THE POSTS MOSTLY BY GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

THE POSTS MOSTLY BY GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

THE POSTS MOSTLY BY GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

.

.
Boston artist Steve Mills - realistic painting
Showing posts with label USA/ISRAEL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA/ISRAEL. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Congressman confirms report of heated argument between Netanyahu and US envoy


Congressman confirms report of heated argument between Netanyahu and US envoy
It was like ‘nothing at that level that I’ve seen in all my time,’ says Mike Rogers. Ambassador Shapiro had denied breaking protocol and called the original Israeli article ‘a very silly story’

By Yoel Goldman
September 07, 2012 "
Times Of Israel" - -  A report claiming there was a dramatic verbal bust-up between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro late last month — which was flatly denied this week by Shapiro in a TV interview — was confirmed by a congressman who was present at the meeting, which covered divergent US and Israeli policies on Iran.
The exchange was like “nothing at that level that I’ve seen in all my time,” said Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican from Michigan.
The State Department would not comment Thursday on the apparent contradiction.
Rogers told a Detroit radio station that the Netanyahu-Shapiro interchange, at the meeting on August 24 in Jerusalem, featured “very tense,” “agitated” and “elevated” exchanges, and that Netanyahu was “at wit’s end” with what the prime minister saw as a lack of US clarity on the Iran issue.
“It was very, very clear that the Israelis had lost their patience with the administration,” Rogers, chairman of the House intelligence committee, was quoted by the Washington Post Thursday as saying.
His account contradicted statements made by US envoy Shapiro, who went on television earlier this week to flatly deny the original report in Yedioth Ahronoth as “a very silly story.”
According to the Yedioth article, Ambassador Shapiro grew enraged by Netanyahu’s remarks about President Barack Obama’s handling of the Iranian threat, broke diplomatic protocol, and snapped at the PM for misrepresenting the US president’s position. “Sparks and lightning were flying,” an unnamed source told the paper.
But in an interview Sunday with Channel 2 News, the ambassador was dismissive when asked about the newspaper’s account of the closed-door meeting.
“The published account of that meeting did not reflect what actually occurred in the meeting,” Shapiro said. “The conversations were entirely friendly and professional. They always are. I always speak respectfully with the prime minister, just as the prime minister always speaks respectfully with me. And that really characterizes all of the dialogue between our governments.”
The envoy continued: “We’re such close allies, we have so many common interests… that we speak together in the most friendly, the most professional way. Even on an occasion that we have a disagreement, that’s how we work together. And that was certainly the case in the (recent) meeting.”
There was no argument, no verbal skirmish, no disagreement, the interviewer persisted? “Sorry to disappoint you,” Shapiro responded.
But Rogers, who was interviewed Tuesday on the Detriot radio program, gave a version of the meeting that reinforced the Yedioth story. He said there were “elevated” exchanges between Netanyahu and Shapiro, adding: “We’ve had sharp exchanges with other heads of state and other things, in intelligence services and other things, but nothing at that level that I’ve seen in all my time, where people were clearly that agitated, clearly that worked up about a particular issue, where there was a very sharp exchange.”
He said that Netanyahu does not believe Obama would attack Iran, and that the prime minister was frustrated that the US has not defined “red lines” for Iran and its nuclear program.
State Department spokesman Edgar Vasquez declined Thursday to address Rogers’ comments, saying only that America’s relationship with Israel remains extremely strong.
Asher Zeiger contributed to this report.

