NY Times weaves a Netanyahu-Romney conspiracy tale
Leo Rennert, AMERICAN THINKER
There it is above the fold on the front page of the Sunday, April 8, New York Times, a tale of a long friendship between GOP presidential aspirant Mitt Romney and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with insinuations aplenty that it could become an unprecedented and worrisome Israeli influence conduit reaching directly into the Oval Office. (“A Friendship Dating to 1976 Resonates in 2012 – Shared Experiences Connect Romney and Netanyahu”).
The story, by Michael Barbaro, begins in 1976 when the Boston Consulting Group hired both men as corporate advisers — the seed of a lasting, personal friendship. So far, it seems an innocent enough happenstance, but Barbaro is quick to cast it in dark hues, with innuendoes, inferences and hints that this would give Israel automatic control of U.S. policy in the Middle East. Or, as Barbaro puts it, “a warm friendship, little known to outsiders, is now rich in political intrigue.”
Fleshing out his theme of an extraordinary and potentially problematic bond between Romney and Netanyahu, Barbaro recounts how the relationship was nurtured “over meals in Boston, New York and Jerusalem and heightened by their conservative ideologies.”
Having sown his alarms about the two men’s dubious ties, Barbaro proceeds to speculate what the history of such friendship actually might portend for life-and-death White House decisions in a Romney presidency — a “history that could well influence decision-making at a time when the United States may face crucial questions about whether to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities or support Israel in such action.”
In other words, Bibi could end up calling the shots for a complaisant President Romney. Barbaro notes ominously that Romney has suggested “that he would not make any significant policy decisions about Israel without consulting Mr. Netanyahu.” Wow! But what’s wrong with that? Doesn’t Obama consult with Britain’s David Cameron or Germany Chancellor Merkel on NATO decisions affecting them? Aren’t consultations with close allies a perfectly normal part of U.S. diplomacy? Why, even Winston Churchill slept in the White House during World War 2 without being able to twist FDR around his little finger. When the chips are down, U.S. presidents act according to their views of U.S. national interests.
Barbaro, however, declares that, when it comes to Israel getting some input on strategic U.S. Mideast decisions, it would amount “to a level of deference that could raise eyebrows given Mr. Netanyahu’s polarizing reputation, even as it appeals to the neoconservatives and evangelical Christians who are fiercely protective of Israel.” Raised eyebrows by whom, besides the New York Times?
But thus doth Barbara pump up his conspiracy tale by picturing Bibi as opening the way for neoconservatives and Christian evangelicals to appropriate Mideast decision-making in a Romney White House.
Undaunted, Barbaro buttresses his view that U.S. consultations with Israel would constitute a dangerous camel’s-nose-under-the-U.S.-tent leverage for Israel by quoting Martin Indyk, a U.S. ambassador to Israel during the Clinton administration. Indyk, of course, is ready and willing to authenticate his conspiracy theory. According to Indyk, a readiness by Romney to consult with Netanyahu on matters affecting Israel, “whether intentional or not, implies that Romney would subcontract Middle East policy to Israel (and) that of course, would be inappropriate.”
All this because of two years of on-and-off concurrent work by Bibi and Mitt at Boston Consulting in the mid-1970s (the two men never worked together on a project). Barbaro, however, emphasizes that the friendship continued beyond that. Later, he notes, after decamping to Bain & Company, “Romney worked closely with Fleur Cates, Mr. Netanyahu’s second wife.” But even after Bibi divorced his second wife, “Ms. Cates remains in touch with Mr. Romney.”
Remember, dear reader, the name of Fleur Cates, a gray eminence navigating somewhere between Bibi and Mitt. What a conspiratorial tale! The only thing missing are the graphics to give it even more heft than just splashing it on the front page.
What next in the New York Times — a piece legitimizing the original bogus Jewish conspiracy tale, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”?
Leo Rennert is a former White House correspondent and Washington bureau chief of McClatchy Newspaers
@ CuriousAmerican:
I thought his explanation made more sense than any other I’d heard till then.
Or, frankly, than I’ve heard since.
What did you find ‘senseless’ about it?
@ CuriousAmerican:
You don’t get it, Curio. Let me help you out here.
It’s true that the Arabs — and, frankly, the world — don’t give a rusty screw about International Law. You’re quite right there.
But they — the Arabs & the world generally — aren’t the primary target (or shouldn’t be) of education about Jewish rights in International Law.
Those who care about being lawful are the JEWS (for better or for worse).
The Jew needs to know that what he does is lawful; needs to feel it in his bones, or he won’t have the innards, the kishkes, to do what it takes to defend himself.
And in the end, if the Jew isn’t prepared to defend himself, nothing else will matter.
It’s fine for us to show the world the history & archeology & the unbroken presence, and all the rest of it.
But the Jew needs to know that legally he’s on solid ground; then he’ll fight.
Not unless.
THAT’s why the matter of International Law counts.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Yes.
No sir; not so.
It was not at-all legal by International Law.
Part of the provision of the Mandate System included the League of Nations’ oversight bureau — a watchdog agency, if you will: the Permanent Mandates Commission (PMC).
Each mandatory authority was required to submit an annual Report to the Commission for approval.
The seven international PMC members present at the Geneva hearings throughout June of that year [1939]: the French, Portuguese, Belgian, Dutch, Norwegian, Swiss & British commissioners unanimously took note of the naked perfidy reflected in this White Paper, although the language of their rebuke was more bland in observing the violations.
The PMC’s subsequent Report two months later confirmed the Commission’s four-member, majority opinion — declaring, with reference to the present document’s newest, most severe immigration & land purchase restrictions as well as the White Paper’s plans for a British handover to Arab rule, that “[t]he policy set out in the White Paper is not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the [League] Council, the Commission has placed on the Palestine Mandate” [i.e., to expedite the creation of a Jewish National Home].
It was an exquisitely delicate way of placing the ever-proper Brits on notice that what they were doing constituted not only a high-handed and shameful betrayal of the Mandate’s sacred trust but also a grossly and outrageously illegal one.
[The three-member minority (including the HMG delegate, Lord Hankey) asserted that circumstances might warrant a change of policy — if the League Council would not object to it.]
President Franklin Roosevelt — unlike his own State Department — had also questioned the White Paper’s legality:
“Frankly,” wrote the President to Foggy Bottom on the day of the White Paper’s release, 17 May 1939, “I do not see how the British Government reads into the original Mandate or [even] into the Churchill White Paper of 1922 [which the present Paper had cited as its basis, and whose ‘fulfillment,’ asserted Secretary MacDonald (at the PMC hearings), was embodied in the present Paper — dw] any policy that would limit Jewish immigration” — stating further, at that time, that he regarded the White Paper strictures as “something that we cannot give approval to by the United States.” [17 May 39, 867N. 01/1556 ½; cited in Nicholas Bethell, The Palestine Triangle: The Struggle for the Holy Land, 1935-48 (Putnam, NY, 1979), p. 69]
“Roosevelt did not share the British view that it would be ‘illegal’ to convert Palestine into a Jewish state against Arab wishes. In his view, the reference to maintaining the ‘civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities’ meant only that the Arabs could not be deprived of citizenship or the right to take part in government. It did not mean that they could not be deprived of their majority status. The impression given to the whole world at the time of the Mandate, he wrote, was that Palestine would be converted into a Jewish Home ‘which might very possibly become predominantly Jewish within a comparatively short time.” [Bethell, Ibid., pp. 69-70]
“I was at Versailles,” declared FDR to his Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, “and I know that the British made no secret of the fact that they promised Palestine to the Jews. Why are they now reneging on their promise?” [cited in Peter Grose, Israel in the Mind of America (Alfred Knopf, NY, 1983), p. 134]
THEN, AGAIN, TO BE SURE, the President, in the end, did not withhold that “approval” of the White Paper.
The President himself never paid anything more than lip service to his position in the quarrel over the document. There was, after all, the matter of keeping Sa’udi oil flowing into U.S. tankers [petroleum, originally contracted between producer & consumer-importer, has been “pooled” — sold on the open commodities market — only since the 1950’s], and anything concrete & substantive in the way of U.S. support for lifting White Paper restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine might have caused the Sa’udi oil spigot to sputter, or at least belch.
And not to be ignored either were the “fragile” negotiations of FDR’s Interior Secretary — America’s first-ever “Energy Czar,” the crusty Harold Ickes — with the Sa’udis, to facilitate AR-AMCO’s construction of an oil pipeline connecting Sa’udi refineries to the Mediterranean; nor to be overlooked, the proposal to build an American airbase near the US oil entrepôt of Dharan, while providing Lend-Lease assistance to the Sa’udi ‘democracy.’ Nothing would be permitted to upset these precarious dealings.
