Trending Topics:

Kissinger: ‘Is there a more self-serving group of people than the Jewish community?’

US Politics
on 277 Comments
meirkissinger
Henry Kissinger and Golda Meir. (Photo: Univ. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee)

It seems the Israel lobby has not always been held in such high esteem within the White House. The AP reports on newly released documents regarding lobbying in the early 1970s on the plight of Jews in the Soviet Union:

Among the appeals flooding the White House was one from the late Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir to President Richard Nixon in August 1972 asking him to protest to the Kremlin its levying of fees for exit permits.

The White House, defending its strategy of quiet diplomacy, sought to assure the American Jews that Nixon was very concerned about the plight of Soviet Jews, had taken up the issue with Soviet leaders directly and remained convinced that quiet diplomacy was the best approach, the documents related.

A White House official, Leonard Garment, saying he was flooded with letters and phone calls with Jewish appeals, asked Kissinger for help and guidance. The late Alexander Haig, Nixon’s national security adviser, sent him Mrs. Meir’s letter and said “We will have to consider the best means by which to proceed.”

According to transcripts released by the State Department, Kissinger, who was Haig’s deputy, said to Garment: “Is there a more self-serving group of people than the Jewish community?” Kissinger is Jewish.

Garment, also Jewish, replied: “None in the world.”

At this point, Kissinger was quoted as saying “What the hell do they think they are accomplishing?”

Kissinger went on: “You can’t even tell bastards anything in confidence because they’ll leak it.”

But Kissinger said he would take up the issue with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin and also meet again with Jewish leaders. “They ought to remember what this administration has done,” he said.

adamhorowitz
About Adam Horowitz

Adam Horowitz is Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

277 Responses

  1. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    November 18, 2011, 8:57 am

    Fascinating

  2. November 18, 2011, 9:26 am

    Here is a story of Jewish “Indiana Jones” a.k.a Menachem Youlus ,who claimed that he went all over the world, bravely fighting dragons and witches, (lost two teeth in a fight), in order to rescue the copies of Torah.
    It turned out that he had a very rich imagination, but was sneaky as an old fox and managed to make a plentiful money on those too-good-to-be-true stories.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/25/jewish-indiana-jones-accused-stories

  3. eee
    eee
    November 18, 2011, 9:28 am

    This makes me very proud to be part of the Jewish community. Should the community have trusted Nixon to do what is best or applied pressure so that more Soviet Jews could leave? By alluding to “leaks”, it seems Kissinger was ashamed of the reasons for not pressuring the Soviets more, and did not want them to be known. All the more reason to pressure Nixon.

    • annie
      annie
      November 18, 2011, 9:54 am

      it seems Kissinger was ashamed of the reasons for not pressuring the Soviets more

      it doesn’t read ‘ashamed’ to me. he was probably already pressuring them in the way he thought was best and most effective. it just wasn’t wasn’t good enough for israel, they wanted more and they wanted it done their way.

      • eee
        eee
        November 18, 2011, 10:10 am

        Oh the irony. If any US government would tell you they are dealing with the Palestinian situation “in a way they thought best”, would you accept that and lay off? Why do you think the Jewish community should accept it with issues important to us?

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        November 18, 2011, 1:21 pm

        This wasn’t “the US government,” this was the first in a long line of Jewish neoconservatives who’ve been taking control of American foreign policy out of the hands of the American public, where the interests of which are actually supposed to lie.

      • annie
        annie
        November 18, 2011, 2:20 pm

        If any US government would tell you they are dealing with the Palestinian situation “in a way they thought best”, would you accept that and lay off? Why do you think the Jewish community should accept it with issues important to us?

        a. i never asserted anything about whether i thought anyone should or should not lay off.
        b. i never even mentioned what ‘the Jewish community should accept’ (btw kissinger was and still is part of the jewish community).

        i addressed your assumption he was ashamed or that he would think he was not not pressuring enough.

        The White House, defending its strategy of quiet diplomacy, …………. had taken up the issue with Soviet leaders directly and remained convinced that quiet diplomacy was the best approach, the documents related.

        plus, you don’t know what would have happened had they gone w/the ‘quiet diplomatic’ approach do you? why you think kissinger was ashamed is frankly, baffling.

        and one more thing, i noticed you completely ignored my point. nice diversion eee.

      • eee
        eee
        November 18, 2011, 2:43 pm

        Annie,

        I was addressing this point of your:
        “it just wasn’t wasn’t good enough for israel, they wanted more and they wanted it done their way.”

        This sentence clearly implies the two points you are trying to deny:
        “a. i never asserted anything about whether i thought anyone should or should not lay off.
        b. i never even mentioned what ‘the Jewish community should accept’ (btw kissinger was and still is part of the jewish community).”

        Nice try, but your back pedaling won’t work.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 19, 2011, 4:08 pm

        Oh the irony.

        Yes, we used to protest because Natan Sharansky was in prison, now we protest because he’s not. As Chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel and its settlement division, that’s exactly where he belongs.

    • Sin Nombre
      Sin Nombre
      November 18, 2011, 11:27 am

      eee wrote:

      “This makes me very proud to be part of the Jewish community.”

      Right:

      Jews acting tribal/ethno-religiously centric or etc. and getting something out of those not “in the community” = something to be very proud of.

      Anyone else in the world acting the same way = anti-semitic racist fascist piggery.

      We know, we know…

      Now for “the community” to only get Pollard out it’ll be a two-fer: Proud of him, and then proud of those springing him.

      • eee
        eee
        November 18, 2011, 1:07 pm

        “Jews acting tribal/ethno-religiously centric or etc. and getting something out of those not “in the community” = something to be very proud of.

        Anyone else in the world acting the same way = anti-semitic racist fascist piggery.”

        That is slander and libel of the worst kind and not what I said. How is helping Jews get out of Russia hurting non Jews? There are numerous groups that lobby Washington. Only in your imagination do Jews see these groups as “anti-semitic racist fascist piggery.”

      • American
        American
        November 19, 2011, 4:41 pm

        ” How is helping Jews get out of Russia hurting non Jews?”

        Because it cost non jewish American taxpayers 10 billion dollars.
        I call that a big ouch in Americans wallet.

      • lysias
        lysias
        November 18, 2011, 6:57 pm

        Speaking of Pollard and the subject of this thread, Israel presumably got a lot of Jews sprung from the Soviet Union with the intelligence Pollard handed them and that Shamir passed on to the Soviets.

    • November 18, 2011, 12:29 pm

      somehow, one would expect that you would be “proud to be part of” a community that simultaneously boasts of being the wealthiest in the world, and poor-mouths when it’s asked to pay its dues.

      the operative phrase in this scenario, eee, is that Golda Meir wanted US “to protest to the Kremlin its levying of fees for exit permits.” Those “fees” were called a Diploma Tax. Persons seeking to leave USSR for Israel (many, many of whom were NOT Jewish), had taken advantage of the highest calibre Russian education, paid for by Russian citizens, and wanted to take that education to Israel, for Israel’s benefit, without paying for it.

      Not to put too fine a point on it, but they were freeloading.

      It’s probably not surprising that you would be proud to observe Israel’s 11th Commandment– Thou Shalt Not Be A Freier.

      And you’re not alone in celebrating successfully collecting the dividends on someone else’s investment: Discussing his book, “Startup Nation,” co-author Saul Singer explained one large contributor to Israel’s economic success:

      of course there was the huge influx of Russian olim. We were the recipients, the beneficiaries, of much of the top talent of a nation of 200 million people – we, in our country of then six million people. It was an incredible injection of human capital. And we used it so well. There were, for example, large numbers of civil and mechanical engineers, and what we needed were electrical engineers. Well, for $2,000 per person, we trained engineers who became worth $200,000. It was a 100-fold return on investment.”

      -Note that many of the neocons who went on to destroy the US worked in Scoop Jackson’s office at the time of the Jackson-Vanik amendment that precipitated the migration of Russians to Israel.

      -Note that US taxpayers subsidized the migration of Russians to Israel.
      Those of you in the OWS movement — like the graduate students at Union Square this morning who protested for education loan forgiveness and reduction in tuitions — are you listening??

      • eee
        eee
        November 18, 2011, 1:03 pm

        “Persons seeking to leave USSR for Israel (many, many of whom were NOT Jewish), had taken advantage of the highest calibre Russian education, paid for by Russian citizens, and wanted to take that education to Israel, for Israel’s benefit, without paying for it.”

        Oh I see. In the US, Europe and Israel education is free also. So are you for levying a tax on anyone that wants to leave these countries also? You would defend any crazy Russian policy as long as you can bash Jews and Israel.

      • November 18, 2011, 2:28 pm

        In the US, Europe and Israel education is free also.

        ding dong you be wrong — or maybe Israelis get free education in the US. But the mountain of checks I wrote for my kids to attend university are all the evidence I need to convince me that “in the US, education is decidedly NOT free.”

        By the way, we in the US who are going into debt to pay for our children’s education were really, really touched by that nice Thank You note Israel sent, in gratitude for the US subsidizing the free education of Israelis. /s

        By the way #2, can you read, eee, or is the free education in Israel worth what you paid for it?
        I wrote, above: “Those of you in the OWS movement — like the graduate students at Union Square this morning who protested for education loan forgiveness and reduction in tuitions — are you listening??”

        Just to spell it out for you in words of one syllable, that means U S schools are not free.
        I made that comment based on a report by Michael Herzenberg, live from Union Square in New York City, on C Span this morning, “graduate students from University of New York, The New School, CUNY gathered to protest high tuition rates and to demand remission of education loans.

        CUNY and some others — like Cooper Union — USED to be free. When they were, many of the people who went on to become the core neocons were students there (according to Jacob Heilbrunn in “They Knew They Were Right”). Another kick in the American ass for underwriting the advancement of neocon interests.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 18, 2011, 2:53 pm

        I don’t know what planet you are living on, eee, but university education is not only not free in the US, it is the most costly in the world and it is not available to everyone in Europe. Whatever you might think, the Soviets did not provide free education so those receiving it could use it to become wealthy but in the belief that they would use that education for the benefit of the people of the Soviet Union.

        The Jews who received that education, gratis, apparently saw their people as their fellow Jews, something Kissinger would have understood, and didn’t give a damn about their fellow Soviet citizens. In truth, Jews were among the most highly educated sector of the Soviet population and the whole issue about saving them was one of the biggest scams of the 20th century.

        The smartest Russians, however, may have been those who stayed behind and through a backroom deal with Yelsin came into possession of all of Russia’s natural resources, making these “oligarchs” the greatest collection of thieves, perhaps, in all of history. That they were even more exclusively Jewish than were our neocons was only, of course, a coincidence, such as, for example, the Pope being Catholic.

      • eee
        eee
        November 18, 2011, 3:47 pm

        If we are talking specifically about university education, in many parts of Europe it is free or almost free. In Israel it is very cheap. Claiming that you owe a state something because it provides you services for free is BS and you know it. So a US high school graduate who leaves the US should pay the US a fee for his 12 years at school? Yeah right. I just can’t believe you are defending this Russian practice that if anybody tried to implement in the US you would be against. But then I remember that anything goes when it comes to bashing Jews and Israel.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        November 18, 2011, 5:01 pm

        Wow! One of the biggest scams of the 20th century! And this guy sometimes posts on this site! Wow!

        The Jews received great educations therefore the system was right not to allow them to leave. And of course the Soviets only stopped people with educations from leaving, but everybody else was allowed to leave. And of course anti Semitism died with Joseph Stalin (or maybe even before? Tell us Jeffrey!) and any Jew who reported systemic anti Jewish policy was also part of one of the greatest scams of the century.

      • November 18, 2011, 5:24 pm

        in the US, local taxpayers pay for local schools. If a non-local tries to enroll in a school district where his/her parents/guardians etc. do not live or rent, the student is expected to pay for the schooling.

        Rick Santorum got into a heap of hot water when he moved from Pennsylvania to Virginia but kept his children enrolled in a cyber school program paid for by Pennsylvania taxpayers.

        you wrote: “Claiming that you owe a state something because it provides you services for free is BS and you know it. So a US high school graduate who leaves the US should pay the US a fee for his 12 years at school? Yeah right.”

        how old are you, eee, 13? Nothing is free, not even high school, but we weren’t talking about Russian high school students now, were we? We were talking about university students and graduates. University educations are not free either, even if a particular student does not pay for it, SOMEBODY must, and those who DO pay for even free higher education programs do so with the expectation of receiving a return on the investment.

        Yes, I WOULD be in favor of implementing a program that would charge a foreign national who received a “free” education in an American university, if that student took his educational benefit away to another country, contrary to any prior expectations. In the US, most foreign national students must meet more stringent financial requirements than American citizens, and in universities run by the several states, citizens of those states pay lower fees than students who are American citizens but from another state. It’s a matter of providing for one’s own first, without excluding others, but at the same time recognizing that persons who did not pay to support the system (through their taxes) should not be granted the same benefits as those who did.

        save the oh poor Israel poor Jews always getting bashed for someone who cares.

      • lysias
        lysias
        November 18, 2011, 6:58 pm

        Oh I see. In the US, Europe and Israel education is free also.

        All those students in this country now enduring debt slavery would be interested to learn that their education was free.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 18, 2011, 11:15 pm

        First of all, a free high school education in the US is worth very little and can not be compared with that provided by a university. While I had many criticisms of the Soviet Union which went beyond Josef Stalin, the notion that those who have been provided with a university education and with post graduate training for nothing have an obligation to the people who paid for it, in this case the Russian people, has much to recommend it although that is something I would not expect you to understand.

        As opposed to that small group of Jews who had the audacity to call themselves “prisoners of Zion” such as Sharansky, there was never evidence presented of wide spread “anti-Semitism” against Russian Jews as a whole, apart from the USSR’s general policy of discouraging any of its citizens to leave. The Save Soviet Jews campaign, it should be noted, was developed by some of the same neocon artists who brought us the war on Iraq, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Elliot Abrams, although in that instance their campaign was fueled more by their virulent anti-communism and opposition to détente with the USSR than devotion to Israel or love of their fellow Jews as well as promoting Sen. Henry Jackson’s “nascent campaign for the presidency,” according to Arthur Hertzberg, then president of the American Jewish Congress, who described the disingeuousness of the leaders of the Soviet Jewry campaign in his memoir, “A Jew in America,” P.263-264 (Harper, SF, 2002).

        That great scam was followed by yet another one, the awarding to Israel of $10 billion in loan guarantees which, Americans were told, was to resettle Russian Jews in Israel, but not only was not intended for that from the beginning, but was used instead for domestic infrastructure with the low cost loans backed by the US taxpayers.

        Impassioned, albeit far from great, speeches were heard on the floor of the House and the Senate with members of both houses speaking of America’s obligations to the Jews of the Soviet Union in terms that pack of traitors has never used for the American people and when, it turned out, that none of the money was used for Russian Jewish resettlement, not a single one of them said a word. Needless to say, the report of this massive con job, though exposed in the Israeli press, never made it through the filters of our Zionist dominated media.

        To his everlasting credit, Pres. GHW Bush, twice blocked the guarantees which he saw as an obstacle to his efforts to forge an Arab-Israel peace agreement but in the end, he gave in when it came election time and Rabin had replaced Shamir as Israel’s prime minister. It came too late to help. He went from 35% of the Jewish vote in 1988 to 11% in 1992. At no time after that would an American president have the guts to stand up to an Israeli prime minister.

      • yourstruly
        yourstruly
        November 19, 2011, 12:31 pm

        educatrion is free in the u.s? k-12, yes, but not college & grad school.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        November 19, 2011, 3:10 pm

        yourstruly, well yes k-12 is free to the students, but the biggest chunk of my property tax goes for local k-12 education; the taxman does not ask if you have kids in the local schools. I don’t.

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        November 20, 2011, 1:09 pm

        tell it. You are terrific Jeffrey!

      • American
        American
        November 18, 2011, 2:09 pm

        Not only did we pay for the Russian Jews to be released…they were given all kinds of US benefits…..financial aid like SSI, medicaid, a regular social serivces full court press…..on the basis they needed this to become independent in the US…..and one of the requirement was that they learn english so they could get jobs in the US.
        AND THEN… the original requirement for benefits that they learn english in “7 years” was extended by congress to ’10 years’ to learn english so they could get jobs……at the request of the Jewish ogranizations. LOL…7 or 10 years to learn english?
        Really, really whacko….and people complain about hispanics who come here and do actually work.
        If anyone ever added up every single buried and unknown special gov program for Jews only their head would explode.

      • eee
        eee
        November 18, 2011, 2:20 pm

        “If anyone ever added up every single buried and unknown special gov program for Jews only their head would explode.”

        How convenient! What are the programs you claim are for Jews only? But of course, why do I bother asking, they are “buried and unknown”.

      • November 18, 2011, 2:31 pm

        a friend of mine runs the HUD (subsidized housing program) in a large city in Pennsylvania. He says that the largest contingent occupying HUD housing are Russians; second largest = US veterans.

      • annie
        annie
        November 18, 2011, 2:34 pm

        off the top of my mind i thought about that legislation to protect cemeteries on foreign soil and a crime to deface them this apparently has only been applied thus far to jewish internment (as i recall)and is sideskipped for the museum of intolerance.

      • eee
        eee
        November 18, 2011, 2:45 pm

        Do you seriously claim that the intention of that law was to only benefit Jews? It is to protect the thousands of graves of US soldiers that died abroad, the vast majority of them non-Jews.

      • annie
        annie
        November 18, 2011, 3:31 pm

        it just popped into my mind eee, it was a recollection from one of hostages posts as i recall. but i wouldn’t even know how to verify the truth of it or the rumor or the lie.

        It is to protect the thousands of graves of US soldiers that died abroad, the vast majority of them non-Jews.

        well, for whatever reason it was allegedly intended, it’s application is what matters. isn’t it?

      • eee
        eee
        November 18, 2011, 3:40 pm

        “well, for whatever reason it was allegedly intended, it’s application is what matters. isn’t it?”

        Not in this case because American is claiming that there a laws that were made only to benefit Jews. Why are you supporting his position if you cannot provide ONE such example? Oh yes, the laws are “buried and hidden”.

      • annie
        annie
        November 18, 2011, 3:49 pm

        ok, it was american not hostage who made the comment here

        Contrast the Zionist destruction of Muslim graves with the US Federal agency — deceptively named “The United States Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad”.
        But which operates 99.9% for the preservation of “Jewish” sites and cemeteries abroad.
        We have no such other agency for the maintaince of any thing related to any other specific US religious or ethnics abroad.
        The only agency we do have is the American Battle Monuments Commission for up keep of US military graves abroad.
        Why do Jews think their tribe members graves abroad have anything to do with American heritage?
        I don’t see Jews who died in Europe as in any way related to American history or heritage.

        you have to follow the link for supporting links because i’m not in the mood. but here’s the rest of the comment.

        link to heritageabroad.gov
        Reports & Surveys
        Reports
        Report to the Congress and the President 2009

        2004 | 2001 | 1997 | 1994 | 1992 | 1991

        Newsletters
        2000 | 1999 | 1998

        Surveys
        Jewish Heritage Sites of Bosnia-Herzegovina, 2011
        Jewish Heritage Sites and Monuments in Moldova, 2010
        Historic Jewish Sites in Romania, 2010, Picture Appendix
        Selected Muslim Historic Monuments and Sites in Bulgaria, 2010
        Roma Historical and Cultural Heritage Sites in Poland, 2009, Appendix
        Jewish Cemeteries, Synagogues, and Monuments in Slovenia, 2006
        Jewish Heritage Sites in Croatia, 2006
        Jewish Cemeteries, Synagogues, and Mass Grave Sites in Ukraine, 2005
        Sites Associated with the Lives and Deeds of Foreign-born Heroes of the American Revolution, 2002
        Jewish Monuments of Slovenia, 2nd revised edition, 1996
        Survey of Historic Jewish Monuments in Poland, 2nd revised edition, 1995
        Survey of Historic Jewish Monuments in the Czech Republic, 1994

        The Commission was created by an act of Congress in 1979. It’s chief founder, Rabbi Zvi Kestenbaum of Brooklyn, New York, a holocaust survivor, developed the concept of a commission to preserve Jewish cemeteries, monuments and other holy sites throughout the world. He was instrumental in getting federal legislation introduced into Congress to establish the Commission.