Netanyahu Can ‘Squeeze’ Obama


Netanyahu Can ‘Squeeze’ Obama

US media and Congress will take his side if he attacks Iran

By Philip Weiss 
September 09, 2012 "
Information Clearing House" - -  What is the role of the Israeli government in American political life? Well, apparently we must defer to Netanyahu. "To Attack of Not to Attack" is by Zaki Shalom, a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies, Tel Aviv University, writing in a journal of the French Institute for International Relations. Breathtaking. Boldface is mine: 
We must take into account that the Prime Minister is raising the bar for threats toward Iran, inter alia, because he recognizes that the current US administration is seeking to prevent an Israeli action before the elections at any price. It would probably be no exaggeration to say that the prime minister is going around with the feeling that the political future of President Obama is to some extent, perhaps even a large extent, in the Prime Minister’s hands. An Israeli action at the present time would almost certainly expose the president to serious criticism for his fecklessness, which forced Israel, a close ally of the United States, to act alone. Various segments in the US administration, especially the Congress, will make demands to support Israel.
All this, when the consequences of an Israeli action for the stagnant US economy are liable to be serious. Under these circumstances, it is not inconceivable that the Prime Minister believes that currently, he can “squeeze” from the president far-reaching commitments in Israel’s favor in exchange for Israeli restraint on Iran. This compensation will presumably be mainly in the areas of defense and the economy. Israel, the prime minister can argue, is prepared to take a strategic risk on the Iranian issue, if it knows that the US administration will support it and will be prepared to give it aid that under normal circumstances, it would not be prepared to give...
The Prime Minister can assume that an Israeli attack prior to the November 2012 elections will make it very difficult for the Obama administration to criticize Israel openly. He can assume with near certainty that as soon as the attack begins, members of Congress, the media, Jewish leaders, and Republican Party leaders will issue statements supporting Israel and even demand that the administration back Israel and defend it. The Obama administration cannot ignore such expressions of support in the period leading up to the elections.
Bruce Wolman, who tipped me off to this article, adds:
It's a win-win for Netanyahu. If he is not serious about attacking Iran, he still gets the max from the USA with his blackmailing. If he is serious, he puts Obama in a box such that he has to rescue the IDF. Netanyahu doesn't even have to decide between the two until the day of the election. He can just keep us all guessing. (However, I can't believe our $300B intelligence services don't know whether Israel is serious or not.)
I disagree that Obama has no choice. He could take on Netanyahu and AIPAC and win. Why? The military has his back on this one. But Obama is not such a risk taker. He is a campaign machine, nothing more. If he has an ideology, it is moderate Republican economic values. If he faced Netanyahu head on, a lot of non-Jewish Americans would support him. There is war fatigue in this country and in the military. But the longer he waits, the more trapped Netanyahu has him. 
If Obama had led on this issue, he could have used it to his political advantage. Obama could easily parry the statements of Republican leaders, and he is not going to get the Christian Zionists to vote for him anyhow. Even many Jews do not want us to go to war with Iran. But Obama won't take this risk, because he doesn't want to upset his Jewish donors. 
Netanyahu traps him with each passing day because the U.S. administration keeps validating Israel's talking points in an effort to appease the Israeli government. That makes it harder for Obama to reverse the rhetoric and not look opportunistic. 
Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net
This article was originally posted at Mondoweiss

Planned war on Iran and the General who said No!


Planned war on Iran and the General who said No!