[Robert Silverberg, If I Forget Thee, O Jerusalem: American Jews and the State of Israel (NY, 1970), p. 239 et seq.; Joseph B. Schechtman, The United States and the Jewish State Movement; the Crucial Decade, 1939-1949 (NY, 1966), p. 74 et seq.; both cited in Walter Laqueur, A History of Zionism (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, NY, 1972), pp. 554-55]
“Altogether quite legal by International Law”? — my arse:
Tthe White Paper’s terms violated an international treaty: the 3 December 1924 Anglo-American Convention on Palestine — which instrument, containing incorporated within in it both the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate Charter, had been duly ratified by the US Senate & proclaimed by Pres. Calvin Coolidge on 5 December 1925: and thus (like all Senate-ratified, U.S. treaties) been rendered part of internally binding, U.S. domestic law.
That treaty placed the US — notwithstanding its non-membership in the League itself [owing to senatorial refusal to ratify the 1919 Versailles Treaty (containing the League Covenant as its “Article One”)] — on an equal footing with League members as to the Palestine Mandate: thus making the USA a lawful party to the League’s contractual relation with, and supervisory position over, the Palestine Mandatory [i.e., HMG].
The Anglo-American Convention had provided that no change might be made in the Mandate without U.S. consent [Article 7], and it emplaced upon, and vested in, this country’s government [US] a duty — identical to that of the League — to demand & require that Britain, as Mandatory, honor her legitimate Mandate obligations.
Professor Nathan Feinberg, of the Academy of International Law in The Hague, summarized what attempts were, in fact, made — on Capitol Hill — to adhere to the 1924 Convention:
But after all the speeches were delivered & all the memoranda written & all the letters mailed — this country did nothing whatsoever to bring His Britannic Majesty’s Government to its senses in the matter of the White Paper of 1939.
But NOT because any of it was “altogether quite legal by International Law.”
Any possibility of policy reversal was to be overtaken by world events: Review of the matter had, in fact, been calendared by the PMC for 8 September. But German tanks, planes & troops crossed the Polish frontier on 1 September, Britain (and France) declared war on Germany on 3 September, and the flaccid and long-moribund League finally gave up the ghost. . . .
The progression of events was such that, “after the outbreak of war, the League Council no longer met. Thus the White Paper was not ratified and it did not, strictly speaking, acquire international sanction. But after 1 September 1939, no one bothered any longer about legal niceties.” [Laqueur, op cit., p. 529]
The MacDonald White Paper was left, effectively, to set itself in stone, and Britain, writes Shmuel Katz, proceeded to “execute the White Paper policy as if Palestine had been a British possession — and the White Paper, an Act of Parliament.” [Samuel Katz, Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine (Bantam, NY, 1973; 3d Edition, Steimatzky, NY, 1985), p. 75].
For European Jewry, it was indeed a Death Warrant.
But nothing about it was legal in International Law.
@ CuriousAmerican:
This is actually a false distinction.
Have you read the Mandate? If not, then do so. It’ll take you all of four minutes.
Six, if you’re slow, like me.
And don’t overlook its Preamble; it’s important, not window-dressing.
If you understand the Mandate, then you know — as evidenced in the Preamble (whose 7 recitals we have discussed here before) — that International Law, as incorporated in the Mandate, is itself GROUNDED in those four other things you mentioned: history, archeology, continued presence, the covenant.
To support International Law is to support the basis for it as well.
It’s true that the Brits used the Balfour clause as an escape clause, but as a colonial power, the Brits had always been past-masters at reinterpreting statements to mean whatever they found convenient & expedient — and if it hadn’t been that clause, they’d have found something else, somewhere else.
The truth is that there was nothing in that clause in the Balfour Declaration that gave anybody other than the Jews NATIONALITY rights in the Land.
If you read the Mandate, it will quickly become clear that the only nationality which is mentioned by name anywhere in THAT document, in all of its 28 Articles & Preamble are the Jews.
That was no oversight.
In fact, no “community” of any kind is identified explicitly by name except the Jews.
No “Palesinians,” no “Arabs” — nobody.
The “civil & religious rights” which were not to be prejudiced were the same INDIVIDUAL rights which were granted to everybody, regardless of what community they attached themselves to.
@ CuriousAmerican:
YOU misunderstand the nature of AIPAC.
It’s not a “Jewish” lobby.
It’s a pro-Israeli lobby.
Much of its support comes not from Jews — but from gentiles, primarily (though not exclusively) Evangelical Zionists.
@ Ted Belman:
I can believe that. What’s your source? I know that Obama lobbied with lots of pressure of the Oval office to get Congress to reverse their position, there might have been some political trade off and BB might have interceded to support Obama. If BB did I agree with Vinnie congress would never have passed the legislation if Israel were firmly against.
In any event the release of the money did not make the palis more pliable and amenable for talks.
Palestinians rebuff Netanyahu’s call for direct peace talks
PA says negotiations will ‘waste time’ unless accompanied by settlement freeze
@ Ted Belman:
@ Vinnie:
I didn’t say they were one and the same, just that they have similarities and that Vinnie supports both.
@ Vinnie:
When I say Wall St. I state the obvious, they own a good chunk of Corporate America as opposed to buying Treasuries. Just look at their apparent influence over FNC as a minority stock holder. Major Corporations doing business in Arab and Muslim countries. These same multinationals lobby state congressman where they have operations and donate to their campaigns. When they have major Arab minority stockholders in compaies doing business in Arab countries like construction, oil, Chemicals and military sales and co production like Egypt ( American Tanks) and Turkey) they have clout. Today 50% of American corp profits come from foreign operations and sales.
Arabs don’t necessarily have to Lobby congress directly , which they do, they use American corporations as well. There is no way in hell Israel can compete with that.
Don’t anyone tell you differently Intel would not be in Israel if we did not pay for their plant construction and infrastructure to the tune
of almost a billion dollars. Looks good on our Line Card but not sure if it was worth our investment.
For us in Israel Obama is almost irrelevant. He is your problem. Our problem is BB for the moment because if we had a true Jewish leader here with a set of CAJONES there would not be much Obama could do to us. He is one of Americas weakest presidents. Whether he is good or bad for America is not really our concern although I have my personal opinions.
As a Jew and Israeli/American, I will not be defined based on whether I support Obama or not. Presidents come and Presidents go. Were it up to me I would divest from America, refuse their aid and put our relations on a normal level of interests and give and take. The world will soon cease to be bipolar and there will be multiple big players. We played that game well in the past and can do it again. Israel today is not the Israel of the 60’s and 70’s. In 2013 there will be a Global economic meltdown and possibly war. There is not much Obama can do to hurt us.,
We are positioning ourselves and diversifying our markets to better be able to absorb the coming shocks. Not sure how America can handle the coming shocks no matter who is elected. Over 40% of Americans are one paycheck away from the breadlines with little assets and no savings. Service economies can not survive an extended depression. Without government how can the military industrial complex not be seriously downsized?
The Republican party cure is austerity and that will make the economy even worse and hurt the most vulnerable. What do you want a civil war? They are selling 2 million guns a month now and there is a long waiting list for popular models. Europeans who are rioting don’t own guns. Americans do!!
AE and CA are not one in the same. AE had no interest in S America. His thing was India where he originated.
Bibi has never used economic pressure on the PA. The opposite. In various ways he helps their economy. To you and I, it seems counter productive. Bibi wants the money to keep flowing to the Palestinians for two reasons.
1) Israel’s biggest trading partners are the Palestinians and for this to continue, they must have money to pay for things. Big business interests in Israel demand it.
2) Bibi wants stability and he wants the PA not to fold its tent. If the money stopped. there would be anarchy which is not in Israel’s interests. If the PA folded its tent, Israel as the occupier according to the FGC, would be solely responsible to provide the necessaries of life to the Palestinians.
At least that’s how I understand it.
@ yamit82:
Here, Yamit, I agree with you in the main but you overstate your case. To say that what Wall St. wants and what the Arabs want are the same borders on the absurd. As you yourself have pointed out many times, Israel today is heavily integrated into the world economy. All kinds of major companies are heavily invested in Israel. The last thing Intel, Microsoft, ATT, the list goes on and on, want is to see Israel destroyed, but that is exactly what the Arabs want. No, I do not agree at all that what Wall St. wants is the same thing the Arabs want. What Wall St. wants is not necessarily the same thing Israel wants, either, but you go too far in saying Wall St. is “against” Israel.
But, I agree with you that stated support of Israel on the part of politicians, and how they behave on matters of concrete policy, often differ greatly.
