risk of a wider war.

So Rubin was taking Israel’s side in a regional power struggle, and pledging the U.S. to go to war for that aim. BTW, Jamie Rubin has lately collaborated with neocon Robert Kagan, another Clinton ally, to support more muscular foreign policy.

Three more comments on Clinton’s foreign policy agenda.

Jeffrey Sachs, the Columbia economist who directs the Earth Institute, published an excellent piece on Hillary Clinton’s Syria policy at Huffpo in February, saying Clinton’s misrepresentation of her own record in opposing a ceasefire in 2012 and prolonging the Syrian bloodbath makes her unfit to be president. Here he describes her love for covert military operations:

Clinton herself has never shown the least reservation or scruples in deploying this instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Her record of avid support for US-led regime change includes (but is not limited to) the US bombing of Belgrade in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Iraq War in 2003, the Honduran coup in 2009, the killing of Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, and the CIA-coordinated insurrection against Assad from 2011 until today….

Hillary Clinton has never shown an iota of bravery, or even of comprehension, in facing down the CIA. She has been the CIA’s relentless supporter, and has exulted in showing her toughness by supporting every one of its misguided operations. The failures, of course, are relentlessly hidden from view. Clinton is a danger to global peace

Next, consider that Dennis Ross is sure to be mentioned as a possible secretary of state in a Clinton administration and Ross is a favorite of the Israel lobby (not to mention chair of a “Jewish people” institute based in Jerusalem that opposes intermarriage). Clinton polished up her Israel lobby bona fides by bringing Ross into the Obama administration in 2009– and Ross then argued Israel’s side in the White House for the next two years. Ross covers up for the Israeli nuclear program in his recent work of propaganda on the strength of the Israel-U.S. relationship, Doomed to Succeed.

“After Johnson, American presidents took Israeli nuclear weapons as a given but to be used only as a last resort,” Ross writes. That’s about it. Complete vagueness. This purposeful mystification is why so many on the left and the non-interventionist right want to end the official hypocrisy about Israel’s nuclear program: because we could then debate whether it’s reasonable for Israel to maintain its “nuclear monopoly” as a principal foreign policy goal, and whether the U.S. should go to war for such a policy, as Hillary Clinton’s team recommended.

Lastly, I mentioned that LA Times article on the platform battle that sees the story entirely from Clinton’s side. For instance, it mentions Sanders proxy Cornel West’s view that the 2014 Gaza war was a “massacre” but never even cites the casualty figures, including 500 dead children. Here is a great comment on that article by the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions-U.S., on Facebook:

The Los Angeles Times had an important story in its Sunday, May 29, 2016, edition deserving many rebuttals in letters-to-the-editor.

The topic was the impending platform fight at the Democratic convention over US government policy toward Israel. Top of the fold, on page 1. Despite its prominent location and length, the article never mentioned Haim Saban and his ilk financially supporting Hillary Clinton, legal discrimination against Palestinian Israelis and asylum seekers within the Green Line, the occupation and the construction of an apatheid state, Kerry’s failed peace talk initiative and the end of the two state option, Martin Indiyk blaming the Israeli government for the failed peace talks, Israel’s refusal to define its own borders, many ed-op pieces in the LA Times critical of the Israeli government, J Street, JVP, local groups like LA Jews for Peace, 42 US vetoes to protect Israel from sanctions at the UN Security Council, killing of the Goldstone Report, investigations of the IRS tax exempt status for philanthropies supporting settlers and Jewish terrorists, Avidgor Lieberman’s new role as the civilian head of the Israeli Military, and the increased US military sales to Israel totally $3.5 billion, intelligence sharing, and many violations of the Leahy and US Arms Export Acts.

So the Goldstone Report won’t go away, nor all those Gaza killings Clinton supported. Out damn spot.

Update. I revised this article to reflect the fact that Antiwar reported that the author of the State Department email released by Wikileaks was likely James P. Rubin; Rubin was passing along an article he was writing for Foreign Policy a month ahead of publication. The article was significantly less pro-Israel than the draft Rubin shared. Rubin is a Clinton ally, but was not a member of the State Department staff at the time, 2012. The original headline of the piece was “Clinton team pushed Syria war to ‘help Israel,'” which I have revised. Though Rubin appears to reflect Clinton’s ideas on foreign policy, including Syria intervention. Thanks to Scott Horton.

 

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

54 Responses

  1. oldgeezer
    May 30, 2016, 11:52 am

    hoppy will be along shortly to claim Israel doesn’t threaten anyone. Nope no threats. Just death and destruction via proxies.

    • hophmi
      May 30, 2016, 2:33 pm

      Because, you see, when an Arab regime kills 300000 people, it’s about Israel.

      • Kay24
        May 30, 2016, 2:59 pm

        Wherever you see mayhem and bloodshed you find the fingerprints of Israel and the US.

        Israel Is Cautiously Arming Syria’s Rebels — And Has A Fragile Unspoken Truce With An Al Qaeda Affiliate

        http://www.businessinsider.com/its-not-too-late-to-empower-the-moderate-rebels-of-syria-2014-10

        And

        “Abdul-Ilah al-Bashir, the new commander of the Free Syrian Army, secretly trained in Israel last year after being admitted into to the country for medical treatment, according to the Arabic language Al-Ahd website.