Gordon Duff – Press TV August 22, 2012

Today, General Dempsey, Chairman of America’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, the man who flew to Tel Aviv and informed Netanyahu that America wanted no part of his scheming against Iran was the subject of an assassination attempt in Afghanistan.
This wasn’t an act of terrorism or Taliban militants. It was a “mob hit” against someone who failed to kiss the feet of Netanyahu. His response was to unleash killers, not a fact for the public but a fact just the same, one the American military knows very well. Netanyahu has a problem with “hubris.”
The culprits, “militants,” managed to escape undetected from the most sophisticatedly defended real estate on earth, the perimeter of Bagram Air Force Base. Lucky for them they attacked at night, a time when America’s 5th generation night vision, ground radar and other detection systems were mysteriously disabled.
The rocket detection systems, early warning blimps with ground penetrating synthetic aperture radar and the continual coverage by UAV drones using infrared detection, $2 billion in technology on this one perimeter alone, cost the plane of America’s top military commander and wounds were sustained by two crew members.
(See: Two hurt as rocket hits plane of US general in Afghanistan[BELOW])
Dempsey had just left Tel Aviv where he told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the following:
“I may not know about all of [Israel's] capabilities, but I think that it’s a fair characterization to say that they could delay but not destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities.”
Dempsey then told waiting reporters:
“We compare intelligence, we discuss regional implications, and we’ve admitted to each other that our clocks are turning at different rates, we have to understand the Israelis; they live with a constant suspicion with which we do not have to deal.”
There are those close to President Obama who don’t accept the attack on Dempsey at face value, with a public admission by the Taliban of complicity. Such statements, which would certainly cost dearly in reprisals by the US, are most often found on Internet sites lacking a credible connection to any Islamic source.
To some Americans, the attack appears to be a reprisal against Dempsey who, out of coincidence, cited the motive in his own appraisal of Israel’s judgment, their “constant suspicion.”
News agencies buried the failed attack, knowing Dempsey is hated by Netanyahu and respected by the Taliban as both “truthful and fair.”
Netanyahu longs for the days when General Myers held Dempsey’s job, under Bush (43), both flawed and narcissistic, predictable puppets, the perfect fodder for Netanyahu’s machinations.
Only two weeks ago, Presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney, returned from a trip overseas, coming back to America with $60 million dollars collected in Israel and Britain while accompanied by Casino boss Sheldon Adelson who’s Las Vegas and China organizations have long been reputed to be the center of worldwide organized crime.
The business, gambling, drugs, prostitution, money laundering and now war, is seeking its own president and war on Iran is the only issue driving the American campaign.
Romney, as a state governor, was, if anything, to the “left” of President Obama. Romney’s support of government health care and widespread gun controls run totally opposite to the core constituency of the Republican Party, the weapons lobby and the medical racketeers.
Romney has found, however, that, though it is illegal for any American candidate to accept money overseas, while overseas, from overseas, at home from those who are citizens of other countries, he feels himself above the law, in the sweet and motherly arms of the Israeli controlled American media.
Now drowning in illegal cash, much from London bankers, his most interesting catch was the private dinner he shared with the Tel Aviv “blood diamond” smugglers who donated up to $25 million dollars in one night.
Key to his financial successes is his lifelong history of working closely with organized crime. His investment company, Bain, was funded initially by cash infusion from El Salvador death squads many years ago. These investors are still at his side despite charges of mass murder and corruption.
Bain Capital is Romney’s money laundering and tax avoidance company with thousands of secret bank accounts in “safe havens” around the world, invisible billions, hidden transactions, unseen profits and unseen “clients.”
Now Romney has found the “mother of all causes,” selling the promise of an American war, fought by Americans, financed by Americans, American dead, American blood, American collapse, a war demanded by, not Jews of the world but by organized crime groups operating through Israel’s Likudist party, dominated by the Koch Brothers, American gasoline speculators, Sheldon Adelson, whose reputation would fill volumes and Rupert Murdoch, whose spy organization is now proven to have blackmailed three consecutive British government, well proven, and likely to have been even more successful in the United States, Germany, Canada, Australia and a dozen other nations.
Most embarrassing to both Russia and the United States has been the ability of criminal organizations to secure sanctions against Iran when both nations are burdened by official reports stating with comprehensive clarity that Iran has no nuclear program.
Even more embarrassing for Russia, who refused to veto sanctions as they did with Iran’s ally Syria, is the fact that Iran’s peaceful nuclear program is built, in near entirety on Russian technology, a Russian nuclear reactor and 3000 Russian technicians.
Statements by Obama directly contradict America’s National Intelligence Estimate. The estimate stated that Iran has no nuclear program. Russia’s Putin has similarly ignored, not just his own intelligence agencies but the fact that Russia is actually building Iran’s reactor and has 3000 technicians in Iran, all of whom probably are not entirely deaf and blind.
Obama has no rational claim to ignorance. His behavior is like that of the playground, all the other children are eating dirt, he feels he has to do the same. In this case, however, when known falsehoods likely to end in a destructive war are agreed to out of fear of retaliation by a former furniture salesman (Netanyahu) or gambling boss, the real importance of the presidency comes into doubt.
A problem no one will mention, is the behavior of Putin in Tel Aviv, backing Netanyahu’s claims of Iran’s violation of voluntary agreements based on no facts other than the statements of one of the world best known pathological liars. What does the failed furniture salesman from Philadelphia have on Uncle Vladimir?