@ yamit82:
Yamit, I’m always the same Vinnie.
I honestly have no idea whatever as to whether or not AE is CA. I stand by my prior defense of AE, and my present defense of CA. I may not agree with either on every point, but to characterize them as “enemies” is downright silly. You waste your energy treating them as such. Unless, of course, you consider anyone who disagrees with you on anything an “enemy”. Well, even then, you’d be wasting your energy…
To me, if CA or AE is against Obama, they’re more of a “friend” than any Jew who still supports Obama.
@ Ted Belman:
Ted,
I don’t think it was that simple.
My understanding was that Obama put maximum pressure on Bibi to in turn put pressure on his friends in Congress to back off from cutting funds from the PA. I believe this pressure took the form of threats to be less than supportive of Israel in the UN, within the context of what was then the upcoming PA application for statehood.
Bibi had absolutely no interest in supporting the PA. Why would he want to keep them afloat?
@ yamit82:
Yamit, my comment was in broad strokes and I stand behind it. Congress was going to penalize the PA and even UNRWA until Bibi asked them not to, so they refrained. Bibi wanted the money to keep flowing.
@ CA
As indeed you should; indeed you should love me for speaking truth to you, albeit using it as a whip with which to flay knowledge into your quivering posterior!
You may be dumb as a doorknob, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have an obligation to correct you!
Consider it noblesse oblige!
@ Ted Belman:
You imply that the Arabs have no influence over congress?
Where it counts they have more than the Jews.
Do you have any idea of how much they contribute to congressmen? Their influence and control of corporate America who in turn lobby in favor of the Arabs? Do you see any divergence between what Wall st. wants and what the Arabs want?
Has any pro Arab legislation ever been blocked by congress? Only a week or so the Republican congress voted to give the palis almost a quarter billion dollars.
You make the same mistake most Jews make. You credit statements and superficial appearances but ignore deeds.
@ Vinnie:
Your asserted friendship and defense of AE means that your credibility is zero in evaluating both who is a friend of Israel and Jews in general and who is not.
Except for the screen name our CA could easily be AE. Same style same arguments and same dogged dissing of everyone’s comments.
Same Vinnie defending both?
I see a pattern here.
The Jews have great influence over Congress. The Arabs have great influence over the Executive including the State Department. The latter determines foreign policy regardless of who controls Congress or who is in the Whitehouse.
Curious and Vinnie. Comments, not disertation. I have given you both great latitude but must ask you to limit yourself to 400 words per comment and do not add another comment. I will simply remove anything that violates this guideline.
I have locked horns with many Zionists but not over desireable results but rather over techniques.
For example:|
Many Zionists use the Balfour Declaration, the British Mandate, and the UN to back up their claim to Israel.
Actually the Jewish claim to Israel is solidly based upon
1) History
2) Archeology
3) Continued presence in the land. Unless chased out, Jews were always returning. They got tossed out by the Crusaders. When the Arabs came back, the Jews returned. When the Crusaders came back again, the Arabs cut a deal that Jerusalem would be Christian except for the Holy Places. Part of the arrangement was to toss the Jews out. When the Crusaders got tossed out a second time, the Jews tried to return again. In the 1600s, there was a vast migration to Jerusalem started by Sabbati Zvi.
4) If you are religious, the Abrahamic Covenant.
THESE ARE INCONTROVERTIBLE FACTS.
They are much better defenses of Israel than International Law.
The Balfour Declaration and the Mandate both have a fatal escape clause.
The British used that escape clause to ban Jewish immigration in 1939 with the White paper.
This condemned millions of Jews to the gas chambers. It was brutally immoral, but altogether quite legal by International Law.
For Israel to depend on International Law, or defend itself by International Law is insane.
If you justify Israel by International Law you fall into that escape clause.
So I tell my Jewish friends stick to:
1) History
2) Archeology
3) Continued presence. Unless chased out, Jews were always returning
4) If you are religious, the Abrahamic Covenant.
Stick to those 4. They are absolutely incontrovertible.
When you appeal to International Law, you are appealing to a political animal.
In the 18th century, International Law gave Britain a right to sell slaves in Latin America, called the Asiento.
By the 20th century, International Law forbade Slavery.
International Law changes.
If you appeal to the Authority of the 1947 UN partition, then what the UN giveth, the UN taketh away; blessed be the name of the UN.
By submitting to the UN in 1947, you make yourself subject to the present anti-Israel declarations.
Israel’s right to exist does NOT come from Balfour, nor the UN, nor the League of Nations.
The first Aliyah was in 1880 long before Balfour, the UN, or the League of Nations.
If you stick to:
1) History
2) Archeology
3) Continued presence. Unless chased out, Jews were always returning
4) If you are religious, the Abrahamic Covenant.
You will win.
If you appeal to an International Law which changes with each election, you will lose.
I am amazed that defenders of Israel appeal to International Law.
All the wasted time on this or that research paper why the Jews have a “legal” right to Judea and Samaria.
The Arab does not care about International Law. He appeals only to Sharia.
Do you think he cares about Western legal opinion?
But if you go to Judea and Samaria and start digging you will find Jewish artifacts everywhere.
This does NOT depend on International Law, or some scholar.
THIS IS INCONTROVERiBLE EVIDENCE OF PRIORITY.
Israel is trying to negotiate at the UN while allowing the Arabs to destroy Jewish history at Solomon’s Stables. This is insanity.
The artifacts from Solomon’s stables are your title deeds, not the United Nations.
In this the Arab is smarter than many defenders of Israel. He knows the fickle nature of International Law. The Arab knows he can change world opinion in time. So the Arab digs up Solomon’s Stables while Jewish lawyer trace down some legal ruling in 1920 regarding the San Remo conference and the British Mandate.
The Arab knows what is permanent and what is transitory.
Yet, when I point this out to many Jews on the net, I am hammered.
“Oh!” You oppose Israel.
NO! I oppose stupidity.
Yamit, whose arrogance I detest, would appeal to the 5 books of Moses.
As much as I dislike Yamit’s arrogance, his appeal to the Bible is a more solid justification for Israel than International Law.
The Bible, even if you are not religious, places the Jews in recorded history. It establishes historically a Jewish priority on the land.
It predates Islam by over a millenia further amplifying the priority.
So though I find Yamit’s contempt for Arabs distasteful, his justification for Israel is far more consistently logical than those who appeal to this or that European summit, or this or that UN conference.
Mr. Belman has articles on this or that legal proof why Judea and Samaria should be Jewish.
I hate to say it, but he would be better off, and more logically consistent, to present archeological proof. There is a Professor Barkay who sifts through the garbage from Solomon’s Temple that the Arabs have dumped in the Kidron Valley. He has found dozens of Jewish artifacts proving Jewish priority.
You can debate over whether “homeland” in the Balfour Declaration meant an independent nation or merely an autonomous reservation. But you cannot debate the existence of a Bar Kochba coin when you find it.
I am amazed at the amount of useless legalese efforts made by Zionists.
I often play devil’s advocate to point out the errors in their logic and they mistake me for a Palestinian supporter. I am not.
If you are going to help Israel, then think OUTSIDE THE BOX.
1) Legal tradition will not help you. International Law is too fickle.
2) Instead of warring with the Judea and Samarian Arabs, try and buy them out. I recommend sending them to South America, which until recently was assimilating Arabs quite well.
3) Instead of Balfour, appeal to archeology
4) Appeal to the Bible, even if you are not religious. The Bible places the Jews in history, thousands of years before the Arabs.
5) Appeal to history, which shows a continuous presence.
But please do not appeal to this or that International Court ruling. International Law is much too fickle.
So there is my view.
Religious Jews group up tutored in HaTorah (the Law). I suspect they project this respect for Law onto Gentile Law and use it as a platform. We Gentiles do not respect the principle of Law the way Jews respect HaTorah(the Law).
To us, Law is changeable on an as need basis.
So when I see Jewish lawyers trying to defend Israel from legal basis, I want to scream.
Do you think an Arab cares?
Make your case from something more substantial. You have the evidence, why are you appealing to fickle law>
This is a key article:
In the 1990s, Buenos Aires was in a boom and one of the most expensive places on the planet to live, before the currency collapse. Yet, the Argentine gov’t just happens to donate PRIME REAL ESTATE in DOWNTOWN BUENOS AIRES to a Muslim Center funded by the Saudis.
The locals – who were heavily upscale Argentine Catholics – were furious.
This donation (8 acres) was roughly the size of Bryant Park (9 acres) in Manhattan.
Can you imagine donating Bryant Park to a Mosque? THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED IN BUENOS AIRES.