        The Commission is headed up by a Chairman, appointed by the President of the United States. In addition, there are 21 “commissioners”, also appointed by the President of the United States. These commissioners meet with local officials and heads of state, as well as genealogical and historical societies, and leaders of religious groups. They tour cemeteries and historic monuments in desperate need of repair. Through these meetings the Commission is able to establish partnerships to restore cemeteries and monuments.

        Now maybe some think I overdo pointing out the many “special” agencies and benefits for Jews given by the US who is in no way responsible for anything that ever happened to Jews.

        more at the link

      • Sand
        Sand
        November 18, 2011, 3:55 pm

        eee: “Not in this case because American is claiming that there a laws that were made only to benefit Jews. Why are you supporting his position if you cannot provide ONE such example? Oh yes, the laws are “buried and hidden”.

        The special *case* for Jews within the Jewish State of Israel. Do any real ‘Palestinian’ charities get any US tax deductions?

        IRS: Israeli charities. You may be able to deduct contributions to certain Israeli charitable organizations under an income tax treaty with Israel. To qualify for the deduction, your contribution must be made to an organization created and recognized as a charitable organization under the laws of Israel. The deduction will be allowed in the amount that would be allowed if the organization was created under the laws of the United States, but is limited to 25% of your adjusted gross income from Israeli sources…

        http://www.irs.gov/publications/p526/ar02.html

      • Sand
        Sand
        November 18, 2011, 4:35 pm

        American: “…I am very objectively describing/and objecting to what the zionist are doing in the US regarding influence for Israel…”

        US Taxpayer Funded: “Nonprofit Security Grant Program administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security”

        Another Jewish-centric $$$ program — “All thanks to the United States taxpayer” that fuels the likes of “eee” with his/her Jewish bunker mentality. Local law enforcement agencies not good enough for them eh! They are so ‘special’ that it stands reason they need to suck out “73.7%” of the DHS $118m program budget. Other groups that are often targetted by crime like gays, muslims etc… hey — go suck on it.

        In 2011:

        FORWARD: “…Jewish groups were the big winners, with 81% of those awards.

        This disproportionate distribution is no accident. Examining the grants program provides a window into Jewish organizational and political power. It is this power that allowed a small community to create and maintain a government program tailored specifically for its needs and catering almost exclusively to its members…”

        No kidding!

        Article: 09/29/11 How an Anti-Terror Program Became a Jewish Earmark — Grants Favor the Orthodox and the Organized
        By Nathan Guttman, Eileen Reynolds and Maia Efrem
        http://forward.com/articles/142542/

      • Sand
        Sand
        November 18, 2011, 4:51 pm

        Got another one.

        Apparently Jews having to have their very own ‘thought-police’ department (paid by US Taxpayers) on the 7th floor of the U.S. State Dept:

        U.S. Department of State: Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism
        http://www.state.gov/g/drl/seas/

      • American
        American
        November 18, 2011, 5:07 pm

        You are welcome eee, to puruse my former comments—-I am sure I posted some information on the various special Jewish agencies and projects and etc that taxpayers fund.
        But do it yourself I am not going spend time hunting them up and copying them for you.

      • American
        American
        November 18, 2011, 5:10 pm

        Wrong eee….that’s a seperate agency…the Battlefeld Commission.

      • American
        American
        November 18, 2011, 5:24 pm

        Thanks Sand—– that adds to and illustrates my statement.

      • November 18, 2011, 5:26 pm

        this is not only absurd, it is insulting and disrespectful of US dead.

        stow it eee.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        November 19, 2011, 4:56 am

        75% of total Homeland Security funds for community protection went to our 2% jewish communities in 2010; this year it’s 80%.

      • American
        American
        November 19, 2011, 3:29 pm

        “Apparently Jews having to have their very own ‘thought-police’ department (paid by US Taxpayers) on the 7th floor of the U.S. State Dept:

        U.S. Department of State: Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism
        link to state.gov”

        And how much are we paying for this operation?
        Do they have agencies and floors for anti Muslims and anti gays?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 19, 2011, 4:31 pm

        It is to protect the thousands of graves of US soldiers that died abroad, the vast majority of them non-Jews.

        Here’s one that isn’t limited to US soldiers who died abroad. The provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 956 regarding damage to religious or cultural property in a foreign country ought to apply to the folks in the LA headquarters of The Simon Wiesenthal Center:

        (b) Whoever, within the jurisdiction of the United States, conspires with one or more persons, regardless of where such other person or persons are located, to damage or destroy specific property situated within a foreign country and belonging to a foreign government or to any political subdivision thereof with which the United States is at peace, or any railroad, canal, bridge, airport, airfield, or other public utility, public conveyance, or public structure, or any religious, educational, or cultural property so situated, shall, if any of the conspirators commits an act within the jurisdiction of the United States to effect any object of the conspiracy, be imprisoned not more than 25 years.

        I’ve also posted about the statute that cuts-off funding to any Palestinian government that includes Hamas, until it forgets about the Arab population of Israel and recognizes it as the Jewish state.

      • MRW
        MRW
        November 18, 2011, 4:11 pm

        eee’s abysmal understanding notwithstanding, and his hilarious claim that Russian Jews claimed they were persecuted against more than most in Russia*, the fact remains that Russian emigre university undergrads were given a US tax-paid research project FOR FREE, which became Google.

        Unlike you, eee, I went to Russia when it was still named the USSR with a bunch of American East Coast (student) Jews (20) and Russian language professors from Brandeis and Harvard. I travelled all over Russia for three months.

        *Jews were not persecuted more than any other group after 1970. We asked, in closed rooms. (Everyone’s religion was disallowed.) In fact, as Blankfort correctly points out, they were highly educated. They enjoyed levels of access and cultural privilege that the peons didn’t. Russia, pre-breakup, was culture-based. Writers, dancers, choreographers, the literati, scientists, were the top of the heap with the politburo. Society was not divided according to your meaningless and jejeune western understanding and Jewish myopia. Education divided you.

        The bald fact remains: the Russians (this literati and scientific class) who wanted to leave, wanted to come to America. Period. They did not want to go to Israel. It was Avrum Berg who petitioned the Knesset to let the mass of highly educated scientists into Israel who were not Jewish. But all of them, ALL OF THEM, wanted to come here.

        And just for the record, the one thing Russia did better than anyone, including the US, after the Russian Revolution in 1917 was a university education. It was far superior to anything in any other country in the world, taken as a whole, including Germany and England. Only 10% of our population went to university in 1950. In Russia, it was mandatory, at least in every city I went to…and I travelled from Leningrad (St. Petersburg) to Armenia. When I was in Russia, I spoke English to Russian students my own age. They even knew our slang.

      • November 18, 2011, 5:32 pm

        when I taught writing in a community college remedial writing program, one of my students was a blind Russian. One assignment was to write an essay (in English) on a complex American poem (I have forgotten the poem). I read it to him twice; he produced an analysis that was breathtaking in its clarity, precision, and comprehension. I still don’t know how he did it. His ability to apply logic to any argument with absolute certainty and precision was amazing.

      • ToivoS
        ToivoS
        November 19, 2011, 1:02 am

        MRW thanks for a little historical perspective. In the mid 80s or so Deng Shao Ping visited the US. At this time there still the political movement to allow people living in Communist countries free rights of immigration to the US.

        A reporter in Seattle (his first stop) asked Deng if he would allow Chinese citizens free rights to immigrate to the US. His response was immediate: sure they can, how many do you want 20 million, 40 million? That was it. I never did hear another word on the subject.

        This whole issue was about Jewish immigration, though the Pentacostals saw an opening to let allow immigration of Ukrainian Pentacostals. Today there is a fairly large community of those Ukrainians here in the Sacramento area. It has really improved our multicultural environment — I love the Eastern European food that they have brought here.

      • MRW
        MRW
        November 19, 2011, 5:47 pm

        ToivoS,

        What few people know, ToivoS, is that the Ukraine was where Stalin sent the Jews, rich and poor. Irène Némirovsky, the writer whose rediscovered work Suite Française won all sorts of awards posthumously about six or seven years ago, explains it as Stalin’s Jewish outpost in her book. (Her daughter thought the books her mother gave her in a small suitcase as Némirovsky was being hauled off by the gendarmes were diaries or journals. Her daughter never opened them until the late 1990s.)

        Némirovsky explains that all the Ukrainians, of any means, were Jewish; in fact, that the majority of Kiev was Jewish; it was a great society, party place and literary hot spot, before WWII. The ones that left because of the wars converted to Catholicism, like the ones that wound up in western Canada.

        When Némirovsky was discovered to be a Jew in France and was about to go to Auschwitz (even though she, too, converted to Catholicism to hide her Jewish roots—and I believe her banker husband as well, whose last name was Epstein) she went to see her mother in Nice to seek her help and ask her to hide her. Her mother, who was living the high life there openly and as a Jew (contrary to all the wailing eee describes about the totality of the evil French) in an expensive apartment overlooking the water, opened the door and immediately shut it in her face.

        As a result, Némirovsky went to Auschwitz and died of typhoid in 1942.

        (Wikipedia has an entry on her; ‘natch it’s the standard ADL-addled and altered version. Her book is far more dispassionate and interesting. She recorded life in France as it was happening.)

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        November 20, 2011, 1:11 pm

        Thanks

  4. seafoid
    seafoid
    November 18, 2011, 9:36 am

    There was a famous Jewish dissident called Anatoly Sharansky. He was treated so cruelly by the soviets. Those evil Soviets. He became a cause celebre of human rights activists. when he was released the world rejoiced.

    He went to Israel. And as minister for Jerusalem he evicted Palestinians from their homes. He always voted for the settlers. Those evil Soviets.

  5. Dan Crowther
    Dan Crowther
    November 18, 2011, 9:57 am

    To qoute Chaos, “slowly backing away from this post…”

  6. Taxi
    Taxi
    November 18, 2011, 10:31 am

    Golda Meir was the ogre of my childhood. Even though I didn’t know who she was at the time, tis true I was scared of her face. Every time I’d see a picture of her in the newspapers, my little spine would shrink an inch from fear and I thought the world had some very odd creatures living in it.

    True story.

    • eee
      eee
      November 18, 2011, 10:59 am

      Let’s see, if I said that Arafat’s picture would always scare me as child, would I be called a racist and would my upbringing be put in question?

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        November 18, 2011, 12:54 pm

        “and would my upbringing be put in question?”

        You write the comments here signed “eee”, don’t you? Yes, on the basis of those comments I would question the hell out of your upbringing. Deal with it.
        Your parents and community didn’t do you any favors, that’s for sure.

      • eee
        eee
        November 18, 2011, 1:11 pm

        Mooser,

        You can question whatever you want. I am just happy it is clear you have problems with what I wrote and not what Taxi wrote.

      • Taxi
        Taxi
        November 18, 2011, 4:10 pm

        Mooser,

        When eee says to you: “You can question whatever you want. I am just happy it is clear you have problems with what I wrote and not what Taxi wrote.”

        What he means is that you’re a self-hating jew for not being attracted to EVERY jewish woman.

        And to the rest of us goy eee is saying: you’re antisemites for not thinking ALL jews are attractive.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        November 19, 2011, 5:10 am

        Ever notice how, in lots of teen movies and TV cartoon series, the ugly nerd is identified as Jewish by himself or herself? Most of these movies are written, and produced by Jews.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        November 18, 2011, 1:15 pm

        Golda Meir was Russian. Is that who you’re accusing Taxi of being racist against, Russians? Her real maiden name was Golda Mabovitch and her actual married name was Meyerson, not Meir.

        I’ve visited the library named after her over in Milwaukee and the only sculpture of her is a bust tucked away on the second floor. And yes, she is scary looking. Not all Russians are scary looking, but yes, Golda was scary.

      • thankgodimatheist
        thankgodimatheist
        November 19, 2011, 2:02 am

        “Golda was scary.”
        I always used to mistake her for Lyndon B. Johnson.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        November 19, 2011, 5:31 am

        “Golda was scary.”
        I always used to mistake her for Lyndon B. Johnson.

        You’re right. The resemblance is uncanny :-)

      • Taxi
        Taxi
        November 18, 2011, 2:18 pm

        eee,

        Let’s face it and let’s not mince words here, even Arafat was better looking than Golda.

      • annie
        annie
        November 18, 2011, 2:31 pm

        lol, oh taxi….

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        November 18, 2011, 3:47 pm

        It’s true, I’ll vouch for that. I’ve known transvestites who are more feminine in demeanor than Golda Meir.

      • ddi
        ddi
        November 19, 2011, 6:08 am

        Lol this reminds me of a Seinfeld episode

        “Hey, who do you think is the most unattractive world leader?
        “Living or all time?”
        “All time.”
        “Well, if it’s all time, then there’s no contest. It begins and ends with Brezhnev.”
        “I dunno. You ever get a good look at DeGaulle?”
        “Lyndon Johnson was uglier than DeGaulle.”
        “I got news for you. Golda Meir could make ’em all run up a tree.”
        – Elaine, Jerry and George, in “The Outing”

  7. American
    American
    November 18, 2011, 10:36 am

    “Is there a more self-serving group of people than the Jewish community?”

    Maybe the Mafia. And politicians of course.

    • eee
      eee
      November 18, 2011, 10:56 am

      “Maybe the Mafia. And politicians of course.”

      Who said there is no antisemitism in America? You are amusing. Jews worked hard to free fellow Jews from the Soviet bear and you use this as an excuse to call them “self serving”.

      If Kissinger would have said what he said about Arabs, you would be screaming that he is a bigot. When he says this stupidity about the Jewish community you see it as God’s truth.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        November 18, 2011, 11:19 am

        I have to agree with 3e here. So Kissinger thought that American Jews were pushy loudmouths. Surprise surprise. Some of his relatives in Germany must have felt the same way about Ostjuden. Besides, who cares what a war criminal like Kissinger thought/thinks about anyone?

      • American
        American
        November 18, 2011, 1:51 pm

        I can’t say for certain but the German Jews in US government I have come across in my research seem to have less problem being American first rather then Jews first –than others from Poland and etc., particularly Polish Jews like Feith, Perle and etc..
        As I say, this is just casual observation, but in reading various personal accounts of German Jews backgrounds who have served in US positions there does seem to be a distinct difference in attitudes. In several personal accounts from those like US Amb Dean, (German Jew), they blamed the Russian Jews who immigrated to Germany after WWI and the zionist movement for the much of the antagonism toward Jews in Germany and regarded them as rabble rousers.
        And again this is just impression, but it appears that the more educated Jews and upper class Jews in Germany didn’t identify as having any kind of Jewish “nationality’ but as German in nationality. Perhaps this ability to seperate Jewishness from nationality was or is due to higher intellect in those German Jews or perhaps their longer assimilation in Germany than many Jews who moved from one country to another.

      • thetumta
        thetumta
        November 18, 2011, 8:24 pm

        It’s not their origin, it’s the number of generations off the boat. I have noticed that of all the most dangerous ethnics of any stripe I’ve ever dealt with in the last in the last 50 years in the US, the second and third generation are the most dangerous. In the US, they have known no hardship, usually, just stories. They often seemingly can’t tell you what exactly they’re so angry about, just tall tales, an inheritable psychosis. Some sort of severe ethnic guilt handed down and amplified. They can’t escape the shadow of their parents, seemingly no matter how smart and well educated they may be. On the other hand, less advantaged American minorities seem well adjusted in comparison? I mean, who’s demanding complicity in murder of us?
        Hej!

      • Walid
        Walid
        November 18, 2011, 11:51 am

        “Jews worked hard to free fellow Jews from the Soviet bear…”

        And got a lot of Americans killed in the process; just ask Pollard, but what do you care?

      • eee
        eee
        November 18, 2011, 12:37 pm

        “And got a lot of Americans killed in the process; just ask Pollard, but what do you care?”

        Care to back up that ridiculous claim?

      • Walid
        Walid
        November 18, 2011, 1:33 pm

        “Care to back up that ridiculous claim?”

        I’m not claiming it, eee, officials of the US government are. He is not being kept in jail for his good looks and Israel hasn’t been doing somersaults to get him freed simply because he’s a Jew. When you ask for a backup to what someone is saying, you sound like a parrot.

      • eee
        eee
        November 18, 2011, 2:21 pm

        “I’m not claiming it, eee, officials of the US government are.”

        Which government officials are claiming that Jewish pressure to free Soviet Jews cost many American lives?

      • Charon
        Charon
        November 18, 2011, 3:49 pm

        eee, just use Google. There has been plenty written about Pollard. Use the selective date range to limit the date to he 90s, filters out most of the white washing ‘free Pollard’ crap that otherwise muddies the results. Don’t know about Americans, but estimates place as many as 1,000 people (spies, intelligence assets, moles) abroad killed as a result of his actions.

        He also compromised our nuclear strategy which put all of the US at risk. Decades of man hours and trillions (adjusted for inflation) wasted for his selfish interests.. This information isn’t a secret. Anybody in the tribe calling for his release is nuts.

      • American
        American
        November 18, 2011, 1:27 pm

        No one cares about anti semitism slur any more eee…..the zionist are beating a dead horse with that one.
        And if Arabs start operating the same way as the zios do in the US I will be happy for Kissinger to say the same thing about them and will support it.
        I don’t think you get it…we want Jewish and Israel exceptionalism out of our government policies…it’s not good for America and Americans…it is and has been down right bad for and dangerous to this country….and a lot of others.

        It’s a reasonable demand for a sovereign country, just get this special and foreign interest out of America. Or if you really think the Jewish lobby and Israel can control American policy for Israel forever, keep on going for it……just don’t whine and claim anti semitism and victimhood when it backfires on you.

      • eee
        eee
        November 18, 2011, 2:26 pm

        “No one cares about anti semitism slur any more eee”

        Yes, “no one”, meaning you, does not care about antisemitism, but there are plenty of Jews and non-Jews that do and they understand your position perfectly.

        “just don’t whine and claim anti semitism and victimhood when it backfires on you.”

        Just as you are whining now because you cannot organize enough Americans that think like you to make a difference? And I love your threats. They “prove” Phil’s point that the US is very safe for the Jews.