Neither leader has dealt with the simple fact, Iran has the right to build anything it wants for any reason it wishes.
Similarly, the United States, under Bush, both withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 and withdrew from participation in the International Criminal Court at The Hague.
The latter, the withdrawal from the court, is a veritable admission of complicity in war crimes with key U.S. officials facing indictment and arrest across the globe.
Were one to be honest, the entire Bush administration is under a privileged form of “house arrest” as is Britain’s Tony Blair. All face criminal proceedings and continually make plans to travel but end up cancelling, sometimes out of public outcry for justice or to actually avoid arrest.
Despite his pronouncements, even with an election upcoming and the need to parrot childish threats in order to please the Israeli press a prerequisite, Obama has made it clear he will not attack Iran. It is time the public realizes that by opposing war and running against Romney, an agent of a hostile foreign power and longtime organized crime affiliate, the president and those around him are at great risk.
The carefully choreographed and very public attempt on the life of General Dempsey is a greeting card from the Adelson/Romney/Netanyahu camp.
Several appropriate responses, RSVPs as it were, come to mind, some partially fatal. Is an American president really the leader of the free world, as we so often say, if any “two bit thug” can dictate policy?
Despite that position, Obama controls well over 80% of the Jewish vote in the United States where, as pointed out in an earlier article, studies have shown only 4% of Jewish voters in America feel Iran is any threat to Israel.
A critical part of understanding organized crime requires the study of its origins, particularly in America, during the 19th century.
While London, from the earliest days of what America had believed to be freedom from British rule, in actuality ran America’s economy, and was, itself, subjected to rule by continental bankers.
Britain, the colonizer of the world was, itself, no more than a client of the Bauer/Rothschild group who underwrote the British pound.
The real criminal groups running American politics developed from among the immigrant gangs that settled America’s cities. There were German, Irish, Italian and Jewish gangs. All that survive now are the remnants of the Mafia, the Jewish gangs who now run Washington and Wall Street and the new threats from Kosovo and Albania, the latest round of criminal immigration into America.
With the full cooperation of FBI Director Hoover, tasked with protecting America from criminal organizations, the government stood aside while every aspect of American life, every necessity from water to electricity to medicine, leaving nothing out, came under assault by criminal groups grown fat on profiteering from war, narcotics and, during the Prohibition years, the sale of illegal alcohol.
For decades, America’s media has been tasked with blaming all ills on Italian Americans and corrupt trade unions while America has been little but a colony of key European banking families who created wars, suppressed technologies, manipulated currencies, raised and crushed stock markets and national economies and, in the end, became as a hydra, the multi-headed beast of Greek mythology, ruling all.
What drew Adelson, Romney and even Putin to Israel at this critical time as the world sits on the brink of nuclear war over Syria is simple. We are again reminded of Putin’s visit to Israel.
No Israeli citizen was spoken to, no public concerns were addressed, no, a visit to Israel is a visit to the “safe haven” for worldwide organized crime that controls and manages the vast and endless wealth of the Russian continent as easily as it runs Britain or dances its Washingtonian puppets into discarding laws and traditions and becoming a surrogate bully, not for a nation but for an international criminal conspiracy.
The language of politics must be replaced with the language of crime as the solutions to what are misconstrued as political problems are and have long been responses to the depredations of criminal organizations.
It isn’t as though Iran were the only target, simply the public target where control of the United Nations Security Council can be exercised, a demonstration of the raw power of evil.
The mistake made by so many is to use principles of geopolitics to describe the world condition, the continual entropy, the centralization of wealth and the rapid deterioration of human rights as wars rage without end.
Even the educated classes, searching for patterns and rationales to explain how 2000 trillion dollars represented by “derivative debt” could encumber all the world’s currencies, a staggering amount created by an unseen hand through a process none have yet been able to describe.
Debt, or as it is known in criminal circles as “loan sharking,” is the business of the world. Controlling currencies was not enough, thus controlled governments, bribed, threatened, blackmailed and bought looked away while the wealth and hope of a hundred generations was stolen overnight, a few lines of text, a few entries on computers and generations of our progeny are changed, in that moment, from citizens of the world to “useless eaters,” as Henry Kissinger would describe them.
Armies may march, air forces may bomb, drones may attack but none of this is war or politics, nor has it been for centuries. This is where we went awry. We chose to play chess while our opponents simply put a pistol on the table and emptied our pockets.
America is living this today, as it looks on an upcoming election. The very few can escape the packaged news, scripted in Hollywood or Washington or Tel Aviv, our political life is a theatrical production, a comic tragedy without the Shakespearean irony.
This is a government that Sheldon Adelson, the man who believes he will be America’s real next president, believes he can take to war, a systematic conquest of the Middle East and Central Asia, done for the criminal elements some call Israel, done, quite simply, to prove the power of evil over good.
Gordon Duff is a Marine Vietnam veteran, a combat infantryman, and Senior Editor at Veterans Today. His career has included extensive experience in international banking along with such diverse areas as consulting on counter insurgency, defense technologies or acting as diplomatic representative for UN humanitarian and economic development efforts. Gordon Duff has traveled to over 80 nations. His articles are published around the world and translated into a number of languages. He is regularly on TV and radio, a popular and sometimes controversial guest.
-----------------------------------------------------

