[Marxism] From Lenni Brenner

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

"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

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 government 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. 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,
www.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 two
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 that their 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 contributions. 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 
www.smithbowen.net/linfame/brenner, and can be
reached at BrennerL21@xxxxxxxx

--

www.marxmail.org


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism