American Jews Split from Netanyahu

Major Jewish organizations and donors are pressing the U.S. Congress to get in lockstep behind Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, but they are out of step with most American Jews who support the accord, reports Lawrence Davidson.

By Lawrence Davidson

On Aug. 13, The New York Times carried a front-page article entitled “Donors Descend on Schumer and Others in Debate on Iran.” The article opened a window on the activities of big money donors in the Congress of the United States.

According to the Times story, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, had been consulting with John Shapiro, a wealthy financier and “longtime benefactor” of the senator and other Democratic politicians. Shapiro is also the head of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), an organization that claims 100,000 members and that, since 2009, has described itself as “a center for Jewish and Israel global advocacy,” thereby misleadingly tying these two interests – Jewish advocacy and Israeli advocacy – together.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the United Nations in 2012, drawing his own "red line" on how far he will let Iran go in refining nuclear fuel.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the United Nations in 2012, drawing his own “red line” on how far he will let Iran go in refining nuclear fuel.

Shapiro’s position with AJC also means that, when it comes to Middle East foreign policy, there is no real difference between his position and that of the Israeli government. This identification is reflected in the AJC’s “unity pledge” concerning the Zionist state.

Thus, it comes as no surprise that Shapiro told Schumer what Israeli-inspired analyses to read before he made his decision on the nuclear deal. According to the Times, Shapiro also informed the senator that the Egyptian “president” Abdel Fattah el-Sisi felt sure that the deal would “increase regional terrorism.” It can be assumed that Shapiro failed to mention that this was an opinion that differed from the public position taken by the Egyptian foreign minister.

Soon thereafter Schumer announced that he would oppose President Barack Obama’s negotiated nuclear agreement with Iran. One can find multiple critiques on the web of Schumer’s reasons for taking this position, so we won’t go into it here. For our purpose the important point is that Shapiro wasn’t the only Jewish donor trying to pressure legislators and, in fact, many were urging not rejection but acceptance of the Iran deal.

American Jewish Support for Iran Deal

The Times article identifies several wealthy Jewish donors who were lobbying in support of the Iran agreement but doesn’t tell us if they have been as successful as Shapiro. These include the billionaire entrepreneur S. Daniel Abraham, TV producer Norman Lear (founder of People for the American Way), and the famous billionaire George Soros.

There are several additional points that can be added to this aspect of the Times story:

–There are a good number of Israeli intelligence professionals (to say nothing of their American counterparts) who “have very positive views of the nuclear agreement.” Despite efforts by the Netanyahu government to silence them, their positions are now coming out in the media.

–Hundreds of prominent American Jews have publicly supported the agreement in a Times ad and open letter to Congress.

–Recent polls show that most American Jews support the deal with Iran. According to a poll conducted by the LA Jewish Journal Survey, “by a wide margin, American Jews support the recently concluded agreement with Iran.” Indeed, according to this poll, even a majority (51 percent) of those who described themselves as “very attached emotionally to Israel want Congress to approve the deal.”

All this information undermines the myth that Israel (or worse yet, Benjamin Netanyahu) speaks for the Jews. This has always been untrue, yet Israel’s persistent insistence that it is true constitutes a typical “big lie” which, repeated over and over again, takes hold in the popular mind and comes to appear as a reflection of reality.

It is the resulting pseudo-truth that helps men like John Shapiro be so persuasive. Along with all the money he can bring to the table, he can claim that he speaks simultaneously for Israel and American Jewry. His political benefactors will believe this because it is consistent with an established myth.

That is why it is important to point out, at every opportunity, instances that undermine the myth. The case of the Iran nuclear agreement is just such an instance.

An Organizational Approach

There is one other lesson to be learned from the Times story. Lobbyists like Shapiro have an advantage because unlike most of the Jewish donors who support the nuclear agreement, they can approach Congress as the leaders of focused organizations that have a relatively large membership with deep pockets.

The Jewish donors out there who may want to defy Israel and its claim to speak for the Jews must also approach the U.S. government in a focused organizational fashion if they are to compete with Mr. Shapiro and other groups such as AIPAC. There are, of course, smaller Jewish groups that are defiant of Israel and its practices, groups such as Jewish Voices for Peace. But such organizations, while giving the lie to the Israeli claim to represent all Jews, haven’t the numbers or the money to successfully compete for influence in Congress.