*Two hurt as rocket hits plane of US general in Afghanistan - sparking fears over security leaks

By ANTHONY BOND
PUBLISHED: 10:13 GMT, 21 August 2012 |

Target: Two insurgent rockets struck the vast Bagram air field, pictured, overnight

A rocket fired on a U.S. airbase in Afghanistan early today damaged the aircraft of America's top military officer and wounded two maintenance crew.
Two insurgent rockets struck the vast Bagram air field overnight, with one causing damage to the C-17 used by General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, who later left the base using another plane.
Shrapnel from the rocket struck the door of the plane while it was parked on the runway, with two American maintenance crew suffering minor injuries in the attack, Dempsey's spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan said.
The rockets posed no threat to the safety of Dempsey or his staff, who were asleep in their quarters at the time of the incident in the early hours of the morning, officers said.
A spokesman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) described the rocket hitting the general's plane as simply a lucky shot.
'It was a C-17 that looked just like every other C-17 on the tarmac,' he told AFP.
'Indirect fire is not unusual at Bagram and there is absolutely no indication that this was an attack specfically targeting that plane,' the spokesman said.
Dempsey had been visiting Kabul to meet commanders of the NATO-led force and Afghan top brass amid a surge in assaults by Afghan security personnel on their international colleagues.

More...
Former Marine detained by FBI for psychiatric testing after anti-government Facebook posts
A total of 10 soldiers, mostly Americans, have lost their lives at the hands of their Afghan allies in the past two weeks, and the attacks have caused almost one in every four coalition deaths in the war so far this month.
The total of 40 deaths so far this year amount to 13 percent of all international coalition fatalities in 2012.
The assaults have confounded the international force, which has touted its partnership with Afghan troops as the key to withdrawing its combat troops over the next two years.
Scroll down for video

President Barack Obama, who spoke to Dempsey before the attack by phone while he was in Kabul, said Monday the United States was watching the rise in insider attacks with 'deep concern', telling a White House news conference: 'Obviously, we have to do more.'
NATO and American officers have suggested the Afghan government has failed to come to grips with the problem but Dempsey said he came away 'reassured' after discussions with his Afghan counterpart, General Shir Mohammad Karimi.

'I am reassured that the Afghan leaders, military and civilian, understand how important this moment is,' Dempsey said.
Taliban insurgents have taken credit for the so-called green-on-blue assaults while NATO officers say an internal review showed only about 10 percent of them were the result of infiltration.
NATO has blamed the incidents on a mixture of cultural differences, personal vendettas and propaganda by Islamist militants.

The attacks are unprecedented in US military history and they have spawned so much mistrust that foreign troops have been ordered to be armed at all times, even within bases, officers said.
Afghan authorities have adopted more rigorous vetting of recruits and NATO has bolstered counter-intelligence but the measures have failed to stem the problem.
NATO has about 130,000 soldiers fighting an insurgency by Taliban Islamists, but they are due to pull out in 2014 and now work increasingly with the Afghans they are training to take over.
Dempsey, on the first leg of a trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, said the insider violence would not alter the timetable for withdrawal or the coalition's emphasis on cooperating with Afghan recruits.
But the growing number of attacks is likely to add to pressure in NATO nations for an early exit from the increasingly unpopular conflict, now nearly 11 years old and America's longest war.

