Soros Kicked AIPAC. - Obama Kicks Soros.- Let's Kick All Three

http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner05252005.html

Board of Deputies of British Jews:
"Pragmatic" Nazi-Zionist Collaboration was OK
The Plot to Stigmatize "51 Documents" on Amazon.com
By LENNI BRENNER

================

"In this world, the follies of the rich pass for wise sayings."

Soros Kicked AIPAC. -

Obama Kicks Soros. -

Let's Kick All Three

By Lenni Brenner

BrennerL21@aol.com

Author of "51 Documents"

http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner1223.html

(Zionist Collaberation with NAZIS)

It is a sign of the changing political times that the 3/12 American

Israel Public Affairs Committee Washington conference received

much more candid journalistic treatment than AIPAC events

have ever received. The NY Times 3/14 report,

"Clinton and Obama Court Jewish Vote," got right to the point:

"As Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama compete

for Jewish donors and voters,

Mrs. Clinton is following a tried-and-true rule of hers from New York -

- support Israel to the last -- while Mr. Obama is trying

a more delicate strategy that hit some bumps this week."

Clinton never stops pandering to New York's ultra-right Zionists.

In an age when most young educated Jews escape from Judaism

and marry gentiles,

the 'Feminist' candidate is constantly in Sex-Segregated

Orthodox Jewish Synagogues, telling them of her great love of Israel,

which of course comes from her heart, not from their check books.

Her same ol' same ol' speech was remarked on,

but Obama is the new comet in the Democratic sky

and the Times focused on what was different

in his "I am pro-Israel" speech.

"Several Jewish conference-goers said they were concerned

by Mr. Obama's remark Sunday in Iowa where ... he said,

'Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people'....

Obama put the blame on the stalled peace efforts with Israel
and on the refusal of the Palestinian Govt. to renounce terrorism."

Obama represents Illinois, "the land of Lincoln."

But he models himself after the state's other great philosopher,

Al Capone. Chicago's Mafia leader proclaimed and proved that

"Kind words and a machine gun

will get you more than kind words alone."

Obama has a history of telling Arab-Americans that he

'feels the pain' of the Palestinians -

- while he supports giving billions in weapons to their oppressors.

The Times coverage of Obama was distinctive for the paper,

in giving competition "for Jewish donors and voters"

as the purpose of both leading wannabe Democratic candidates.

Since Hitler, for good and bad reasons, writing about Jewish political

money has been the great 'no-no' of America's capitalist media.

In 1991, I interviewed Harold Seneker, editor of the "Forbes 400"

issue of the magazine, for an article in the 2/11 Nation.

I estimated that Jews, about 2.5% of Americans,

were consistently circa 20% of the 400 richest Americans.

He wanted to write a story on it.

"Its a success, both for the Jews and capitalism."
But publisher Malcolm Forbes wouldn't let him.

He remembered the period after Hitler's 1933 victory inspired

American anti-Semitic propaganda about 'Jewish money.'

He agreed with Seneker's thesis, but didn't want responsibility for

even a slight possible rise in anti-Semitism resulting from an article.

The taboo's negative has been mass media silence about the

impact of Zionist money on US domestic and foreign policy since

Harry Truman, wanting Jewish campaign contributions, supported

Israel's creation in the run up to the 1948 presidential election.

But today many journalists, Jew and gentile, are critical of Israel

re the Palestinians, zealotry for Bush staying in Iraq and threats
of bombing Iran. For them, not talking about Jewish money means

not dealing with capitalist America's massive political corruption.

Thus the March 2 Forward, New York's prestigious

'Jewish community' weekly, had no hesitation in running

"How Many, How Much?," a graph estimating Jews as 24%

of the current Forbes 400 listing of the "nation's richest."

Most Jews aren't rich. And among the rich, the most famous

political donor, George Soros, isn't a Zionist.

(but he is a scoundrel who buys Halliburton Stock.)

The 3/23 Forward declared that he just dropped a political bomb

of "near-nuclear force" on American Zionism. The billionaire's
article in the post-dated 4/12 New York Review of Books,
http://nybooks.com/articles/20030, argues that the

US does Israel a disservice in ritually backing it:

"While other problem areas of the Middle East are freely discussed,
criticism of our policies toward Israel is very muted indeed ....

One explanation is to be found in the pervasive influence of the

American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which strongly

affects both the Democratic and the Republican parties ....

Politicians challenge it at their peril because of

the lobby's ability to influence political contributions."

He long ago left Judaism behind, but he kept quiet about this

because he "did not want to provide fodder to the enemies of Israel."

But now its time for the American Jewish community

"to rein in the organization that claims to represent it."

Soros is a Tory reformist.

He funds narcotics law reformers and other worthy-issue groups.

But the Drug Policy Alliance, which got 30% of its funds from Soros,

welcomed Republican conventioneers to New York in 2004,

even as a massive anti-war march

protested against Bush and his party's war.

Now he wants Israel to negotiate with Hamas.

"Fortunately Saudi Arabia, whose position is also precarious,

has a genuine interest in promoting a settlement based on 2 states."

He wants the Saudis to lean on Hamas while the US pressures
Israel into negotiating itself out of the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

Never mind that Saudia is a vicious despotism.

Ignore US arms to it and Israel. Forget that the American people

have absolutely no interest in arming either criminal government.

If Soros got his wishes fulfilled, the result would be "Bantustine,"

guarded by Israel and America's Arab satraps.

