Jews In The American Media

The following is from this web site:

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jews-in-the-media-hollywood/

Jews in the American Media: 

MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN, owner of NY Daily News, US News & World Report and chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying groups.
LESLIE MOONVES, president of CBS television, great-nephew of David Ben-Gurion, and co-chair with Norman Ornstein of the Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers, appointed by Clinton.
JONATHAN MILLER, chair and CEO of AOL division of AOL-Time-Warner
NEIL SHAPIRO, president of NBC News
JEFF GASPIN, Executive Vice-President, Programming, NBC
DAVID WESTIN, president of ABC News
SUMNER REDSTONE, CEO of Viacom, “world’s biggest media giant” (Economist, 11/23/2) owns Viacom cable, CBS and MTVs all over the world, Blockbuster video rentals and Black Entertainment TV.
MICHAEL EISNER, major owner of Walt Disney, Capitol Cities, ABC.
RUPERT MURDOCH, Owner Fox TV, New York Post, London Times, News of the World (Jewish mother)
MEL KARMAZIN, president of CBS
DON HEWITT, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes, CBS
JEFF FAGER, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes II. CBS
DAVID POLTRACK, Executive Vice-President, Research and Planning, CBS
SANDY KRUSHOW, Chair, Fox Entertainment
LLOYD BRAUN, Chair, ABC Entertainment
BARRY MEYER, chair, Warner Bros.
SHERRY LANSING. President of Paramount Communications and Chairman of Paramount Pictures’ Motion Picture Group.
HARVEY WEINSTEIN, CEO. Miramax Films.
BRAD SIEGEL., President, Turner Entertainment.
PETER CHERNIN, second in-command at Rupert Murdoch’s News. Corp., owner of Fox TV
MARTY PERETZ, owner and publisher of the New Republic, which openly identifies itself as pro-Israel. Al Gore credits Marty with being his “mentor.”
ARTHUR O. SULZBERGER, JR., publisher of the NY Times, the Boston Globe and other publications.
WILLIAM SAFIRE, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
TOM FRIEDMAN, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post. Honored by Honest Reporting.com, website monitoring “anti-Israel media.”
RICHARD COHEN, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post
JEFF JACOBY, syndicated columnist for the Boston Globe
NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Inst., regular columnist for USA Today, news analyst for CBS, and co-chair with Leslie Moonves of the Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers, appointed by Clinton.
ARIE FLEISCHER, Dubya’s press secretary.
STEPHEN EMERSON, every media outlet’s first choice as an expert on domestic terrorism.
DAVID SCHNEIDERMAN, owner of the Village Voice and the New Times network of “alternative weeklies.”
DENNIS LEIBOWITZ, head of Act II Partners, a media hedge fund
KENNETH POLLACK, for CIA analysts, director of Saban Center for Middle East Policy, writes op-eds in NY Times, New Yorker
BARRY DILLER, chair of USA Interactive, former owner of Universal Entertainment
KENNETH ROTH, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch
RICHARD LEIBNER, runs the N.S. Bienstock talent agency, which represents 600 news personalities such as Dan Rather, Dianne Sawyer and Bill O’Reilly.
TERRY SEMEL, CEO, Yahoo, former chair, Warner Bros.
MARK GOLIN, VP and Creative Director, AOL
WARREN LIEBERFORD, Pres., Warner Bros. Home Video Div. of AOL- TimeWarner
JEFFREY ZUCKER, President of NBC Entertainment
JACK MYERS, NBC, chief.NYT 5.14.2
SANDY GRUSHOW, chair of Fox Entertainment
GAIL BERMAN, president of Fox Entertainment
STEPHEN SPIELBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
JEFFREY KATZENBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
DAVID GEFFEN, co-owner of Dreamworks
LLYOD BRAUN, chair of ABC Entertainment
JORDAN LEVIN, president of Warner Bros. Entertainment
MAX MUTCHNICK, co-executive producer of NBC’s “Good Morning Miami”
DAVID KOHAN, co-executive producer of NBC’s “Good Morning Miami”
HOWARD STRINGER, chief of Sony Corp. of America
AMY PASCAL, chair of Columbia Pictures
JOEL KLEIN, chair and CEO of Bertelsmann’s American operations
ROBERT SILLERMAN, founder of Clear Channel Communications
BRIAN GRADEN, president of MTV entertainment
IVAN SEIDENBERG, CEO of Verizon Communications
WOLF BLITZER, host of CNN’s Late Edition
LARRY KING, host of Larry King Live
TED KOPPEL, host of ABC’s Nightline
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN Reporter
PAULA ZAHN, CNN Host
MIKE WALLACE, Host of CBS, 60 Minutes
BARBARA WALTERS, Host, ABC’s 20-20
MICHAEL LEDEEN, editor of National Review
BRUCE NUSSBAUM, editorial page editor, Business Week
DONALD GRAHAM, Chair and CEO of Newsweek and Washington Post, son of
CATHERINE GRAHAM MEYER, former owner of the Washington Post
HOWARD FINEMAN, Chief Political Columnist, Newsweek
WILLIAM KRISTOL, Editor, Weekly Standard, Exec. Director
Project for a New American Century (PNAC)
RON ROSENTHAL, Managing Editor, San Francisco Chronicle
PHIL BRONSTEIN, Executive Editor, San Francisco Chronicle,
RON OWENS, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
JOHN ROTHMAN, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
MICHAEL SAVAGE, Talk Show Host, KFSO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco) Syndicated in 100 markets
MICHAEL MEDVED, Talk Show Host, on 124 AM stations
DENNIS PRAGER, Talk Show Host, nationally syndicated from LA. Has Israeli flag on his home page.
BEN WATTENBERG, Moderator, PBS Think Tank.
ANDREW LACK, president of NBC
DANIEL MENAKER, Executive Director, Harper Collins
DAVID REMNICK, Editor, The New Yorker
NICHOLAS LEHMANN, writer, the New York
HENRICK HERTZBERG, Talk of the Town editor, The New Yorker
SAMUEL NEWHOUSE JR, and DONALD NEWHOUSE own Newhouse Publications, includes 26 newspapers in 22 cities; the Conde Nast magazine group, includes The New Yorker; Parade, the Sunday newspaper supplement; American City Business Journals, business newspapers published in more than 30 major cities in America; and interests in cable television programming and cable systems serving 1 million homes.
DONALD NEWHOUSE, chairman of the board of directors, Associated Press.
PETER R KANN, CEO, Wall Street Journal, Barron’s
RALPH J. & BRIAN ROBERTS, Owners, Comcast-ATT Cable TV.
LAWRENCE KIRSHBAUM, CEO, AOL-Time Warner Book Group