Sunday, August 12, 2012

Mark Weber-A Straight Look at the Jewish Lobby


A Straight Look at the Jewish Lobby

By Mark Weber
For many years Israel has violated well established precepts of international law and has defied numerous United Nations resolutions in its occupation of conquered lands, in extra-judicial killings, and in its repeated acts of military aggression.
Most of the world regards Israel’s policies, and especially its oppression of Palestinians, as illegal and outrageous. This international consensus is reflected, for example, in numerous UN resolutions condemning Israel, which have been approved with overwhelming majorities.
“The whole world,“ said United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, “is demanding that Israel withdraw [from occupied Palestinian territories]. I don’t think the whole world... can be wrong.” [1]
Only in the United States do politicians and the media still fervently support Israel and defend its policies. For many years the US has provided Israel with crucial military, diplo matic and financial backing, including more than $3 billion each year in aid.
Why is the US such a staunch bastion of support for Israel?
Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who was awarded the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize, has candidly identified the reason. Speaking to an audience in Boston, he said:
“But you know as well as I do that, somehow, the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic ... People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful -- very powerful.” [2]
Bishop Tutu spoke the truth. Although Jews make up only two or three percent of the US population, they wield immense power and influence – much more than any other ethnic or religious group.
As Jewish author and political science professor Benjamin Ginsberg has pointed out: [3]
“Since the 1960s, Jews have come to wield considerable influence in American economic, cultural, intellectual and political life. Jews played a central role in American finance during the 1980s, and they were among the chief beneficiaries of that decade’s corporate mergers and reorganizations. Today, though barely two percent of the nation’s population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The chief executive officers of the three major television networks and the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the nation’s larg est newspaper chain and the most influential single newspaper, the New York Times... The role and influence of Jews in Ameri can politics is equally marked...
“Jews are only three percent of the nation’s population and comprise eleven percent of what this study defines as the nation’s elite. However, Jews constitute more than 25 percent of the elite journalists and publishers, more than 17 percent of the leaders of important voluntary and public interest organiza tions, and more than 15 percent of the top ranking civil ser vants.”
Stephen Steinlight, former Director of National Affairs of the American Jewish Committee, similarly notes the “disproportionate political power” of Jews, which is “pound for pound the greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America.” He goes on to explain that “Jewish economic influence and power are disproportionately concentrated in Hollywood, television, and in the news industry.“ [4]
Two well-known Jewish writers, Seymour Lipset and Earl Raab, pointed out in their 1995 book, Jews and the New American Scene: [5]
“During the last three decades Jews [in the United States] have made up 50 percent of the top two hundred intellectuals... 20 percent of professors at the leading universities ... 40 percent of partners in the leading law firms in New York and Washington ... 59 percent of the directors, writers, and producers of the 50 top-grossing motion pictures from 1965 to 1982, and 58 percent of directors, writers, and producers in two or more primetime television series.”
Vanity Fair magazine in October 2007 published a list of what it calls “the world’s most powerful people” – a lineup of the one hundred most influential media bosses, bankers, publishers, image makers, and so forth, who determine how we view ourselves and the world, and who – directly and indirectly -- shape our lives and our futures. Jews made up more than half of the powerful men and women on the Vanity Fair list, reported a leading Israeli newspaper, The Jerusalem Post. [6]
The influence of American Jewry in Washington, The Jerusalem Post has also noted, is “far disproportionate to the size of the community, Jewish leaders and US officials acknowledge. But so is the amount of money they contribute to [election] campaigns.” One member of the influential Conference of Presidents of Major Amer ican Jewish Organizations “estimated Jews alone had contributed 50 percent of the funds for [President Bill] Clinton’s 1996 re-elec tion campaign.” [7]
Mother Jones magazine compiled a listing of the 400 leading contributors to the 2000 US national elections. Seven of the first ten were Jewish, as were twelve of the top 20, and 125 of the top 250. [8]
The single biggest donor to American politicians is Israeli billionaire and media mogul Haim Saban. In January 2007 it was revealed that he had donated approximately $13 million to various US political candidates. [9] The New York Times has noted Saban’s ardent devotion to the Jewish state: “He has since emerged as perhaps the most politically connected mogul in Hollywood, throwing his weight and money around Washington, and increasingly, the world, trying to influence all things Israeli. 'I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel,' he said.” [10]
A Grip on Hollywood
“It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture,” acknowledges Michael Medved, a well-known Jewish author and film critic. “Any list of the most influential production executives at each of the major movie stu dios will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names.” [11]
One person who has carefully studied this subject is Jonathan J. Goldberg, editor of the influential Jewish community weeklyForward. In his 1996 book, Jewish Power, he wrote: [12]
“In a few key sectors of the media, notably among Hollywood stu dio executives, Jews are so numerically dominant that calling these businesses Jewish-controlled is little more than a sta tistical observation ...
“Hollywood at the end of the twentieth century is still an industry with a pronounced ethnic tinge. Virtually all the senior executives at the major studios are Jews. Writers, producers, and to a lesser degree directors are disproportionately Jewish -- one recent study showed the figure as high as 59 per cent among top-grossing films.
“The combined weight of so many Jews in one of America’s most lucrative and important industries gives the Jews of Hollywood a great deal of political power. They are a major source of money for Democratic candidates.”
“As a proud Jew,” writes Joel Stein, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, “I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood ... I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.” [13]
Reflecting their role in the American media, Jews are routinely portrayed as high-minded, trustworthy, compassionate, and deserving of sympathy and support. While millions of Ameri cans readily accept such imagery, not everyone is impressed. “I am very angry with some of the Jews,” complained actor Marlon Brando during a 1996 interview. “They know perfectly well what their responsibilities are... Hollywood is run by Jews. It’s owned by Jews, and they should have a greater sensitivity about the issue of people who are suffering.” [14]
A Well-Entrenched Factor
This intimidating power is not a new phenomenon, but has long been an important factor in American life. In 1972, during a private White House meeting, President Richard Nixon and the Rev. Billy Graham spoke frankly about the Jewish grip on the media. “This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain,” said Graham, the nation’s best-known Christian evangelist. “You believe that?,” Nixon responded. “Yes, sir,” said Graham. “Oh, boy,” replied Nixon. “So do I. I can’t ever say that, but I believe it.” [15]
In 1978, Jewish American scholar Alfred M. Lilienthal wrote in his detailed study, The Zionist Connection: [16]
“How has the Zionist will been imposed on the American people?... It is the Jewish connection, the tribal solidarity among themselves and the amazing pull on non-Jews, that has molded this unprecedented power ... The Jewish connection covers all areas and reaches every level. Most Americans may not even sense this gigantic effort, but there is scarcely a Jew who is not touched by its tentacles...
“The extent and depth to which organized Jewry reached – and reaches – in the U.S. is indeed awesome ... The most effective component of the Jewish connection is probably that of media control ... Jews, toughened by centuries of persecution, have risen to places of prime importance in the business and financial world... Jewish wealth and acumen wields unprecedented power in the area of finance and investment banking, playing an important role in influencing U.S. policy toward the Middle East ... In the larger metropolitan areas, the Jewish-Zionist connection thoroughly pervades affluent financial, commercial, social, entertainment, and art circles.”
Foreign Policy Role
Jews in Israel feel free to act brutally against Arabs, writes Is raeli journalist Ari Shavit, “believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own.” [17]
In Britain, a veteran member of the House of Commons candidly declared in May 2003 that pro-Israel Jews had taken control of America’s foreign policy, and had succeeded in pushing the US and Britain into war in Iraq. Tam Dalyell, a Labour party deputy known as “Father of the House” because he is the longest-serving Member of Parliament, said: “A Jewish cabal have taken over the government in the United States and formed an unholy alliance with fundamentalist Christians ... There is far too much Jewish influence in the United States.” [18]
Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has spoken with blunt exasperation about the Jewish-Israeli hold on the United States: [19]
“I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing any thing down. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on.”
Today the danger has never been greater. Israel and Jewish organizations are prodding the United States into new wars against Israel’s enemies.
To sum up: Jews wield immense power and influence in the United States. The “Jewish lobby” is a decisive factor in US support for Israel. Jewish-Zionist interests are not identical to American in terests. In fact, they often conflict.
As long as the “very powerful” Jewish lobby remains entrenched, there will be no end to the Jewish-Zionist domination of the US polit ical system and the American media, the Zionist oppression of Palestinians, the Israeli threat to peace, and the bloody con flict between Jews and non-Jews in the Middle East.