        He was transferred to a hospital in Israel after he was wounded in a military operation. Rumors spread that he died and was buried in Syria, allegedly to distract attention from his training in Israel.”
        http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/report-commander-of-syrian-rebels-trained-in-israel/2014/02/24/

        It is always about Israel, when it comes to the ME. What an egoistic nation.

      • Donald
        May 30, 2016, 4:55 pm

        “When an Arab regime kills 300,000 people”

        Look, I know you don’t mean it this way, but that’s apologetics for Islamic jihadists. The fact is that the regime isn’t doing all the killing–the rebels are also killing a massive number of people. It’s a civil war with outsiders supplying help and/ or weapons to both sides– the death toll is extremely high precisely because of the outside help for the rebels. On the rebel side you have the Saudis and others, including the US and evidently Israel’s interests are a big factor. No, that doesn’t mean it is all Israel’s fault, as obviously quite a few outside groups have an interest in this war.

      • oldgeezer
        May 30, 2016, 8:36 pm

        @hophead

        No hoppy, no one said it’s all about Israel besides you. Just another strawman as you have no facts on your side. Just pointing out that your prior bs that Israel does not threateng anyone.

        You must get tired sometimes of not having any facts or morals on your side. On second thought I doubt it as you are immersed in your fake victimhood.

  2. Kay24
    May 30, 2016, 11:59 am

    Another reason to NOT vote for this woman. When is the US going to make decisions on what is good for the US and the rest of the world, and not Israel first? I am sick of our politicians being in the deep pockets of Israel, and its minions here. No other nation has interfered in our policies, nor in control of our leaders in this country. It is time the US stopped being partners in crime with Israel, by interfering in other nations, causing problems in Arab nations (and others), and broke away from this evil partnership.

  3. Mooser
    May 30, 2016, 12:14 pm

    “Here’s the smell of the blood still: all the
    perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand”

  4. just
    May 30, 2016, 12:17 pm

    Phil~ thanks for this comprehensive article chronicling all of the reasons that I have against this First Lady becoming President. US foreign policy is not at the forefront of every voter’s mind, but it is in mine and has been for a long, long time. Hers will be a complete failure~ again. I shudder to think of the death and destruction that she has supported already…

    Well, Ya’alon wants to run for PM, and look who funded him in 2015:

    Ya’alon R”eaches Out to U.S. Donors in Preparation for Potential PM Run

    ‘I regard this period as a time-out after which I intend to return and run for Israel’s national leadership,’ former defense minister writes in letter.

    … In 2015, during the Likud primaries, Ya’alon raised 1,167,503.48 shekels from 201 contributors. Top U.S. donors include the Falic family, Ken Bialkin, Ken Abramowitz, Adam Milstein, Melvin Salberg, Lawrence Feigen, Eric Mandel, the Asher family, David Kronfeld, among others. …”

    read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.722311?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    Unreal.

  5. Annie Robbins
    May 30, 2016, 2:09 pm

    great comprehensive article phil, thanks so much. especially citing this part of sach’s huff po article:

    and the CIA-coordinated insurrection against Assad from 2011 until today

    yep, they were there all along, actually from even before 2011.

    and it looks like we’re finally getting the presidential fight we’ve been rooting for after all these years — but, it’s here during the primary. regardless of who wins the dem nomination — let’s hope the fight over israel continues to get out front and center this election season. it’s almost too good to be true, all this exposure. if it brings clinton down before the convention , and let’s hope it does, it would be truly remarkable. a real turning of the tide.

    the democratic party needs to fully grasp how crucial the divide over israel within the party is. it’s not a fringe, it’s a big deep crevice splitting the party. and if it splits the party she can’t win. the party has to go into the final showdown united, and that can’t happen w/clinton.

    • Annie Robbins
      May 30, 2016, 2:13 pm

      and one more thing, the 2012 info about the threat to israel being the balance of power as opposed to a military threat has been out there for a long long time. as we reported in 2011:

      The shift in the rationale for war was kicked off this week when Danielle Pletka, head of the American Enterprise Institute’s foreign policy shop and one of the most prominent neoconservatives in Washington explained what the current obsession with Iran’s nuclear program is all about.

      The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it’s Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don’t do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, “See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you that Iran wasn’t getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately…” And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem.

      – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2011/12/israels-true-fear-re-iran-is-balance-of-power/#sthash.KFJz8TuI.dpuf

  6. hophmi
    May 30, 2016, 2:29 pm

    Another terrific example of how this site engages overt anti-Semitism here.

    See, if a Clinton donor has a Jewish name, they must be giving because of Israel. I mean, George Soros doesn’t give Clinton money for any other reason, right? But he’s a Jew, so he couldn’t possibly have America’s best interests at heart. Same with Spielberg and Katzenberg. They’re prominent Jews. I mean, they’ve both been involved in liberal causes and Democratic politics for years, but they’re Jews, so Israel must be the reason they’re giving to the presumptive Democratic nominee.

    • Philip Weiss
      May 30, 2016, 2:46 pm

      I agree that Soros has a lot of reasons, Hophmi, but he is also a big funder of J Street.

      • hophmi
        May 30, 2016, 4:43 pm

        Yes, Soros is a major J Street funder, but it’s bonkers to suggest that he’s supporting Clinton because of her stance on Israel, especially since Clinton is not close to J Street.

        Annie, as usual, you substitute the forest for a tree. The fact that Katzenberg is pro-Israel does not mean that he supports Clinton for that reason. You’re proving my point.

    • Annie Robbins
      May 30, 2016, 3:29 pm

      Same with Spielberg and Katzenberg. They’re prominent Jews. I mean, they’ve both been involved in liberal causes and Democratic politics for years, but they’re Jews, so Israel must be the reason they’re giving to the presumptive Democratic nominee.

      hops, i didn’t notice you over at the jewish journal chastizing them: http://www.jewishjournal.com/hollywoodjew/item/jeffrey_katzenberg_mogul_on_a_mission

      Wasserman, the legendary studio executive and talent agent who, for a time, was considered the most powerful man in Hollywood, is clearly a role model for Katzenberg. Known by insiders as “The Last Mogul,” as a biography of the former chair and chief executive of the Music Corp. of America is titled, Wasserman famously cultivated relationships with rising politicians (he was an early supporter of then-Gov. Bill Clinton), unabashedly demanded support for Israel and united the entertainment community in support of causes he believed in.

      No Hollywood titan since has been able to fill the vacuum Wasserman left behind when he died in 2002 — until, some say, Jeffrey Katzenberg.

      According to a recent article by Andy Kroll in Mother Jones, Katzenberg is currently the nation’s most powerful and effective Democratic fundraiser.

    • Mooser
      May 30, 2016, 7:21 pm

      “Another terrific example of how this site engages overt anti-Semitism here.”

      “Hophmi” this site will never be busted for “engages overt anti-Semitism here” as lon g as you are here, giving it all kinds of ‘hits’ and ‘UPVs’

      You, “Hophmi”, are Mondo’s human shield!

    • bryan
      May 31, 2016, 4:31 am

      Magnificent, hophmi. Another logical and rhetorical tour de force. The discussion and reasoned analysis offered here is rather uncomfortable for dyed in the wool and heads in the sand Zionists and therefore it must be driven by anti-Semitism.

      I note the irrefutable evidence with which you furnish your argument (“prominent Jews … involved in liberal causes and Democratic politics”) but surely you could have made this argument much stronger. You could have pointed out that these generous and utterly disinterested donors have never claimed to be “one issue” guys, have never attempted to corrode democratic and representative politics by purchasing politicians, have given exclusively to liberal causes and have never provided any funding for pro-Israel or pro-settlement activities, have vociferously been calling for a reduction in the influence and power of corporations and Wall Street, and greater income and wealth equality, and have been at the forefront everywhere, and on each continent, in leading the fight for peace and justice. The similarities between their views and those of the corporatists, neo-liberals and neo-conservatives is purely coincidental. And of course the beacon of liberals and progressives, Bernard Saunders’ campaign, has been generously and even-handedly advanced by these donors, who so desperately seek to advance progressive outcomes, not only in America but in the Foreign Policy arena. Had you developed that argument you could really have clinched your case!

    • Talkback
      May 31, 2016, 8:19 am

      hophmi: “Another terrific example of how this site engages overt anti-Semitism here.

      See, if a Clinton donor has a Jewish name, they must be giving because of Israel. ”

      Yep. It’s antisemitic to accuse Jews as such of supporting Israel’s Apartheid. Some actually don’t.

    • Emory Riddle
      May 31, 2016, 11:02 am

      Haim Saban is Hillary’s top funder and claims he is a single issue guy…Israel.

      Is it okay with you hophmi if we acknowledge this fact? I know many facts are off limits.

    • Walker
      May 31, 2016, 2:56 pm

      hophmi, for decades both the media and national political leaders have been strongly pro-Israel. I used to look for direct connections to Israel among Jewish purchasers of media companies and Jewish major donors to political parties. I found them quite frequently. Often it wasn’t simply a matter of vacationing in Israel or funding a college there, but leadership in a Zionist organization or proclaiming open support for Israel.

      Please don’t try to pull the wool over my eyes, at least, because it won’t work.

      • Walker
        May 31, 2016, 3:41 pm

        Please note that the foregoing does not necessarily mean that all prominent Jewish supporters of Israel are, like Haim Saban, only interested in Israel. Obviously most will support other causes as well.

        It does mean that as far as the Middle East is concerned only one point of view gets pushed.

    • Emory Riddle
      June 3, 2016, 11:37 am

      “..if a Clinton donor has a Jewish name..”

      Wow.

      We can’t even say that the biggest donor is Jewish now? Only that he has a Jewish name? (actually, I would have no idea what type of name Haim Saban is if I did not know about him).

      When Saban says that he is a single issue guy and that issue is Israel, are we not allowed to conclude he is telling the truth. Is that an anti-Semitic assumption?

      Can we point out that of the top 14 donors to the Dem Party that 13 are Jewish? Is it against the rules to assume they want something back for this money? If we were to look further into the activities and politics of this 13 folks, would you be willing to bet your own money on the proposition Israel does not loom large in their priorities?