The figure given is that the land was worth $10 million, which is admitted to be absurdly low, considering developers could have put skyscrapers on it.
This happened just one year after the 1994 AMIA bombing in Buenos Aires and the country was really anti-Muslims.
Argentina is still very mad about the AMIA bombings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERVQjVvt9Uw
CIRA (Centro Islamico de la Republica Argentina) defends this propaganda show.
1) The Muslims defend it by saying that there are 700,000 Muslims in Argentina who need a center
VERY IMPORTANT
2) But Pedro Brieger, a Jewish academic criticized for anti-settler views, studied Islam in Argentina, and came to the conclusion that Muslim figures are extremely exaggerated. Pedro Brieger is a news commentator and a professor at the University of Buenos Aires, a minor star in Argentina.
Yes, Muslims went to Argentina, but they almost always converted to, or married into, Christianity.
Less that 10% of Argentina’s Arabs are Muslim, but 40% have a Muslim ancestor, which means conversion/intermarriage was regular. Brieger noted that most Muslims live in Buenos Aires, but in a metropolitan area of 13 million, in 2003, only 3 Halal butchers could be found. Brieger placed practicing Muslims around 4,500 if I remember. The rest were dormant and, in effect, would either become agnostics or marry into Christianity.
Argentina is 9% Arabic, but these are multi-generationally Argentine, and 90% plus are Christian. And from what I see, the Christians ARE FURIOUS at CIRA (Centro Islamic de la Republica Argentina) for their propaganda.
9% of Argentina is Arabic, and 90% plus of the Arabs are Christian. So, at the highest, only 0.9% of Argentina could be Muslim, but as shown below, even that number is ridiculously exaggerated.
LOOK AT THAT EXAGGERATION!
Some say 3,000,000. The official figure is 700,000. A realistic figure is 50,000; but in practice only a paltry 4,500 are really practicing Muslims in Buenos Aires, where most Muslims would be found.
THIS IS AN EXAGGERATION OF ROUGHLY 700x REALITY
Now, do not get me wrong. Arabs did migrate to Argentina in very large numbers, and many of them were Muslim. But over time, they converted, and if Pedro Brieger is to be believed, the number of Muslims in Argentina is statistically insignificant, far below 1%
YET, HOW DID THE SAUDIS GET THE CLOUT TO GET A MOSQUE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DOWNTOWN OF ONE OF THE RICHEST NEIGHBORHOODS ON THE PLANET?
Downtown Buenos Aires is rich, even today after the currency collapse. In 1995, it rivalled downtown New York in cost of living.
Over time, this has had a bizarre effect.
Recently, Argentina legalized hijabs …
For whom?!
If Brieger is right, the number of Hijab wearers is small.
President Cristine Kirchner legalizing hijabs in Argentina
(Notice, She is in front of the CIRA (Centro de Islamico de la Republica Argentina)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrbEiG2HB1A
This is a country that is 89% Catholic, 9% Evangelical, 1/2% Jewish …and far less than 1% Muslim
But she is pandering to this idiocy. The Muslim figures are grossly exaggerated.
But it gets worse.
STATE TV has cancelled Secular programming to give CIRA (funded by the Saudis) their own program on STATE TV
THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY HAS A LOT TO CELEBRATE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vRKZE9gDlg
LOOK AT THIS GUY WITH THE MULLAH BEARD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGr-t2yIbcU
THE ARAB CHRISTIANS WERE FURIOUS. THEY CANCELLED AN ARAB SECULAR/CHRISTIAN SHOW TO MAKE TIME FOR THE ISLAMIC PROPAGANDA
THE ARAB-ARGENTINE CHRISTIANS (who are the vast majority) PROTESTED THIS SAUDI PROPAGANDA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHAUsZMimOM (I translated their protest video and put it back up on another youtube channel)
This is what one Argentine wrote in another youtube channel
Notice, he blames the Islamic Center, but I have just shown you that the Islamic Center is Saudi Funded.
1) They exaggerate greatly, by factors of 10 or more, the number of Muslims in Argentina
2) They get popular shows cancelled to make way for Islamic propaganda
3) Even Arab-Argentinas (who are 90% or more Christian) cannot stand them.
4) Christian Arab-Argentina had never discriminated against the occasional Muslim, who were allowed on their shows if they had talent, so the Christians feel this is a major betrayal
5) Notice, he said that the Secular/Christian show never really got into the Palestine issue. Actually it did, but NOT often.
6) The Secular/Christian show even had Jewish guests like Pedro Brieger.
Pedro Brieger on the Argentina SECULAR/CHRISTIAN ARAB SHOW Before it was cancelled to make way for Islamic propaganda
The Secular(Desde El Aljibe/From the Well) Go to (1:40) In Spanish.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-isSV67SnA
So, now from CIRA they are sending out propaganda to the second largest, and most Westernized, and most properous country in South America. If Brieger is right, prior to 1993, Islam was all but unknown in Argentina, except for a few thousand immigrants. Even by 2003, there were only 3 Halal butchers in a metropolitan area of 13 million.
Yet, now they are influencing Argentine social and broadcasting policies.
Jews, who had a REALLY MAJOR influence on Argentine history (there are still 180,000) are dwindling in power.
I found this on the Internet, and translated it and reposted it.
JEWISH REBIRTH IN THE PAMPAS (I added a 90 second introduction to give the history)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMUBbYaXe6Y
A) I ran into this by accident on the Internet. I was practicing my Spanish when I was astounded to learn of the vast Arabic influence in South America.
B) I was even more astounded to find out that 90% or more were Christians who had fled from the Mideast (often from Muslim tyranny)
C) I was astounded to find out that inspite of this, Saudi money was moving in and rewriting history and propagandizing the Arabs.
D) And more amazingly, the USA and Israel ignored all of this.
Caronline Glick blames Iran and Chavez.
I blame the USA and Israel. There were Christian Arabs. Would it have taken that much effort to remind them why their grandparents and great grandparents fled the Mideast in the first place?
Nature abhors a vacuum, and the Saudis and Iranians walked right in.
Argentina’s case is tragic.
The Arabs there are mostly Lebanese Maronites (who are very anti-Islamic) and Syrian Christian. They are not radicalized at all. Their FEARAB – ARGENTINA website is more about music and culture and assimilation into Argetnina.
For the Saudis to pull this off and put blatant propaganda on Argentine State TV is just amazing
==================
Notes:
A) Argentina is about 50% Italian, 50% Spanish, 17% French, 9% Arab, 8% German. 2% Arab, 1% Polish, 1% Scandanavian and 1% British. These intermarry so the number adds up to over 100%. Most Arab-Argentines are NOT pure Arab in ancestry. Almost all are Christian, even though many have a Muslim ancestor. They speak Spanish, but so many Italians arrived, that in Buenos Aires, they speak Spanish with a mild Italian accent.
B) Argentina has three classes of TV. Government TV, Public/State TV (sort of like PBS), and Private and Cable TV.
The Muslims got a space on Public/State TV. Real pressure applied, one told me, bribes were suspected.
C) About half of Argentina is pure Caucasion. About 30% is a Caucasion-Indian mix leaning heavily to the Caucasion. 20% is more of an Mestizo mix. Argentina may be the most European like Country in South America. They classify themselves as 85% white, which is sort of an exaggeration, but not much, if you include lighter-complected-Hispanic as being white. I am not being racist, just giving you the demographic background. For decades, they refused to consider themselves as Hispanic but called themselves Europeans. I can provide their own videos which show this. They are the most European country in South America. And Arabs were looked down upon at first UNTIL they became very properous.
They used to have a massive amount of Jews. Though diminished, they have the seventh largest Jewish community in the world.
It is therefore astounding that Saudi money is making inroads in this country.
D) They have had presidents of Italian ancestry (Juan Peron), British ancestry (Rawson), Irish ancestry (Farrell), German Swiss ancestry(Kirchner), and Syrian ancestry (Menem). Menem was the one who donated the land to the Saudis for a Mosque.
E)The creator of the secular show DESDE EL ALJIBE/FROM THE WELL, before it was cancelled, is now Argentina’s Ambassador to Lebanon
F)Isn’t it amazing what you can learn on the Internet if you use it for study and not for playing games? I only started out trying to improve my weak Spanish.
G)Some of this information, I emailed to Daniel Pipes. This is largely being ignored. He was interested. The problem is that Israel and USA are not getting the message out.
Folks, we’ve got some disagreements with CA, but I don’t think what he wrote in his most recent post above are the words of someone who hates Jews or Israel.
It doesn’t sound to me that he considers the influence he believes AIPAC to have as such a bad thing.