      • annie
        annie
        November 18, 2011, 2:47 pm

        you cannot organize enough Americans that think like you to make a difference?

        huh? if we were not making a difference the israel action network wouldn’t exist.

      • November 18, 2011, 3:09 pm

        new web site is very good. thx for your good work, Phil & Adam, and welcome newbies Alex & Allison.

        would be even better if it had a little “yea, I agree with this comment” button.

        I would have clicked it for annie’s response to eee’s taunt.
        (and for Taxi’s, too — Arafat is cuter than Golda. thx for the laugh)

      • American
        American
        November 18, 2011, 3:12 pm

        I am not whining at all eee….I am very objectively describing/and objecting to what the zionist are doing in the US regarding influence for Israel and predicting there will come a day when there will be a blowback to their manipulations and to the politicians who cooperate with them for Israel’s benefit and to the detriment of America.

        History is replete with examples, not exactly like this issue, but with examples of backlashes against governments and groups that the populace majority see as a betraying their interest and welfare and their country.

        I don’t know what to tell you except if you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen —cause it is what it is, and people are what they are..and no people want any foreign interest controlling any part of their government or will tolerate it forever.

      • November 18, 2011, 3:23 pm

        what, you want something like this to take place before you will get the message, eee —

        It starts on the West Coast — maybe Oakland, maybe San Diego. One by one, people stand up and say, “My name is ____. My parents came from _____ . My family has worked very hard to prosper in America. We don’t like people who take advantage of American liberality and exploit American foreign policy. We don’t like Israelists.

        He/she passes an American flag on to the next person, who recites the same sentiment: We don’t like Israelists.

        And the next person.

        And the next person.

        The American flag crosses the Rocky Mountains, crosses the Mississippi River, crosses the Ohio River, the Appalachian Mountains, gathering steam and sentiment and impossible to be ignored by press: WE DON’T LIKE ISRAELISTS.

        wait wait — back up — maybe, in addition to passing on the American flag, at every site where someone proclaimed their pride in their own immigrant group AND their integration into the United States, they plant a flag — and they say out loud and with strength but not animus or arrogance: We do not like people who take advantage of our liberality and subvert our foreign policy. We do not like Israelists.

        The message and the flag is carried across the Potomac to DC, and on to New York and on to Ellis Island.

        as I see it, the American people have tried to be positive and open and accepting of all. They have tried NOT to be “antisemitic.”

        But some people can’t take yes for an answer.

        So maybe it’s time to say, We don’t like you.

        then will you get the message?

      • eee
        eee
        November 18, 2011, 3:37 pm

        “History is replete with examples”

        Which historical examples do you think are relevant?

        “and no people want any foreign interest controlling any part of their government”

        Nice to know the Jews in the US are “foreign”.

      • annie
        annie
        November 18, 2011, 3:46 pm

        the ones in israel are.

      • eee
        eee
        November 18, 2011, 3:54 pm

        “huh? if we were not making a difference the israel action network wouldn’t exist.”

        Jews have been working in an organized manner in the US for decades to support Israel. They have formed many organizations to do so. So you declare you are successful based on THAT? You have taken wishful thinking to the next level.

      • annie
        annie
        November 18, 2011, 4:01 pm

        do some research, start w/reut. israel action network has not been around for decades. it was formed to deal w/the ‘deligitimizers’. yes, i declare we are successful based on THAT.

        ciao

      • eee
        eee
        November 18, 2011, 4:17 pm

        “it was formed to deal w/the ‘deligitimizers’.”

        You conveniently forget the years the UN decided “Zionism is racism”. You are not the first delegitimizers nor the last and claiming a founding of a Jewish organization to fight deligitimization a “success” on your part is a joke.

      • November 18, 2011, 4:40 pm

        to the Mondo Moderators —

        I understand that/why you might be holding this comment in limbo. I tried to edit it but too late.

        It’s pretty provocative. I was trying to impress on eee that the American people could organize if they took the gloves off. If eee and folks like him continue with the bullying behavior and taunts, what alternative is left but for Americans to react harshly to Israeli acts that are subverting best interests of American people?

        CAMERA attacks Americans every day, and monitors what ordinary Americans say, ie on C Span. How much longer will Americans put up with that before there is some “organized resistance” to satisfy eee’s taunt?

      • American
        American
        November 18, 2011, 4:47 pm

        “Nice to know the Jews in the US are “foreign”.”

        I consider US Jews who work for Israel when it damages America to be foreign. So call that or me anti semitic, or old fashioned, who cares.

        You know it’s funny eee how you think saying we’re picking on “US Jews’ is some kind of deterrent to our saying ‘some Jews are agents for the foreign country of Israel.
        It’s not. We are all aware of the US Jews who are in fact just that. We can name dozens of them that have outed themselves by their own actions and statements…Feith, Leeden, Perle, Schumer, etc., ect..
        Isn’t it clear to you by now that “simply being Jewish’ is not going to shield the agents for Israel from being denounced or named or criticized?

        “Simply Being Jewish” is not a invisibility cloak or legitimate excuse for some egregious act. You need to get use to being viewed as just like anyone else, with no special exceptions for behavior. That is after all how it is suppose to work in a democracy.

      • American
        American
        November 18, 2011, 7:20 pm

        No teta, the eee’s will, never get the message.
        There is a firewall in their brain that doesn’t let logic, truth or reality penetrate.

        But what you describe as a movement may come about, who knows.
        It could start like OWS….just gets ignited by something.
        It could be a war started by or for Israel.
        It could be something as local as someone’s child being killed in a public school by some crazy and the grief crazed parents looking for how this could happen, discovering that Jewish schools get 80% of government security money and non Jewish schools get none and saying it on MSNBC and on some other msm programs and demanding to know why American school children aren’t as protected. We’ve had multiple slaughters of public school kids for years and no special gov security money allocated to public schools that I know of.
        It will most likely start with something like this, some tragedy and then a happenstance discovery that really brings out the unfairness and cost to Americans of Jewish privilege in the US.
        If this exact scenario did take place, the media would trot out all the reasons why Jews should get special treatment but it wouldn’t matter….every parent, grandparent in the country would be on the warpath. The holocuast, the vicitmhood claims would all mean nothing to them compared to their own children.

      • thetumta
        thetumta
        November 18, 2011, 9:07 pm

        I don’t either(care about the antisemitism slur). No one here should care, because American Jews have never been at risk here, quite the contrary( http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4099803,00.html ). America is the Jewish Homeland(sic). Maybe, in the 50’s there was the Wasp hierarchy(weeping softly), but they won’t let me in either, unless I worked there. Didn’t let it bother me then and I don’t now. You on the other hand are probably a different story(second or third generation).
        I would point out again, who alone is dragging us into “murder” on a massive scale? In the immediate future the answer may become moot. Once it’s done, well it’s done. But?
        Hej!

      • November 18, 2011, 9:31 pm

        Kristallnacht was the outraged reaction of the German people to the murder of a German diplomat in Paris by a 17 year old Polish Jew, Herschel Grynszpan, who was in France illegally.

        A scheme was devised whereby Grynszpan’s lawyer was going to claim that the conflict between the German diplomat and the 17 year old was of a sexual nature.

        Grynszpan never went to trial, however. Somehow or other, he either escaped or was released from imprisonment in France. Some claim he is still alive today, living in anonymity,perhaps in New Jersey; others claim he was executed by Germans or French.

        the point is that when situations of perceived oppression persist for long enough, relatively small events can set off a dreadful chain of events. Prudent people attempt to remove the irritants rather than exacerbate them.

      • American
        American
        November 19, 2011, 4:27 pm

        “Jews have been working in an organized manner in the US for decades to support Israel. They have formed many organizations to do so”

        So glad to hear you admit that Jews have formed orgs to work for the foreign country of Israel for decades. LOL.

      • Sin Nombre
        Sin Nombre
        November 18, 2011, 1:50 pm

        eee wrote:

        “When [Kissinger] says this stupidity about the Jewish community you see it as God’s truth.”

        And here, ladies and gentlemen, in its full and open glory, is The Technique. Because now it’s “stupidity,” whereas before—only 91 minutes earlier to be exact—and clearly accepting the truth of what Kissinger said, eee wrote:

        “This makes me very proud to be part of the Jewish community.”

        Very interesting statement, eee. Very.

      • eee
        eee
        November 18, 2011, 2:16 pm

        “This makes me very proud to be part of the Jewish community.”

        Trying to twist my words are you? What I am proud of is the pressure by the Jewish community on Nixon, the pressure Kissinger whines against.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        November 18, 2011, 2:22 pm

        “Jews worked hard to free fellow Jews from the Soviet bear…”

        …only to have them flee to Palestine and prey on the Palestinians. The world did too much for those people, such as the Moldavian fascist you people have as FM.

      • eee
        eee
        November 18, 2011, 2:47 pm

        “The world did too much for those people”

        Nice going, bundling all the Jews from the Soviet Union into one category. What a bigot.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        November 18, 2011, 3:45 pm

        You mean the same pressure Kissinger himself exerted, as a Jewish neoconservative and an agent of the Lobby?

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        November 18, 2011, 3:50 pm

        “Nice going, bundling all the Jews from the Soviet Union into one category. ”

        LOL. Oh, yet again, your incompetent grasp of the English language makes you look like a fool.

        In English, the word “those” is a determiner, which means it serves to limit the meaning of a noun phrase, in this case “those people.” Given the fact that, as a referent, “those” is imprecise, English speakers look to context to determine the limitations of the meaning of the word “those “in this noun phrase.

        In context, it is clear that “those people” does not refer, as you – given your limited mastery of the language – suggest, to “all the Jews from the Soviet Union,” but, as I clearly identified, that subset of them who preyed on the Palestinians when they left the Soviet Union, such as the fascist toad Lieberman.

        Perhaps from now on when you believe that you know what someone means, just assume you are wrong. It will save all of us the time it takes to teach you remedial English.

      • eee
        eee
        November 18, 2011, 4:20 pm

        Woody,

        You are just a bigot trying to back pedal. Your incoherent explanation clearly does not support what you wrote. Your sorry excuses that I don’t understand English are getting boring.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        November 18, 2011, 9:47 pm

        I’m sorry, eee, is Woody waging pogroms on the West Bank like you and your family are? No? Then where do you get off calling him a bigot?

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        November 22, 2011, 10:18 am

        “You are just a bigot trying to back pedal. Your incoherent explanation…”

        LMAO. No, if Iwanted to express a bigoted thought, you wouldn’t need to read between the lines to see it. And don’t blame me for your incompetent grasp of English. Stop making excuses and study the language more.

      • Charon
        Charon
        November 19, 2011, 3:42 am

        eee, what are your thoughts on Yisrael Beiteinu? Lieberman’s party is very much that same Soviet bear, working to undermine democracy in Israel. I actually have a feeling you would agree with me on this

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        November 22, 2011, 10:39 am

        What makes you think eee favors democracy over Zionism?

    • November 18, 2011, 1:12 pm

      I consider that Mafia reference to be bigoted, American; a prejudicial slam at Italians.

      • American
        American
        November 18, 2011, 3:46 pm

        Consider it whatever the hell you want….did I say Italian mafia?
        How do you know I didn’t mean Jewish Mafia or Columbian Mafia or Russian Mafia or French Mafia or just plain Mafia.
        I am not going to play that game or apologize for using some description like Mafia which if it means anything these days, means organized crime..by any group…and is commonly used all the time.
        You remind me of the guy who told me I could never use the word ‘lynch’ in “any context” because blacks used to be lynched. LOL
        If you don’t like the “Italian part of “Mafia” sue the freaking FBI, they are the ones that classify Mafia groups by ethnics.
        At any rate I am tired of those like you who are always looking for some ethnic insult and manufacturing one where none exist.
        You’re ridiculous.

      • Taxi
        Taxi
        November 18, 2011, 5:04 pm

        I dunno American, I mean I could be wrong, but I think teta was being sarcastic.

        Oh well, either way, I think political correctness sucks.

      • American
        American
        November 18, 2011, 6:09 pm

        Well, if she was she can say so and I will apologize to her for not getting the snark.
        Maybe I over react myself due to all the nonsense that gets throw around by anti semite hunters and hyper sensitive professional ethnics.

        I still haven’t gotten over the guy who said I can ‘never’ use the word lynch ” in any context”because blacks were lynched in the past. Those kind of people must literally sit around all day and think up words they want to use to identify bigots and cancel out of the dictionary. It’s crazy.

      • thankgodimatheist
        thankgodimatheist
        November 19, 2011, 2:36 am

        “I dunno American, I mean I could be wrong, but I think teta was being sarcastic.”

        Exactly how I read it.

      • American
        American
        November 19, 2011, 10:51 am

        Well if she was then –I apologize Teta!…where ever y0u are. Bad on me—I jumped the gun.

      • MRW
        MRW
        November 19, 2011, 6:07 pm

        American,

        The Italian Mafia have rules and regs. The Russian and Ukrainian Mafiya are outta’ control. The Irish are just plain crazy: they invented the bombs and techniques the rest of them use…and they invented them 300 years ago.

        ;-)

    • yourstruly
      yourstruly
      November 19, 2011, 12:47 pm

      don’t you mean no more self-serving group of people than the zionist-jewish community?

  8. Walid
    Walid
    November 18, 2011, 11:21 am

    More fun talk about Israel from a Kissinger that had nothing on his mind other than licking the Soviets so it’s hard to grasp how sincere he was in all what he said about Israel, especially to Arabs.

    In 1975, there was a conversation between Kissinger and Saadun Hammadi the Iraqi Foreign Minister during which he said that Israel’s size would be reduced so it would become another small country like Lebanon that wouldn’t be a threat to any of its neighbours. Kissinger said:

    “I think, when we look at history, that when Israel was created in 1948, I don’t think anyone understood it. It originated in American domestic politics. It was far away and little understood. So it was not an American design to get a bastion of imperialism in the area. It was much less complicated. And I would say that until 1973, the Jewish community had enormous influence. It is only in the last two years, as a result of the policy we are pursuing, that it has changed.

    We don’t need Israel for influence in the Arab world. On the contrary, Israel does us more harm than good in the Arab world. You yourself said your objection to us is Israel. Except maybe that we are capitalists. We can’t negotiate about the existence of Israel, but we can reduce its size to historical proportions. I don’t agree that Israel is a permanent threat. How can a nation of three million be a permanent threat? They have a technical advantage now. But it is inconceivable that peoples with wealth and skill and the tradition of the Arabs won’t develop the capacity that is needed. So I think in ten to fifteen years, Israel will be like Lebanon—struggling for existence, with no influence in the Arab world.

    You mentioned new weapons. But they will not be delivered in the foreseeable future. All we agreed to is to study it, and we agreed to no deliveries out of current stocks. So many of these things won’t be produced until 1980, and we have not agreed to deliver them then.”

    When Kissinger was asked if aid to Israel would continue, he said:

    “When I testify to congressional committees, I face increasingly hostile questions about Israel. No one is in favor of Israel’s destruction—I won’t mislead you—nor am I.

    But the support in the 1960s was $200-300 million. Now it is $2-3 billion. That is impossible to sustain. We can’t even get it for New York. It is just a matter of time before there is a change—two to three years. After a settlement, Israel will be a small friendly country with no unlimited drawing right. It will be affected by our new electoral law, strangely enough. So the influence of some who financed the elections before isn’t so great. This has not been so noticed. It will take a few years before it is fully understood.

    So I think the balance in America is shifting. If the Arabs—if I can be frank—don’t do anything stupid. If there is a crisis tied to the Soviet Union, groups in America could make it an anticommunist crusade.”

    When Hammadi asked what were the Israelis thinking, Kissinger replied:

    “First, they want to get rid of me. Because I made them go back. Second, in 1976, they want to provoke the Arabs—in Lebanon, in Syria—because they think if there is war they can win and create great turmoil. Third, they want to pass legislation in America to antagonize as many Arabs as possible. So we get the anti-boycott, anti-discrimination, anti-arms sales legislation. They hope the Arabs will go back to a situation like 1967-1973 when the Syrians and Egyptians adopt an anti-American line. So they can say they are the only American friend in the Middle East. What they want is what you predict—that they be the only friend. We want other friends, to reduce that argument.”

    For full recorded conversation that included talk about Iran, Libya, the Kurds, Syria, Lebanon and so on:
    http://www.meforum.org/1032/henry-kissinger-to-iraq-in-1975-we-can-reduce

    • American
      American
      November 18, 2011, 1:30 pm

      Fascinating…hadn’t seen that before.

    • American
      American
      November 18, 2011, 1:58 pm

      ““First, they want to get rid of me. Because I made them go back. Second, in 1976, they want to provoke the Arabs—in Lebanon, in Syria—because they think if there is war they can win and create great turmoil. Third, they want to pass legislation in America to antagonize as many Arabs as possible. So we get the anti-boycott, anti-discrimination, anti-arms sales legislation. They hope the Arabs will go back to a situation like 1967-1973 when the Syrians and Egyptians adopt an anti-American line. So they can say they are the only American friend in the Middle East. What they want is what you predict—that they be the only friend. ”

      Well Kissinger nailed that exactly right.
      The only problem is the Lobby has gained even more control in US politics.
      But somewhere there will be a blowback.

  9. DaveS
    DaveS
    November 18, 2011, 12:33 pm

    Everyone has his or her candidate for Worst Nobel Peace Prize ever. Kissinger is mine. He’s in his mid-80’s, and when he dies, the President, whoever it is, will give an emotional eulogy filled with a lifetime of public service and patriotism and brilliant scholarship and other nauseating platitudes. What will cross my mind is that the man should have spent the last several decades in miserable prison conditions and died in disgrace. If there is more justice in the hereafter than on Earth, he will be eternally confronted by the millions of his victims. It’s one of those times I wish I were a believer.

    Kissinger also was an opportunist and a liar, and it is impossible to tell if he was being sincere when he said this and if so, what is the significance? Although this nugget of history is at first glance interesting, it’s more gossip than revelation, and ultimately I have to echo Shmuel in asking, who cares? The conversation related by Walid, however, is fascinating.

  10. Theo
    Theo
    November 18, 2011, 12:57 pm

    There was no such thing as the “plight of jews” in the SU, they had it better than most christians. It was nothing, but pure propaganda.

    First of all, according to Hrushchev, although the jews were removed from the highest echelons of the power, they represented OVER 50% in the second and third level during the 196o. This is not what I call “plight”.
    That means 2-3% of the population controlled over 50% of political posts in that levels!! We should also not forget, that a great majority of jews controlled the 1917 soviet revolution and they provided 80% of the first soviet, the government, therefore it was their doings to create such a state.

    Jews could leave if they paid the exit visa, the other 98% could not even if they were ready to pay the price of freedom. Here again I see no discrimination against jews.

    • Cliff
      Cliff
      November 18, 2011, 2:19 pm

      Paging Abe Foxman! Oh wait, Abe thinks Kissinger’s alright.

      It’s just like how the Armenian Genocide wasn’t really a genocide until Turkish-Israeli relations soured.

      Antisemitism is a weapon used by cynical Zionists in the greater identity politics context of the American political system.

      Political theater. It comes at a cost too often though.

    • eee
      eee
      November 18, 2011, 2:29 pm

      Having talked to hundreds of Jews from the former Soviet Union, I can tell you that you are just plain wrong. They were discriminated against on a daily basis and on many levels.

      • DaveS
        DaveS
        November 18, 2011, 3:16 pm

        eee, your sensitivity to discrimination based upon birth characteristics is quite moving, and accounts for your frequent criticism of Israel’s discrimination against non-Jewish Palestinians in housing, education, employment, and every other public sphere. I’m sure you have zero tolerance for such discrimination, even if it leads to the transformation of the Jewish State to one that provides equal rights and status to all citizens regardless of ethnicity and religion.

        Do you think these former Soviet citizens remember the sting of this discrimination when they encounter Palestinian citizens of Israel? Are they especially active in any movement for equal rights so that no one has to suffer the way they did?

      • eee
        eee
        November 18, 2011, 3:34 pm

        David,

        Your sensitivity is 1 millimeter thick. I personally helped tens of Soviet Jews find high paying jobs in Israel. How many jobs did you help Arab Israelis find? Or are yo just good at talking?

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        November 18, 2011, 4:00 pm

        “Arab Israelis”

        They’re called “Palestinians.”

      • mig
        mig
        November 18, 2011, 4:33 pm

        Lovely eee, just lovely. So how many Israel arabs have you helped to have high paying jobs in Israel ? Or is it again ethnic case in here….

      • DaveS
        DaveS
        November 19, 2011, 9:15 am

        Your point, eee? You expressed concern over discrimination against Soviet Jews but have absolutely no problem when it is directed against Palestinians. And you’re quite proud of it.

        As for me, I have represented countless indigent defendants in an unfair criminal justice system. How many have you represented? No, I’m not serious. I’m just trying to say something as absurd as your criticism of me.

        And I am trying to do something to alleviate the situation there. I’m trying to convince a stubborn obtuse Israeli that discrimination against non-Jews is morally unacceptable. True, I’m failing, but that’s not my fault.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        November 18, 2011, 3:44 pm

        So? So are THOUSANDS of gay people in the United States.

        You don’t see homosexuals setting fire to Native American children en masse like you see the “Jewish nation” doing to Palestinian children, do you?

      • American
        American
        November 18, 2011, 4:12 pm

        Read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s “200 Years Together” it will disabuse you of the idea of the Jews as collective victims.
        I was able to read some of it in english on line but that has now been removed because several interest are trying get the entire volumes published in English for the US. Worth noting that it has been published in almost every langauge but English. Quite a campign against that happening when the book came out.
        The book came out in 2002 and immediately the zio jumped on it calling the Nobel prize winner who sold 30 million books a anti semite, a
        less than worthwhile writer, the usual zio character and professional assassination.

        What I was able to read was very illuminating about the real story of Jews in Russia and Solzhenitsyn was no harsher on Jews than on others,in relating what went on it Russia and the Jews part in in it.

        This interview he did with de Siegel I think reflects that objectivity:…in what I read in the book he wasn’t calling for the Jews to accept all the blame in Russia, he says it wasn’t just Jews by any means. But he saying the Jews pretend and pretended to be innocent victims when they were actually major perpertrators of some unspeakable horrors themselves.

        http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,496211,00.html

        SPIEGEL: Your recent two-volume work “200 Years Together” was an attempt to overcome a taboo against discussing the common history of Russians and Jews. You say the Jews are the leading force of global capital and they are among the foremost destroyers of the bourgeoisie. Are we to conclude from your rich array of sources that the Jews carry more responsibility than others for the failed Soviet experiment?

        Solzhenitsyn: I avoid exactly that which your question implies: I do not call for any sort of scorekeeping or comparisons between the moral responsibility of one people or another; moreover, I completely exclude the notion of responsibility of one nation towards another. All I am calling for is self-reflection.
        You can get the answer to your question from the book itself: “Every people must answer morally for all of its past — including that past which is shameful. Answer by what means? By attempting to comprehend: How could such a thing have been allowed? Where in all this is our error? And could it happen again? It is in that spirit, specifically, that it would behoove the Jewish people to answer, both for the revolutionary cutthroats and the ranks willing to serve them. Not to answer before other peoples, but to oneself, to one’s consciousness, and before God. Just as we Russians must answer — for the pogroms, for those merciless arsonist peasants, for those crazed revolutionary soldiers, for those savage sailors.”

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        November 19, 2011, 7:24 am

        Thanks, American. I found it worthwhile to read the entire 2007 interview. I also found this earlier interview from 2003: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/ChukovskayaSolzhenitsyn.php

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        November 19, 2011, 7:35 am

        Thanks, Citizen. A very interesting interview.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        November 19, 2011, 7:48 am

        Here is the first review (of Book 2) of 200 Years Together written in English (translated from the German translation)–It cover Jews in the Soviet Union: http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres10/WALENDYsolje.pdf

        I tried to find information on who is publishing the whole book in English but couldn’t find anything at all. I think it is really horrible that this world-famous writer’s book on such an important subject cannot find an English publisher for all the English-speaking peoples of the world. The great writer’s goal was that especially non-Jewish and (present and former)Jewish Russians would find time for fruitful introspection on the 200 year relationship he covers. How self-serving is it ultimately to keep (through fear) the book from the eyes of the English Language public around the world?

      • American
        American
        November 19, 2011, 10:33 am

        Thanks Citizen for link….that is interesting interview also.

      • American
        American
        November 19, 2011, 10:46 am

        “I tried to find information on who is publishing the whole book in English”

        So have I and it appears someone in Solzhenitsyn family has recently made some contacts or inquires about having it published in English….that’s all the info that I found said and haven’t seem any follow up to that.
        Then there are some net site groups that have had volunteer translators do chapters and are now pursuing raising money to have the two volumes translated.
        The link below is where I read the translated chapters but now the translation links are disabled because they say there is a chance to have the whole work published.
        Anyway I have an alert out for any info on it, so if any pops up will let you know.
        http://www.ethnopoliticsonline.com/archives/ais/ais%20main.html

      • MRW
        MRW
        November 21, 2011, 11:29 pm

        Both of those interviews with Solzhenitsyn were wonderful. Thanks.

  11. Walid
    Walid
    November 18, 2011, 2:35 pm

    Speaking of Kissingeresque games being played, here’s a bit of side action currently going on in one of this year’s Arab Springs; from Reuters and JPost:

    http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=246088&R=R3

  12. tokyobk
    tokyobk
    November 18, 2011, 3:15 pm

    Frankly there is no more self serving person than Kissinger and I cannot see how he would be invoked here as a truth teller in any other circumstances.

    Throught his career Kissinger outdid his colleagues in talking about the Jews in anticipation of being accused of being partisan.

  13. atime forpeace
    atime forpeace
    November 18, 2011, 4:48 pm

    Classic cars and classic quotes.

    “That is slander and libel of the worst kind and not what I said.”

    can i get a whaa whaa

  14. atime forpeace
    atime forpeace
    November 18, 2011, 4:58 pm

    How many of these guys do you think are out there?

    “Many officials said they were convinced that information Pollard sold to the Israelis had ultimately wound up in the hands of the Soviet Union.”

    JONATHAN JAY POLLARD was born in 1954 and grew up as the youngest of three children in South Bend, Indiana; his father, Dr. Morris Pollard, was an award-winning microbiologist who taught at Notre Dame. The young boy did not fit in well in South Bend, and members of his family have described his years in public school there as hellish:
    he made constant complaints of being picked on and, in high school, beaten up, because he was Jewish. One of the boy’s happiest times, the family told journalists after his arrest, came when, at the age of sixteen, he attended a summer camp for gifted children in Israel.”

    Yes those russians were more helpful in releasing soviet jews after pollards crime gave israel trading material.

    our bestest friend.

    • American
      American
      November 18, 2011, 7:29 pm

      I believe I read that Pollard did admit he stole the information to give to Israel who wanted to trade it to Russia for release of Russian Jews, as well as for their own purposes. According to the officials involved the info was on all of the US missile installation, US missile shields and command centers and intelligence networks, including names of agents or names or covers they were using. The whole ball of wax. If it hadn’t been as devastating as it was Pollard would never have gotten the sentence he did.

    • Chaos4700
      Chaos4700
      November 18, 2011, 9:45 pm

      Is Pollard the sort of person Witty is referring to down here? When he says, “By definition, for Americans working on behalf of Israel is not selfish, but charitable.”

  15. Richard Witty
    Richard Witty
    November 18, 2011, 5:17 pm

    “Is there a more self-serving group of people than the Jewish community?”

    is a racist statement, Adam Horowitz.

    Yours.

    By definition, for Americans working on behalf of Israel is not selfish, but charitable. It is working for a different community, for different individuals, families, nation.

    Insurance business lobby is self-serving. Cigarette business lobby is self-serving.

    • libra
      libra
      November 18, 2011, 6:46 pm

      RW: “By definition, for Americans working on behalf of Israel is not selfish, but charitable. It is working for a different community, for different individuals, families, nation.”

      Indeed so Richard but as the old saying goes, “no good deed goes unpunished”. Something, no doubt, Jonathan Pollard ruefully reflects upon every day.

    • Sand
      Sand
      November 18, 2011, 7:52 pm

      A special interest group sucking up money and resources at the expense of another group — I wouldn’t call that charitable.

      Also, the Insurance and Cigarette ‘business’ lobbies are at least semi-regulated – not so, for the likes of AIPAC that should have been ‘regulated’ and ‘monitored’ as a lobby “acting as agents of foreign principals” long ago for its blatant lobbying of the ‘national security interests’ for a special interest religious group living in another country.

    • Chaos4700
      Chaos4700
      November 18, 2011, 9:42 pm

      By definition, Americans working on behalf of Israel against the interests of their fellow Americans are traitors.

    • Donald
      Donald
      November 18, 2011, 10:31 pm

      “Is there a more self-serving group of people than the Jewish community?”

      is a racist statement.”

      Richard is right.

      • Sand
        Sand
        November 18, 2011, 11:41 pm

        Excuse me!

        Donald “Is there a more self-serving group of people than the Jewish community?” is a racist statement.”

        With a plethota of examples in the US political and jewish religious community which are ‘highly’ noticable, and readily identifiable — why should it not be a topic of discussion?

        Obviously you don’t follow the Jewish Press! Not going to the 2012 Tribefest I guess? As well as not counting the over-abundance of Jewish only internet dating sites? Or, reading the 2012 Program List of the The Jewish Federation of North American General Assembly in Denver?

        http://www.generalassembly.org/program

        BTW talking of Pollard — Down in DNC Debbie Wasserman-Schultz protected FL terrority:

        “…U.S. President Joe Biden denied he said spy Jonathan Pollard would be released “over his dead body,” telling U.S. Jewish leaders on Wednesday, however, that the sentiment expressed in his rejection was his own.

        Referring to the convicted Israeli spy, Biden was quoted by the New York Times on Saturday as telling Florida rabbis that U.S. President Obama “was considering clemency, but I told him, ‘Over my dead body are we going to let him out before his time’’”

        “We said it was an important issue for the community, and he agreed to have a meeting on it,” Hoenlein [Malcolm Hoenlein, Executive Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents] said.

        http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/biden-denies-saying-jonathan-pollard-would-be-released-over-his-dead-body-1.388489

        Really! If that’s not self-serving I don’t know what is!

        Donald doth protest too much.

      • Sand
        Sand
        November 18, 2011, 11:53 pm

        The Jewish Federations of North America represents 157 Jewish Federations and over 300 Network communities, which raise and distribute more than $3 billion annually for social welfare, social services and educational needs. The Federation movement, collectively among the top 10 charities on the continent, protects and enhances the well-being of Jews worldwide through the values of tikkun olam (repairing the world), tzedakah (charity and social justice) and Torah (Jewish learning).
        http://www.jewishfederations.org/about-us.aspx

        Biggie JFNA Program Item:
        Israel Action Network “Hotspots” of the Delegitimization Movement Consultation
        Governors Square 11
        By invitation only
        http://www.generalassembly.org/program/info/israel-action-network-hotspots-of-the-delegitimization-movement-consul

        Being a big boot across everyone’s neck.

      • Sand
        Sand
        November 19, 2011, 12:16 am

        Jesus! The original NY Times article on Biden was even worse that I remembered it!

        Obama Turns to Biden to Reassure Jewish Voters, and Get Them to Contribute, Too
        By HELENE COOPER
        Published: September 30, 2011
        http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/us/politics/obama-turns-to-biden-to-reassure-the-jews-and-get-them-to-contribute-too.html

        This is the stranglehold on our politics — well definitely when it comes to the Democratic/Likud party.

      • Sand
        Sand
        November 19, 2011, 12:46 am

        Another interesting connection with regards to that Biden “over my dead body” NY Times article — which could kinda be construed as a Biden ‘not on our side’ piece?

        NYTimes: “…At a fund-raiser Sept. 20 at a home in Shaker Heights, Ohio, all but one of the questions that Mr. Biden took were about foreign policy — namely Israel…”

        http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/us/politics/obama-turns-to-biden-to-reassure-the-jews-and-get-them-to-contribute-too.html?_r=1

        It was the “Ratner” family fundraiser. This includes Ellen Ratner (Talk Radio News Service) of the Thom Hartman radio show. Talks her head off about Sudan and Haiti, but shuts up when it comes to Israel’s atrocities — The I-Lobby is never allowed to be mentioned on that show. Thom Hartman and Ellen Ratner — [email protected]

        Josh Mandel’s family ties make for fascinating politics
        http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/09/josh_mandels_family_ties_make.html

      • eljay
        eljay
        November 19, 2011, 8:22 am

        >> Really! If that’s not self-serving I don’t know what is!
        >> Donald doth protest too much.

        And Sand appears to have misinterpreted Donald, who agreed with the assertion that the rhetorical question “Is there a more self-serving group of people than the Jewish community?” is racist.

        Absent proof that Jews are ACTUALLY the most self-serving group of people in the world, Kissinger’s comment does come across as racist.

      • eljay
        eljay
        November 19, 2011, 8:29 am

        >> By definition, for Americans working on behalf of Israel is not selfish, but charitable. It is working for a different community, for different individuals, families, nation.

        It’s interesting that the “Americans working on behalf of Israel” list doesn’t include a single negative aspect, such as occupation, theft, colonization or religion-supremacist state.

        But when it comes to “Americans working on behalf of Palestinians”, it is usually – and typically hypocritically – nothing but negative aspects, such as “dissent” and “maximalism” and “destabilization” and “Hamas”.

      • Donald
        Donald
        November 19, 2011, 9:18 am

        “Absent proof that Jews are ACTUALLY the most self-serving group of people in the world, Kissinger’s comment does come across as racist.”

        Yeah, exactly. Also, of course, why the hell would anyone cite Kissinger as some sort of moral authority?

        If someone else (me, for instance) wants to compare the Israel Lobby and their blind support for Israel with white southerners who romanticized the Confederacy , go for it. If someone else (again, it could be me) wants to invoke MLK’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” and compare King’s “white moderates” with the Israel supporters who never seem to want Israel pressured in any significant way, then go for it. I’m all for pointing out that many in the Jewish community exhibit the same ethnocentric behaviors of white southerners that I knew growing up. Singling out Jews as the very worst on the moral authority of Henry Kissinger is a bit much.

      • Sand
        Sand
        November 19, 2011, 9:57 am

        Donald: “…why the hell would anyone cite Kissinger as some sort of moral authority?..”

        I don’t think anyone was — Most people know who Kissinger is, and “moral” definitely wouldn’t be a word to describe him.

        Donald: “…I’m all for pointing out that many in the Jewish community exhibit the same ethnocentric behaviors of white southerners that I knew growing up. Singling out Jews as the very worst on the moral authority of Henry Kissinger is a bit much…

        Following on from what you said.

        Yes, if I had to go to a Thanksgiving dinner with family members who wanted to discuss their grand holiday going to apartheid Israel, where they beat up and kill Palestinians — I think I can honestly compare it to someone having to sit through a meal with relatives talking about their excitement of attending a Ku Klux Klan holiday camp. I believe that is where we are.

      • American
        American
        November 19, 2011, 11:17 am

        Come on….Kissinger was speaking as a ‘moral authority’?
        He was talking politically about an irritating, demanding minority of Jews screwing around in US policy. It’s his observation and opinion of their behavior.
        He could have said the same thing about the f______ this, that or the others.
        Has nothing to do with moral, it’s politics.

      • Donald
        Donald
        November 19, 2011, 11:46 am

        “He was talking politically about an irritating, demanding minority of Jews screwing around in US policy. It’s his observation and opinion of their behavior.”

        Fine, except Kissinger was and is a pathological liar with no credibility whatsoever. Putting Kissinger’s views on the front page was an act of poor judgment in my opinion.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 19, 2011, 2:07 pm

        Kissinger was not pathological, simply amoral. He was a very conscious liar when he was speaking to the American people and to the world but what he said behind the scenes, I suspect, had more often than not, the ring of truth. In this case, he was speaking of “an irritating, demanding minority of Jews screwing around in US policy,” which was doing it not only before he arrived on the scene but has been doing it ever since. And it’s damn well time it stopped!

      • American
        American
        November 19, 2011, 3:58 pm

        Donald……

        I don ‘t admire Kissinger either but even a war criminal can correctly observe something now and then.
        Would the noted and remarked on and recongized self serving attitude of the organized Jews/zionist go down easier if I drag out Truman’s or Eisnehower’s or Kennedy’s or Churchill’s or a dozen other non war criminal world leaders exactly similar comments on the zionist or Jewish traits?
        Sometimes when enough people, enough times, over a period of time observe the same things in a certain group…it ceases to be racist to say so… it becomes just a observed fact….common knowledge.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 18, 2011, 11:46 pm

        It is a racist statement only if it can be proved to be wrong. Kissinger said that in connection with the campaign launched by a segment of the organized Jewish community, in the name of “saving” Soviet Jewry, that was determined to prevent the establishment of détente between the US under the Nixon administration and the USSR under Gorbachev. In other words, they put the welfare of Soviet Jews, who were at NO risk, above that of reducing tensions between the two super powers. If that is not the epitome of self-serving, please tell me what is.

      • Richard Witty
        Richard Witty
        November 19, 2011, 7:36 am

        Blankfort,
        Its very framing is racist. It obviously is a single statement, in a single moment, in a much larger context.

        “if it can be proved to be wrong”. You Stalinist hanging judge.

      • James North
        James North
        November 19, 2011, 8:54 am

        Richard Witty said, ‘Here’s how I politely try and put across my point of view:

        You Stalinist hanging judge.

        ‘This is how I promote “dialog” (sic)’

      • Sand
        Sand
        November 19, 2011, 9:44 am

        James North: “Richard Witty said, ‘Here’s how I politely try and put across my point of view:

        You Stalinist hanging judge.

        ‘This is how I promote “dialog” (sic)’

        I think that’s the whole point — Witty doesn’t want dialogue.

        Any discussion about “self-serving” (especially disturbing) elements within the Jewish community seem to be a taboo subject for Witty.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 19, 2011, 1:56 pm

        Frame, shmame. In 1973, a major element of the organized Jewish community of which there is NOTHING remotely like it in ANY other “ethinic” or cultural community, believed that forcing the Soviet Union to allow its highly educated Jews (an example of the Soviet’s subtle antisemitism) to emigrate was more important than arranging a detente between the world’s two Cold Warriors. Not self serving?

        Then, in 1991 and 1992, in the midst of an economic recession, the entire organized Jewish community was pushing for the US to grant $10 billion in guaranteed loans for the resettlement of Jewish refugees from Russia who they cared more about than their fellow Americans despite the fact that it was a scam and that it was known both before and after that Israel would use the money for other things. Not self-serving?

        In 2003, a major element of the organized Jewish community pushed the US into a war on Iraq for what it believed was Israel’s benefit. We know what the costs have been for that. Not self serving?

        Since that war was launched the ENTIRE organized Jewish community has been engaged in a campaign to get the US to attack Iran, not because Iran endangers the US, but because it is considered an “existential” threat to Israel despite its potentially devastating impact on the global economy. Not self-serving?

        Then, of course, for the past 60 years it has supported Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians and Lebanese to the bloody hilt while making sure that it is fully funded by their fellow American taxpayers? Not self-serving?

        As you see, Richard, it is rather easy to draw up a charge sheet against the organized Jewish community which, after all, was what Kissinger was referring to. The rest, and I would include you if you weren’t so assiduously working on its behalf, might as well be Protestants.

        While there are few more evil people alive in the world today than Kissinger, he was right on target in this case and he just as well could have been talking about you and the others of the Israel Uberalles clique that posts here.

      • Richard Witty
        Richard Witty
        November 19, 2011, 2:47 pm

        What is that you think you are saying relative to my point?

        ‘They deserve it’?

        We’ve heard that before.

        The statement itself is a racist one. Simple. To repeat it, to highlight it, in the modern context, is to emphasize that racist statement in the present.

        You evidently feel good about making such statements in the present.

        When American wealthy Jews spend lots of money supporting Israel that is not “self-serving” that is charity. It is not for themselves, not for their personal advantage. It is to help another.

        Its another that you don’t like, and in ways that you don’t like.

        I’ve never known you to be an advocate of ‘America’s interests’, as some criteria of political relevance. Why start now?

        “Since that war was launched the ENTIRE organized Jewish community has been engaged in a campaign to get the US to attack Iran, not because Iran endangers the US, but because it is considered an “existential” threat to Israel despite its potentially devastating impact on the global economy. ”

        You’re joking about the word “entire” aren’t you? Is it accurate in the slightest? Maybe a few have, and maybe a few have in the name of supporting Israel exclusively.

        “While there are few more evil people alive in the world today than Kissinger, he was right on target in this case and he just as well could have been talking about you and the others of the Israel Uberalles clique that posts here.”

        Yes, we are all the same, all have the same views as your fears?

        I think my characterization of your politics is accurate, in the respect of the degree that your comments exhibit the fanatic (thereby feeding the likud reaction), and in your careless willingness to generalize.

        Evoking Kissinger. This is not 1970.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        November 19, 2011, 3:03 pm

        Yes, Witty, the much larger context was Kissinger’s considered deductive conclusion after dealing directly from a high vantage point with the world’s problems for some considerable time, and doing so with a good world history education. His conclusion, delivered as a rhetorical question apropos nagging Jews in the superpower tower: “Is there a more self-serving group of people than the Jewish community?”

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        November 19, 2011, 3:06 pm

        I think Bibi is another very conscious liar like Kissinger.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 19, 2011, 7:29 pm

        Witty, you begin your post with a statement in quotes, “They deserve it.” Who is that supposed by a quote from.?

        Re Iran, both my paper and email files are filled with statements and ads by Jewish organizations, some directed at the public, spearheaded by the American Jewish Committee, the lobby’s “state department,” http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.5114321/k.C068/Iran.htm?msource=Impact111711&tr=y&auid=9871858and some exclusively targeting organizationally affiliated Jews that began in 2003 and called for the US doing whatever is necessary, “with no options off the table,” to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. (I assume that is your position, as well).

        They have been assisted in this by Israel’s stable of syndicated media whores and talking heads and, of course, by the US Congress in which, as reported on Mondoweiss, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has passed a resolution that is unprecedented in US history which would prevent ANY American official, from the president on down, meeting or speaking with any representative of the Iranian government without requesting a waiver from this committee 15 days in advance of such a meeting. You will recall MJ Rosenberg wrote about this outrage on Huffington Post which was picked up by MW. I assume Rosenberg is another self-hater in your fetid opinion.

        I notice that you make no effort to counter the other charges I made against the Jewish establishment which I find very telling.

        Rather you chose to defend the “American wealthy Jews [who]spend lots of money supporting Israel that is not “self-serving” that is charity. It is not for themselves, not for their personal advantage. It is to help another.”

        Did I mention that? No, but since you brought it up, when Jews around the country in Friends of the Israeli Defense Forces choose, for example, to send millions of dollars to Israel to take care of veterans of Israel’s bloody wars on Lebanon and Gaza while hundreds of thousands of US veterans are on our streets, homeless, and then deduct that money from their taxes, that is self-serving in spades, and I can say that as a veteran which I am damn sure you aren’t (unless you pulled a Goldberg and volunteered for the IDF).

        I find it curious but not surprising that you think I am not concerned for this country and it’s role in the world, something you obviously cannot relate to in your tribal world. My opposition to its wars of aggression as well as its support for Israel and its war on the Palestinians is an expression of that concern, as is my current activity in opposition to the expansion of our local Walmart store. http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/letters/ci_19357238

      • Richard Witty
        Richard Witty
        November 19, 2011, 9:50 pm

        You shift between ‘Jews are’ and the ‘Jewish establishment is’. They are VERY different statements.

        Sympathy for Israel and Israelis is I suspect nearly universal among the Jewish elite. The form of that sympathy among the American Jewish elite varies widely. Some are enthusiastic supporters of right-wing settlement expansion. Some are enthusiastic opponents of it. Few (I’d be surprised if any) would make statements like you’ve made about Israel needing a licking. (you and Finkelstein, even as a wake-up call.)

        What they need is a wake-up call, and to ‘Live and let live’, not to the racist puniitive ‘live in despondent shame’.

        ‘Is there a more self-serving group of people than the Jewish community?’ is the quote.

        You want to clarify ‘I meant’, wonderful. Thank you in retrospect.

        Concern for this country is VERY different theme than the ‘American interests’.

        When Steve Walt writes about ‘America’s interests’ there is a degree of plausibility to the sincerity of it. That’s what he’s been paid to study, teach, write, consult about for decades. That he shifted to ‘America should’ is a radical departure, shifting away from realist definition.

        When Phil or you write about ‘America’s interests’, it is less plausible, unless you are both advocates for the conventional, the Kissingerish. I’m surprised.

        Well, we share some dislike for Wal-mart and American rampant commercialism, and third world outsourcing.

      • annie
        annie
        November 19, 2011, 10:46 pm

        Sympathy for Israel and Israelis is I suspect nearly universal among the Jewish elite.

        no shit shinola vs which jewish elite? if you do not sympathize w/israel there’s a pack of wild beasts beating down your throat and you can’t get in the club. but over here in annieland (where dreams come true) there’s another jewish elite. the ones who shine in justice. that’s my idea of the cream of the crop, they have names too. they are the rising stars and they will go down in history, on the right side of it that is. unlike names like Wiesenthal who will be forever be associated with the museum of intolerance.

        unless of course they cancel the plans. there’s still time for that name. but names like netanyahu won’t be remembered well.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 20, 2011, 12:47 am

        You know, Witty, I think you need to change your batteries. You’re becoming even more unintelligible than ever.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        November 20, 2011, 3:34 am

        Has it occurred to you at all Witty that you should feel shameful about endorsing the murder of Palestinian children and American citizens by Israel?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 20, 2011, 8:49 am

        Sympathy for Israel and Israelis is I suspect nearly universal among the Jewish elite.

        If by “sympathy” you mean that they are willing to spill the last drop of Israeli blood to puff-up their own over-inflated egos, then yeah, they are fanatically sympathetic.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        November 20, 2011, 11:08 am

        Witty,

        Is this a “racist” statement?

        “Jews as a group have been more conspicuous in promoting their ethnic nationalist interests on the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post op-ed pages than other American ethnic groups.”

        Or is it a statement of fact?

        Another way to state this:

        “Jews as a group have produced more ethnocentric articles on the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post op-ed pages than other American ethnic groups.”

        True or false?

        Note well that the above statements do not accuse all Jews or even most Jews of being ethnic nationalists or ethnocentric. Nor do they suggest that other ethnic groups are not involved in ethnic nationalist or ethnocentric political behaviors.

      • Richard Witty
        Richard Witty
        November 20, 2011, 5:27 pm

        Bull, Blankfort.

        You know what I am talking about in the post.

        The Horowitz quote is racist not because it correctly or incorrectly refers to Kissinger, but because it is a racist GENERALIZATION, that you gleefully elaborate on.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        November 22, 2011, 10:40 am

        WHO IS HE BEING RACIST AGAINST?! YOU”RE BOTH THE SAME RACE! Good God!

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        November 22, 2011, 10:57 am

        Horowitz quote?

        Are you saying Adam put words in Kissingers mouth? LOL

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        November 22, 2011, 11:03 am

        Richard Witty on murdered and ethnically cleansed Palestinians (eljay’s comment):

        http://mondoweiss.net/2011/11/revival-of-geneva-initiative-features-divisive-figure-bernard-henri-levy.html/comment-page-1#comment-393717

        >> … in contrast to your contempt for a litmus test of an academic opinion of 6 years before my birth.

        When Jews commit immoral and unjust acts against non-Jews six years before his birth, RW has this to say about it (http://mondoweiss.net/2011/11/settlers-and-supporters-descend-on-hebron-to-assert-jewish-sovereignty-based-on-bible.html/comment-page-1#comment-393246):
        —————————
        >> I cannot consistently say that “ethnic cleansing is never necessary”.
        >> If I was an adult in 1948, I probably would have supported whatever it took to create the state of Israel, and held my nose at actions that I could not possibly do myself.
        —————————

        When non-Jews commit immoral and unjust acts against Jews OVER 30 YEARS before his birth, RW has this to say about it:
        —————————
        >> They were murdered in 1920 because of the bigotry of those that associated all Jews with their fears.
        >> It was politically motivated, ideological, not all that different from much of the ideology cited here by some of the maximalists.
        >> Rationalized by some stimuli to bigotry. Never justified.
        >> Is intentional mass murder of teenage boys EVER justified? That anyone would attempt to, is sickening.
        —————————

        When Jews kill non-Jews, it’s just so much “academic speculation”. When non-Jews kill Jews, “academic speculation” is discarded in favour of condemnation.

        What an astounding hypocrite.

        Richard Witty said:

        I, like Morris, do conclude that in 1948, the need for haven and for self-governance, and the possibility of it, were so compelling as to make ends justify means.

        I cannot possibly imagine myself undertaking the means of either intense ethically disciplined warfare (against guerillas, a difficult task), nor cruel terror.

        And, maybe that is opportunistic on my part. I don’t eat meat (and haven’t for 40 years) partially because I am unwilling to kill, or even to ask others to kill on my behalf. So, maybe my appreciation of that willingness on the part of Zionist pioneers is hypocritical.

        I don’t think so. Need is compelling. The art in politics by those actually committed to non-violence is to construct paths by which war is unnecessary.

        After war, comes some quiet, with inevitably compromised results. Why not skip the animosity and go right to reconciliation and clarity.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2010/01/we-struck-the-civilian-population-consciously-gazas-historical-pedigree.html#comment-142854

        What other disgusting examples of racism, hypocrisy, and general nastiness has Dick Witty the liberal Zionist expressed lately?

        Oh right, he did not say anything in this thread about the injured French consul. The consul’s wife suffered a miscarriage due to the Israeli attack.

        Dick Witty said nothing though. He instead insulted Phil and Adam in another thread and then chastised them for not condemning Hamas rockets!

        http://mondoweiss.net/2011/11/france-chides-israeli-ambassador-following-consul-injury-in-gaza-attack.html

        Conclusion (we already know but lets reiterate):

        Dick is a Zionist not a liberal. There is no such thing as liberal Zionism because Zionism = racism, apartheid, colonialism, occupation.

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      November 18, 2011, 11:57 pm

      ‘“Is there a more self-serving group of people than the Jewish community?”

      is a racist statement, Adam Horowitz.’

      First, it was Kissinger who said it.

      Second, it is technically racist in the sense that it is about a particular ethnic group, but the important issue is whether it is true? If it is, why is it wrong to say it?

      “By definition, for Americans working on behalf of Israel is not selfish, but charitable. It is working for a different community, for different individuals, families, nation.”

      So now Israeli Jews are a different community from American Jews?

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        November 19, 2011, 6:25 am

        “By definition, for Americans working on behalf of Iran is not selfish, but charitable. It is working for a different community, for different individuals, families, nation.”

      • Richard Witty
        Richard Witty
        November 19, 2011, 7:33 am

        “First, it was Kissinger who said it.

        Second, it is technically racist in the sense that it is about a particular ethnic group, but the important issue is whether it is true? If it is, why is it wrong to say it?”

        It was Horowitz who quoted it, who added his voice to it, who put it in a headline.

        And for YOU Roha, to apply the language of generalization, “Jews are”, is racist.

        Time to actually do some thinking.

      • eljay
        eljay
        November 19, 2011, 8:48 am

        >> And for YOU Roha, to apply the language of generalization, “Jews are”, is racist.

        Interesting. RW took RoHa’s question – “So now Israeli Jews are a different community from American Jews?” – extracted the phrase “Jews are” from it and turned it into a racist generalization. His attempts to score some sort of points against people reek of pathetic desperation.

        >> Time to actually do some thinking.

        RW really needs to heed his own advice.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        November 19, 2011, 9:13 pm

        “And for YOU Roha, to apply the language of generalization, “Jews are”, is racist.”

        So now all generalizations are racist?
        You get more ridiculous with every post.

        I was pointing out that, although in many of your previous posts you regarded all Jews as a single community, when you wanted to introduce the notion of charity, suddenly Israeli Jews were a different community from American Jews.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        November 19, 2011, 9:14 pm

        RW really needs to heed his own advice.

        Do you believe he is capable?

      • eljay
        eljay
        November 19, 2011, 11:42 pm

        >> Do you believe he is capable?

        No, I do not.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 20, 2011, 8:36 am

        when you wanted to introduce the notion of charity, suddenly Israeli Jews were a different community from American Jews.

        Only yesterday, Witty accused me of being a racist for pointing out that a British Jew was a foreign interloper who acted uncharitably towards the poor Jews of the old Yishuv when he evicted them from the property of an Ottoman era almshouse and destroyed their crude dwellings to make way for Jewish settlers (the New Yishuv) and their new homes. So in that case, Witty treated the Jews as members of one community for the sake of his argument about charity.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2011/11/gorenberg-says-a-one-state-solution-would-produce-another-lebanon.html/comment-page-1#comment-392126

      • Richard Witty
        Richard Witty
        November 20, 2011, 9:26 am

        You think I was accusing you of being a racist for your assessment of a single case?

        I was accused you of adopting a racist “principle” for declaring that Jews that purchased land, and then resided, were somehow historical interlopers, that on that basis Jews were not entitled to equal rights in the present.

        Its an elaboration of the question of whether justice is only an accountability for some past wrong, and only to those “who were always there”, and not also justice for all, and primarily in the PRESENT.

        I question your definition of what justice is.

      • James North
        James North
        November 20, 2011, 9:40 am

        Richard Witty said, ‘Here’s how disorganized and contradictory my thinking is. I become enraged at anyone who tries to generalize about how “Jews are,” accusing them of anti-Semitism. Yet I also insist that this same group, who you can’t generalize about, have the right to “self-govern,” which means they can travel to Palestine and take land away from the people who already live there!’
        ‘Why not just take every third person from the state of Indiana, who you can’t generalize about, and give them the Right to “Return” to Palestine as well?’

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        November 20, 2011, 10:16 am

        You think I was accusing you of being a racist for your assessment of a single case?

        No, we think you are throwing the word “racist” around as a cheap, cynical dodge while also de-valuing it where those attitudes genuinely exist and should be called out as such.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 20, 2011, 10:51 am

        I was accused you of adopting a racist “principle” for declaring that Jews that purchased land, and then resided, were somehow historical interlopers,

        None of the men in question were Ottoman subjects, or purchased land and then resided in Palestine. They facilitated immigration and settlement in Palestine of foreign Jews in violation of the Sultan’s firman – and at the expense of the poor indigenous Jews that their Holy Land Relief Fund summarily evicted. That is the only demonstrable “historical connection” that these particular American and British interlopers had with the land of Palestine. FYI, Israel has no present legal rights to the territory of Palestine, but it asserts a claim based upon the historical connection of these people and associations with the land.

      • American
        American
        November 20, 2011, 11:01 am

        “And for YOU Roha, to apply the language of generalization, “Jews are”, is racist.”…(witty)

        This is so wearing.
        Here’s how it works in the real world witty……..when people speak for and claim the identity of a “specific group” when everything they say and support is based on the “identity group’s” desires, goals, beliefs, when their ‘group’ is their law, their everything…….then people are going to regard you as a ‘group’ and talk ‘in general’ about you and your group.
        Talking about Jews or zionist ‘as a group’ is something the major Jewish and zionist leaders themselves have created in the public mind and conversation …and in fact insist on Jews being viewed as “all together.”
        And while they insist the world view all Jews as one group, they object to the generalization only when they want accuse someone as anti semitic or racist.
        Even a six year old can see what this is and would tell you you can’t have it both ways.
        It is probably good that you make most of your comments here at MW where we are somewhat more informed about Jews vr “The Jews’….cause if you were making them in a general public forum you would be encouraging the public to generalize even more.

      • MRW
        MRW
        November 20, 2011, 11:55 am

        James North, that was a brilliant comment at November 20, 2011 at 9:40 am.

      • Richard Witty
        Richard Witty
        November 20, 2011, 12:12 pm

        You omitted the last phrases of the sentence.

        “I was accused you of adopting a racist “principle” for declaring that Jews that purchased land, and then resided, were somehow historical interlopers, that on that basis Jews were not entitled to equal rights in the present.”

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 20, 2011, 1:09 pm

        You omitted the last phrases of the sentence.

        I addressed that in the last sentence of my comment: FYI, Israel has no present legal rights to the territory of Palestine, but it asserts a claim based upon the historical connection of these people and associations with the land.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 20, 2011, 2:23 pm

        Speaking of property, let’s go back to the political father of the Jewish state, Theo Herzl, who wrote in his diaries, not with Palestine in mind but South America, of how Jews were going to acquire the land which demonstrates that Zionism is not only a racist philosophy with respect to Palestinians and Arabs but to all non-Jews. Were this not the case, Herzl’s writings would have been denounced by the Zionist hierarchy instead of being largely buried.

        A phrase here will be very familiar but more of his diary passage from June 12, 1895, is worth quoting:

        “When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us.

        “We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries while denying it any employment in our own country.

        “The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.

        “Let the owners of immovable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth.

        “But we are not going to sell them anything back.”

        Later the same day, he wrote:

        “The voluntary expropriation will be accomplished through our secret agents. The Company would pay excessive prices.

        “We shall then sell only to Jews and all real estate will be traded only among Jews…

        “For the voluntary expropriation we will have to use local sub agents who must not know that their employer is himself a secret agent who takes instructions from the centralized Commission for Property Purchases [which just six years later in Palestine would become Keren Kayemet LeYisrael, the Jewish National Fund].” pp. 88, 89 Complete Diaries, Herzl Fndn., 1960.