One might also mention JStreet, which really doesn’t qualify here, because nine times out of ten it offers a resolutely Zionist analysis.

When all is said and done, the opposition forces in Congress probably will be unable to destroy the nuclear agreement with Iran. Will this achievement encourage the Jewish donors who favored the deal to come together and form a single Jewish organization outspokenly independent of Israel and its camp followers in the U.S.? One would hope so, because this is really what is needed if we are to liberate the U.S. Congress and political parties from the myth of a unified Jewry in support of Israel.

In the meantime there is an even bigger job to make the same case to rest of the world. Be it in Europe or the Arab world, the myth is growing and shaping people’s thinking. As a consequence, to the extent that a person is hostile to Israel’s policies and practices they run the risk of becoming hostile to “Jews,” which opens the way to stark anti-Semitism.

This process can only aid and abet the ambitions of the Zionists. So let us strive for clear thinking on this matter and popularize the fact that Jews are quite diverse in their views and a growing number of them are not supporters of Israel or its practices. In this way we can undercut the myth that falsely connects them to Israel.

Lawrence Davidson is a history professor at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. He is the author of Foreign Policy Inc.: Privatizing America’s National Interest; America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood; and Islamic Fundamentalism.

21 comments for “American Jews Split from Netanyahu

  1. Mortimer
    August 27, 2015 at 08:33

    Smoke on a Bridge: Lebanon Awaits a Verdict
    US- Israeli Attempted “Color Revolution” in Lebanon?
    By Stephen Lendman, August 26, 2015

    Mideast Israel Palestinians
    Israel’s “Thug Diplomat” at the UN. A Cruel Joke on the International Community
    By Jonathan Cook, August 26, 2015

    Netanyahu Sidelined As UK Re-Opens British Embassy in Teheran
    By Anthony Bellchambers, August 26, 2015

    85,000 Petition British Parliament to Demand Arrest of Netanyahu on War Crime Charges
    By Anthony Bellchambers, August 26, 2015

    Israel’s Bedouin denied right to elections
    Racism and Apartheid: Better to Be a Dog Than Bedouin in Israel
    By Jonathan Cook, August 26, 2015

    “Jihadist” Terrorists operating in Syria are Agents of Israel: Assad
    By Press TV, August 25, 2015

    Syria and Lebanon
    Lebanon’s Future Is on the Line, and It Directly Affects Syria
    By Andrew Korybko, August 25, 2015

    The Infamous Balfour Declaration: Palestinian Legal Action against Britain in Egyptian Court
    By Emir Nader, August 25, 2015

  2. Peter
    August 26, 2015 at 13:46

    I am sick and tired of our foreign policy being controlled by a foreign government….a racist, thuggish, Jim Crow apartheid government at that. It is high time America compels the Israel Lobby to register as an agent of a foreign government which is clearly what it is and always has been. It is long overdue that we rid ourselves of any elected or appointed representative who does not put American citizens and American interests first, second, and third!

  3. Chris
    August 26, 2015 at 00:39

    Unfortunately, the Jewish community in America has long been dominated by its worst elements, and these bad elements are really really bad. There are plenty of Jews around who are way better than that, but nobody listens to them and they do not have any power. If the American Jewish supporters of Netanyahu drag America into a Near East fiasco, I am fearful that the entire Jewish community in America will be blamed and many innocent Jews will suffer.

    • richard
      August 26, 2015 at 08:56

      Exactly – opposition to this Iran deal has a Jewish face. If successful, it will only boomerang into more warfare and/or financial hardship for America. The Jewish community should not want to own this bad development. It will only repeat the old scenario wherein the “big Jews” push too much (as usual), and then when the rollback occurs, the big guys offer up the “little Jews” as sacrifice and atonement.

    • William Rood
      August 26, 2015 at 15:04

      This very concern was expressed by Josh Ruebner, the National Advocacy Director of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, in an “open letter” to Paul Wolfowitz in March of 2003:

  4. Andrew Nichols
    August 24, 2015 at 18:53

    As always – follow the money.