My disagreements with CA are up there for all to see. No need to reiterate.
But on the core issue he deals with, which really is not the influence or lack of the same of AIPAC, but rather the influence of Saudi money, I couldn’t agree with him more. I’ve been warning about this for years to anyone who’d listen. CA has given me some new “ammo”. Thanks, CA.
Look, there’s nothing controversial here about saying AIPAC has influence. If they didn’t, they might as well disband and go home. That’s why they’re there. Nothing to be ashamed of. Heck, as far as I’m concerned, would that they were as powerful as CA supposes.
It is possible that he is right: Were it not for the influence of organized pro-Israel groups – which includes but is not limited to AIPAC (there’s CUFI, ZOA, and others) – no matter how pro-Israel the American public may be, U.S. policy could very well be EXTREMELY anti-Israel. Look at Britain.
Caroline Glick posted an article around the time of Rosh Hashana, last fall. The title was something like, “Prayer for the New Year”. I’m sure you all could easily find it.
In this article, she listed poll numbers for anti-Semitic views among various populations. According to the polls she cited, among Western countries, one with among the very LOWEST incidences of anti-Semitism was Britain. Yes, Britain. Only about 7% of respondents there expressed decidedly anti-Semitic views, versus something like 15% in the U.S., and around 22% in Germany.
You can say that the Brits are sophisticated enough to outsmart a pollster in terms of answering in a way so as not to “out” their anti-Semitic views. Maybe. But I have communicated directly with Mudar Zahran, the Palestinian Jordanian democracy activist who now lives in exile in the UK. He swears up and down that non-Moslem Brits are NOT anti-Israel or Jew haters, for the most part. He underscored his assertion by pointing out to me that as a Palestinian, there would be no reason for people there to “hold back” with him on that topic. I have another friend with dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship who spent a lot of time in the UK, who lived there during the 70s, and he says the same thing.
Yet, no matter what party is in power these days, the UK is one of the three or four most anti-Israel countries in Europe. How can this be?
I saw an article on a website a few years ago, put out by SPME – Scholars for Peace in the Middle East – a pro-Israel academic website. This particular piece described how the British government was concerned that the Saudis were putting more money into the British university system than the British government themselves. Gee…ever wonder why all those academic boycotts of Israel seem to originate in the UK? It is well-known – I’ve seen this referenced multiple times – that the BBC gets all sorts of money from the Saudis. Same is probably true for other major media organs over there (e.g., The Guardian). Sure, once in a while, some pro-Israel voice is heard there. That’s OK by the bad guys. They want to let that happen now and then in order to maintain a phony aura of “balance” or “credibility” in the media.
Even if the population is not hostile to Israel, if all or most of what they hear in the “organs of thought control” – i.e., media and academic institutions, which define the public parameters for debate on any issue – is anti-Israel, at the very least, they walk away confused. Ideally, from the point of view of the Bad Guys, they want converts, but confused is OK by them. Confused means uninvolved. Confused means no longer giving a damn. Confused means no one raises a stink.
With popular sentiment, as this might represent potential political pressure, thus neutralized, the Bad Guys are then free to concentrate on buying off and otherwise corrupting people with day-to-day decision-making power and influence. As this has worked out in the UK, the “default” position of either the Labor or Conservative parties is anti-Israel. No one will raise a voice against this. Anyone who does is shouted down and marginalized.
I call the above, “the British model”. There is no strong opposition to the program of the Bad Guys over there. They don’t really have Evangelicals there like we do here (or AIPAC, I guess…). The incredible losses of back-to-back world wars, followed up by a devastating economic crisis in the 70s/80s (we’ve yet to experience anything near that bad in the U.S., not since the Depression), have ripped the guts out of the Brits. One of my guides when I was in Israel back in ’07 told me that her son married a British gal; she met her parents, and concluded, “They just didn’t seem to care about anything“.
And with their guts ripped out, supported by an utterly corrupted academe and media, the Bad Guys just marched right in.
They are trying to do the same thing here. And, as CA described in such great detail, they also accomplished something like this in Latin America.
I think he’s trying to warn us, folks, in terms of providing detailed desriptions of just what the Bad Guys are up to in other places, as a model for what they’ll do anyplace they can if they get half a chance. Again, we may disagree on many points, but I get the impression that his estimation of the “power” of AIPAC is more an expression of hope, rather than hostility.
He’s not our enemy. Over the years, I’ve locked horns with many Moslems and dedicated Judenrat anti-Israel Jews, and other assorted genuine anti-Semites. Recently, a couple of months ago, I spent some time sparring with Ron Paul supporters over the ‘net. I know what our real enemies sound like. CA is not one of them.
I like you, too.
just in case my message was too difficult for your limited understanding, CA, let me explain in terms your addled brain may get: I am not just in favour of what Yamit says; I am far more against the codswallop you spew!
Got it? I think you are a prevaricating poseur who knows NOUGHT whereof he writes; who writes for the sake of writing; whose only contribution to discourse is the equivalent of a puerile, shallow, juvenile onanism!
So piss off, and leave the forum to the adults. Children, like you, should neither be seen nor heard!
Without AIPAC, and also without Evangelical influence, US Foreign Policy would be shamelessly anti-Israel.
Unlike AIPAC or Public Preachers, Arab influence comes in sneakily through Oil Company lobbyists.
AIPAC is in the public spotlight. ARAMCO works behind closed doors. Exxon, Mobil, and Gulf, etc. are Saudi Apologists. If one ever reads Saudi ARAMCO World Magazine, it is scary. Sharia with a happy face. ARAMCO sends the magazine free to libraries.
This does NOT deny AIPAC’s power. AIPAC has power. It is assisted by pro-Zionist Evangelical sympathies. Why do politicians go to AIPAC, if not because of their influence.
But as noted, when I go to Latin American websites, from nations where NO equivalent of AIPAC exists, the spin is completely different.
As noted, it is amazing to see Chilean Palestinian Christians, who are over 99% Christian, and half of whom have ancestors who fled Turkish Muslim tyranny between 1890 and 1918, suddenly take a pro-Intifada viewpoint.
The Chilestinos (that is what they call themselves, now) have incredible power now in Chile. Most of Chile is Catholic and Evangelical and despises Islam. But the Chilestinos have started to expert power beyond their numbers.
YES AIPAC has a lot of influence. If it didn’t, it would be out of business.
But so do the Saudis, I do NOT deny this.
But Obama did not go to AIPAC in 2008 because he has friends, no matter what Obama said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cOJNC2EuJw
Do you really believe Obama went to AIPAC to meet friends?
Of course now. AIPAC has power. It can really slam a politician if they are anti-Zionist.
But … I am aware of massive Oil Lobbyists who work against Israel in secret.
John Loftus’ THE SECRET WAR AGAINST THE JEWS details the other side of the coin which is not as publically well know as AIPAC.
I do not agree with all of Loftus’s views, but a lot of the book is eye-opening. Loftus’ explanation for the USS Liberty Incident makes no sense at all.
Just because the Saudis are more sneaky in their power does NOT mean AIPAC does NOT have influence.
Without AIPAC, Saudi money would run US foreign policy.
Those who speak Spanish can see what Oil Money has done to South America.
Bribes got this on South American TV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcJ86hVjBKM (Saudi Money got this on State TV in Buenos Aires) even though the Arab-Argentine Community which is Christian was furious at this introduction of Islamic Propaganda.
But there was also Hillel TV on Uruguayan TV.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRs7d2KoCt0
This aim more exclusively to the Jewish community and not to society at large.
But let’s not deny that AIPAC has power.
Folks do you get the idea the AmericanEagle has landed again? Would you be surprised?
Names change, style doesn’t.
@ CuriousAmerican:
CA, you ask, “How far along would U.S. foreign policy be without AIPAC?”
In what direction? Please elaborate.
Tell, me CA, in your view, just what WOULD U.S. foreign policy be “without AIPAC”, and be sure to include your estimation as to whether this lack of “influence” would result in positive or negative outcomes.
@ elixelx:
People, I have to disagree with this criticism of CA as a “Nazi”. You really are over-reacting.
I see gaps in perpsective and in his sense of proportion, and some historical knowledge is lacking. He provides a lot of useful information, though. Speaking for myself, I had no idea of the extent of focused, dedicated Saudi penetration into Latin America, though given the way the governments there all jumped on the bandwagon of supporting the PA bid for statehood…well, this explains a lot.
We should take the intel for what perspective it provides for those of us who did not know, even if we don’t necessarily agree with everything he says.
CA, actually, the biggest gap I see in your knowledge is about the current extent of Jewish/pro-Israel influence in the U.S. today. Decades ago, you might have been able to make a case that there was a disproportionately high number of Jews in media and academia jobs who consciously or unconsciously moved public perceptions in a pro-Israel direction…or maybe, with the memories of the Holocaust as fresh as they were, and the Arab/Moslem propaganda effort largely nonexistent, PEOPLE JUST CLEARLY SAW THAT SUPPORTING ISRAEL WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO (and most rank-and-file Americans still do), Jews or not, in the media and academe or not. (Don’t get me wrong, folks…I’m NOT saying that modern Israel is there ONLY because of the Holocaust, but the effect of the same on general Western public support of the modern Zionist project is undeniable, at least looking back to the first thirty years or so after WW2.)
Today, CA, you just can’t claim that AIPAC or any other Jewish organization has very much impact in terms of promoting a pro-Israel attitude in either academia or the media. Academia today is outrageously hostile towards Israel (I discussed the media in a previous post). The largest organized group fighting this today is not made up of Jews at all, but consists of Evangeilcal Christians (Christians United For Israel, or CUFI, to be precise, with more than one million registered members; I work with one of their local reps here where I live).
The Saudis and other Arab/Moslem interests – but the Saudis more than any other single actor – pump hundreds of millions of dollars – some say as much as $2 billion EVERY YEAR – into academic institutions, public relations lobbying organizations, bribing prestigious public figures into promoting their nonsense (e.g., Jimmy Carter, James Baker III, the list is endless), and yes, buying stakes in major media organizations, right here in the U.S. alone. A Saudi prince has the second largest stake of ANY investor in Newscorp, the parent company of FOX/WSJ, and they are the LEAST hostile of the major news organizations towards Israel. Their money is all over our media. Where I live, back in the 80s, a huge mosque was built here. We have a significant Arab community, but most of it is Lebanese Christian. There is no way the local Moslem community could have footed the bill for that mosque. The major local newspaper is viciously anti-Israel. Trying to get a point of view in that paper to counter the unending stream of anti-Israel diatribes is like pulling teeth. Connect the dots.
As part of our local Jewish organization’s volunteer leadership, I’ve participated in meetings with the editorial staff of the paper, they are polite and pretend to take our concerns into consideration. They let some in our community get an occasional guest op-ed in (maybe once or twice a year), and we get letters to the editor in, but in almost all cases, these are heavily edited to reduce their impact. The paper tones down the anti-Israel stuff for a little while…and then they start right in again. I have no documentary proof of this, but I KNOW they are taking money under the table from the local front-men for the Saudis. Same at our local university…they just had an “Israel Apartheid Week” event there; speakers at which claimed that the campaign to realize “justice” for the “poor, oppressed Palestinians” would ECLIPSE THE AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT IN HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE. Some of us were there to ask embarassing questions, only to be hissed and shouted down. Some other members of our community got the e-mail addresses of participating professors, and sent them communications questioning their support of the Palestinian cause, all to be met with either transparent and hypocritical obfuscation that an intelligent 12-year-old could see through, or no response at all.
The KNOW what they are doing. It is as plain as day who is greasing their palms!
Anyway, people, I once again beg to differ on the characterization on CA as a “Nazi”. Wanna see some REAL “Nazis”? Go to a discussion forum where Ron Paul supporters appear. That is not to say that EVERYONE who supports Ron Paul is a “Nazi”, but a disturbingly high proportion are, especially the ones who take time to make posts on the Internet. Now, you want to talk about “Jew haters”, that’s where you’ll find them.
CA, thanks for the insight into what is going on in Latin America. But I think you need to get up to speed as to what the Bad Guys are doing right now, right here in the good ‘ole U.S.A. We aren’t so far behind! At best, Jews here (those with the guts to take a stand at all, but that is another subject) are fighting a holding action right now. We’re getting our butts kicked at present in both the media and academia, in the worst way. The only serious bastion of support we’ve got now is Congress, and I wouldn’t give AIPAC too much credit there. Most congressional districts have hardly any Jews, so it is not like we can threaten anybody’s seat, in all but a very few cases. The fact is that most Americans support Israel, not so much because of some clever “lobby”, but more because Joe and Jane Six Pack look at Israel, they look at her enemies, and well…tough choice as to whom to support, eh? NOT!!!!
Americans can plainly see that Israelis don’t fly planes into our buildings, they see that Jews don’t join the army so they can shoot up their comrades, like at Ft. Hood, that Israel doesn’t openly betray us as Pakistan does on a daily basis, hiding OBL among other things, etc., etc., etc. Americans in general tend to be more religious and patriotic than many in Europe and elsehwere, so aren’t as vulnerable to being pushed around by Moslem interests (not to say we aren’t vulnerable, we are, but just less so, that’s all…how long that’s going to last, I don’t know…Obama gets another term, WE’RE THROUGH).
@ CuriousAmerican:
Surprised?
Apparently, Yamit82 has a rooting section.
I believe it was Churchill who last employed a circumlocution like yours when he said “I’m not saying that my learned friend is a stupid idiot, but I do believe that his actions conform to what others believe is idiotic stupidity”
He could in fact have been referencing YOU1
And, of course, Disraeli might have been referencing your contributions to this thread when he said “He is inebriate with the exuberance of his own verbosity”
Give us a break, Curious! Get drunk elsewhere!
Admitting that AIPAC has influence is NOT anti-semitic. It is reality. AIPAC would shut down if it did not have influence.
No, I find it insane.
The USA was relatively self sufficient in oil until 1970. Prior to that time, the Saudis were a curiosity more than an influence in US foreign policy. The Saudis were insignificant in US foreign policy until the first Oil Embargo of 1973.
Most people do not know that after the 1967 war, the Arabs tried an oil embargo. It did not work. The US had enough reserves in 1967 to merely increase production.
So the USA ignored the Arabs until 1973, when the Arabs plunged the world into a depression from which it never recovered with their Oil Embargo.
Is it your policy to call anyone who disagrees with you a Nazi? What will you do when confronted with a real Nazi? Cry wolf if you will; but it does not intimidate me.
I don’t fall for that silliness, and I consider those who pull such facile tricks to be beneath intellectual merit.
That is a bald-faced lie on so many levels.
I detect that when you start to lose a debate, you start calling the other side Nazis.
The only hatred I detect here is against Christians by you and Yamit.
I do criticize creeping Saudi and Iranian influence in South American media.
Saudi influence in South America is really scary; but that does not in any way say that AIPAC does not have influence in the USA.
Jewish influence is more out in the open. In debates and academia, in AIPAC, in the media.
Muslim influence is more secretive; in backroom deals, bribes,and using their connections in the oil industry.
Yamit, I agree that the Curious American Nazi is a Jew hater who was subtle in his approach. Even his screen name was designed to have others believe he wasn’t a Sand Nazi supporter and Jew Hater but was “curious”. When he used the old standard bulls-it about AIPAC, he clearly outed himself. The Saudis have controlled the foreign policy of this country since the 1940s. Does the vile “Curious” American Nazi find this fact upsetting? He goes on endlessly criticizing Arab influence in South America which is just misdirection. But the “Curious” worm cannot hide his hatred of Jews despite subtlety and misdirection.
Thanks about credit.
Yes, Saudi money is viscious.
Because I speak Spanish (albeit poorly) I can see its influence all over South American culture.
For example:
Fundación Palestina/Palestine Foundation claims to a Christian Charity which sends money to help Palestinian Kids. It even publishes a slick magazine on line Al Damir (Click on the Magazine to see the whole magazine – there are back issues on line also) which has lots of stories about Christian Arabs. It has major sponsors like Perry Ellis and Air Canada (in one back issue,if I remember).
But the CIA and Chilean Authories say the money goes to Hamas charities.
How did Chile’s Palestinians who are over 99% Christian – many of whose ancestors fled Muslim rule before 1920 – suddenly start worrying about the Al Aqsa Mosque?
Why are Palestinian Christian Chilean Arabs (most of whom are monolingual Spanish) taking classes for Arabic in schools built like Mosques?
http://images01.campuschile.com/ui/16/80/24/f_279107624-3699869063.jpeg (see pic) Aprenda a escribir y hablar Arabe/Learn to write and speak Arabic
Where did the money to build a mosque like school come from?! From Christian Palestiians?!
Why do Christian Palestians run a facebook page with a Mosque at the center?
http://es-la.facebook.com/UGEP.Chile
Where is the MONEY COMING FROM to hold Palestinian Rallies?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1OVtY78y10
The King Fahd Mosque in Buenos Aires, Argentina which is 99% Christian.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIG9lzVYLkE
The Saudis paid to have this built in DOWNTOWN Buenos Aires,even though Christian
neighbors were opposed to it.
The Saudis paid to have a popular CHRISTIAN/SECULAR ARAB show cancelled in order
to put a Muslim show on Argentine TV. (ON STATE TV – Argentina, though it has freedom of religion, subsidizes the Catholic Church.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vRKZE9gDlg
The Muslims exaggerate the number of Muslims in Argentina. It is under 1% and most ARE NOT PRACTICING!
Argentina is officially a Catholic State (like England is Anglican) though it allows freedom of religion for all. How did Islamic programming get on Argentine State TV?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcJ86hVjBKM
Saudi money
There is a large but dwindling Jewish population in Argentina. How come they did not stop this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpiY9vWpph8
The Arabs went in with Oil Money and have taken over large swathes of media in South America.
This is now a big deal in Chile, in Argentina, and South America in general
EVEN THOUGH MOST OF THE POPULATION DETESTS AL ISLAM
http://img.emol.com/2009/07/26/File_2009726135113.jpg (Palestine does not exist – Chilean grafitti)
ABBAS meets MICHELE BACHELET President of Chile (at that time)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw8Fhf2QNSg About 20 Seconds in.
Chile has only 1 out of 4000 people who are Muslim. 99% are Christian (of whatever stripe). 15% are pro-Israel Zionists. About 1/3 of 1% are Jewish.
Most of the Palestian Chileans are descended from stock which entered Chile before 1930, and many before the British Mandate who were fleeing Muslim Turks. 2/3rds of them have a parent who is NOT Palestian. Very few even speak Arabic. Many are second, third and fourth generation mixed Chileans.
99% or more are Christians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bfm8XznCPY (translated into English)
They have a football club called the Palestinos which goes back to 1920 (the fact that they called themselves Palestinos in 1920 is proof that some degree of ethnicity did exist but these people were Christians NOT Muslims).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv1E9O4PhO4 This is a soccer song, not the Biladi
But until the First Intifada, they had enough sense to stay out of politics about the Mideast.
Saudi Money has gone in and turned Christian Chileans into Palestinian Nationalists.
Why would Christians support Muslim causes if not propagandized
http://www.fundacionbelen2000.cl/assets/images/afichecongreso.jpg
JERUSALEM CENTER OF ARAB CULTURE (Picture of the Mosque of Omar) FROM A CHRISTIAN SITE?!
http://www.fundacionbelen2000.cl/assets/images/noticias/jornadajerusalen.jpg
THIS IS AMAZING. MOST OF CHILE DETESTS ARAB TERRORISM
http://www.cada7.cl/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/federacionpalestina.jpg
CHILE SALUTES PALESTINE
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JzW5pJAcO0c/SFLfEcIhm9I/AAAAAAAAAKQ/-Bexfgm2lo4/S660/PALESTINA.jpg
THEY HAVE TO LEARN ARABIC – MOST OF THEM DON’T EVEN KNOW IT
http://images02.olx.cl/ui/1/82/93/9477993_3.jpg
This is an expensive operation. It has clout in South America.
The majority of South Americans hate Arab terrorism.
THE 1994 Bombing of Buenos Aires scared the Latin Americans and they hate terrorism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERVQjVvt9Uw
Spanish culture is based on the war to liberate Spain from the Muslims
SO WHERE IS THIS MONEY COMING FROM? Saudis!
The Latin Americans were ignored by us here in the USA and by the Israelis.
The Saudis and Iranians walked in.
There is no reason Palestinian Chilean Christians should be supporting Islamist regimes.
There is no reason Argentine Arabs (who are Lebanese and Syrian) should be supporting Palestinians
when the Lebanse Christians were chased out of Lebanon by the Muslims.
What is going on is Arab Oil Money.
===========
If AIPAC really is so weak, why does Obama even bother to even go?
If AIPAC is so weak, how come politicians flock to declare their Zionism at AIPAC?
If AIPAC is so weak, how come no national politicians dares to tell it off?
If AIPAC is so weak, how come it continues to be funded?
What is the purpose of AIPAC except to influence politics?
I did NOT say AIPAC was omnipotent; but it does exert power.
Abba Eban’s book CIVILIZATION AND THE JEWS declared that Jewry exerted an influence
in civilization above their small demographic measure.
For example: For less than 1% of the population of the planet they sure seem
to rack up Nobel Prizes. Do you suddenly expect this genius to be incapable
of exerting political power?
Why does it shock you that Jews have such influence? Or does it shock you that
it is publically acknowledge?
That quote is credited to Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the founder of Militant Zionism.
I did NOT say Jews were ominipotent. And yes, Saudi money works against Israel.
In most countries, Saudi influence is NOT countered.
But in the USA, AIPAC and Jewish lobbies do counter Saudi influence,
The question is: How far along would US foreign policy be without AIPAC?
AIPAC has power or all these politicians would not be attending their conferences.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Jews donate roughly 40% to the Democrats during national elections. Even though most probably would still give their money if a President openly was perceived to be anti Israel even anti Jewish many wouldn’t. For money at election time all politicians prostitute themselves.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
You have made so many classic antisemitic stereotypical comments, one might deduce that if it walks like a duck…!!!
“CuriousAmerican”
If Jews have “influence beyond their numbers”, why, at the end of the day, would this be?
Could it be that our arguments in defense of Israel are more compelling than those made in support of our adversaries?
You make it sound as if the competition between Jewish pro-Israel segments and Arab/Moslem anti-Israel forces is like a boxing match between two opponents of no greater or lesser intrinsic worth. Or like two marketing campaigns between competing brands of toothpaste.
What values have Jews stood for, historically?
Now, how about the Moslem world?
What does Israel, however imperfect she may be, stand for and represent today, in terms of demonstrated societal values, institutions, productivity, contributions to the world as a whole, etc.?
Now, how about the Arab/Moslem world?
Where would YOU rather live: Israel, or Egypt? Israel, or Jordan? Israel, or Syria? Israel, or ANY MOSLEM COUNTRY YOU CAN NAME??
Did it matter, seventy years ago, whether Britain or Germany won in Europe? Did it make a difference what side the U.S. aligned with? If that seems like a dumb question, take a moment to compare Israel with her adversaries…and reflect on how incredibly stupid it is for anyone to blather about the compelling “need” for an “evenhanded” policy between Israel and her adversaries. I mean, does anyone talk about the need for us to pursue an “evenhanded” policy between North and South Korea??
The education and organization of Jews is only part of the answer for the influence we have “beyond our numbers”…SUPPORTING ISRAEL JUST MAKES MORE SENSE.
Yeah, the Arabs have the oil. But they have to sell it no matter what. That’s all they’ve got. No other way to pay for the private jets and concubines.
You provide a lot of useful information, though, about the Saudi propaganda empire. It is impressive. It kind of reminds me of the Wizard of Oz…lots of noise and light, but behind the curtain, just a decrepit, perverted, outrageously bigoted, medieval little old man pushing buttons and pulling levers (OK, in real terms, handing out money…).
Yes, the Saudis have to act behind the scenes, because when they get out in the open, everybody can see just how ridiculous they are.
What chance would they have if everybody knew that 90% of the animating principle behind their whole sorry excuse for a civilization is the unimpeded right to diddle little girls?
Anyway, as for your allegations about our “influence” over the media, man, are you ever behind the times. Have you been living in a cave for the last 30 years, or what?
With the PARTIAL exceptions of FOX and the WSJ (and of course, there is conservative talk radio), ALL OTHER national-level media venues, when it comes to Israel versus her enemies, might as well be Al Jazeera. Or worse. Take your pick: ABC, CNN, CBS, NBC, AFP, BBC, NYT, LA Times, USA Today, the list goes on and on. Pay close attention to news stories covering Israel. Pay close attention to their editorial page. I’d bet you any amount of money you’d like, anti-Israel coverage outnumbers pro-Israel coverage by a mind-numbing degree. Who are you kidding?
It is really a testament to the sense of fair play demonstrated by most Americans that support for Israel is as high as it is – poll after poll shows this, and no, these CAN’T be ALL Evangelicals – IN SPITE OF this CONSTANT media barrage against Israel.
Hey, if AIPAC really was soooo powerful…why can’t they convince Obama to sell Israel new attack helicopters or fighter planes? Except for the F-35 (which Obama will cancel if he gets a second term, just watch), Obama has imposed a virtual arms embargo on Israel, in terms of armed platforms. He provides munitions and spare parts, yes, but ONLY if Israel doesn’t USE them. There is also theater missile defense, but the U.S. benefits from that technology as much as Israel. And don’t even bother talking about the “joint exercises”….those are just to spy on Israel, and to deplete Israeli resources that might otherwise be used in actual operations.