More on Art about Gay Love

Frank Bruni in the NYT and I in my blog both addressed the role of art in dealing with love: why there is not more art celebrating gay love, and why there is virtually no great art celebrating it.  I guess there is some that I’m not aware of, perhaps in India or ancient Greece, but if there were great art that celebrated homosexual love, I think we would be hearing about it constantly these days; therefore, I think it does not exist.  The Wikipedia article of homosexuality in ancient Greece stresses that the relationships were usually between adult men and young boys, a pederast relationship that would be frowned on today, but an enduring aspect of gay activity that is downplayed by the press in deference to the gay community. In any case, it’s hard to promote Greek art celebrating pederasty. 

Bruni felt deprived because when he was growing up, there were no songs on the radio glorifying gay love.  He raises the question, why hasn’t Elton John written some moving songs celebrating gay love?  Songs, paintings and novels about homosexual love may be on their way, but it’s indicative that thousands of years of great art have so far produced virtually nothing of interest in that department.  Even if new gay art becomes popular, will it stand the test of time and be appreciated by people a hundred or a thousand years from now?  In short, Bruni may get the music he wants, but it’s unlikely to be worth much in the long run.   

Will the Supreme Court Define Love?

The NYT reports that during the arguments about gay marriage in the Supreme Court, Justice Roberts asked, “If Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t.  The difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?” 

I think that this is a misleading question because of the word “love.”  Is the love between a man and a woman the same as the love between a man and a man?  At least that is a question that should not be dismissed as obvious.  Almost everyone loves their mother, but should they be allowed to marry their mother?  You can say, no, because their children would be the products of incest, and there is a public interest in preventing incest.  But what if it’s a daughter who wants to marry her mother, or what if the mother and son promise never to have sex.  Is there still a public interest in preventing this union?  There is, because the love between a mother and her children is different from the love between two unrelated people

People also talk about the fact that they”love” ice cream, they love sunny days, they love beautiful music.  People also talk about making love, when they mean that they are having sex.  These “loves” are obviously not the same.  Can the Supreme Court definitively rule that the love between two men is the same as the love between a man and a women?  Can they definitively say that this is love and not lust?  If it is all about finances and hospital visitation, aren’t there other ways to correct those problems without defining “love”? 

Poets, novelists and songwriters have been expounding on love for thousands of years.  Can the Supreme Court do a better job than they did.  Is it irrelevant that there is a lot less poetry about the love between a man and woman than there is about the love between two men?  Does the Supreme Court really know more about love than Shakespeare, John Donne, Jane Austin, the Bronte sisters, Tolstoy or Danielle Steele.  Roberts should think hard before calling Shakespeare and Tolstoy fools.  

The Clintons and the Rothschilds

It’s interesting that this NYT article about the Clinton’s son-in-law, Mark Mezvinsky, discloses the role among the Clintons of the prominent European Jewish family, the Rothschilds, reputed to have been kingmakers and to have the power of inciting war or maintaining peace in Europe for centuries.  Mezvinsky is a partner in the hedge fund Eaglevale Partners.  The article says that many of the investors in the fund are longtime supporters of the Clintons, including a firm connected to the Rothschilds.  Another investor is the Rock Creek Group, chaired by Afsaneh Beschloss, the wife of historian Michael Beschloss.  Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs was also an early investor.  The article says that Bill Clinton spoke at a conference in Oxford sponsored by the Rothschilds, but that there was no connection to the investment.   

The Clintons are trying to form an alliance with rich Jews who support them, the Rothschilds, to offset the rich Jews like Sheldon Adelson who support the Republicans.  

