web analytics
December 11, 2016 / 11 Kislev, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘Haim Saban’

Saban, ADL’s Greenblatt: Ellison Clearly an Anti-Semite

Saturday, December 3rd, 2016

Movie mogul and major Democratic party donor Haim Saban on Friday night at a Brookings Institution dinner attacked Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, a leading candidate in the race for chairman of the Democratic National Committee, calling him an anti-Semite.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean dropped out of the DNC race on Friday, urging Democrats to elect only a full-time chairman, implying Ellison would not make an effective party leader because of his Congressional commitments. Speaking on Friday to state party chairs in Denver, Ellison said that if he’s elected chairman, he’d consider leaving Congress to devote his attention to rebuilding the party.

The fact that Ellison may be the next Democratic party decision maker stirred up Saban’s harsh response.

Speaking from his table at the dinner, Saban said: “I would just like to clarify something about Keith Ellison and him running for head of the DNC. […] I think it’s important for this audience to know. First, The fact that Keith Ellison is a Muslim is a non-issue at all. That is not an issue. With that out of the way, if you listen to Keith Ellison today and you see his statements, he’s more of a Zionist than Herzl, Ben-Gurion and Begin combined. I mean, really, it’s amazing, it’s a beautiful thing.”

Then Saban delivered his punch line: “[But] if you go back to his positions, his papers, his speeches, the way he has voted – he is clearly an anti-Semite, an anti-Israel individual. Words matter, and actions matter more. Keith Ellison would be a disaster for the relationship between the Jewish community and the Democratic Party. Now I’ve said what I had to say.”

On Thursday, ADL CEO Jonathan A. Greenblatt, not a rightwinger in anyone’s book, issued an almost identical statement, albeit in a less blunt style:

“When Rep. Ellison’s candidacy to be chair of the Democratic National Committee was first reported, ADL did not rush to judgment.  Instead, we took a hard look at the totality of his record on key issues on our agenda. We spoke to numerous leaders in the community and to Mr. Ellison himself. ADL’s subsequent statement on his candidacy appreciated his contrition on some matters, acknowledged areas of commonality but clearly expressed real concern where Rep. Ellison held divergent policy views, particularly related to Israel’s security.

“New information recently has come to light that raises serious concerns about whether Rep. Ellison faithfully could represent the Democratic Party’s traditional support for a strong and secure Israel. In a speech recorded in 2010 to a group of supporters, Rep. Ellison is heard suggesting that American foreign policy in the Middle East is driven by Israel, saying: “The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes.”

“Rep. Ellison’s remarks are both deeply disturbing and disqualifying.  His words imply that U.S. foreign policy is based on religiously or national origin-based special interests rather than simply on America’s best interests. Additionally, whether intentional or not, his words raise the specter of age-old stereotypes about Jewish control of our government, a poisonous myth that may persist in parts of the world where intolerance thrives, but that has no place in open societies like the U.S. These comments sharply contrast with the Democratic National Committee platform position, which states: “A strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States because we share overarching strategic interests and the common values of democracy, equality, tolerance, and pluralism.”

It appears that with or without Ellison at the Helm, rank and file Democrats are abandoning their party’s traditional relationship with the Jewish State. Israeli born Prof. Shibley Telhami, introduced a survey of “American attitudes on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” at the at the Brookings Institute Saban Forum 2016, using 1,528 panelists with a 2.5% margin of error, that included the question: “Is Israel an ally or a burden to the United States?”

Most respondents, 76%, across party lines, agreed that Israel is a strategic asset to the U.S. But a majority of Democrats (55%), say that Israel is also a burden.

The breakdown by age of respondents across the lines regarding the notion that Israel is a burden: 61% of people 55 years of age or older disagree that Israel is a burden to the U.S., while 31% agree that it is a burden.

51% of 35 to 54 year olds disagree with the notion of Israel being a burden. But only 49% of 18 to 34 year olds disagree with it.

JNi.Media

Friend of Israel Slated to Become HRC’s WH Chief of Staff

Thursday, October 27th, 2016

Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta is the top choice to serve as White House chief of staff come January 2017, Politico reported Thursday. The choice of chief of staff will signal the presidential candidate’s expectations of her relationship with Congress, as well as her international plans.

A close Clinton ally told Politico that, on the campaign, Podesta was part of a small group of advisers the candidate “can already shorthand with.” Expectations are that should he agree to serve, it would be only for one year. “The question is can she convince him to do it for a year,” the source said, adding, “He could get the administration stabilized, and get hiring done.”

Podesta served as President Clinton’s Chief of Staff from 1998 until the end of Clinton’s time in office in January 2001.