    • Mortimer
      August 24, 2015 at 20:50

      *** as always – follow the money ***

      In the late 1960s, Western European economies (in particular West Germany) and Japan were rapidly developing and expanding. Their currencies rose against the US dollar, which was pegged to the price of gold as a result of the Bretton Woods System, which, through the IMF, set up an international monetary system based upon the US dollar, which was pegged to gold. However, with the growth of West Germany and Japan, “by the late 1960s the system could no longer be expected to perform its previous function as a medium for international exchange, and as a surrogate for gold.” On top of this, to maintain its vast empire, the US had developed a large balance-of-payments deficit.[18]

      Richard Nixon took decisive, and what many referred to as “protectionist” measures, and in 1971, ended the dollar’s link to gold, which “resulted in a devaluation of the dollar as it began to float against other currencies,” and “was meant to restore the competitiveness of the US economy,”[19] as with devaluation, “U.S.-made goods would cost less to foreigners and foreign-made goods would be less competitive on the U.S. market.” The second major action taken by Nixon was when he “slapped a ten percent surcharge on most imports into the United States,” which was to benefit U.S. manufacturing firms over foreign ones in competition for the U.S. market. The result was that less imports from Asia were coming into the US, more US goods were sold in their markets at more competitive prices, forcing Japan and the European Economic Community (EEC) to relax their trade barriers to US products.[20]

      An article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, referred to Nixon’s New Economic Policy as “protectionist,” encouraging a “disastrous isolationist trend,”[21] and that Nixon shattered “the linchpin of the entire international monetary system— on whose smooth functioning the world economy depends.”[22] Another article in Foreign Affairs explained that the Atlanticist, or internationalist faction of the US elite were in particular, upset with Nixon’s New Economic Policy, however, they “agreed on the diagnosis: the relative balance of economic strengths had so changed that the United States could no longer play the role of economic leader. But they also argued that further American unilateralism would fuel a spiral of defensive reactions that would leave all the Western economies worse off. Their suggested remedy, instead, was much more far-reaching coordination among all the trilateral [North American, European and Japanese] governments.”[23]

      There was a consensus within the American ruling class that the Bretton Woods System was in need of a change, but there were divisions among members in how to go about changing it. The more powerful (and wealthy) international wing feared how US policies may isolate and alienate Western Europe and Japan, and they advocated that, “The world economic roles of America must be reconciled with the growth to power of Europe and Japan. There must be fundamental reform of the international monetary system. There must be renewed efforts to reduce world trade barriers. The underlying U.S. balance of payments has deteriorated.” However, Nixon “went much too far” as he alienated Western Europe and Japan.

      In 1970, David Rockefeller became Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, while also being Chairman and CEO of Chase Manhattan. In 1970, an academic who joined the Council on Foreign Relations in 1965 wrote a book called Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era. The author, Zbigniew Brzezinski, called for the formation of “A Community of the Developed Nations,” consisting of Western Europe, the United States and Japan. Brzezinski wrote about how “the traditional sovereignty of nation states is becoming increasingly unglued as transnational forces such as multinational corporations, banks, and international organizations play a larger and larger role in shaping global politics.” David Rockefeller had taken note of Brzezinski’s writings, and was “getting worried about the deteriorating relations between the U.S., Europe, and Japan,” as a result of Nixon’s economic shocks. In 1972, David Rockefeller and Brzezinski “presented the idea of a trilateral grouping at the annual Bilderberg meeting.” In July of 1972, seventeen powerful people met at David Rockefeller’s estate in New York to plan for the creation of the Commission. Also at the meeting was Brzezinski, McGeorge Bundy, the President of the Ford Foundation, (brother of William Bundy, editor of Foreign Affairs) and Bayless Manning, President of the Council on Foreign Relations.[24] So, in 1973, the Trilateral Commission was formed to address these issues.

