Very informative article. The truth of the AIPAC hammerlock on our country is being told more and more.
Philip Weiss on AIPAC <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" />
July 10, 2008
Despite its general unwillingness to tread too far into Jewish issues (see this gem by Edmund Connelly), The American Conservative certainly has done itself proud with the publication of Philip Weiss's account of the recent AIPAC convention.
The AIPAC convention is really a ritual of Jewish dominance in America. We read about the sheer political power able to command the presence of both presidential candidates and over half the Congress. The politicians truckle before their masters, competing to outdo each other with their promises and concern for Israel. There are large banners featuring photos of wealthy AIPAC donors with their presumably non-Jewish trophy wives. <A name=aipac></A>
The clear message is: "We've got your politicians eating out of our hand. We have taken your most beautiful young women as wives (typically after having Jewish children with our non-trophy first wife). You will do what we wantwhen it comes to anything related to Israel no matter what the cost to the U.S. Life is good."
Power is not just having official Washington do one's bidding. It's also the ability to prevent public discussion of Jewish influence. There is almost no journalistic coverage of the event. "The reason seems obvious: the press would have to write openly about a forbidden subject, Jewish influence."
Most egregiously, Weiss notes that the <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">New York Times [/I]printed an article on a major Jewish fund raiser without mentioning that his main motivation is Zionism:
There was Donald Diamond, an Arizona real estate developer whom the New York Times recently profiled on the front page after he raised $250,000 for John McCain. The Times said nothing in its piece about Diamond's Israel work. But that was all the banner was about. "The U.S.-Israel relationship is the single most important determinant of democracy in the world, and we must commit to securing it," Diamond wrote. "It is so obvious to us that the Jewish community is a family and that we have to take care of each other."
The reader of the <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">New York Times[/I] article goes away thinking that Diamond is just a regular Republican kind of guy, when his main motivation is presumably to get McCain to hew to AIPAC's line on Israel.
The result is that organized Jewry is able to have its cake and eat it too. All those politicians and the media elite are quite aware of Jewish influence. But they cannot mention it in public without suffering the consequences.
Of course, in the case of much of the mediaâ€â€including the <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">NYT[/I], the taboo against discussing Jewish influence is self-imposed. And for very good reason: The <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">NYT[/I] is itself a paradigm of Jewish influence. (Snip)<I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">[/I]
Philip Weiss on AIPAC <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" />July 10, 2008
Despite its general unwillingness to tread too far into Jewish issues (see this gem by Edmund Connelly), The American Conservative certainly has done itself proud with the publication of Philip Weiss's account of the recent AIPAC convention.
The AIPAC convention is really a ritual of Jewish dominance in America. We read about the sheer political power able to command the presence of both presidential candidates and over half the Congress. The politicians truckle before their masters, competing to outdo each other with their promises and concern for Israel. There are large banners featuring photos of wealthy AIPAC donors with their presumably non-Jewish trophy wives. <A name=aipac></A>
The clear message is: "We've got your politicians eating out of our hand. We have taken your most beautiful young women as wives (typically after having Jewish children with our non-trophy first wife). You will do what we wantwhen it comes to anything related to Israel no matter what the cost to the U.S. Life is good."
Power is not just having official Washington do one's bidding. It's also the ability to prevent public discussion of Jewish influence. There is almost no journalistic coverage of the event. "The reason seems obvious: the press would have to write openly about a forbidden subject, Jewish influence."
Most egregiously, Weiss notes that the <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">New York Times [/I]printed an article on a major Jewish fund raiser without mentioning that his main motivation is Zionism:
There was Donald Diamond, an Arizona real estate developer whom the New York Times recently profiled on the front page after he raised $250,000 for John McCain. The Times said nothing in its piece about Diamond's Israel work. But that was all the banner was about. "The U.S.-Israel relationship is the single most important determinant of democracy in the world, and we must commit to securing it," Diamond wrote. "It is so obvious to us that the Jewish community is a family and that we have to take care of each other."
The reader of the <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">New York Times[/I] article goes away thinking that Diamond is just a regular Republican kind of guy, when his main motivation is presumably to get McCain to hew to AIPAC's line on Israel.
The result is that organized Jewry is able to have its cake and eat it too. All those politicians and the media elite are quite aware of Jewish influence. But they cannot mention it in public without suffering the consequences.
Of course, in the case of much of the mediaâ€â€including the <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">NYT[/I], the taboo against discussing Jewish influence is self-imposed. And for very good reason: The <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">NYT[/I] is itself a paradigm of Jewish influence. (Snip)<I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">[/I]