  7. hophmi
    May 30, 2016, 2:34 pm

    It’s amazing, really, how Phil repeats white supremacist agitprop about George Soros. Another sign that the BDS movement has a serious anti-Semitism problem.

    • Annie Robbins
      May 30, 2016, 3:37 pm

      It’s amazing, really, how Phil repeats white supremacist agitprop about George Soros.

      really? phil wrote soros was an “israel supporter” (wow that’s really radical and shocking allegation come to think of it /snark). can you please link to a “white supremacist agitprop” website that states “soros is an israel supporter”.

      thanks. and don’t you think you’re getting tad nit picky hops? mentioning someone supports israel is not exactly radical speech. you must have really been bowled over by the implications of the latimes article which makes a big deal for clintons support for israel.

      • Walker
        May 31, 2016, 2:57 pm

        Annie, at what point do you ban this guy as a troll?

      • Annie Robbins
        May 31, 2016, 4:24 pm

        all final decisions on bannings (and everything else on mondoweiss) are not under my purview.

    • Mooser
      May 30, 2016, 8:54 pm

      “white supremacist agitprop”

      And “Hophmi” lands a one-two slappy.
      First a right(“white supremacist”) and then a left (“agitprop”)!

      • Bandolero
        May 30, 2016, 9:59 pm

        Mooser

        “white supremacist agitprop”

        Oh, that’s an easy one. Just look at this, Rense (white supremacist) quotes JTA (agitprop) regarding Soros and Israel:

        Soros Says Jews And Israel Cause Anti-Semitism

        http://www.rense.com/general44/soros.htm

        So, seriously, it looks like George Soros is closer to BDS than to the Israeli Apartheid regime.

        That said, George Soros seems to be in lockstep with the Zionist Neocons as he is one of the main sponsors of war and terror in countries with friendly ties to Russia. He’s supporting the terror war on Syria, including groups close to Al Qaeda, just as he supports the Nazi putsch in Ukraine. He was already a main guy behind the first putsch in Ukraine a decade ago, and similarly he backed other US made regime changes in eastern Europe to get democracy. Just when democracy doesn’t bring bad relations with Russia, Soros starts to get very hostile with democratically elected governments like that in Hungary.

        So, to me it seems like just as it is with Brzezinski, Soros and his decades of mass murderous activities around the world seem not to be motivated by neocon-like love for everything Israel does, but by boundless hatred against Russia.

      • Talkback
        May 31, 2016, 8:21 am

        Hasbara doublethink.

  8. JLewisDickerson
    May 30, 2016, 3:01 pm

    RE: “What Saban, born to a Jewish family in Egypt, and Clinton have in common is their pro-Israel stance.” ~ Forbes

    MY COMMENT: One can certainly sympathize with the plight of Haim Saban as a young boy living in Alexandria, Egypt during the period when the Israelis not only used a group of Egyptian Jews to carry out black flag terrorist attacks (code named Operation Susannah) in Alexandria and other parts of Egypt during the summer of 1954, but then launched an outright invasion of Egypt in 1956 in collusion with Britain and France.

    ■ FROM WIKIPEDIA [Haim Saban]:

    [EXCERPT] . . . Saban was born to a Jewish family in Alexandria, Egypt, in 1944. In 1956, the Saban family immigrated to Israel along with most of the Egyptian Jewish community.[2] . . .

    SOURCE – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haim_Saban

    ■ FROM WIKIPEDIA [Suez Crisis]:

    [EXCERPT] The Suez Crisis, also referred to as the Tripartite Aggression, Suez War,[7][8] (Arabic: أزمة السويس – العدوان الثلاثي‎ ʾAzmat al-Sūwais / al-ʿIdwān al-Thalāthī; French: Crise du canal de Suez; Hebrew: מבצע קדש‎ Mivtza’ Kadesh “Operation Kadesh,” or מלחמת סיני Milẖemet Sinai, “Sinai War”) was an offensive war fought by France, the United Kingdom, and Israel against Egypt beginning on 29 October 1956.[9][10] Less than a day after Israel invaded Egypt, Britain and France issued a joint ultimatum to Egypt and Israel, and then began to bomb Cairo. In a short time, and despite Israeli and British denials, considerable evidence showed that the two attacks were planned in collusion, with France as the instigator, Britain as a belated partner, and Israel as the willing trigger.[11] Anglo-French forces withdrew before the end of the year, but Israeli forces remained until March 1957, prolonging the crisis. In April, the canal was fully reopened to shipping, but other repercussions continued….

    SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis

    ■ FROM WIKIPEDIA [Lavon Affair]:

    [EXCERPTS] The Lavon Affair refers to a series of failed Israeli planned and sponsored terrorist attacks, code named Operation Susannah, conducted in Egypt in the Summer of 1954. As part of the false flag operation,[1] a group of Egyptian Jews were recruited by Israeli military intelligence for plans to plant bombs inside Egyptian, American and British-owned civilian targets, cinemas, libraries and American educational centers. The attacks were to be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood, Egyptian Communists, “unspecified malcontents” or “local nationalists” with the aim of creating a climate of sufficient violence and instability to induce the British government to retain its occupying troops in Egypt’s Suez Canal zone.[2] The operation caused no casualties, except for those terrorists of the cell who committed suicide after being captured.

    The operation ultimately became known as the Lavon Affair after the Israeli defense minister Pinhas Lavon was forced to resign as a consequence of the incident. Before Lavon’s resignation, the incident had been euphemistically referred to in Israel as the “Unfortunate Affair” or “The Bad Business” (Hebrew: עסק הביש‎, Esek HaBish). After Israel publicly denied any involvement in the incident for 51 years, the surviving terrorists were officially honored in 2005 by being awarded certificates of appreciation by Israeli President Moshe Katzav.[3]

    In the early 1950s, the United States initiated a more activist policy of support for Egyptian nationalism; this was often in contrast with British policies of maintaining its regional hegemony. Israel feared that this policy, which encouraged Britain to withdraw its military forces from the Suez Canal, would embolden Egyptian President Nasser’s military ambitions towards Israel. Israel first sought to influence this policy through diplomatic means but was frustrated.[4]

    In the summer of 1954 Colonel Binyamin Gibli, the chief of Israel’s military intelligence, Aman, initiated Operation Susannah in order to reverse that decision. The goal of the Operation was to carry out bombings and other acts of terrorism in Egypt with the aim of creating an atmosphere in which the British and American opponents of British withdrawal from Egypt would be able to gain the upper hand and block the British withdrawal from Egypt.

    According to historian Shabtai Teveth, who wrote one of the more detailed accounts, the assignment was “To undermine Western confidence in the existing [Egyptian] regime by generating public insecurity and actions to bring about arrests, demonstrations, and acts of revenge, while totally concealing the Israeli factor. The team was accordingly urged to avoid detection, so that suspicion would fall on the Muslim Brotherhood, the Communists, ‘unspecified malcontents’ or ‘local nationalists’.”[2] . . .

    . . . On 2 July the cell detonated bombs at a post office in Alexandria,[6] and on 14 July, it bombed the libraries of the U.S. Information Agency in Alexandria and Cairo and a British-owned theater. . . .

    . . . Several suspects were arrested, including Egyptian Jews and undercover Israelis. . .

    SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair

    • Annie Robbins
      May 30, 2016, 3:09 pm

      the lavon affair mirrored the efforts of zionist instigators in iraq to ensure the emigration of iraqi jews to israel which was a plan that preceded the 47-48 war for an ‘exchange’ of transfer. israel desperately needed arab jews to populate palestinian communities they ethnically cleansed for several reasons.

    • JLewisDickerson
      May 30, 2016, 4:00 pm

      P.S.
      LAST COUPLE OF DAYS FOR STREAMING FROM NETFLIX (until 6/01/16):
      A Bottle in the Gaza Sea, 2011, NR, Rated NR, 1hr 39m
      Our best guess for you: 4.5 stars
      Average of 48905 ratings: 3.8 stars
      A random connection blossoms into love in this drama about Tal, a recent arrival to Israel, who witnesses a cafe bombing that traumatizes her. In response, Tal writes a heartfelt letter that follows an unlikely path to Naim, a young Palestinian.
      Cast: Agathe Bonitzer, Mahmud Shalaby, Hiam Abbass, more…
      NETFLIX LISTING – http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/70264870

      Trailer – A Bottle in the Gaza Sea

      A Bottle in the Gaza: An interviw with the director Thierry Binisti

    • traintosiberia
      May 31, 2016, 7:17 am

      One of the accomplices of Labon Affair was a physician. He was caught and later deported to Israel.
      Goldstein w not the first physician murderer. Neither was the Glasgow airport attacker in post 2003 Great Britain.

  9. Scott
    May 30, 2016, 3:16 pm

    Extremely important, comprhensive, piece.

  10. Bandolero
    May 30, 2016, 7:21 pm

    I wonder whether there is any chance to give the author of the mentioned Forbes article or Pulitzer or a medal for best reporting.

    Under the byline: Ivona Iacob, Contributor, I’m an intern with Forbes Opinion, there is her bio:

    I am a rising junior at Yale College, majoring in Ethics, Politics and Economics. There I write for the college newspaper Yale Daily News and work with the Alumni Affairs Office at the Yale Law School. I also tutor Introductory Microeconomics. I hail from Timisoara, Romania, where I graduated from a Mathematics-Computer Science High School. I am interested in human rights, immigration laws and politics and I intend to pursue a Law degree after college. I spent last summer in Paris, France studying Private Law & Contract Enforcement.

    This great women also has a Twitter account:

    https://twitter.com/ivona_iacob

    But perhaps the best of all is the graph of Hillary’s Top 20 donors used in that Forbes article – I wonder if she created it herself:

    http://blogs-images.forbes.com/ivonaiacob/files/2016/05/graph-Clinton-donors.jpg

    I wonder if there will be rolling heads at Forbes now for something like “the obvious anti-semitism in that graph” – but I think she deserves a medal to put that graph on display at Forbes.