      A 1976 article in Foreign Affairs explained that, “Trilateralism as a linguistic expression—and the Trilateral Commission—arose in the early 1970s from the reaction of the more Atlanticist part of the American foreign policy community to the belligerent and defensive unilateralism that characterized the foreign economic policy of the Nixon Administration.”[25] The Commission’s major concerns were to preserve for the “industrialized societies,” in other words, seek mutual gain for the Trilateral nations, and to construct “a common approach to the needs and demands of the poorer nations.” However, this should be read as, “constructing a common approach to [dealing with] poorer nations.” As well as this, the Commission would undertake “the coordination of defense policies and of policies toward such highly politicized issues as nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and aerial hijacking, and such highly politicized geographic areas as the Middle East or Southern Africa.”[26]

      Interestingly, interdependence theorist Joseph Nye is a member of the Trilateral Commission, as is Richard N. Cooper.[27] Today, Joseph Nye is a member of the Board of Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations,[28] and Richard N. Cooper was a Director of the Council on Foreign Relations from 1993-1994.[29]

      The end of the link of the dollar to gold meant that, “the US was no longer subject to the discipline of having to try to maintain a fixed par value of the dollar against gold or anything else: it could let the dollar move as the US Treasury [and ultimately, the Federal Reserve] wished and pointed towards the removal of gold from international monetary affairs.” This created a dollar standard, as opposed to a gold standard, which “places the direction of the world monetary policy in the hands of a single country,” which was “not acceptable to Western Europe or Japan.”[30] Addressing this issue was among the reasoning behind the creation of the Trilateral Commission.

  5. Abe
    August 24, 2015 at 17:57

    recent developments in the Middle East have opened up the prospective of either destroying the ISIS butchers, or at least of decisively weakening them. This potential derives from two very recent events: on the one hand, the United States, Germany, and other NATO countries have announced their intention of quickly pulling their Patriot missile batteries out of Turkey, thus depriving the ISIS terrorists of their air defense umbrella over their safe havens just south of the Turkish-Syrian border. On the other hand, Russia has delivered six highly capable MiG-31 interceptor aircraft, giving President Assad’s Syrian Air Force the ability to organize successful bombing raids on ISIS strongholds.

    But at the precise moment that the destruction or decimation of ISIS has come into view, the desperate demagogue Netanyahu has launched an attack on south-west Syria using artillery and aircraft. This is surely a diversionary attack, designed to keep Syrian military assets tied down far from the ISIS strong points.

    In addition, according to Syrian and Iranian media cited by the Jerusalem Post, Netanyahu may be deliberately sending Israeli pilots into the range of the capable Syrian air defenses, seeking a bloody shirt that he can wave before the faces of American Jews in a cynical subterfuge to inflame them against the Iran nuclear accord signed among Iran, the permanent five members of the United Nations Security Council (including the United States), and the European Union. The US Congress is scheduled to hold its first votes U.S. Congress is scheduled to hold its first vote no later than September 14. Given Netanyahu’s three documented attempts to attack Iran and drag the US into catastrophic war, we must assume that this cynical nihilist is capable of literally anything. False flag red alert should continue until further notice.

    • Zachary Smith
      August 24, 2015 at 18:51

      On the other hand, Russia has delivered six highly capable MiG-31 interceptor aircraft, giving President Assad’s Syrian Air Force the ability to organize successful bombing raids on ISIS strongholds.

      I’d read about this sale, but until I saw your post I hadn’t realized the implications. That beast of an airplane isn’t going to bomb anybody. No, it’s a strong hint that any attempts to impose a “no-fly” zone in the north are going to be resisted.

      And quite possibly, it’s a message that the next time Israel decides to do some bombing in Syria, it had better be prepared for a fight. The MIG-31 was built as an SR-71 Blackbird killer, and it can carry really effective long-range air-air missiles.

      • F. G. Sanford
        August 24, 2015 at 19:15

        Exactly right. MiG 31 is not a bomber – it’s an interceptor and its role is air superiority. Tarpley’s particulars are completely wrong, but in the end, his analysis is correct. MiG 25 was also an interceptor, and 31 is the “next generation”. The kicker is, 25 was designed to intercept ICBM’s. I doubt that, in the hands of capable pilots, there is much chance of countering these defensive aircraft.

    • Abe
      August 24, 2015 at 21:51

      Correct, gentlemen. The Syrian Arab Air Force won’t be bombing those shiny Toyota pickup trucks with this aircraft. I believe ISIS’ patrons are more in mind.


      The Mikoyan MiG-31 (NATO reporting name “Foxhound”) is a supersonic interceptor aircraft. Designed to go straight, very fast, in order to intercept and destroy invading planes, it’s a modernized replacement to the older MiG-25 “Foxbat” in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The main issue with the Mig-25s was the fact that they simply couldn’t pull off low altitude supersonic flights—their engines just didn’t have the power. The MiG-31’s efficient low-bypass-ratio turbofan engines, however, allowed it to do just that.