        This brings to mind a joke that was current when I attended then predominantly Jewish Fairfax High in West LA, in the heart of what was called “the Borscht Belt.” It went, “Name the three thinnest books ever published?” I only remember two of the titles: Jewish Business Ethics and Famous Italian War Heroes. This was just after the end of WW2 and Italian history was not our strong suit.

      • Richard Witty
        Richard Witty
        November 20, 2011, 5:24 pm

        And by territory of Palestine in this usage, you are referring to what exactly?

        River to sea or green line?

        The Torah is NOT a land deed. A land deed however is.

        Case by case.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 20, 2011, 7:46 pm

        And by territory of Palestine in this usage, you are referring to what exactly?

        The occupied territory of the State of Palestine. The Zionist organizations routinely obtained title to land that was not covered by the title of the former owners. So neither the Torah nor a land deed is any guarantee of a valid claim.

        For example, in Kenneth W. Stein, “The Jewish National Fund: Land Purchase Methods and Priorities, 1924 – 1939”, Middle Eastern Studies, Volume 20 Number 2, April 1984, pp. 190-205 the author wrote that:

        Jewish purchasers and the JNF in particular utilized Ottoman abuses of under-registration and non-registration during the Mandate to enhance the size of their acquisitions and decrease taxes due on their new purchases. For example, the JNF’s purchase of 30,000 dunams at Emek Hepher/Wadi Hawarith in April 1929 had been registered in the Ottoman land registry as 5,000 dunams.*22 At the public auction where the JNF purchased these lands, Yehoshua Hankin, representing the JNF, paid just over one pound per dunam. But privately, Hankin agreed with the Tayan family sellers to pay a previously agreed upon sum of four pounds per dunam.*23

        *22. High Commissioner Chancellor to Lord Passfield, Secretary of State for the Colonies, 1March 1930, C0733/l9On7l82. For additional examples see David Gurevich of the Jewish Agency’s Department of Statistics to JNF Directorate, 12 May 1941, CZA, S25/6563.
        23. See A. Ashbel, Shishim Shnot Haksharat HaYishuv, (Sixty Years of the PLDC) (Jerusalem, 1967), pp. 81-8.
        http://www.ismi.emory.edu/JournalArticles/MESapr84.html

      • Richard Witty
        Richard Witty
        November 20, 2011, 8:40 pm

        That was “uniquely” evasive, Hostage.

        So, what land are you referring to?

      • James North
        James North
        November 20, 2011, 10:09 pm

        Richard Witty said, ‘Once again, Hostage gives us more established facts in a single comment than I have in all my 11,000 comments put together. But all I can do in response is snidely call him a name.
        ‘Longtime Mondoweiss visitors are noticing how nasty I’ve become lately. Gone are all my hippie-dippie exhortations to “humanize the other” and “make the better argument.” Now all I do is reply with personal attacks.’

      • Richard Witty
        Richard Witty
        November 20, 2011, 10:26 pm

        And you felt that his response wasn’t evasive?

        Do you personally seek peace or some other goal?

      • Richard Witty
        Richard Witty
        November 20, 2011, 10:42 pm

        Its a serious question.

        When you say Palestine, do you mean river to sea, or green line?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 21, 2011, 5:06 am

        That was “uniquely” evasive, Hostage. . . .So, what land are you referring to?

        Pay attention Witty there will be a pop quiz afterward. Read the comment archives and see how many times I’ve cited:
        *UN Security Council Chapter VII resolutions 62 and 73 regarding the binding nature of the armistice boundaries;
        *The Jericho Congress and the political union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan; the fact Israel signed an armistice agreement with the new joint entity, “Jordan”; and the dissolution of the union in 1988;
        *The fact that customary international law that says “Once the decision has been taken to recognize an insurgent government as belligerent, the legal consequences of the decision are not limited to its concession of belligerent rights. So long as it maintains an independent existence, the insurgent government is considered to have all the normal rights and liabilities of a State. Its legal position is not merely that of a military occupant as defined by the Hague Convention No. IV, of 1907. — See Ti-chiang Chen, “The international law of recognition, with special reference to practice in Great Britain and the United States”, Nabu Press, 2010, page 307-308.
        *The yearly General Assembly resolutions regarding the permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people over the Occupied Palestinian territory; and the demand that Israel compensate them for stolen resources;
        *The fact that Israeli Ambassador Abba Eban claimed that “Israel holds no territory wrongfully, since her occupation of the areas now held has been sanctioned by the armistice agreements, as has the occupation of the territory in Palestine now held by the Arab states.” see “Effect on Armistice Agreements”, FRUS Volume VI 1949, 1149 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu
        *The fact that during the Security Council’s 433rd meeting, the Israeli foreign minister, Abba Eban, stated that the armistices were “a provisional settlement which can only be replaced by a peace agreement” and:

        The armistice lines do not merely separate armed forces. They mark the clearly defined areas of full civil jurisdiction. The Government, the courts, the legislatures, the security authorities of each respective State operate smoothly and unchallenged up to the appropriate armistice line. These lines thus have the normal characteristics of provisional frontiers until such time as a new process of negotiation and agreement determines the final territorial settlement. They are also stabilized by the mutual undertakings of the parties and by the fullest international sanction for as long as the Armistice Agreements are valid.

        The Armistice Agreements are not peace treaties. They do not prejudice the final territorial settlements. On the other hand, the provisional settlement established by the Armistice Agreements is unchallengeable until a new process of negotiation and agreement has been successfully consummated.

        link to un.org
        *That General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) “Declaration On Principles Of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United Nations” provides that:

        Every State… has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

        *That Judge Higgins summed-up the situation in her 2004 Opinion:

        This is not difficult – from Security Council resolution 242 (1967) through to Security Council resolution 1515 (2003), the key underlying requirements have remained the same – that Israel is entitled to exist, to be recognized, and to security, and that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State.

        *That the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty [Article 3(2)] preserves the status of the territory that came under Israeli military control in 1967.
        *That the majority of the High Contracting parties to the Montevideo Convention and other states have formally recognized the State of Palestine within the 1967 borders, e.g. Brazil was the first of the southern common market (Mercosur) countries to recognize the State of Palestine within the 1967 borders. Argentina followed 3 days later, e.g. link to en.mercopress.com

      • Richard Witty
        Richard Witty
        November 21, 2011, 5:47 am

        And to your understanding that is “river to sea”, “green line”, or some other jurisdiction?

        “This is not difficult – from Security Council resolution 242 (1967) through to Security Council resolution 1515 (2003), the key underlying requirements have remained the same – that Israel is entitled to exist, to be recognized, and to security, and that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State.”

        That is the green line, or genuinely consented modifications.

        If this is what YOU are referring, then we are advocating for the same thing.

        Do you hear that clearly?

        I hope you also understand that that is the liberal Zionist perspective and goal. If goal is important, then you will make common cause with those that share your goal.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 21, 2011, 6:48 am

        That is the green line, or genuinely consented modifications.

        By “consented”, you mean, what Israel is willing to give up.

        I hope you also understand that that is the liberal Zionist perspective and goal.

        No Witty. The liberal Zionist perspective and goal is the same as the right wing Zionist perspective and goal, only less honest and blunt.

      • Richard Witty
        Richard Witty
        November 21, 2011, 7:35 am

        Which liberal Zionist do you want to ask?

        Me – Green line
        Larry Derfner – Green line
        Gershon Gorenberg – Green line
        Bradley Burston – Green line
        Jeffrey Goldberg even – Green line

        Jason Alexander even – Green line

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 21, 2011, 7:59 am

        That is the green line, or genuinely consented modifications.

        The declassified documents from our national archives revealed that Jordan and Israel concluded an armistice agreement under the guise of negotiating a cease fire, and a final territorial settlement under the guise of negotiating an armistice agreement. That was done to protect the officials involved from the likely prospect of reprisals directed at them by the Revisionist Zionists or other members of the Arab League. There was no plan for boundary modifications after the Lausanne Conference of 1949.

        Jordan was a UN member state and a High Contracting Party to the Geneva Conventions. The rules regarding non-renunciation and repatriation apply to any territorial cessions, i.e. the Security Council can’t grant Israel the right to negotiate modifications of the borders of another UN member state at gunpoint during a military occupation – or to validate Jewish or Arab population transfers. The terms of resolution 242 regarding territorial integrity of all the states in the region applied to Arab Palestine too. See articles 7 & 8 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and articles 52 & 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

        If this is what YOU are referring, then we are advocating for the same thing.

        I’ve only been discussing existing agreements on boundaries and constitutionally protected minority rights within the framework of the applicable UN resolutions and international laws.

        I think that all of the parties concerned will find any partition unworkable and the sacrifices required too unpalatable. They’ll decide to move-on to another solution for settling their differences and sharing sovereignty as US influence in the region wanes and Israel’s problems with respect to international legitimacy and isolation grow more apparent.

      • Richard Witty
        Richard Witty
        November 21, 2011, 8:14 am

        So, I guess you mean the green line? Can you please just say yes or no, or yes with some exceptions. Clear, please?

        “I think that all of the parties concerned will find any partition unworkable and the sacrifices required too unpalatable.”

        So, you are not advocating for the international law solution? But, for some other.

        What specifically do you propose?

        You are aware that I’ve written here and publicly that my own understanding is that a federation of two or more states is the likely long-term result, whether pursued through the single-state or two-state approach, but that would be much much much shorter and without war through the two-state approach.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 21, 2011, 9:10 am

        So, I guess you mean the green line? Can you please just say yes or no, or yes with some exceptions. Clear, please?

        The armistice borders are the legally recognized permanent line of demarcation between the States. Abba Eban was correct when he stated that it is unchallengeable. Neither side is under any legal obligation to consent to any future modifications. Suggestions about “minor rectifications” or “defensible borders” in connection with resolution 242 are nonsense. There’s no basis in international law or customary practice for those sort of demands to be asserted or honored.

        So, you are not advocating for the international law solution? But, for some other.

        The parties concerned can agree to any solution that doesn’t violate a customary norm of international law. The opinions of third parties in any other respect, except for that stipulation, are completely irrelevant.

        I don’t think the Palestinian side will ever give-up the right to repatriation or compensation or that the Israeli side will cede the territory of biblical Judea and Samaria, including the Holy City of Jerusalem, to some other State. So, that narrows the options considerably.

        The concept of a “Corpus Separatum” has been considered senescent ever since the declaration granting independence to colonial peoples. It was part of the League of Nations (LoN) Mandate that treated the Jews and Muslims as uncivilized peoples. For example, the High Commissioner for Palestine, Sir Arthur Wauchope, testified to the LoN:

        As I understand the mandate, the Palestine mandate is an A mandate. The essence of that is that it marks a transitory period, with the aim and object of leading the mandated territory to become an independent self-governing State. Indeed, the articles of the mandate make it clear that that is so. It is true that in the final article–Article 28–it is stated that, when that day comes and the mandate is terminated, perpetual provision must be made for the care of the Holy Places and particularly the Christian Holy Places, which neither the Moslem majority nor the Jewish minority, nor yet a Judeo-Moslem commonwealth is, in the opinion of the world, capable of protecting. It is the clear intention of those who framed the mandate that there ought to be permanent provision for this end.

        — See Permanent Mandates Commission, Minutes Of The Thirty-Second (Extraordinary) Session Devoted To Palestine, Held At Geneva From July 30th To August 18th, 1937, http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/FD05535118AEF0DE052565ED0065DDF7

        The right of all the religious groups to freedom of movement and access to the Holy sites was however placed under UN guarantee.

      • Richard Witty
        Richard Witty
        November 21, 2011, 9:49 am

        “Suggestions about “minor rectifications” or “defensible borders” in connection with resolution 242 are nonsense. ”

        I’m not sure that they are nonsense. I think the basic agreement to incorporate those concerns into modifications were addressed by the Olmert/Abbas discussions.

        If you’ve given up on the two state solution, then you’ve given up on international law, as all UN resolutions affirm the two-state approach.

        The provisions of the British mandate are long past, as are the resolutions supporting the original 47 partition lines, superceded by the 1949 armistice line. Even if intended as long-standing, it is still a cease-fire line that has been affirmed to be near the status of a boundary.

        It does take furthering that still less than boundary status to bi-lateral consent, to achieve real status as boundary.

        I don’t believe in the slightest that resistance will achieve that, or a single-state. I believe that resistance will delay the realization of Palestinian sovereignty and human rights.

        It is difficult to trust the changing objectives that you articulate: international law affirming a two-state approach, vs observation that the two-state approach is infeasible.

        I’d like to find a basis of trust, so that a larger tent of concerted action is possible.

        I get that that is Phil’s tension, not knowing where to put his weight. But, leaving the advocacy as contradictory, does not make change.

        So, right now the “politically correct” articulation is that tension, that advocacy for none of the prospective solutions, and still only stated in negative terms, thereby increasing animosities.

        No articulation of ‘we will be neighbors in whatever solution we seek’, and should treat each other kindly so that we be good neighbors.

        I know that many individual Palestinians (and probably less but not none Israeli) have tried that “third way” of living as good neighbors.

        We need to encourage it, rather than discourage it.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 21, 2011, 11:43 am

        “Suggestions about “minor rectifications” or “defensible borders” in connection with resolution 242 are nonsense. ”

        Yes. It conflicts with the territorial integrity norm and the self-determination norm contained in the UN Charter. Israel can’t invade, occupy, and demand modifications of the borders of any other State. I’ve repeatedly explained the customary status of the principles contained in Articles 7 & 8 of the Fourth Geneva convention and Articles 52 & 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. They reflect a prohibition against the conclusion of any agreement that violates a jus cogens norm or involves the threat of use of force:

        Article 52
        Coercion of a State by the threat or use of force
        A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.
        Article 53
        Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law (“jus cogens”)
        A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.
        http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

        The Mitchell report repeatedly noted that resolution 242 requires Israel to first withdraw its armed forces from the territory it occupied in 1967 before the Palestinians can be asked to terminate all states of belligerency. It also stressed the illegality of Israel’s unilateral annexation of Jerusalem and its settlement policy. Those have been imposed by the threat or use of force. See the findings under the heading “Fourth Geneva Convention” on pdf page 65. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/reports/ACF319.pdf

        If you’ve given up on the two state solution, then you’ve given up on international law, as all UN resolutions affirm the two-state approach.

        Please re-read my comment regarding the stipulation that the two sides can adopt any solution they’d like, so long as it doesn’t violate any norms of international law. International law doesn’t require a two-state outcome, but it has always recognized the territorial integrity of the other states in the region, not just the territorial integrity of the State of Israel. Nothing prevents the parties concerned from adopting a single state solution with the right of repatriation.

      • Richard Witty
        Richard Witty
        November 21, 2011, 3:28 pm

        “Israel can’t invade, occupy, and demand modifications of the borders of any other State. ”

        What other state are you referring? There is not yet a Palestinian state. Jordan renounced claims to the West Bank. Egypt renounced claims to Gaza.

        “A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.”

        Are you concluding that Israel being armed is that violation? Or, some specific action? How does that relate to peace process discussion, say between Olmert and Abbas?

        “International law doesn’t require a two-state outcome, but it has always recognized the territorial integrity of the other states in the region, not just the territorial integrity of the State of Israel.”

        Not just, but INCLUDING.

        So, unless Israel seeks to dissolve into another form, that coercion on Israel to adopt a single-state without its consent would be a violation of international law.

        I frankly don’t understand what point you are making.

        Are you saying that Abbas does not have the authority to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians? I agree, and I think that he agrees, in the sense that a treaty that he negotiates must be ratified by both parliament and populace.

        The present is very very far from Palestinian sovereignty, and with the actions and arguments of BOTH Israeli parties/policies, and of Palestinian solidarity, its growing further from Palestinian sovereignty.

        What can change that? To make it closer, rather than more remote?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 21, 2011, 6:20 pm

        “Israel can’t invade, occupy, and demand modifications of the borders of any other State. ”

        What other state are you referring? There is not yet a Palestinian state. Jordan renounced claims to the West Bank. Egypt renounced claims to Gaza.

        States do not cease to exist during a military occupation. The Jericho Congress declared Abdullah King of Arab Palestine and called for the establishment of a joint kingdom. The US and the UK formally recognized the political union between the West Bank and East Bank and the sovereignty of the new entity “Jordan”. After the Rabat Summit, the members of the Arab League recognized the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinians. When the King of Jordan dissolved the union in 1988, he formally assigned Jordanian claims to the PLO. The PLO assumed the role of the provisional government of the State of Palestine in accordance with articles 2 & 5 of the 1988 Algiers UDI.

        104 UN member states acknowledged the 1988 Algiers declaration and 92 of them sponsored a resolution to admit the State of Palestine as a full UNESCO member in 1989. UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/48/158D, 20 December 1993. para. 5(c) stipulated that the permanent status negotiations must guarantee “arrangements for peace and security of all States in the region, including those named in resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947, within secure and internationally recognized boundaries”.

        In 1998 the UN granted Palestine better rights and privileges than those enjoyed by the Vatican. At that time the General Assembly noted that Palestine was a full member state of the League of Arab States, the ECSWA, the OIC, and the G77 and China. It was recognized by 130 other states. The State of Palestine was recently admitted as a full member state of UNESCO.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      November 19, 2011, 6:02 am

      Witty, Pollard took cash from the Israelis for giving them a virtual map of all US missile sites; he is both a traitor and a common criminal. Israel wants him “home” so he can be rewarded and given the prestige there he has earned. Those in the US congress who push for his release are by definition traitors too, and they benefit from AIPAC-directed dollars.

  16. Donald
    Donald
    November 18, 2011, 6:14 pm

    I don’t know much about the status of Jews in the Soviet Union circa 1970, so I can’t comment on that. But Kissinger was/is about as amoral as they come. If Jews were severely persecuted I doubt he would have given a damn. That fact that he said something derogatory about any community means precisely nothing.

  17. Jeffrey Blankfort
    Jeffrey Blankfort
    November 19, 2011, 12:13 am

    Here’s another interesting Kissinger comment that is available in the National Archives from the Secretary’s Staff Meeting, Oct. 23,1973, immediately following the 193 war.

    “From the beginning, our problem was this
    .
    “We could not tolerate an Israeli defeat. Apart from any sentimental attachment that may have existed to Israel and apart from any historic ties, the judgment was that if another American-armed country were [sic] defeated by Soviet-armed countries, the inevitable lessons that anybody around the world would have to draw is to rely increasingly on the Soviet Union. Secondly, it would undermine the position in the Middle East, even in countries that formerly were not formally opposing us, such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan, if the radical Arab states supported by the Soviet Union scored a great victory over the Israelis.

    “On the other hand, we could not make our policy hostage to the Israelis, because our interests, while parallel in respect to that I have outlined, are not identical in overall terms. From an Israeli point of view, it is no disaster to have the whole Arab world radicalized and anti-American, because this guarantees our continued support. From an American point of view this is a disaster.”

    • Jeffrey Blankfort
      Jeffrey Blankfort
      November 19, 2011, 2:34 pm

      I should have added a comment to the last part of what I quoted from Kissinger re the Oct. 73 war because it is key to Israel’s approach to the US and the lobbying activities of its agents in the Jewish establishment:

      “From an Israeli point of view, it is no disaster to have the whole Arab world radicalized and anti-American, because this guarantees our continued support. From an American point of view this is a disaster.”