  11. traintosiberia
    May 30, 2016, 9:42 pm

    Weakening Arab countries one by one piece by piece was always the standard playbook recipe . Yesterday’s atrocious proposal become common platform of the presidential contenders . PNAC penned the [position paper for Netanyaho government in 1996 – working with Jordan,Egypt,and Turkey – ,Isarel will undo Oslo, force Palestinian into signing to new paradigm enunciated by Israel , force the regimes of Iraq and Syria to fold . Idea was to destroy any remnant of pan Arabism, nationalism and fragment the defiant countries into confessional fiefdoms run by US and Israel. Those murderous ethnocentric racial and colonial ideas were allowed to become mainstream .The open invitation to violence was glamorized,normalized and adopted as official policy . Clinton was not an aberration She is one of many toll booths an Arab or a middle eastern muslim will have to pass through diplomatically ,militarily ,and economically to survive WB has check points So has American political map Those can be easily identified by the dropped blood of the ME citizen . Some one might will call it blood libel But how else one can summarize the ritual killings of those leaders and those citizens under those leaders who have and who had opposed Israeli colonization? It is not that Saddam was not open to Israeli existence .It is not that Iran or Syria is against Israeli existence . They are not Neither was Ghaddafi or Saddam Bu we killed them and in the process we killed millions and displaced more .In the process we destroyed Arab nationalism ,gave rises to putrid religious violence .
    The after effects of these unwanted violence against middle eastern people of all faiths become then a rallying cry for more violence .

    Will these or their descendents forget that someone killed millions to become a president or to move his her career further”
    Violence execute with no moral compass but with an eye to sheer personal gain will be remembered for a long long time .

  12. Kay24
    May 30, 2016, 10:50 pm

    All in the family.

    Goldman Sachs CEO invested in Clinton’s son in law Mezvinsky’s Hedge Fund company.

    https://theintercept.com/2016/05/27/hillary-clinton-wont-say-how-much-goldman-sachs-ceo-invested-with-her-son-in-law/

    • JWalters
      May 31, 2016, 12:06 am

      Good link, thanks. Very relevant.

    • just
      May 31, 2016, 4:04 pm

      Here’s an interview with Lee Fang from today, Kay:

      “It’s Not Just the Speeches: Hillary Clinton Questioned over Son-in-Law’s Ties to Goldman Sachs”

      http://www.democracynow.org/2016/5/31/it_s_not_just_the_speeches

      and another verrry interesting whammy, imho:

      “DNC Chair Wasserman Schultz Faces Criticism for Bias & Opening Up DNC to Lobbyists”

      http://www.democracynow.org/2016/5/31/dnc_chair_wasserman_schultz_faces_criticism

      • Annie Robbins
        May 31, 2016, 4:29 pm

        oh wow i read about fangs research at the intercept but didn’t realize it had made it to democracy now! excellent.

      • Kay24
        May 31, 2016, 4:40 pm

        It would be interesting to see if Wasserman Schultz is also a agent for foreign nations who send campaign contributions through the pipelines. It seems the Clintons have too many ties to Goldman Sachs, and that they are milking it for all its worth.

      • just
        May 31, 2016, 6:17 pm

        Wouldn’t be surprised at all, Kay.

        Chemi Shalev sez:

        “Sanders Chose Wrong People to Change Democratic Platform on Israel

        The Vermont senator’s representative, Cornel West, uses anti-Israel vitriol that Sanders himself tries to avoid. …

        … It’s been a pattern that has repeated itself throughout his career. In August 2014, Sanders’ town hall meeting in Cabot, Vermont famously exploded in mutual recriminations and rage when Sanders insisted on presenting Israel’s side of the Gaza conflict as well. In recent days, he has repeatedly asserted his support for Israel’s right to exist and America’s obligation to protect that right. Perhaps he is trying to preempt the kind of anti-Israeli vitriol that could erupt at the Democratic National Convention, though in this case, he has only himself to blame. By appointing Cornel West as one of his representatives in the committee that is charged with formulating the Democratic platform, Sanders may have set a match to what could very well turn out to be a Democratic powder keg. …

        …West is a harsh critic of Israel, even when compared to another Sanders’ appointee, James Zogby, the prominent Arab American academic and activist who has described Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a war criminal. When speaking about Israel, West uses the kind of language that appalls most American Jews. West supports BDS, has described Gaza as a “concentration camp” and “the ‘hood on steroids” and has equated the Palestinian struggle with Ferguson and Black Lives Matter. The Harvard and Princeton “public philosopher” wants to shatter pro-Israel narratives prevalent in the U.S. and to counteract supporters he describes as Israel apologists, one of whom, you may be surprised to hear, is President Barack Obama. In 2014, West said that Israel had committed war crimes in Gaza and that Obama “had blood on his hands.”

        The problem with West and Zogby is that they may very well throw out the baby with the bath water and harm the Democrats’ prospects in November in the process. Even if their anti-Israel positions represents the consensus of Sanders voters or even of the majority of liberal Democrats who, according to a recent Pew survey, have more sympathy for Palestinians than for Israel, – and that seems unlikely – a fight on the convention floor in which Sanders’ representatives use that kind of language risks convulsing the party and driving away voters, and not only Jews. Even in a year in which Donald Trump is the alternative.