More Welfare for the Rich

Working on income tax reminds one of all the welfare that the US government gives to the rich.  The biggest is probably the home mortgage deduction.  It's nice for average people, but the average person probably gets only a few thousand dollars.  On a mortgage in the $300,000 to $350,000 range, not too cheap, interest will be about $1,000 per month, or about $12,000 per year.  On a $1 million mortgage, monthly interest is about $3,300 per month or about $40,000 per year.  In addition the smaller homeowner will probably be paying taxes in something like the 20% range, which means that his deduction will be about $2,600.  The richer homeowner will probably be paying taxes at a higher rate, say 35%, so that his deduction will be around $13,800.  So, the government gives the richer person $11,000 more for living in his house than it gives the poorer person.  And of course, renters, who tend to be poorer than homeowners get no help from the government to keep a roof over their heads.

Another less obvious giveaway to rich people is the lower tax rate for capital gains and qualified dividends.  In this case the government basically rewards people for playing the stock market.  Arguably, the provisions discourage just playing the stock market like gambling in Las Vegas, because they make you hold stock for at least a year.  But if you do hold the stock for a year, the savings are enormous, cutting your taxes in half on stock market income, whether for trading stock or just collecting dividends.  The richer you are, the more the government gives you.  The government gives people like Mitt Romney millions and millions of dollars just because they are rich.  No wonder Mitt Romney despises poor people who get hundreds of dollars a month from the government, when he gets millions.  If poor people had any ambition, they would soak the government for millions, like he does.  Like most rich people, Mitt hates paying soldiers in Afghanistan or widows on Social Security.

Gifts to the Rich

Abolishing traditional defined benefit retirement plans has been a huge gift to wealthy investors.  In the old days, retirement funds invested in bonds, which returned something ike 4% annually, and which over a working life would provide the bulk of the funds needed for retiring employees.  Now most companies offer 401(k) plans, in which the employee has to invest part of his salary, and the company may or may not match his contributions.

Companies could hire experts to decide how much they needed to invest and how to invest it.  They weren't always right, but they had a better chance of being right than the average worker.  Investment companies can help with 401(k) plans, but often their fees are so high that they eat up a significant part of the earnings.

But the huge benefit for big investors is the influx of new money into the stock market.  This is partly due to low interest rates, which make it impossible to invest in bonds, but it is also due to the fact that small investors need rapid, big returns to cover their retirement.  This is often possible in the stock market, but it is the exception, not the rule.  In the meantime, the small investors create a huge pool of money for the rich to play in.  It's somewhat like bringing thousands of players into a poker game and creating a gigantic pot.  One of the small investors might theoretically win, but more likely one of the rich players who can keep anteing up will take the big pot.  The 401(k)s mean that there is more and more money flowing into the market, funding IPOs and bidding up stock prices.

Low interest rates mean that the wealthy can borrow for almost nothing to bet on the market, and with all the help of quants, hedge funds, etc., are more likely to win big.  The 401(k)s and IRAs will work out well mainly for the wealthy, like Mitt Romney, who had $102 million in an IRA.  Romney hates the low income takers from the Federal Government, but because of the tax breaks he gets, the government is shoveling money to Romney with both hands.  If he had to pay 40% tax on $100 million, that would be $40 million; so that is more or less what the government has given him, a lot more than if he collected food stamps.  Meanwhile the average investor in an IRA will save a few thousand in taxes.

Christians in Muslim Lands

The massacre of 147 Christian students in Kenya is only the latest attack on Christians in the Muslim world.  Christians are under attack almost everywhere there, including in some places where the US has intervened, particularly Iraq.  Christians had a better life under Saddam Hussein than they have under the government imposed by the United States.  America has abandoned them at least party under the influence of Christ-hating gays and Jews in the US.  We have seen the hatred directed at Christians by gays in Indiana, and we have seen the strong attacks on Obama by Jews in Congress for not prostrating himself before Netanyahu and Israeli/Jewish hatred of Iran.

Gays hate the Bible because it says they are immoral.  Jews only support Christians if it does not adversely affect Jews.  Jews largely see the Middle East as a zero-sum game in which if you help Christians, you hurt Israel and the Jews.  Fundamentalist Christians love Israel, but that love is not reciprocated except to the extent that it strengthens Jewish power in the US.

In Syria, Assad has generally been tolerant of Christians, who had a much better life under him than they have under ISIL or any of the other Muslim factions fighting against Assad.  Sen. John McCain and many other Republicans want to get rid of Assad by military force if necessary, thus condemning Syrian Christians to a horrible fate under his successor.  McCain doesn't care; he now worships money and power, and has abandoned the faith of his fathers, Christians be damned.

In Libya, as a result of Gaddafi's overthrow by a coalition of American, European, and Jewish leaders, 21 Christians were beheaded in February.  Christians did not have a great life under Gaddafi, but it was probably better than under the chaos of Muslim rule that exists in Libya today.  They have taken control in the power vacuum left by the US and its allies in removing Gaddafi.  Poor Christians!

An op-ed in the Washington Post summed up the situation of Christians in Iraq: "Christianity in Iraq Is Finished."  Speaking about the ISIL takeover of part of Iraq, the article says:

... for Christians in Iraq, the past three months have been the climax of 11 years of hell. We Americans have short memories (that goes for you, too, in the “Bush Was Right” crowd), but it’s worth noting that Christians began having serious problems within a year after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Sometimes it was the work of al-Qaeda, sometimes Sunni insurgents pining for the return of Sunni control of Iraq. Sometimes it was Shiite militias fighting the Sunnis but finding time to persecute Christians....