Notes
1. On April 8, 2002, in Madrid. Quoted in Forward (New York), April 19, 2002, p. 11.
2.  D. Tutu, "Apartheid in the Holy Land," The Guardian (Britain), April 29, 2002.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,706911,00.html )
3. Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (University of Chicago, 1993), pp. 1, 103. 
4. S. Steinlight, "The Jewish Stake in America's Changing Demography: Reconsidering a Misguided Immigration Policy," Center for Immigration Studies, Nov. 2001.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/back1301.html )
5.  Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab, Jews and the New American Scene (Harvard Univ. Press, 1995), pp. 26-27. 
6. N. Burstein, "Jewish power dominates at 'Vanity Fair'," The Jerusalem Post (Israel), Oct.12, 2007.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1191257286817&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull )
7. Janine Zacharia, "The Unofficial Ambassadors of the Jewish State," The Jerusalem Post (Israel), April 2, 2000. Reprinted in "Other Voices," June 2000, p. OV-4, a supplement to The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
8. A. Cockburn, “The Uproar Over the Israel Lobby,” May 5 (or 8), 2006.
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/2/2006/1368 )
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05082006.html )
9. “Israeli Billionaire Saban is Biggest Donor to US Politicians,” Ynet News (Israel), Jan. 23, 2007.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3355786,00.html )
10. A. R. Sorkin, “Schlepping to Moguldom,” The New York Times, Sept. 5, 2004.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/05/business/yourmoney/05sab.html )
11. M. Medved, “Is Hollywood Too Jewish?,” Moment, Vol. 21, No. 4 (1996), p. 37.
12. Jonathan Jeremy Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment (Addison-Wesley, 1996), pp. 280, 287-288. See also pp. 39-40, 290-291. 
13. J. Stein, “How Jewish Is Hollywood?,” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 19, 2008.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein19-2008dec19,0,4676183.column )
14. Interview with Larry King, CNN network, April 5, 1996. "Brando Remarks," Los Angeles Times, April 8, 1996, p. F4 (OC). A short time later, Brando was obliged to apologize for his remarks.    
15. “Nixon, Billy Graham Make Derogatory Comments About Jews on Tapes,” Chicago Tribune, March 1, 2002 (or Feb. 28, 2002)
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/02/Graham_Nixon.html );
“Billy Graham Apologizes for ’72 Remarks,” Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, March 2, 2002. “Graham Regrets Jewish Slur,” BBC News, March 2, 2002.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1850077.stm ) The conversation apparently took place on Feb. 1, 1972.
16. A. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1978), pp. 206, 209, 212, 218, 228, 229.
17. The New York Times, May 27, 1996. Shavit is identified as a columnist for Ha'aretz, a Hebrew-language Israeli daily newspaper, "from which this article is adapted."
18. F. Nelson, "Anger Over Dalyell's 'Jewish Cabal' Slur," The Scotsman (Edinburgh), May 5, 2003; M. White, "Dalyell Steps Up Attack On Levy," The Guardian (London), May 6, 2003.
See also: M. Weber, " Iraq: A War for Israel" ( http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml ) 
19. Interview with Moorer, Aug. 24, 1983. Quoted in: Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby (Lawrence Hill, 1984 and 1985), p. 161.


About the Author
Mark Weber is director of the Institute for Historical Review. He studied history at the University of Illinois (Chicago), the University of Munich, Portland State University and Indiana University (M.A., 1977).

#2016  Revised, updated: Feb. 2009