        It’s not that one cannot comprehend the left’s wish to change the tone and language of the Democratic platform on Israel and the Palestinians. It does, indeed, view Palestinian rights through the sole prism of Israel’s well being. In the 2012 version, U.S. support for a two-state solution is portrayed a function of the U.S. commitment to Israel’s security. A two-state solution would “contribute to regional stability and help sustain Israel’s identity as a Jewish and democratic state”, the platform asserts, without a word on occupation or the denial of Palestinian rights. Israeli right-wingers and sympathizers in America from AIPAC rightwards may have gotten used to this kind of blanket support, but the world outside has changed, mainly, though not exclusively, through Israel’s own doing.

        Just read the statements and headlines made over the past two weeks in the wake of Moshe Yaalon’s deposal and Avigdor Lieberman’s appointment as defense minister: it’s hard to see how leftist liberals can continue to sympathize with an Israel that is portrayed by some of its own right wingers as succumbing to extremism and fascism. 

        Platforms may not have a direct influence on an elected president but they do reflect the zeitgeist. Support for Israel’s creation was played out in the platforms of both major parties in the 1944 and 1948 presidential elections. Civil rights were first placed at the forefront of the Democratic Party’s consciousness in the 1960 and 1964 platforms. The liberal arc of Democratic politics was exhibited in party platforms since 1980 just as the counter movement of the GOP to strict social conservatism has been on prominent display in the Republican platforms. 

        Platforms, of course, don’t bind elected presidents. They can, however, divide the parties that nominate them. And as a recent University of Georgia study found, divided parties inevitably lose elections to united ones. A few weeks ago, Republicans were supposed to be the conflicted party, but roles are starting to reverse. A fierce fight in the Convention over Israel would only accelerate that process. 

        There is a big gap between encompassing sympathy for the Palestinians and even advocating a more evenhanded and active U.S. approach to Middle East peacemaking and the kind of anti-Israeli positions articulated by Zogby and West. Their tone and their content stray significantly from the American mainstream.  Their language will ultimately be rejected by Clinton and the Convention, but they will nonetheless provide excellent openings for Republicans to drive a wedge between Democrats and independent moderates, in general, and Jewish moderates, in particular.  Their prominence at the Convention would allow Trump apologists to deflect charges about their own candidate’s tolerance for hatred of Jews. 

        Sanders would then bear responsibility for unleashing anti-Israeli sentiments, of the kind that he has always avoided, into the American political mainstream. He would taint the Democratic Party in the process. He would thus harm Clinton’s chances of winning the elections, assuming she is the candidate, though it’s hard to tell, frankly, if that isn’t his ultimate intention in the first place.”

        read more: http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election-2016/1.722555?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

        tut- tut.

      • ritzl
        May 31, 2016, 7:07 pm

        @just

        Shalev claims Jewish voters will bolt based on a more evenhanded platform fight and MJ Rosenberg maintains that they won’t. They both can’t be right.

        Further, Shalev’s cautionary voting “math” is completely self-serving. Yeah, so 500K Jewish voters bolt nationwide because of some evenhandedness creeps into the Dem platform, “crudely”/unconventionally expressed or not, the number of non-Jewish voters who will bolt nationwide is probably 10x that number if some evenhandedness is NOT expressed, however mildly. The PeP disconnect as national policy is increasingly not a viable platform option and/or voting attraction. It “neon red flags” a leadership ability to selectively ignore/not give a hoot about universalized justice issues which are key to addressing why so many people are hurting “out here.”

        Money or votes. Decisions, decisions.

        Interesting election.

      • ritzl
        May 31, 2016, 7:24 pm

        Soooo… Progressive except Golman Sachs (PeGS)?

        Gosh, this could be a fun board game.

        Progressive except…****

        Progressive except Every Voter with Income Under $50K (PeEVwIU-50). OK, maybe a little less fun than I thought. :)

      • just
        May 31, 2016, 8:04 pm

        I agree with you, ritzl~ especially this part:

        “… if some evenhandedness is NOT expressed, however mildly. The PeP disconnect as national policy is increasingly not a viable platform option and/or voting attraction. It “neon red flags” a leadership ability to selectively ignore/not give a hoot about universalized justice issues which are key to addressing why so many people are hurting “out here.” ”

        Great comment.

      • Kay24
        May 31, 2016, 9:58 pm

        Just, look like some people are not thrilled with Sanders choice of West and Zogby.

        I guess some hard facts might make them squirm, and we know how sensitive they can be to criticisms directed at them.

      • just
        May 31, 2016, 11:40 pm

        Too bad for them, Kay! Remember last time @ the convention? It was an abomination…

        (By the way, I disliked that the camera focused only on the American ‘Arab’ delegates when clearly there were many, many more who objected strenuously. Just sayin’…)

  13. pabelmont
    May 31, 2016, 9:45 am

    “The establishment just doesn’t get it.” They (the establishment core of DemParty) has for a long while thought that DemParty was a Stalinist organization — at least as to freedom of expression on some issues, Israel being one — and they “just don’t get” that it is actually (or ‘in posse’) a democracy. And the kindly folks who make up the establishment core of DemParty have become habituated to the notion that sticking up for the DemParty (that is, for its controllers) rather than for the likely voters in a national election (a/k/a “the people”) is correct behavior, a duty, just as the controllers of the ZionParty have habituated their ZionPartyMembers to the view that sticking up for TheJewishPeople by supporting the GoI in all things is a duty of all members of TheJewishPeople.