So when I ask refugees their plans, it is unanimously to leave Iraq altogether. Enough is enough. This runs counter to the desire, expressed mostly outside Iraq, that a Christian presence be preserved in a land that has known Christianity for 2,000 years. It’s sad but true: Christianity in Iraq is finished. As one refugee told me, “We wanted Iraq. Iraq doesn’t want us.”  

 America has essentially abandoned Christains in Muslim lands.  Apparently Christianity doesn't matter.  The worst is that we are largely responsible.  We have destroyed the leaders and governments that allowed Christianity to exist.  I wish fundamentalist Christians would quit worrying about Israel so much and worry about their Christian brothers and sisters.

Uncertainty about Taxes

Republicans and businessmen complain about uncertainty for planning, but a lot of that is due to the fact that businessmen are lobbying for change, and Republicans want to give them lower taxes.  Meanwhile they block major changes to the tax code that might increase some sort of taxes.  The Republicans have problems because they have so many special interests to take care of, from defense contractors to oil companies, to neighborhood businesses.  Something that helps one, might harm another.  So, they are responsible for much of the uncertainty that they complain about.  

Kissinger and Shultz Op-Ed on Iran

Kissinger and Shultz have a thoughtful op-ed in the WSJ on the Iran nuclear deal.  However, they criticize it without offering an alternative.  Could the deal be better?  Of course, Iran could have renounced all nuclear ambitions and completely shut down its nuclear activities.  But I doubt that even Kissinger and Shultz could have negotiated an agreement on those terms.  So what is the alternative?  Implicit in their op-ed is the conclusion that only a military attack taking out all of Iran's nuclear facilities would prevent the proliferation of nuclear technology throughout the Middle East.  But would "shock and awe" work better in Tehran than it did in Baghdad?  It would probably bring on a wider war that would make the Iraq war look like a small skirmish.

Furthermore, they do not mention Pakistan (or India), the elephants in the room when it comes to the proliferation of nuclear technology in the region.  India does not appear to be a problem under its present government and the present international situation, but Pakistan is a big problem.  Pakistan has many nuclear weapons, most aimed at India, but available for other purposes, if the government so decides, or if terrorists get their hands on them, and Pakistan's Waziristan region is full of Taliban terrorists.  Even if Pakistan does not sell a nuclear weapon and if the terrorists don't get their hands on one, it is a source of nuclear technology.  It has probably already provided some assistance to Iran and North Korea.

Pakistan is a more clear and present danger to the world than Iran is, mainly because Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and Iran does not.  In theory Pakistan is a friend of the US, but in fact it is a fickle friend, often providing sanctuary for Taliban terrorists from Afghanistan who have been fighting American troops.  In addition, it is probably a closer friend of China than it is of the US, with whatever geopolitical consequences that may produce.  China is much less concerned about world peace than it is about the welfare of the Chinese state.

So, Secretaries Kissinger and Shultz, why should we be more worried about Iran than Pakistan?  Shouldn't we be happy to turn down the heat with Iran, even a little bit, while new fires seem to be springing up daily in the rest of the Middle East?

Jews Bought Sen. Cotton's Letter to Iran

I was distressed by this article in the NYT, “GOP’s Israel Support Deepens as Political Contributions Shift.”  It says that Republican support for Israel in partly ideological, but also “a product of a surge in donations and campaign spending on their behalf by a small group of wealthy donors.”  One of the main beneficiaries of this Jewish largess was Senator Tom Cotton, the author of the Senate letter to Iran, advising it not to negotiate with Obama and Kerry.  It sounds like Sen. Cotton got well over $1 million from these Jewish contributors.  The article quotes a source downplaying speculation that the draft letter and plans for its circulation were developed by Sen. Tom Cotton, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, and Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson in a room of Mr. Adelson’s Venetian Hotel.

The growing Jewish support for Republicans is odd because Jews have traditionally supported the Democratic Party, and tend to support more liberal causes.  According to J Street, a majority of Jews still support liberal Democrats, but the fewer extremely wealthy Jews supporting the Republicans throw the money balance in favor of the GOP.  For this group, the main issue is support for Israel.  This one reason Republican House Speak Boehner invited Israeli PM Netanyahu to make a speech to Congress attacking President Obama. 

I don’t believe that American and Israeli interests always converge.  Thus I question Sen. Cotton’s patriotism in supporting Israel over the United States.  Clearly the choice of Netanyahu and his Republican supports was (and is) to have the United States carry out a bombing attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities.  There is certainly a significant risk that American planes could be shot down, or that Iran would respond to the attack.  Among other potential targets, there are thousands of American service men and women next door to Iran in Afghanistan, and a few still left in Iraq.  Sen. Cotton apparently is happy to have them die for Israel.  

Revisionist Holocaust History

For Jews, World War II was all about the Holocaust.  How many people died in the Soviet Union or Western Europe, or certainly in the Pacific doesn’t matter.  All that matters in how many Jews died in the Holocaust.  Even there, what’s important is only the Jews who died.  They don’t care about the Poles, the Gypsies, the blacks, the gays, or any other groups who died in the German prison camps.  Jews are attempting to rewrite history to support their view, and because of the single-mindedness of their effort, they are succeeding. 