      No one could have said it better, and Kissinger had learned this from experience. Is there anyone on this list who will tell us that this statement of Kissinger is not true?

      • American
        American
        November 19, 2011, 4:05 pm

        ““From an Israeli point of view, it is no disaster to have the whole Arab world radicalized and anti-American, because this guarantees our continued support. From an American point of view this is a disaster.”

        No one could have said it better, and Kissinger had learned this from experience. Is there anyone on this list who will tell us that this statement of Kissinger is not true?”

        Nope…that’s what every non zio in the US government from Truman to today’s W&M and hundreds of others have said. Same thing said for 60 years. Same thing still true. Israel still doing the same thing.

  18. Charon
    Charon
    November 19, 2011, 3:39 am

    Kissinger: “If they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern”

    Kissinger is a war criminal. He claims to be Jewish and is neither Zionist or Jewish. Or a Soviet Communist. What a strange guy. He has been interested in Israel in the past, only depending on their leaders. And was initially named to lead the 9/11 commission until the backlash caused him to ‘step down’ or whatever. Whoever the neocons really represent, he is/was one of them

    • Jeffrey Blankfort
      Jeffrey Blankfort
      November 19, 2011, 1:32 pm

      Charon, what do you mean, that Kissinger is not Jewish? Cannot someone be Jewish and a war criminal at the same time? Is not every single person who has served as prime minister of Israel a war criminal? I have never considered him a Zionist nor a neocon but simply a cold blooded Machiavellian who has reveled in exerting influence and power, what in pre-Zionist days was the role of the “court Jew.”

      • Robert Werdine
        Robert Werdine
        November 19, 2011, 2:27 pm

        Here, here, here’s the news!

        Jeffrey Blankfort hates Jews,

        Scribbling screeds up night so late,

        With poison pen to hate and bait

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 19, 2011, 2:46 pm

        Well, Weirdone, at least you were brief. Must be that you had none of your endless Israeli propaganda to counter me. Here’s something for you to chew on from “Menachem Z. Rosensaft… adjunct professor of Law at Cornell Law School, distinguished visiting lecturer at Syracuse University College of Law, and vice president of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and Their Descendants:”

        “Traditionally, ‘court Jews’ are supposed to intercede with the governmental authorities they serve on behalf of the Jewish community. The core problem with Kissinger from a Jewish perspective is that he used his privileged position as Nixon’s court Jew primarily if not exclusively to benefit his own interests and career.”

        Read more: The Jewish Chronicle – Kissinger’s betrayal contrasts with other American Jews in public life
        http://www.thejewishchronicle.net/view/full_story/10764070/article-Kissinger%E2%80%99s-betrayal-contrasts-with-other-American-Jews-in-public-life-

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        November 19, 2011, 3:22 pm

        So now it’s anti-Semitic to recognize that Kissinger is Jewish? Or is it just supposed to be anti-Semitic to hold any single Jewish person accountable for their own crimes?

      • American
        American
        November 19, 2011, 3:40 pm

        LOL…I use to read the NYT..long ago before I got disgusted with them.
        And I would notice some hysterical article about someone who happened to be Jewish pleading in court that he was only arrested for stealing or etc because he was Jewish and it was all anti semitism.
        Then I read one about the Rabbi indicted for fraud in fake government contracts and he claimed he shouldn’t be prosecuted because everything he stole was for the poor Jews in America and Israel.
        Seriously.

      • libra
        libra
        November 19, 2011, 7:33 pm

        Robert Werdine’s little verse

        Rhyming like a nursery ditty

        Just four lines, taut and terse

        It’s only charm, it’s not Witty

      • Taxi
        Taxi
        November 19, 2011, 11:49 pm

        Any old monkey can rhyme: wooh wooh wah wah wooh wooh wah wah!

        It sure don’t make it poetry.

      • MRW
        MRW
        November 20, 2011, 12:21 pm

        So now it’s anti-Semitic to recognize that Kissinger is Jewish? Or is it just supposed to be anti-Semitic to hold any single Jewish person accountable for their own crimes?

        The latter, Chaos. That’s part of the current definition Charon and his ilk peddle.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        November 19, 2011, 2:51 pm

        Famous Kissinger line: “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.”

      • lobewyper
        lobewyper
        November 19, 2011, 7:42 pm

        Citizen says:
        November 19, 2011 at 2:51 pm
        Famous Kissinger line: “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.”

        You can’t be suggesting that it took the human race until Kissinger to realize this–or are you?

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        November 21, 2011, 9:19 am

        lobewyper, of course not. Nice that Mr Shuttle Diplomacy held such a view, eh?

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        November 19, 2011, 3:40 pm

        There is no scientific test for being Jewish, so it’s not an objective fact that someone is Jewish or not. And it’s certainly true that racial identify, self-ascribed or ascribed by others, does not determine moral character – wonderful, criminal or whatever.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 19, 2011, 7:56 pm

        There has long been an unending discussion within the Jewish community as to who or what is a Jew. And they are no closer to the answer today than when the debate began. Each sector of the community defines it differently. The hardcore Zionists consider themselves and other Jews who put Israel’s interest first and foremost as “warm Jews” and have nothing but contempt for the majority for whom Israel is of little consequence.

        The ‘warm Jews,” of course, are the establishment Jews and these, invariably, are the ones who rise in the political world. There are exceptions, naturally, and NY’s Mayor Mike Bloomberg was one of them, that is, until he decided he wanted to be the city’s mayor and he had to disown some disparaging comments he had made about rabbis and hop a plane for Israel.

        Sen. Diane Feinstein, whose father was Jewish but not her mother, was another one, and she had no interest in Israel until she made the major political error of her life when, as mayor of SF, she flew off to the USSR, then “our enemy,” and came back proudly announcing she had made Leningrad, SF’s sister city which unleashed a predictable firestorm in that Israel occupied city.

        Quickly, Feinstein turned around, nixed the Leningrad deal, and grabbed a plane to Tel Aviv, returning to proudly announce that Haifa was to be SF’s new sister city and moreover she had signed an agreement for the Israeli Zim Line, a major trafficker with apartheid So. Africa, to use the port of SF. I’ve written about this before here, but it’s a story that has otherwise been largely buried. Now, thanks to her having learned her “lesson,” people think of Feinstein in the same way they think of Boxer, a true “warm Jew.” The former supports Israel from political necessity, the latter through genuine love for the tribe.

      • Richard Witty
        Richard Witty
        November 19, 2011, 9:55 pm

        “Israel occupied city”.

        Another racist statement. So careless. So frivolous.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 20, 2011, 1:26 am

        Not frivolous at all. How can one be racist against a racist regime? What I didn’t mention in my last post (because I had done so before) was that just before Mme. Feinstein returned from Israel, the SF Board of Supervisors had passed a resolution prohibiting the city from doing business with any company doing business with So. Africa which Zim was doing and continued to do on a regular basis.

        Dov Teitler, Zim’s VP, lied to the board of supervisor and denied that Zim did business with the apartheid regime and, as expected, the board made no attempt to investigate whether that statement was true. But I did, very simply. I phoned the Zim offices in Durban, Capetown, New Orleans and New York, got their shipping schedules between Israel and So.Africa and provided taped transcripts of the conversations to the board which, predictably, they ignored, and approved the contract.

        I sent the same information to the IRRC which maintained a list of organizations that were dealing with So. Africa and breaking the sanctions and on the basis of those transcripts, Zim was added to the list.

        One black supervisor who had voted against Zim was very soon bought off. The city regulations allowed a maximum contribution of $500 to a supervisor per individual. On a single day, Walter Shorenstein, a national AIPAC board member and the head of the Democratic Party in California sent the supervisor 13 (thirteen!) $500 checks from 13 different Shorenstein family accounts, and though I managed to get it reported in one of the local paper’s gossip columns, there was no follow-up or investigation. Shorenstein, who owned more than a third of the real estate in the city’s financial district had given $800,000 to Joe Biden on his first try for the presidency.

        In 1984, I managed to get an Israeli reservist who had refused to serve in the 1982 war on Lebanon as a guest on the city’s most popular talk show program and he exposed as lies what the Begin regime had used as an excuse to launch the invasion, namely that the PLO was shelling Israel from across the Lebanese-Israeli border where he was stationed. It got the talk show host fired, to be replaced by a rabid Zionist who to this day regularly emcees the city’s annual Israel Day celebrations.

        In the 80s I was able to get visiting Israeli dissidents radio, TV, and newspaper interviews rather easily. For the last dozen years it has become impossible. Literally, the doors are closed. When a Palestinian woman persuaded a SF Chronicle reporter who had covered the I-P conflict to at least have breakfast with Ilan Pappe, the distinguished Israeli historian, the very first thing that the reporter said to Pappe, after their formal greeting, was that he wasn’t going to do a story about him. When I tried to get the same paper to interview the late professor, Tanya Reinhart, a sympathetic Jewish reporter who worked there, told me that there was no chance of it and he was right. The main NPR station took the same approach.

        When the late Welsh journalist, Colin Edwards, who had covered the UN meetings back in 1947, spoke about the well documented relations between the Nazis and the Zionists in the 30s on his radio program on another NPR station, he was fired after the station manager who, until then was a friend of mine, received calls from the Israeli consul and one of the board of supervisors who had pushed the Zim contract.

        I could go on and on with list, but I think I have made my point. Most US cities are Israeli occupied although most of those who live in them don’t know it but their politicians do. Of course, New York, not just the city but the entire state is the most occupied of them all.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        November 20, 2011, 3:27 am

        Jesus Christ. So now Witty’s new word of the day is “racist.”

      • Richard Witty
        Richard Witty
        November 20, 2011, 4:28 am

        Confused about what I mean? Ask.

        “How can one be racist against a racist regime?” By shifting between the people and the regime. Did you read the headline? Does it refer to a regime?

        On your inability to get dissenting interviews, maybe its you. Maybe the heightened language associated with the dissenting content has played out its shelf-life.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        November 20, 2011, 10:18 am

        True or false, Witty: You believe that Israel MUST enforce a Jewish majority, at any cost. Blankfort does not.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        November 20, 2011, 10:37 am

        Jeffrey,

        An amazingly informative comment — this is the first I had read about incidents like this one:

        “One black supervisor who had voted against Zim was very soon bought off. The city regulations allowed a maximum contribution of $500 to a supervisor per individual. On a single day, Walter Shorenstein, a national AIPAC board member and the head of the Democratic Party in California sent the supervisor 13 (thirteen!) $500 checks from 13 different Shorenstein family accounts, and though I managed to get it reported in one of the local paper’s gossip columns, there was no follow-up or investigation. Shorenstein, who owned more than a third of the real estate in the city’s financial district had given $800,000 to Joe Biden on his first try for the presidency.”

        You know what might be a good idea? — create a Wikipedia on the Israel lobby — very low key, calm and collected, just the facts and nothing but the facts. And there are so many fascinating facts to organize and analyze in so many ways, with entries for people, organizations, events, policies, documents, videos, etc. It is a huge subject and an increasingly important one for Americans and the entire world.

        Sean McBride
        http://friendfeed.com/seanmcbride
        http://friendfeed.com/mideast-politics

      • eee
        eee
        November 20, 2011, 11:22 am

        So Blankfort, you mean to tell us that in your decades of activism you could not find ONE rich person to help you counter the “occupation” of US cities by Zionists? Not ONE? How do you explain it?

        In all those decades, you have not been able to “free” ONE city from “occupation”? Not even ONE in ultra liberal California? How do you explain that?

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        November 20, 2011, 12:00 pm

        Are you saying all the rich people in the US are in league with Zionist Jews? Isn’t that anti-Semitic to suggest that, eee?

      • eee
        eee
        November 20, 2011, 12:49 pm

        Chaos,

        Where am I saying that? I am saying that Blankfort is full of BS and his stories do not make sense.

        Are YOU saying all rich people in the US are Zionists? How do YOU explain Blankfort’s inability to convince even ONE rich person of his views and work to counter the Zionist “occupation”?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 20, 2011, 1:04 pm

        In all those decades, you have not been able to “free” ONE city from “occupation”? Not even ONE in ultra liberal California? How do you explain that?

        Many people were busy fighting other all of the other battles, like the mostly unsuccessful 100-year long hydroelectric war to force Californian’s, like Mayor Feinstein, to comply with the Raker Act of December 19, 1913 and the Supreme Court decision in United States v. San Francisco, 310 U.S. 16 (1940). http://supreme.justia.com/us/310/16/case.html

      • annie
        annie
        November 20, 2011, 1:07 pm

        How do YOU explain Blankfort’s inability to convince even ONE rich person of his views and work to counter the Zionist “occupation”?

        are you deranged?

      • MRW
        MRW
        November 20, 2011, 1:11 pm

        Oh, this is so classic of Witty: “Did you read the headline?”

        How can one be racist against a racist regime?” By shifting between the people and the regime. Did you read the headline? Does it refer to a regime?

        This comment is why you’re not a journalist, and why Blankfort and Phil are. Blankfort is writing about corruption and the difficulty of penetrating it when it was endemic, and now systemic, and your response is to go all Scarlett O’Hara over the delivery:

        On your inability to get dissenting interviews, maybe its you. Maybe the heightened language associated with the dissenting content has played out its shelf-life.

      • eee
        eee
        November 20, 2011, 1:21 pm

        “are you deranged?”

        The question is whether Blankfort is deranged. I am asking a simple question. He claims that US cities are “occupied”. Why couldn’t he organize ONE rich person to counter the rich Zionist occupation?

      • annie
        annie
        November 20, 2011, 1:41 pm

        no, you’re trolling the friggin thread because it’s inflamatory information

        On a single day, Walter Shorenstein, a national AIPAC board member and the head of the Democratic Party in California sent the supervisor 13 (thirteen!) $500 checks from 13 different Shorenstein family accounts, and though I managed to get it reported in one of the local paper’s gossip columns, there was no follow-up or investigation. Shorenstein, who owned more than a third of the real estate in the city’s financial district had given $800,000 to Joe Biden on his first try for the presidency.”

        you start with “you mean to tell us that in your decades of activism you could not find ONE rich person” and then answer your own question for him in the same comment with the assumption your allegation is correct.: Not ONE? How do you explain it?

        meanwhile, blankfort is a reporter not a fundraiser. the point is not to double down on the other side and throw more money on the opponent just because that is what team israel does. AND, no one but you made the allegation there are not wealthy people on the other side who have put up money. all of this is is your distraction. your like a yapping puppy. and why should blankfort waste his time even addressing you? that doesn’t make your allegation correct, it just means he’s not biting. give it a rest.

        BTW: maybe you don’t remeber you jsut finished pulling this same crap upthread Why are you supporting his position if you cannot provide ONE such example? so i gave you an example about the heritage site where all the legislation seemed to go towards jewish interests : here http://mondoweiss.net/2011/11/kissinger-is-there-a-more-self-serving-group-of-people-than-the-jewish-community.html/comment-page-1#comment-392281

        and what do you say? NOTHING. you didn’t even respond to it. you’re trolling.

      • MRW
        MRW
        November 20, 2011, 1:46 pm

        I am saying that Blankfort is full of BS and his stories do not make sense.

        You would. Those of us who live here know better.

      • eee
        eee
        November 20, 2011, 1:49 pm

        Annie,

        The point is simple. Blankfort says many things but they are BS. He is saying there is some Zionist occupation of US cities that no one but him and a few other cult members notice. He implies wrongdoing by going to a gossip column? It is very simple to take evidence to the police, why didn’t he do that?

        What you call “yapping” is simply pointing out to you that your head is so much up your own behind that you don’t realize the conspiracies that have to be true to support your distorted world view. All those Joos and their money buying the media and power in the US without anyone else doing anything about it. All those self serving Joos and Zionists working against the interests of Americans with only the few “geniuses” on this blog noticing.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 20, 2011, 2:33 pm

        Why couldn’t he organize ONE rich person to counter the rich Zionist occupation?

        But rich Americans do take on the Zionist occupation from time to time. IIRC the San Francisco Superior Court awarded former Congressman Pete McCloskey, R-California, $150,000 judgment against the Anti-Defamation League for running a domestic spying operation. The ADL also, rather ironically, lost a defamation lawsuit in Colorado that resulted in a $10.5 million judgment against the organization.

      • American
        American
        November 20, 2011, 2:51 pm

        “Why couldn’t he organize ONE rich person to counter the rich Zionist occupation?”

        To answer your question. If you knew anything about the kind of rich non Jewish in the US you are referring to you would know that gentiles and other non Jews have different passions than do the Jews for Israel.
        They do put out a lot of money for their interest…it might be their business innovations like Job’s Apple passion or charities like Gates and Buffet for Africa. When the very rich gentiles put a lot of money into politics it is for domestic business reasons, like the Koch brothers. Otherwise for the very rich it’s their particular charitable cause or their desire to leave some kind of legacy. A good example is Ted Turner giving the UN a billion dollars, his idea of helping the world.
        Americans, particulary the very rich, haven’t had to consider or fear the idea of foreign control of any of their government policies heretofore….except in business, trade policies and etc….issues they do put money into.
        There are already some groups on the Israel issue like the Council for the National Interest that are funded by non Jewish donations.
        When and if the uber rich non Jews ever perceive the zionist and or Israel becoming a serious threat to them, their interest or the country..then you will see the big money come out.
        No doubt in my mind there is some big non Jewish business and political money behind Obama’s reluctance to capitulate to the Jewish money on bombing Iran…..otherwise, politician that he is in this campaign season, he’d be more on board their train.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 20, 2011, 2:57 pm

        No Witty, it is simply the increased Zionist domination of the media. Two more examples of that in San Francisco.

        A handful of Bay Area residents, most of them Jewish, were among the first volunteers for the ISM trips to Occupied Palestine and, given the local angle, the SF Chronicle whose publisher and managing editor were also Jewish, sent a reporter and a photographer to interview them. At the same time the paper was planning to do a story on Jewish Voice for Peace which was just getting started in Berkeley.

        By coincidence, before either story was published, the Chronicle publisher and managing editor received a delegation from the Jewish Community Relations Council, accompanied by Walter Shorenstein, whose economic and political clout in the state and city I described in my previous post.

        They were there to complain that a small pro-Israel rally in the city had not been given adequate coverage by the Chron which they accused of having a pro-Palestinian bias which any reader of the paper knows is nonsense. But that visit sent a clear message to the editor and publisher and they acknowledged their receiving it by not running the stories on the ISM and JVP.

        It is not widely known but there are Jewish groups around the country that are specifically devoted to “watching” the NY Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times and the SF Chronicle, to make sure they do not veer from the Zionist line.

        Back in 1979, when the Washington Post was a decent paper and did what good papers should do, report the news without bias, the Jewish machers in the capitol protested against what they considered pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel coverage and they requested that one of these “Censors of Zion” be allowed to sit in the Post newsroom for a week and observe how the news was being covered. And despite the opposition of the editorial staff, editor Ben Bradlee acceded to their wishes. It was now one more captured territory in Occupied Washington and still is to this day.