    So BigZion has not merely captured the DemParty (and RepParty) by money-purchase, but has infected many pols with the notion of “duty” to “solidarity” in support of Israel.

    And now this is — at long last — being somewhat challenged. Ya gotta love it!

  14. Kathleen
    May 31, 2016, 10:03 am

    The wikileaks release of Clinton’s emails tells us just who Clinton was working for by pushing for military intervention into Syria. She clearly does not give a rats ass about the results of Israel and Clinton’s interest on the Syrian people. Remember way back when the Leveretts were pushing hard for negotiations with Assad. Well Clinton and then Obama would not hear of it. All they kept repeating was “Assad must go, Assad must go” The human tragedy of millions of refugees and a destroyed country does not bother the majority of Americans or Israeli’s
    https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

    Could never figure out how Clinton got away with claiming she initiated the Iran deal. She said this in two debates. What total bs

  15. Kathleen
    May 31, 2016, 11:23 am

    So this would be the same James P Rubin married to CNN’s Christiane Amanpour who continually repeated the neocons unsubstantiated claims about Iran during interviews and on her past programs.

    You have to wonder about the possibility that there are collectives of psychopaths in powerful positions in our country. Clearly people like Clinton, Rubin, Ledeen, Cheney, Feith (Obama looks like he joined the list by choosing Clinton as his Secretary of State…I was in shock after I had worked my ass off for Obama) etc do not give a rats ass about the people in Iraq, Syria, Libya after we invade, meddle, overthrow Saddam Gaddafi , arm rebels in Syria who they really did not know who they were. Seymour Hersh others have written about how arms from Libya sent into Syria by CIA etc ended up in the hands of IS/Al Qeada.

    Hundreds of thousands dead, injured, millions of Syrians etc are refugees…does anyone think that Clinton, Rubin, Netanyahu etc give a hoot? Some dark, ugly people inside.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201401/how-tell-sociopath-psychopath
    Key traits that sociopaths and psychopaths share include:

    A disregard for laws and social mores
    A disregard for the rights of others
    A failure to feel remorse or guilt
    A tendency to display violent behavior

    Psychopaths, on the other hand, are unable to form emotional attachments or feel real empathy with others, although they often have disarming or even charming personalities. Psychopaths are very manipulative and can easily gain people’s trust. They learn to mimic emotions, despite their inability to actually feel them, and will appear normal to unsuspecting people. Psychopaths are often well educated and hold steady jobs. Some are so good at manipulation and mimicry that they have families and other long-term relationships without those around them ever suspecting their true nature.

    When committing crimes, psychopaths carefully plan out every detail in advance and often have contingency plans in place. Unlike their sociopathic counterparts, psychopathic criminals are cool, calm, and meticulous. Their crimes, whether violent or non-violent, will be highly organized and generally offer few clues for authorities to pursue. Intelligent psychopaths make excellent white-collar criminals and “con artists” due to their calm and charismatic natures.

  16. James Canning
    May 31, 2016, 12:37 pm

    Is it fair to say many supporters of Israel were willing, and perhaps keen, to destroy Syria so that Israel can attempt to keep the Golan Heights?

    • Kathleen
      June 1, 2016, 1:29 am

      I am sure this was one of the reasons to fuel the civil war by supplying arms to rebels

  17. genesto
    May 31, 2016, 12:54 pm

    So, we have as our ‘choices’ for President this year: a ticking-time-bomb, professional huckster, or; a corporate warmonger who’s one of the biggest threats to world peace. Helluva choice! Here’s hoping that James Comey has the integrity and cahones to indict Ms Clinton, and soon, and that this paves the way for Bernie to get the Democratic nomination and defeat Trump in the election.

    Otherwise, we are all f**ked!!

    • Kathleen
      June 1, 2016, 9:19 am

      Right with you Genesto. Sure seems like Comey more than likely has the goods on Clinton Huffington Pose (USA Today of blogs) dropped the IG findings as fast as they came out. Never made the front and center like every fucking stupid things Trump says, What HP does not seem to get is Trump loves front page Trump negative or positive. He knows how ratings and the majority of Americans attentions work.

      Clinton email’s….” report scathing” “worst offender of sloppy practices” Clinton refused to sit for an interview…

      https://charlierose.com/episodes/28118?autoplay=true

  18. inbound39
    June 1, 2016, 8:37 am

    I shall make a restrained comment. If Sanders achieves bringing down the Israeli Lobby and its hold on the US Government it can only be viewed as a good thing and will put the Israel Lobby on notice. Nothing bothers me more than watching America slide down the same slope as Israel. America is WORTH more. In recent years I have seen many Americans migrate to New Zealand. There is a reason for that. one of my best mates is a former American Naval Commander and he and I agree on many things including the negative effect of the Special Relationship with Israel. It has never been of any positive use to America. All it has done is erode what status and reputation America worked hard at to create since WW2.Fingers crossed that Clinton gets rolled and Sanders takes the mantle of power.

Leave a Reply