The latest shot in this Jewish war against honoring the Allies’ victory in World War II is Nicholas Berg’s “The Holocaust and the West German Historians.”  According to the review in the Wall Street Journal, this book is something of an academic attack on West German historians for playing down the role of the Holocaust in their histories of World War II.  Appropriately the reviewer, Brendan Simms, is somewhat critical of the book.  He says:

Mr. Berg presents his case in a tone of polemical outrage, which occasionally jars in an academic narrative but seems excusable in light of the story he is telling.

Mr. Berg fails to acknowledge that German historians were engaged in not only a personal but also a national survival strategy. They were desperately seeking an intellectual and ethical basis upon which the German people could start again amid the wreckage of 1945.

My main complaint is that Jewish historians do not give enough credit to the Allies, Soviet, British and American, for their victory.  As bad as the Holocaust was, life for Jews would have been worse if the Germans had won.  I believe that the reason we have a World War II memorial on the Washington Mall is that history, led by Jewish historians, has been rewritten to downplay the Allied victory.  WW II vets thought that their victory would be memorial enough, but as their victory became less praiseworthy, they eventually needed something concrete to memorialized their deeds.  

Why Is the GOP More Jewish than the Jews?

Peter Baker had a great article in the NYT about how Republican support for Israel has become unquestioning and an essential element of any candidate's foreign policy platform.  It was pegged to former Secretary of State Jim Baker's speech to J Street, the moderate Jewish lobby, in which Baker was just slightly critical of Israel.  He was pilloried by virtually every Republican in Washington.  Jeb Bush had to disavow Baker's remarks, despite the fact that Baker was one of George H.W. Bush's most loyal supporters and had already been designated as an advisor to Jeb.  It sounds as if failure to support Israel 100% is treason against the US.  The article attributes this attitude to several factors:

- A greater sens of solidarity in the fight against Islamic extremism sinc 9/11
- A resulting increase in evangelical Christan support for Israel,
-The influence of wealthy Jewish political donors like Sheldon Adelson, and
- The GOP tendency to oppose anything Obama does, including feuding with Netanyahu.

The article points out that the current Republican attitude is much different from that of previous GOP leaders, who were more questioning of Israel, including Presidents George H.W. Bush, Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, as well as Secretary Colin Powell, and NSC chair Brent Scowcroft.  Even Ronald Reagan angered Israel by selling AWACs to Saudi Arabia, and by supporting a UN resolution condemning Israel for bombing Iraq's Osirak nuclear reacator.

The article points out that traditionally Jews have supported the Democratic Party, while Protestants have been Republicans.

The article quotes George W. Bush's White House press secretary, Ari Fleischer, on Bush's strong support for Israel.  It says Fleischer is now a member of the Republican Jewish Coalition's board of directors.  Fleischer said, "Being pro-Israel is a no-brainer, absolutely moral issue to take inside the Republican Party."

No Iran Agreement Likely Worse than a Bad Agreement

Tom Friedman's last op-ed, "Look Before Leaping," in the NYT laid out pros and cons of a nuclear agreement with Iran.  However, I don't think he sufficiently recognizes the downside of a possible war if we don't get an agreement.  John Bolton's recent op-ed in the NYT, "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran," shows that there is sentiment for attacking Iran, in almost any case, deal or no deal, but the chances of a military attack on Iran certainly are higher if there is no agreement than if there is no agreement.  If there is no military attack, Iran's obligations under the standard Non-Proliferation Treaty agreements would allow it to develop its nuclear capability up to the last few steps required to build an atomic bomb.  In addition, the other parties to the negotiations -- Russia, China and the Europeans -- are unlikely to maintain sanctions if the deal fails, removing much of the pressure on Iran to bow to Western demands.

Friedman focuses mainly on whether an agreement is likely to bring Iran into the community of civilized nations and thus reduce its trouble-making in the Middle East.  He finds arguments on both sides, probably correctly.  But turning Iran into a responsible member of the international community is not the only issue.  There are also those atomic bombs to worry about.  Unfotunately, I think this makes Friedman's analysis faulty, and I worry that it is faulty for a reason.

Tom Friedman's analysis may be colored by the fact that he is Jewish.  It may simply be that he is under tremendous pressure from other Jews to support the Israeli line that any Iran deal is terrible and that the only solution to the Iranian nuclear problem is to bomb Iran.  I respect Friedman for his long reporting on the Middle East and his personal neutrality in the Arab-Israeli conflict.  He did exemplary reporting from Lebanon and Israel for the New York Times.  That's why when I detect even a little pro-Israel bias in his column, I suspect that he is under tremendous pressure.  I don't worry about Friedman so much as a do about all the other reporters and policy makers in Washington who have less integrity than Friedman.

Attacks on Anti-Semitism, the Last Refuge of a Scoundrel

I am very disappointed in David Brooks’ last column in the New York Times, “How to Fight Anti-Semitism.”  Samuel Johnson said, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”  Similarly, screaming “anti-Semitism” is the last refuge of a racist Jew.  Jews are virulent racists who have created an apartheid state in Israel, but who then smear any critics with taunts of anti-Semitism.  Netanyahu won the Israeli election by race-baiting Israeli Arabs, and scaring racist Jews into believing that Arabs might actually have some power in Israel.  Israel declares itself a Jewish state, which by definition would have no Arabs.  Israel is for Jews only, and pretty much only for Ashkenazi Jews, who look down even on Sephardic Jews. 