If AIPAC really was soooo poweful, why can’t they talk Obama out of leaking critical defense intelligence about Israel’s contingencies concerning Iran?
If AIPAC really was soooo powerful, why did Obama sell Saudi Arabia $60 billion in sophisticated arms, an order heavy in tactical fighters and helicopter gunships…WHICH HE WON’T SELL ISRAEL??? Heck, he even sells Pakistan new fighter jets.
If AIPAC really was sooooo powerful, why does Obama back up the Palestinians on EVERY concrete point of contention between them and Israel?
Why, after all these years, has NO president moved the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem? Why is Jonathon Pollard still rotting in prison? So far as has been revealed by anyone, anywhere, he didn’t kill anyone or get anyone killed. Yes, he abused his clearance and he has surely been punished, far more than any other U.S. citizen who spied for an ally (Israel is a U.S. ally, the last time I checked, you ought to hear about the espionage France carries out against us…it got to the point that U.S. aerospace firms wouldn’t even participate in the Paris Airshow for a while). Whatever he sold, back in the 80s, has to be long since out of date. And yet, there he is, held for no other real reason except to be used as a shrunken head to dangle in front of U.S. Jews so as to scare them away from supporting Israel. Kind of sadistic, really, at several levels. Where is AIPAC?????!!!!!!! Where is this “all-powerful” Jewish lobby????!!!!
Look, CA, or anyone else here, for the life of me, I can’t think of a single election in American history that really, truly turned on the “Jewish vote”. Oh, some blame the Jews – as Carter did in 1980 (at a 60/40 popular vote, he’d have clearly lost anyway), but the truth is, WE DON’T DECIDE ELECTIONS. How could we, at 1.7% of the population? But SSSHHHHHHHHH! Don’t tell anybody!!! ESPECIALLY Obama.
I am NOT a shill.
I do NOT like Obama.
I am making a point.
The point is: If someone as anti-Israel as Obama goes to AIPAC, it is because AIPAC has influence; and Obama needed to quiet AIPAC’s criticism. He is not going there because he has friends, no matter what he said. Can’t you understand sarcasm?
You are a shill and not fooling anyone here. Even you don’t seriously believe this. But that is precisely why you like Obama, because he is anti-Israel.
You underestimate the Jewish lobbies.
Obama did not go to AIPAC because he loved Israel, but because he knew that he would need approval by AIPAC to get elected.
You have (3) three possibilities:
1) Obama really feels at home among friends when he is at AIPAC
2) Obama really is a friend to Israel
3) Or Obama went to AIPAC because AIPAC has influence and Obama wants to get votes.
The fact that Obama went before AIPAC just shows how much influence AIPAC has.
Now: This is not true in other countries, where Saudi influence is much stronger. Chile is a good example, where propaganda has made CHRISTIAN Palestinian-Chileans, whose ancestors fled Islamic persecution, now take the side of the Palestinian Muslims in the West Bank.
But Jews, by virtue of their education, and organization, tend to exert influence out of proportion to their demographics.
This is felt in the USA, where there is a Jewish population of note.
In other countries, with miniscule Jewish populations, Saudi influence is stronger.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Well, I’ve been waiting for delivery of my truck full of Jewish influence for many years now, courtesy of the Jewish Influence Delivery Service (JIDS) but I don’t think they’re well organized at all, because it seems to have been overlooked.
Here in the USA, a Presidential candidate who condemns CAIR will not lose an election; but if he/she condemns AIPAC, they will not even get nominated.
But, yes, the Muslims have disproportional influence also; not as much as Jewish lobbies like the ADL or AIPAC, but still disproportional. When they can get a Naqba Museum, as Washington has a Holocaust Museum, then their influence will be equal.
Muslim influence is more secret. Jews, by virtue of literacy, education, and organization, are heavily centered in the media. Their influence is more open.
On the contrary, Muslim influence is expressed in backrooms by oil executives doing the bidding of their Saudi masters, by defense contractors, by state department sympathizers.
Muslim influence is countered here in the USA.
In the rest of the world, outside the USA, and Canada, Saudi money is taking over.
I know this because I speak some Spanish and watch some South American videos.
In other countries, where Jewish influence is weaker, there is almost no counter balance at all.
There is a sort of “fast-food” chain of Mosques called the King Fahd Mosque chain.
King Fahd Mosque in Buenos Aires
King Fahd Mosque in Edinburgh
King Fahd Mosque in Sarajevo
King Fahad Mosque in Los Angeles (Culver City), CA
These Mosque are not merely an Islamic equivalent of Beth Israel Temple, but propaganda outlets for the Saudi Arabian monarchy. Once installed, they set up satellite Mosques.
In Argentina, CIRA (Centro Islamico de la Republica Argentina) had a massive
King Fahd Mosque built in Buenos Aires, funded by the Saudis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdwJLRg1foQ
This is the largest Mosque in South America, and once installed, it started lobbying down in South America, and got laws changed.
This was not merely a Mosque but got major influence in Argentina which is 99% Christian.
(I am American but I learned this from the internet, and emailing with South Americans, many of whom are furious.)
CIRA was able to get a very popular Arab-Argentine show cancelled, even though 90% plus
of Arab-Argentines are Christian and were furious about the cancellation. Argentina is 9% Arab, almost all of whom are Christian. But the Saudis replaced the secular show with Islamic propaganda, for a country with less than 1% Muslims.
The Saudi Programming in Argentina (El Cálamo y su Mensaje/The Pen and its Message)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-dg193qngo
The show they had cancelled was (Desde El Aljibe/From the Well) which was
totally secular and run by Christian Arab-Argentines (who are 9% of Argentina’s population).
The Christians were furious that a popular show was cancelled to make way for Saudi agitprop.
The Christian Arab-Argentines (9% of Argentina’s population) were furious that Arab oil
money could buy propaganda on their public TV.
THEY MADE A PROTEST VIDEO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHAUsZMimOM
But the Saudis won over by money.
Similar is happening all over South America.
Saudi Money is powerful, but in the USA, Jewish lobbies are stronger.
In the rest of the world this is not so.
This site, the Palestine Foundation, claims to be a Christian organization in Chile which sends charity to Palestine, however, it is rumored to be sending money to Hamas charities.
This next organization is activity supporting jihad from Chile.
UGEP – Chile (Union General de Estudiantes Palestinos – CHILE)
UGEP – Venezuela (Union General de Estudiantes Palestinos – VENEZUELA)
FEARAB – Chile (Federación de Entitades Arabes – CHILE)
(Federation of Arab societies)
Chile is amazing because Palestinian Chileans are 99% Christian; and almost all of them had ancestors who fled Muslim persecutions BEFORE 1920.
But Saudi Money has gone in to propagandize them.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JzW5pJAcO0c/SFLfEcIhm9I/AAAAAAAAAKQ/-Bexfgm2lo4/S660/PALESTINA.jpg
Saudi money is powerful, but NOT SO MUCH HERE IN THE USA.
But Saudi money is taking over the rest of the world.
How about we speak of the disproportionate muslim influence beyond their numbers? CAIR, the saudi lobby and so forth dwarf AIPAC’s influence in Washington. And then of course there is all the saudi and other gulf Arab money which goes into universities, media and think tanks.
They do not rule the world, but by virute of organization and education, they wield influence beyond their numbers.
Unfortunately, if the Jews DID rule the world, they would probably make the Slimes the official organ of their government, and make Israel an Arab League dependency. The Slimes’ Jewish readership continues to support it through their pocketbooks, and they are the foremost white supporters of Barack Obama. Thank God they don’t rule the world.
And AIPAC is just there for show? Jews have major influence above their demographic numbers?
Every American candidate for President is obliged to go to AIPAC.
I am not saying this is totalitarian; but their infuence is beyond doubt.
Imagine that! Romney might actually consult Israel on issues effecting Israel. How insidious!
The only people who would see this relationship as problematic are those who aren’t going to vote for Romney anyway. The usual gaggle of conspiracy mongering anti-Semites who already think Jews and Israeli Lukudniks control America. The NY slimes is preaching to the choir. This will only elevate Romney in the eyes of most conservatives who have otherwise been cool towards him.
The Jews control the world meme never gets stale on the Left. Peddling thinly disguised anti-Semitism costs the New York Times nothing. What’s with insinuating Israel wants to make all of America’s Middle East policy decisions? If anything, the US has tried to control Israel’s domestic policy.
You just don’t hear about it from the New York Times.
Fool. The US doesn’t have a policy in the Middle East, other than to help destroy Israel.