      The MiG-31 is capable of intercepting and destroying any target from low-flying satellites to cruise missiles. A group of interceptors can control a large portion of air space, by directing fighters to any target, as well as ground-based anti-aircraft missiles.

      This aircraft has been called the “flying radar” by the pilots, for its unique avionics capabilities. This complex has at its basis the ‘Barrier’ control system, equipped with the world’s first phased-array antenna. This PAA differs from the classic radar as it allows to move the beam at a fixed antenna, as well as to create the necessary number of rays, tracking multiple targets simultaneously.

      The Barrier is able to detect 24 objects at a distance of 200 kilometres. The on-board computer chooses the four most dangerous targets and directs long-range air-to-air missiles at them. The other four targets (the maximum number of simultaneous targets that can be attacked is eight) are destroyed either by the medium-range and short-range missiles or their coordinates are transmitted to fighters and anti-aircraft missiles on the ground.

      Experts say that in the next 10 to 15 years there will be no aviation system built that can match the MiG-31. All modern fighters (except for the fifth generation fighter aircraft) are not fully supersonic, since their supersonic flight time is limited to 5–15 minutes, due to various kinds of restrictions in the airframe design. Duration of the MiG-31 supersonic flight is only limited by the fuel supply. Moreover, the MiG-31 is able to pass the sound barrier in level flight and in climb mode, while the majority of supersonic aircraft pass the M=1 speed in a shallow dive.


      The Syrian Arab Air Force frequently attacks insurgent forces with helicopter gunships and warplanes.

      Mi-24/25 attack helicopters have dropped standard aviation bombs weighting up to 250 kg.

      Disinformation source Eliot Higgins has alleged that transport helicopters have dropped barrel bombs, essentially aerial IEDs, during the conflict.

      MiG-29 aircraft have performed S-8 air-to-ground rocket and gun attack runs on insurgent positions.

      Insurgents have opposed the Syrian Arab Air Force mainly using truck mounted, medium and heavy machine guns, dedicated antiaircraft cannons, small arms fire and starting in late 2012, MANPADS up to modern Russian and Chinese designs.

      Insurgents have besieged many airports, downing aircraft during take-off or landing. Also, land raids and shelling of airbases have led to an increasing number of aircraft and helicopters being damaged or destroyed on the ground.

      In spite of occasional shoot-downs, however, the Syrian Air Force remained largely unchallenged with a good overall combat efficiency and a superior fear factor recognized by the rebels themselves.

      Compared to modern Western air forces fighting against similarly armed enemies, like in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Syrian Arab Air Force’s main disadvantage is the low number in precision guided weapons which allow the aircraft to stay out of range of small arms fire, AAA and MANPADS, while delivering an effective strike with minimal collateral damage. The same weakness prevents them from being able to hit multiple targets of opportunity in the same mission.

      Syrian pilots are forced to spend most of their flying time at low to medium altitudes where battlefield threats are more potent. Based on the aircraft type, Syrian pilots use different attack techniques to deliver their unguided munitions: while L-39s use dive attack tactics, initially fast jets were generally performing a low to medium altitude bombing run at high speed deploying a sequence of flare thermal decoys to defend against IR homing missiles and pulling up after ordnance delivery. Later, fast jets added rocket and gun dive attacks too.

      At the beginning of August 2015, a summary of the recent Syrian Air Force activity reported that during July 2105, the Syrian Air Force performed 6,673 air attacks, the highest number since the beginning of the Civil War. It also reported that between October 2014 and July 2015, at least 26,517 attacks were recorded.

      Airframe overhauling and rotation has increased the overall combat readiness of the Syrian Arab Air Force, since Syria could not count on new aircraft deliveries apart from some refurbished Iranian delivered former Iraqi Su-22 which escaped to Iran during the Gulf War in 1991 delivered in Spring 2015.

      Since early 2015, unconfirmed rumors reported that Russian pilots were flying many combat operations for the Syrian Arab Air Force. No independent source confirmed the claim and no Russian pilots were reported among the downed crews in the following months.