As an Ashkenazi Jew, David Brooks is part of their propaganda machine, getting the talking points for his column on anti-Semitism from Netanyahu and Israeli Ambassador Dermer.  He is just spreading hatred.  Atlantic Magazine writer Jeffrey Goldberg, also a Jew who served in the Israeli Defense Forces like David Brooks’ son, got the same message from the Jewish/Israeli hierarchy: smear non-Jews with the anti-Semitism epithet.   It’s all part of an orchestrated Jewish/Israeli campaign of race hatred. 

If Jews weren’t so racist, why would they be so easy to pick out by people who are terrible terrorists?  If Jews just lived as ordinary people, they would not be so easy to identify and attack.  They don’t want to be part of a society mainly consisting of people whom they consider inferior to them.  Their contempt for other races makes them easy targets.  By playing the anti-Semitism card, Brooks and Goldberg reveal themselves as racists.  Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israeli Ambassador Dermer have both figuratively spit in the face of the President of the United States, Barack Obama.  As an American I take offense at that.  

Netanyahu Encourages American Disloyalty

I am disappointed in Netanyahu’s election, and suspicious of how his statements were handled by American news media.  Just before his election, he said that he would not support a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.  Then after he was elected, and his comments had produced a strong unfavorable reaction in the US, he told Andrea Mitchell that he could accept a two-state solution.  First, it seems suspicious that the gave this interview to Andrea Mitchell, a Jew, who at least in this interview revealed herself as a Jew first, a journalist second, and an American third.  Netanyahu clearly chose her as a friendly means for getting his new statement out to the public with minimal questioning by the interviewer about why he completely reversed himself overnight on an  issue that fundamentally affects Israel’s future existence.  Other Jewish journalists, including the NYT’s David Brooks, picked up and defended his new statement, I believe using talking points probably circulated by Israeli Ambassador Dermer.  They explained the Netanyahu statements as not being contradictory because before the election he was saying that a two-state solution was impossible “at this time,” and later that a two-state solution might be possible at some other time, although what time he was referring to in either case was not clear.

I don’t believe that Netanyahu would ever willingly accept a two-state solution at any time, but I also believe that at some point some Israeli leader may have no choice but to accept it.  But I don’t currently see when that would ever be.  At the moment I am more concerned that many American Jews in influential positions appear to be disloyal to the United States and more loyal to Israel.  I include in this group former American Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, who is actually Australian, and no qualification to be American Ambassador to Israel, except that the moved here and headed up a bunch of Jewish interest groups.  He clearly is a Jew first, with little loyalty to either Australia or America.  And of course, the two most recent ambassadors from Israel to the US, were American citizens, born in the US, before they renounced their American citizenship to become Israeli Ambassadors.

Netanyahu and Greater Israel

I am terribly disappointed by the election in Israel.  With the victory of the right-wing, Netanyahu and Likud, Israel will become more obsessed with destroying its Muslim neighbors militarily, and it will become more of an apartheid nation as it increases discrimination against Arabs and other non-Jews in Israel.

I don’t understand the appeal of Israel for right-wing Republicans.  It may be the brotherhood of one right-wing party for another.  Republicans may hate Iranians because of the old 444-day hostage crisis, but do they also have a reason to hate Palestinians?  It may be the appeal of militarism; the Republicans want to fight somebody, and the Israelis can tell them somebody to fight.  However, these days Jews by and large don’t fight for America.  Even NYT columnist David Brooks’ son served in the Israeli military, not the American military.  So, the Republicans will be sending non-Jewish, mostly Christian, boys and girls to fight the Iranians for Israel, if it comes to that.  Of course they will say it’s for America, but right now and for years to come, Iran poses no significant military threat to the United States.  It does pose a serious threat to Israel, in part because of the millennia of racial and religious hatred between Persians and Jews.  The US is a relative late-comer to this culture of hatred.  In addition, there is the question of Jewish political contributions.  At least some of the Republicans are motivated by the desire for the huge political contributions that rich Jews like Sheldon Adelson can make, as illustrated by the pilgrimages that potential Republican presidential candidates make to kiss Adelson’s ring.  It is even more reprehensible if Republicans send Christian boys and girls to fight and die in combat in order for the candidates to rake in Jewish political contributions.  There is also the possibility of Republicans wanting Jewish votes, but it’s not a big population in comparison to the entire United States; however, Harry Truman recognized Israel so quickly over the objection of his Secretary of State because he wanted the Jewish vote, and it worked; he beat Dewey.  The main organization building the Republican-Jewish connection is AIPAC, which attracts leaders of Jewish community organizations, Christian evangelical leaders, and Republican politicians.  I don’t understand how it works, except for money.  AIPAC has tons of money, which it distributes to support right-wing Israel interests, and Republican politicians may be addicted to it.  But if they send Americans to fight and die for AIPAC money, it strikes me as bordering on treasonous.

On the other hand, there are the Jews who are Democrats.  It seems like the majority of Jewish politicians are liberal Democrats, with whom I probably agree more closely on policy issues than with my putative kinsmen, the white, Christian, Southern Republicans.  Furthermore, Israel appears (or appeared before last night) to be more evenly split between right-wing, apartheid zealots and easier-going moderates who might be open to peace with the Palestinians.  So, Jewish-American politicians and Israelis themselves tend toward being more moderate than the main Jewish political organization, AIPAC, and the main hawks in Congress, conservative Republicans.   I don’t know where Jews stand in their innermost thoughts.  Certainly the Holocaust cannot be ignored in their thinking, but if they really care about the Holocaust, how can they oppress the Palestinians the way that they do.  Gaza is not unlike the ghettos that Hitler forced the Jews into during World War II.