        I find this situation disgusting and will state it flat out so there is no confusion. I believe that the activities of the organized Jewish community, which represents maybe a third of the country’s Jews, have been disastrous for this country in every respect.

        Quite apart from the crimes it has supported against the Palestinians, its activities on American soil, which are almost entirely focused on serving the nefarious interests of a foreign country to the detriment and at the expense of this one, are unforgivable and intolerable and need the widest exposure to the light of day.

      • American
        American
        November 20, 2011, 2:57 pm

        They also lost a big one in Calif. some years ago when a Jewish neighbor accused another neighbor of being anti semitic over a shubbery fight or something equally as silly.
        Don’t have the link, you probably know what it was.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 20, 2011, 3:07 pm

        For Kissinger as for the organized Jewish community which he criticizes here, affiliated Jews, those connected to the establishment organizations, are the only ones what count. Then there are sayanim, like yourself. I am not sure where to place you but it wouldn’t be in a five star hotel.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 20, 2011, 3:26 pm

        You ask me, eee, how can I explain that there is not one rich person willing to free one US city from Israeli occupation and not one “ultra liberal.” First most of the liberals, ultra and otherwise, happen to be Zionists and they look the other way when the heavy hitters of the Jewish community are out there trampling on the first amendment.

        Second, the problem is not one or two Jewish capitalists but the assortment of well funded, well connected Jewish organizations that are willing and able to take down any politician or public figure that does not genuflect to Israel and these organizations, unfortunately, can be found, like a social disease, in every major city in the US.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 20, 2011, 3:27 pm

        a Jewish neighbor accused another neighbor of being anti semitic over a shubbery fight or something equally as silly.
        Don’t have the link, you probably know what it was.

        http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/13237/judge-fines-adl-10-5-million-in-colorado-defamation-suit/

        DENVER — A civil lawsuit that began with a neighbors’ dispute over garden plants and fighting dogs has ended in a judgment against the Denver-based chapter of the Anti-Defamation League — and what is believed to be the largest defamation judgment ever awarded in a Colorado trial.

        On April 28, a 12-member jury in U.S. District Court here sided with the plaintiffs, William and Dorothy Quigley of Evergreen. The Quigleys had sued the Mountain States chapter of the ADL and that chapter’s director, Saul Rosenthal.

        The jury awarded the Quigleys damages, mostly punitive, of $10.5 million — a figure that astonished defendants and plaintiffs alike in the drawn-out and complex case.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        November 20, 2011, 3:49 pm

        a Jewish neighbor accused another neighbor of being anti semitic over a shubbery

        The knights who say nu?

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 20, 2011, 3:54 pm

        eee,
        What Shorenstein did was apparently legal since he had a large family and they all had different bank accounts. It wouldn’t be a police action in any caseAlthough the item appeared in the paper’s leading column, there was no follow-up and, in fact, I was criticized for publicizing the story since the supervisor was black.

        But you know, eee, if there wasn’t a serious problem with the Lobby and Jewish power, this blog wouldn’t exist and you would have go back and play with yourself….and your Zionist buddies.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        November 20, 2011, 4:19 pm

        eee, there are quite a few Americans who noticed beforehand what Walt & Mearsheimer put in their book, The Israel Lobby. We also noticed it before Phil started up MW. Or Carter published his book, and we noticed we could not speak up about it without ruining our own careers, as far back as Senator Percy of Illinois so ruined his. Baird’s dilemna was not new to us. Nor is Obama’s. We’ve followed what happens to political, literary, journalist folks who speak up. None Dare Call It Treason is an old truth to us. That the great Russian writer’s 200 Years Together has not found a publisher for his work in English does not surprise us. That Obama, Mr black US Messiah, was silent about OP Cast Lead, made his Cairo Speech & then put it in the closet, voiced his anger at Jewish lebensraum & then fell silent once again–does not surprise us. We have looked at the pattern of history and we recognize it again now–do you? We mean world history, not the Jewish calendar’s version.

      • American
        American
        November 20, 2011, 4:23 pm

        Here’s an example for you eee.
        You know some day you people are going to steal from someone or some group that doesn’t bother with the legal niceties and just sends someone after you, maybe your own Russian Israeli mafia. Just like the zios will do anything for money, themselves and Israel –there are always others as well who will do anything to anyone for the right price.

        http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110524006801/en/

        6.64-Billion-Damages-Sought-Israeli-Government-AIPAC

        May 24, 2011 01:21 PM Eastern Time

        $6.64 Billion Damages Sought over Israeli Government and AIPAC Use of Stolen Classified US Trade Data

        WASHINGTON–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Today the Section 301 Committee of the US Trade Representative formally received a petition demanding $6.64 billion in compensation for US exporters. In 1984 US exporters were urged to submit business confidential data about their prices, market share, internal costs and market strategy to the International Trade Commission. The USTR guaranteed confidentiality and compiled the data into a classified report for use in negotiating the US-Israel Free Trade Agreement.

        The Israeli government obtained the classified USTR report and passed it to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to use in lobbying and public relations. Declassified FBI investigation files in the petition reveal AIPAC’s legislative director made illicit duplications before returning the report by order of the USTR. The FBI interviewed Israeli Minister of Economics Dan Halpern who admitted obtaining the classified document and giving it to AIPAC.

        According to the petition Israel unfairly leveraged the business confidential data stolen from US corporations and industry groups to create new export oriented industries to penetrate the American market. Israel thereby gained an unwarranted systemic advantage. The US-Israel FTA is an anomaly among all bilateral FTAs in that it principally benefits the foreign party, providing a destination for 40% of Israel’s exports. The petition claims it is now a private industry funded foreign aid program. In 2010 the US Israel FTA produced an $11.2 billion US deficit in goods trade. Over a decade the US deficit has averaged $7.09 billion per year. The cumulative US-Israel deficit in current dollars since 1985 is $80.9 billion.

        Analysis of all other US-bilateral FTAs reveals that they do not deliver a systemic advantage to either partner. In 2010, the US had a $31.43 billion total surplus with its other bilateral FTA partners, though in 2006 and 2007 these same agreements produced a narrow US deficit.

        The petition recommends the $6.64 billion be proportionally divided between nearly 80 US organizations according to their trailing 10 year revenues. If the Israeli government will not pay damages directly, the petition recommends the US implement a five year import duty over all Israeli exports to the United States to generate the compensation.

      • Sand
        Sand
        November 20, 2011, 4:43 pm

        You reminded me: Blankfort had a run-in with the ADL when they were spying on him. Nice bunch at the [email protected]!

        http://www.counterpunch.org/2002/02/25/the-adl-spying-case-is-over-but-the-struggle-continues/

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 20, 2011, 5:09 pm

        You reminded me: Blankfort had a run-in with the ADL when they were spying on him.

        Yes, I thought it was ironic that eee asked Jeffrey why he hadn’t been able find one rich person willing to free one US city from Israeli occupation. I thought that Rep. Pete McCloskey and Jeffrey did exactly that sort of thing when they took on the ADL spy operation in San Francisco;-)

      • eee
        eee
        November 20, 2011, 5:35 pm

        “When and if the uber rich non Jews ever perceive the zionist and or Israel becoming a serious threat to them, their interest or the country..then you will see the big money come out.”

        And that is the whole point. They do NOT see support of Israel as against their interests or US interests. Are Gates and Buffet dumber than you? Do you have access to some truth they don’t have? Microsoft has a huge development center in Israel and Buffet’s first investment overseas was in Israel.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 20, 2011, 9:26 pm

        Actually, Hostage, McCloskey was the lawyer for me and for two other plaintiffs, Steve Zeltzer, who co-founded with me, the Labor Committee on the Middle East, and Annie Poirer, who was primarily active in anti-apartheid work.

        Working alone, pro bono, McCloskey, a former Congressman, took on the biggest law firm in San Francisco which represented the ADL, and brought both to their knees after a ten year legal battle which, McCloskey estimated, cost the ADL over $8 million dollars, not including his court costs that the ADL had to pay him as a part of the settlement.

        We were not looking for money, which is why we asked for only $150,000 for the three of us, but to defeat the ADL and be able to talk about the case afterward. Unlike most cases in which the recipient of a settlement signs a confidentiality agreement, we refused to do so.

        That is the reason that the ADL won’t come anywhere near me, for fear I will talk about some of the ugly details that were unearthed during the depositions, such as the fact that the ADL’s top spy, the one who had infiltrated the first two meetings of our Labor Committee was also spying on anti-apartheid activists and South African exiles for South African intelligence and that he had not only the key but the floor plan of the office of Alex Odeh, the head of the Orange Co. chapter of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee who was killed in a bombing attack on his office by a Jewish terrorist.

        McCloskey, a Republican who was an early opponent of the Vietnam War,. was targeted by the Zionists when he spoke up for the Palestinians on the House floor which took much more courage then than it would now (and yet who is doing it today?).

        He was one of the last members of Congress with any guts and sense of integrity. He went on to found the Council for the National Interest with another victim of the Zionist establishment, Rep. Paul Findley, from Illinois. He is one of the finest human beings I have ever known.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 20, 2011, 10:12 pm

        Believe me, eee, many more than a few people notice and on the day when the shit hits the fan, let’s hope it doesn’t look like Libya

      • eee
        eee
        November 21, 2011, 12:58 am

        “Believe me, eee, many more than a few people notice and on the day when the shit hits the fan, let’s hope it doesn’t look like Libya”

        Who exactly is going to be fighting the Jewish community? How does this mesh with the view that Jews are safe in the US?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 21, 2011, 5:26 am

        Who exactly is going to be fighting the Jewish community? How does this mesh with the view that Jews are safe in the US?

        The Zionist community in the US is going to be just as isolated as segregationists after the civil rights era. No amount of money is going to make Jewish candidates who support a Jewish state electable or to put Zionist issues back on the political agenda.

        The process is called “outcasting” in legal circles (in Zionist circles its delegitimization). You can read more about it here and in the list of Related Articles at the bottom of this page: http://opiniojuris.org/2011/11/18/hathaway-and-shapiro-closing-post/

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        November 21, 2011, 9:21 am

        Here’s a few more examples for eee:

        US Treasury Dept.: Tax-exempt US donation laundering into West Bank settlements http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110418006211/en/Treasury-Dept.-Tax-exempt-donation-laundering-West-Bank via @BusinessWire

        USTR refuses to investigate billions in losses from Israeli commercial data theft http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110721006209/en/USTR-refuses-investigate-billions-losses-Israeli-commercial via @BusinessWire

        Secret CIA/FBI files of NUMEC nuclear diversions to Israel could aid $170 million toxic cleanup http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20111020006146/en/Secret-CIAFBI-files-NUMEC-nuclear-diversions-Israel via @BusinessWire

      • eee
        eee
        November 21, 2011, 3:23 pm

        Hostage, so “outcasting” is what is happening in Libya and what Blankfort means when he writes:
        “Believe me, eee, many more than a few people notice and on the day when the shit hits the fan, let’s hope it doesn’t look like Libya”

        Why don’t you get your stories straight?

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        Jeffrey Blankfort
        November 21, 2011, 6:15 pm

        Well. eee, you should hope that it will be more like South Africa where some of the worst criminals were allowed to walk, largely because the ANC could not do much more to them without losing critical backing from the US and IMF.

        If and when Americans come to realize the degree to which their taxes AND their politicians have been expropriated by the Jewish establishment on Israel’s behalf and to this country’s detriment, those who were part of that establishment will be in trouble (as well as many who were not, and will regret not having spoken up when they could have). If the establishment Jews will be relying on the brain dead Christian Zionists to defend them, they’ll be in deep trouble. As for Israel, the place they thought to rush to when in trouble, by that time it will no doubt be just a memory.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 22, 2011, 5:00 am

        Hostage, so “outcasting” is what is happening in Libya

        No the situation in Libya has been handled by outcasting and by referral to the International Criminal Court. The national courts have primary responsibility to prosecute members of the former regime, like Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Islam. However, the ICC has complimentary jurisdiction.

    • American
      American
      November 19, 2011, 5:25 pm

      “Charon says:
      November 19, 2011 at 3:39 am
      Kissinger: “If they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern”

      That wasn’t his full statement…he said it was a “humanitarian concern.”
      And he was right that it should not have been a ‘sole US concern’ or responsibility.
      Why should the US bear the responsibility of “taking care of the worlds Jews”….why should anyone really? I don’t think even Germany is obligated to take care of the Jews forever. The Jews said give us a state and we will take care of ourselves……lol…..and now they are deeper than ever into the American purse and every other bank account they can get into.

      Why the Jews think the US or anyone should be responsible for them is big subject that we have to get into some day. It might be as simple for the zios as if they think if they can get something out of someone ..then they do.

      But as far as whatever Kissinger was, I think he was disgusted with his Jewish tribe, didn’t like what he saw in them, didn’t like their ways or attitudes, the same way some child might be disgusted with parents foibles or attitudes and turn away from what he thinks they represent when he’s grown, it happens.
      He was a real hard ass, so it’s easy to understand how he would have been personally replused by what he saw as the Jewish orgs whining and demanding ways.

    • Antidote
      Antidote
      November 20, 2011, 11:09 pm

      “Kissinger is a war criminal. He claims to be Jewish and is neither Zionist or Jewish. Or a Soviet Communist. What a strange guy. ”

      It’s easy: he is a war criminal indifferent about putting Jews into gas chambers because he is German. He won the Peace Nobel prize because he is Jewish. Not all Jews are Zionists. Nothing strange here.

      /sarcasm

  19. lobewyper
    lobewyper
    November 19, 2011, 9:02 am

    RoHa says:
    November 18, 2011 at 11:57 pm
    ‘“Is there a more self-serving group of people than the Jewish community?”

    is a racist statement, Adam Horowitz.’

    First, it was Kissinger who said it.

    Second, it is technically racist in the sense that it is about a particular ethnic group, but the important issue is whether it is true? If it is, why is it wrong to say it?

    Roha,

    It isn’t wrong–or if it is–it’s not far off the mark. It is, however, “politically incorrect…”

  20. homingpigeon
    homingpigeon
    November 19, 2011, 9:47 am

    There’s another story behind this story:

    “Among the appeals flooding the White House was one from the late Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir to President Richard Nixon in August 1972 asking him to protest to the Kremlin its levying of fees for exit permits.”

    Members of the US Senate, falling all over each other in an effort to please AIPAC, jumped the gun one day and drafted legislation to penalize nations which charged fees for their citizens to emigrate. (The penalties related to free trade, tariffs, and so on if I remember correctly). Just as the bill was on its way out of committee, AIPAC discretely got in touch with the esteemed members, and essentially said, “ahem, that bill isn’t really helpful because we charge fees for Israelis who want to emigrate.” The idea was quietly dropped. In both cases, the excuse for the fees was the same, – that money had been spent educating the said citizens.

  21. seanmcbride
    seanmcbride
    November 19, 2011, 10:09 am

    One useful line of attack in ascertaining the objective truth about the relative level of activity of various special interest groups in American politics:

    1. sort ethnic groups by number of self-interested op-ed articles in the Washington Post from 2000 through 2010

    2. sort religious groups by number of self-interested op-ed articles in the Washington Post from 2000 through 2010

    3. sort foreign lobbies by number of self-interested op-ed articles in the Washington Post from 2000 through 2010

    4. sort special interest groups by number of self-interested op-ed article in the Washington Post from 2000 through 2010

    Also run the exercise on the op-ed pages of the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

    I don’t recall seeing many ethnocentric articles by Irish Americans, Italian Americans, German Americans, Japanese Americans, Arab Americans, etc. during this period.

    I do recall noticing a striking number of ethnocentric articles by another ethnic group, however. Some of them were penned by some of the same militant ethnic nationalists (and neoconservatives) who were annoying Henry Kissinger decades ago.

    You know, if you are going to be highly conspicuous in your lobbying, you need to stop complaining that others have noticed that you are highly conspicuous in your lobbying. Otherwise you look crazy.

    • lobewyper
      lobewyper
      November 19, 2011, 3:24 pm

      I think there are strictures in the Torah against behaviors that call negative attention to Jews as a whole (collective). Seems like militant Zionists have ignored such for quite a long time, now.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        November 20, 2011, 8:14 am

        In a sense the God of Israel shares a name or reputation with the people of Israel:

        You shall not desecrate My holy Name (Chillul Hashem). I shall be sanctified amidst the children of Israel. I am the Lord Who sanctifies you. — Vayikra – Leviticus – Chapter 22:32

        One should expose hypocrites to prevent the profanation of the Name –Yoma 86a http://halakhah.com/pdf/moed/Yoma.pdf

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        November 20, 2011, 6:24 pm

        “In a sense the God of Israel shares a name or reputation with the people of Israel:

        You shall not desecrate My holy Name (Chillul Hashem). I shall be sanctified amidst the children of Israel. I am the Lord Who sanctifies you. — Vayikra – Leviticus – Chapter 22:32”

        He should sue.

    • Jeffrey Blankfort
      Jeffrey Blankfort
      November 21, 2011, 7:04 pm

      Now, that would be a great idea, Sean, but I suspect that even to suggest it would elicit accusations of antisemitism. One group you left off your list was Mexican-Americans whose home country has year in an year out been of more value to the US than any other country, much, unfortunately, to its own detriment.

      Not only has it provided an unending source of back breaking cheap farm labor and other “menial” jobs that most Americans are no longer willing to do, it has supplied the US with a steady flow of oil and its own agricultural products.

      Imagine how this country would function if it was cut off from all of the above. Prices for vegetables, when they were available, would skyrocket out of sight as would the price of oil. Yet we have not heard any of the string of presidential candidates mention Mexico even once, apart from trying to find ways to restrict their immigration. At the same time, I cannot think of a single thing that Israel contributes to the US that it could not easily do without.

      Here’s Abba Eban, Israel’s fabled foreign minister who was Israel’s greatest PR peddler for many years, on the subject. On P. 595 of “Personal Witness: Israel Through My Eyes,”he writes:

      “Responding to Menachem Begin’s assertion “that the United States gained more from its alliance with Israel than Israel did Israel from its relationship with the United States. I suggested an intellectual exercise: Imagine that some natural disaster were to cut America and Israel off from contact with each other; there would be no telephones or postal services, no commerce or tourism, no monetary transactions between the two countries. Who would notice it first?”

  22. American
    American
    November 19, 2011, 11:28 am

    UP NEXT: ….musical chairs game

    “Is There Any More Self Serving Group Than White Europeans”

    Watch how quick the eees, wittys switch chairs and become racist!…..except they can’t be racist because they are the world’s only innocents and historical victims. And you’re a racist if you call them racist cause you’re only calling them racist because they are Jews. Yep that’s how it works.

  23. Amar
    Amar
    November 20, 2011, 11:05 am

    Sloppy article, big mistake:

    “A White House official, Leonard Garment, saying he was flooded with letters and phone calls with Jewish appeals, asked Kissinger for help and guidance. The late Alexander Haig, Nixon’s national security adviser, sent him Mrs. Meir’s letter and said “We will have to consider the best means by which to proceed.”

    According to transcripts released by the State Department, Kissinger, who was Haig’s deputy, said to Garment: “Is there a more self-serving group of people than the Jewish community?” Kissinger is Jewish.”

    Kissinger was the Nat’l Security Advisor to Nixon, and Haig was his deputy, not the other way around.

Leave a Reply