      • ron
        August 25, 2015 at 10:30

        Abe, you write like you know your shit. No such analysis has been provided in the media re the MIG 31. Details are scant as most media stories simply give the death and destruction totals on the ground while ignoring the weaponry and story behind the story. Thanks. Maybe Consortium News could do a story and elaborate on said details.

      • Larry
        August 25, 2015 at 12:24

        Abe, this is not a personal critique but a more generalized one about all the people who worship war and all its toys of mass murder and just can’t get enough of the technical details and the latest flesh-devouring techniques and seem to revel in the various killing abilities and other dehumanizing war pornography. If all of you ever grow up and lose your boyish death-dealing fantasies, the world still might not heal any time soon, but at least your bizarre military-phallus worship would disappear from the public spaces, which would be a good start to curtailing wars perpetrated by even more warped individuals than yourselves.

        • F. G. Sanford
          August 25, 2015 at 13:21

          Phallus worship? I don’t know for sure, Larry, but that sounds kinda personal.

        • Zachary Smith
          August 26, 2015 at 01:50

          I found this post to be “curious”, “odd”, and “off-the-wall”. Those synonyms for “bizarre” are about the best I can do on a moment’s notice.

          Attacking somebody for attempting to be knowledgeable about war history and tactics is that kind of fantastic.

  6. Abe
    August 24, 2015 at 17:24

    The lobby’s power reflects the Jewish rise into the establishment in the last generation. That rise elevated the neoconservatives. Now that rise is diffusing. The establishment is growing more diverse; the Jewish community’s solidarity is fracturing. Joe Donnelly, a freshman Democratic senator from Indiana who will face stiff opposition in three years, is not afraid of AIPAC, and supports the deal. We’ve come a ways from the time when AIPAC could get 76 Senators’ signatures on a napkin overnight. It’s down to 60 or so, and counting.

    US Israel lobby groups ‘take orders’ from Netanyahu — says leading Israeli journalist
    By Philip Weiss

    • Frankie P
      August 26, 2015 at 00:12

      Abe, Phil Weiss is not an Israei journalist. Hecis American.

    • Frankie P
      August 26, 2015 at 00:13

      Abe, Phil Weiss is not an Israei journalist. Hecis American.

  7. Mortimer
    August 24, 2015 at 15:38

    You write absolute truth, Chet Roman. Our situation, as “the people” renders us powerless to divert the 1% from their well laid plans, outside a bloody revolution. Their wealth does the work for them. Their money and power is at a place of control where they can force upon us a Trans Pacific Partnership as well as a Trans Atlantic Partnership wherein Corporations, not Nations, can Legally rule the world.
    The Bankers, the Oilers, the Medicine men, the Industrialist, the Weapons makers, the Chemical Giants, Nuclear Power Proliferators have implemented their strategies for the elimination of “governments.”
    Like it or not, we’re now deeply into Corporate Dominance — to survive and prosper we will, as we always have, work our butts off for they who are supplying our paychecks… .

  8. Chet Roman
    August 24, 2015 at 13:30

    If we want to liberate our political system from special interest control, whether it is control by an agent of a foreign power (AIPAC) or corporate interests, we need to get the money out of politics. It’s not just the zionist control of Congress. The recent study by Princeton/Northwestern showed that the public had almost zero influence on government policies. Special interests dominate in Washington.

    While the author may be correct that there is some disagreement in the Jewish community regarding the Iran agreement issue, by and large that community has been either solidly behind the zionist policies or just passively silent for many decades. While AIPAC may not win this battle, the big money is behind them and they will continue to dominate and control Congress. Expect that Israel will get billions more welfare as “compensation” for the Iran agreement, which makes the region safer. Pollard is part of the compensation.

    One dispute on a policy issue does not mean that the “myth” is not essentially true. Try to end the unnecessary billions in welfare to israel, which is a wealthy country and has a per capita income equal to some European countries, and see what kind of “division” in the community arises.

    • Duke
      August 25, 2015 at 02:05

      Washington/Jewish uniqueness in oppose to rest of the World has been and will
      ultimately be very self destructive…something we can already see in this transition
      from unipolar to multipolar World. And worst of all – many of the above still believe
      that’s the way to do it!?

Comments are closed.