The Jews may not have a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem like Hitler had to the Jewish problem, but Netanyahu’s renunciation of the goal of a two-state solution is certainly worrying.  He has continued to build Jewish settlements on Arab land, and he has strongly encouraged European Jews to move to Israel.  This may indicate that Israel is still expanding; it has no intention of returning to the borders established by the UN after World War II.  Netanyahu’s goal is some kind of greater Israel.  (It sounds terrible, but does Israel desire “lebensraum” like Germany did before World War II?)  He appears to believe that Israel needs more land and more Jewish population to avoid being overwhelmed by the Jews in and around Israel.  Right now, Iran is the greatest threat to this “greater Israel” ambition.  Israel has to some extent co-opted the main Sunni states, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to support Israel.  So, the Shiite states present the greatest threat, and Iran is the leader of the Shiite states.  Netanyahu may not be so worried about Iran’s future nuclear capability as he is about taking Iran down a rung now, to limit its power in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, etc.  Screaming about the Iranian nuclear program is way to drum up support for an attack on Iran, or at least strong diplomatic pressure on it.  That serves Netanyahu’s goal of building a greater Israel by presenting Iran with an array of enemies in the West who believe they are trying to limit Iran’s nuclear program, when in fact they are mainly meant to limit Iran’s current strategic leverage on Israel.

If this is the case, Secretary of State Kerry may think he is engaged in the noble goal of trying to limit Iran’s nuclear program, but in fact he is an agent for Jewish efforts to limit Iran’s strategic power, with or without nuclear weapons.

Netanyahu, Iran and the NPT

The US has weakened its ability to restrict Iran’s nuclear program using the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  The idea behind the NPT when it was created in 1970 was to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.  Countries that had no nuclear weapons promised not to develop them, but they were allowed to engage in peaceful nuclear activities.  Five countries that already had nuclear weapons could keep them if they were grandfathered under the treaty, although they undertook to eventually eliminate them.  The countries allowed to have nuclear weapons were China, France, Russia, Britain, and the United States.  Although India, Pakistan, and Israel are all known to have nuclear weapons, they are not parties to the NPT.  North Korea also has exploded nuclear devices and has had sort of an on-again, off-again relationship with the NPT.  Iran is a party to the NPT. 

The giant loophole that the US created for India under the NPT the US determination not to make an issue of Israel’s nuclear weapons makes it hard to demand that Iran cease all nuclear activities, as Israel wants and as the US sometimes demands, depending on who is speaking.  In the mid-2000’s, the US under George W. Bush basically gave India an exemption from the NPT, saying that the US would cooperate normally with India on nuclear matters and India could keep its nuclear arsenal.  The US generally protects Israel’s nuclear arsenal from international diplomatic pressure.  Meanwhile, Pakistan and North Korea have successfully resisted international pressure to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.  Since America has basically given a pass to four countries with nuclear weapons, it is hard for it to say that it will go to war and destroy Iran’s nuclear program, which so far has not egregiously violated the NPT safeguards. 

Right now, today, Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is a greater threat to the United States than is Iran’s nascent nuclear program which so far has not one nuclear weapon.  Pakistan is full of terrorist sympathizers in Waziristan and other territories that pose more danger to the US military in Afghanistan than to Israel.  Hence, Israel says, “Don’t worry about Pakistan; Iran is the bad country because it holds more animosity toward Israel.”  Jews want American gentile soldiers to die fighting in Iran to increase Israeli security.  Netanyahu spoke to Congress because Israel cannot defend itself against Iran and thus wants America to fight Iran for it.  Let the Jews fight their own battles. 

Furthermore, when nuclear powers have negotiated nuclear disarmament they seek mutual reductions in nuclear weapons.  Israel wants Iranian nuclear disarmament, but Israel is unwilling to negotiate over its own nuclear arsenal.  Israel says we are allowed to have nuclear weapons, but Iran is not.  What is the basis for this assumption?  Is it because the Israelis consider themselves God’s chose people, while Iran is not.  Israel is demonstrating its extreme race hatred, directed at Arabs as well as Persians.  Should the US be leading negotiations, which at bottom are fueled by race hatred?  Why should Netanyahu be allowed to spew race hatred before the US Congress and be cheered for it?  What’s wrong with this picture? 

Netanyahu's Speech

Bibi Netanyahu gave an excellent speech to the American Congress, but it was at its core full of race hatred.  Clearly Jews hate Persians, and their hatred is reciprocated.  Iran wants a nuclear program that would enable it to build a nuclear bomb sometime in the future, and Israel wants to prevent that by all means, including war.  But what Bibi really wants if for gentile American boys and girls to fight that war, rather than Israeli Jews.  Jews don’t fight for America, even with America fights Israel’s wars, as in Iraq, who “weapons of mass destruction” posed a much greater threat to Israel than to America.  High ranking American Jews like Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, and Doug Feith were happy to send Christians to fight and die for Israel in Iraq.  Now Bibi wants a new cohort of American Christians to fight and die in Iran. 