Many Americans also want Israel to deal with Hamas,

concerned for horrific Palestinian living conditions,

without sharing the billionaire's naive imperial mentality.

But nuking AIPAC was too much for Obama.

His campaign immediately announced that

"Mr. Soros is entitled to his opinions.

But on this issue, he and Senator Obama disagree.

The US and our allies are right to insist that Hamas -

- a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel's destruction -

- meet very basic conditions before being treated as a legitimate actor.

AIPAC is one of many voices that share this view."

Soros is modern proof of Sancho Panza's proverb.

He told Don Quixote that -

"in this world, the follies of the rich pass for wise sayings,"

and Soros gave the Democrats $28 million in 2004,

knowing his party to be demagogues pandering after Zionist cash,

vainly hoping that they would beat Bush.

The 3/21 Sun, New York's Zionist daily, was 'right on the money'

when it explained Obama's problem. Even if we presume

that he really is troubled by the Palestinians' wretched conditions.

"The Soros article puts Democrats in the awkward position

of choosing between Mr. Soros, a major funder of their causes,

and the pro-Israel lobby, whose members

are also active in campaign fund-raising."

Soros cash would buy Obama media ads in Democratic primaries.

But taking it means AIPAC billionaires buying ads for Clinton.

On the other hand, denouncing Soros

doesn't mean him running ads against Obama.

And, if he gets nominated, he can reasonably expect

Soros to fund him against the Republican.

Soros's guileless reformism has ended him up with less,

not more, influence in inner circles of his lesser evil.

Democrats hustling Zionist money reaches surreal proportions.

Party leaders rage against Jimmy Carter -- their own ex-president! -

- for denouncing Israeli apartheid. Obama distances himself

from his party's biggest funder. But now the party may have to pay

a liberal price for its money chasing. Liberal Jews and gentiles

see Obama as anti-Iraq war. But many dislike Israeli policies.

If anti-war lefts Keep the AIPAC/Soros/Obama affair in front of their eyes,
Obama dumping on Soros can operate to make them suspicious

of their party as a real anti-war lesser evil. It doesn't take a high tech

crystal ball to see Obama's crisis as our opportunity.

If we get our own act together, the anti-war movement can move out

of the wings and into the center of the America's political stage.

Soros has more money than educated anti-war Democrats but they

don't have more brains than him.For now, they would still vote for any

hawk the Democrats pick in 08, as a lesser evil to any Republican.

But if we start an internet convention, ASAP, to pick a genuine

anti-war presidential candidate by the end of 2007, committed

to running against the bipartisan hawk-parties, many will sign on

as they come to understand that the US military isn't going

to get out of the Middle East, whether the Democrats win or lose.

In 2000 and 2004 they worried that voting for Nader meant electing

Bush. But now Democrats run Congress, and they aren't kicking

Bush out of Iraq. Working for a Democratic victory as a lesser

anti-war evil is no longer axiomatic for such types.

In fact, if a left party came to life and drew enough votes from
the Democrats to elect a Republican, every pundit, right to left,

would understand this to mean that the anti-war movement

was growing in number and determination to end

all of America's wars, once and for all and forever.

Liberals voted Democrat in 1968 and 1972, fantasizing

thattheir party would end the Vietnam war. It lost.

But Nixon's Attorney General stared out of the White House

at a gigantic march. While most demonstrators were liberal Democrats,

he knew the parade was called and organized by Trotskyists,

Stalinists, left Black nationalists, unions, pacifists and such:

"It looks like the Russian revolution."

Determined Marxist organizing cadre, only a few thousand at most,

not Democratic politicians, mobilized the hundreds of thousands

that forced "bipartisan" Washington out of Indochina.

Nixon read the handwriting on the wall: Get out -

- or get more radical explosions at home.

We have a better and worse situation. Bush is losing the confidence

of millions of Americans and the Democrats aren't gaining it.

But neither are the divided anti-war demonstrators.

Nevertheless, we have the same task in 2007 and forever more:

We must build a massive united street movement

to get US imperialism out of the Middle East

and everywhere else, from now to eternity.

Henceforth, no one can talk intelligently about US

Middle Eastern policy without discussing AIPAC, Obama and Soros.

We must shout from the rooftops about Zionist campaign contribs.

Anti-Semitism is "a fire that has burned itself out" in modern America.

It won't spring up from the ashes if we take care.
Lecture audiences laugh when I rhetorically defend our politicians:

"Rich Zionists can't just walk in on a Democrat and bribe him!

No way!! They must sit in his waiting room

with all the other bribe-givers until its their turn!!!"

US politics is the story of unending corruption since New York's

Tammany Hall and other 19th century political machines, when Jews,

rich or poor, were a minuscule percentage of the population,

and Zionists were non-existent.

We cannot seriously educate the public about the 'legalized bribery'

of Zionist campaign contributions to the modern Republicratic

Washington machine without putting it in its matrix of general grafting.

We won't persuade most Americans to end

Zionist buying of our rulers, alone. Nor should we try,

when we certainly can mobilize millions who already want abolition

of private election contributions, with publicly funded elections

taking their place.

In context, documented exposure of Zionism's perfidious role

is not only legitimate, it is a perfect educational example

of America's government

of the rich, by the rich, for the rich,

which must perish from the earth.

***
Lenni Brenner is the author of Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, and
editor of Jefferson & Madison On Separation of Church and State:

Writings on Religion and Secularism. He blogs at

http://www.smithbowen.net/linfame/brenner,
and can be reached at BrennerL21@aol.com.