There’s nothing new about this.  Anglophile Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted to join Britain in the War against Hitler, but despite his love of the British, he did not do it until Japan invaded the US.  In this case, Bibi wants to stir the US to go to war before there is any direct threat to the US.  The Iranian government hates the US, and has hated it for years, certainly since the US overthrew the Iranian government and installed the Shah.  Iran reciprocated by destroying Jimmy Carter with the hostage crisis and installing Ronald Reagan as President, illustrated by its release of the hostages as soon as Reagan was elected.  Reagan thanked Iran by doing the Iran-Contra deal, giving Iran some weapons it could not get otherwise. 

In his speech, Bibi said that Israel can defend itself.  Let it do so.  We don’t need any more American gentiles to die in Israel’s Middle East wars.  Meanwhile we have American Jews deserting America for Israel.  The last two Israeli ambassadors, Ron Dermer and Michael Oren, were born in the US and renounced their US citizenship.  Many young Jewish Americans serve in the Israeli military, two prominent ones are Chicago mayor Raum Emanuel and NYT columnist David Brooks’ son.  Netanyahu has appealed to Jews in Europe, particularly in recently attacked France in Denmark, to leave Europe and move to Israel.  He implies that Jews cannot be loyal to any country but Israel.   

The article on David Brooks’ son refers to Aliyah, the right of return to Israel for Jews.  It says that you must have at least one Jewish grandparent.  By that standard, Bill and Hilary Clinton’s granddaughter, Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky, has the right of return, although by Orthodox Jewish standards Charlotte is not Jewish, because Jewishness only comes from the mother, and Chelsea is not Jewish.  However, Charlotte’s father and his father and mother are Jewish.   So, Charlotte has three times what she needs for Aliyah.  Her grandfather, Ed Mezvinsky, a former Congressman, was convicted of 31 charges of fraud in 2001 and served five years in prison.  The Clintons are of course friendly with Jews.  Bill Clinton was roundly criticized for his pardon of Marc Rich just before Clinton left office.  Ironically Rich, a Jew, was under indictment for trading with Iran during hostage crisis.  According to Wikipedia, many senior Israeli officials, including some from the Mossad, and Dick Cheney’s Scooter Libby of Iraq War fame, urged Clinton to pardon Rich because of his assistance to Israel.  No doubt the pardon has helped the Clintons raise money from Jewish sources.  Recently there has been a lot of talk about how much money the Clintons have gotten from foreign sources; presumably some of them are Jewish.  

Anticipating Netanyahu's Speech

We will have to see what Netanyahu says in his speech to Congress.  It sounds like he will say that we must go to war with Iran if Iran does not end its nuclear program. 

Implicit in this call for an end to Iran’s program is a call for military force to destroy the nuclear program if Iran does not do so itself.  This military force seems likely to be American, perhaps aided to some extent by the Israelis, maybe some Sunni Arabs, and maybe some half-hearted Western European support.

There are a number of non-Jewish politicians who support Netanyahu, including McCain, Boehner, and a lot of conservative Republicans.  Some are legitimately concerned, but I worry that some are motivated by Jewish political contributions. In return for Jewish money these politicians are willing to send Gentile American boys (and girls) to fight and die in Iran to protect Israel. 

Iran presents some threat to the US, but not nearly as much as it does to Israel.  Pakistan probably presents more of a threat to the US than Iran does, and Pakistan already has many nuclear weapons.  Pakistan is more unstable than Iran and more opposed to American interests.  Taliban training and taking refuge in Pakistan often attack Americans and their Afghan allies in Afghanistan.  So, if we were going to send some American soldiers to die to stop a nuclear threat, it would make more sense to send them to Pakistan than to Iran.  Because of this, I worry that American Jews are incapable of judging the real foreign policy risks to America.  Jews may be willing to see America destroyed in order to preserve Israel. 

Maybe Netanyahu, or some Jewish-American politician will say something that will ease my concerns about Jews putting Israel’s interests ahead of America’s, but I am not expecting it.  I find this whole dustup over Netanyahu’s speech deeply disturbing, particularly because things seem to be heating up with Russia, but Russia is no threat to Israel; so, Jews don’t worry about a potential nuclear way, except to the extent that it may affect Jews in Ukraine.  

Nemtsov and Maidan

If Putin is behind the murder of Boris Nemtsov, it may be because he does not want a repeat of the Ukrainian Maidan Square protests in Russia.  Putin appears to have been blindsided by the speed with which the Maidan protests ousted Ukrainian Premier Yanukovych, leading to the low grade war going on now.  Putin does not want to see something similar happen to him in Russia.  By killing Nemtsov, he made sure that the Russian protests would not get out of hand. 

I don’t know whether Putin order Nemtsov’s murder, but I doubt that he was disappointed by it.  It is unlikely that it would have happened if Putin has been strongly opposed to it, or even highly concerned about Nemtsov’s safety.  Putin could have provided security for him that would have made his assassination impossible. 

The fact that Putin is so closely linked to the murder raises serious human rights issues for Russia, and security concerns for many Russians unhappy with Putin.  It will make it more difficult for the US to do business with him, in particular getting Russian cooperation on Iran nuclear matters.  There is an outside chance that Putin might be more cooperative on Iran to ease some of the pressure resulting from the Nemtsov murder.