As reflected from the thousands of his emails dumped by Wikileaks, Podesta is a great advocate of transparency, and has frequently criticized Hillary Clinton’s tendency for secrecy and cover-ups. In a 2004 speech at Princeton University, he condemned what he called the U.S. “excessive government secrecy” and “bloated secrecy bureaucracy.” He supported President Clinton’s Executive Order 12958 which helped declassify 800 million pages from the U.S. diplomatic and national security history. He called Executive Order 12958 “perhaps the biggest accomplishment of the Clinton administration.”

Podesta and Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s likely appointment for National Security Advisor (he is currently serving as Vice President Biden’s NSA), are considered friends of Israel, a fact supported by countless leaked emails. Podesta and Sullivan come across in these emails as associates of the pro-Israel circle of Hillary Clinton advisors, some of whom have been on close personal terms with Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer. Dermer used their good services to communicate a message from Prime Minister Netanyahu to the presidential candidate, asking her to curb her enthusiasm in support of Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.

One particular leaked email exchange, between John Podesta and his daughter, Megan Rouse, offers an un-staged insight into the former’s stand on US-Israel relations. Rouse wrote her father: “I’ve heard a concern from some folks who care deeply about Israel that Hillary will be the president ‘most unfriendly to Israel in our history, worse than Obama.’ Thoughts on how I might respond in conversation?”

Podesta replied: “That’s a bit crazy. Obama developed a real feud with Bibi, but she has been a staunch defender of Israel since her Senate days. Probably her very best supporters are Haim Saban, and Danny Abraham who would not be with her if she wasn’t totally committed to Israeli security.”

Incidentally, Podesta would much rather serve in Hillary Clinton’s cabinet as energy secretary, and was behind President Obama’s climate initiatives. The problem is that getting the job would require Senate confirmation, a road paved with months and months of hearings on those nasty Wikileak emails bearing his name and address. Apparently, not all of them were as sweet as his exchange with Megan…

JNi.Media

Wikileaks: Huma Abedin ‘Corrected’ Haim Saban on Scrutinizing Muslims

Wednesday, October 26th, 2016

In November, 2015, after Hollywood mogul Haim Saban, whose support for Hillary Clinton is matched only by his love for his country, Israel, told Itay Hod (from Nazareth, Israel) of The Wrap that the U.S. should tighten its control of Muslims (Hollywood Mogul Haim Saban Calls for ‘More Scrutiny’ of Muslims — Exclusive), he was rebuked by a curt email from Clinton’s closest adviser, Huma Abedin, a string of recently hacked Wikileaks emails reveals.

Saban was delighted with his Wrap interview, and on Nov. 18 sent the Clinton team the link, with the comment: “Hey Guys. Read and get a kick from my statements about Bernie sanders, Rubio and Trump w/o even mentioning their name. Hope all is well.”

The interview was given in the wake of the ISIS murderous Paris attack, and Saban told Hod: “I’m not suggesting we put Muslims through some kind of a torture room to get them to admit that they are or they’re not terrorists, but I am saying we should have more scrutiny.”

Saban insisted the Paris attack, which shocked the world almost a year ago, was the ultimate game changer. “It’s a wake-up call,” he said. “I fully believe we’re in a different kind of World War III. What ISIS has proven is that they’re not only active in Syria and Iraq, but they’re active in Europe. We can’t afford the next president, basically the leader of the free world, to be an amateur that has done nothing other than missing votes, or a clown, to be making the decisions as to how to react.”

In response to her boss’ biggest fan’s proud email (By Nov. 2015, Saban had already given $2 million to Clinton’s Super PAC Priorities USA Action, and he and his wife had hosted a fundraiser that raised another $2 million) Clinton’s closest advisor wrote the following, very cold response:

“Good interview. Thanks for sharing. But what you are saying about Muslims not consistent with HRC. Are you aware of that?”

This is the stuff that keeps Jews and Israelis up at night, that cool, persistent, pro-Muslim voice that will remain, deep and poisonous, inside the president’s ear. Especially since Clinton actually sides with Haim Saban on this issue, as she articulated in September, after Ahmad Rahimi, the US citizen son of Afghan immigrants had been identified as the suspect in a string of bombing attempts in Manhattan and New Jersey:

Clinton said: “I am absolutely in favor of and have long been an advocate for tough vetting, for making sure that we don’t let people into this country — and not just people who come here to settle, but we need a better visa system. Let’s remember what happened on 9/11. These were not refugees who got into airplanes and attacked our city and our country. So let’s not get diverted and distracted by the kind of campaign rhetoric we hear coming from the other side.”

Clinton’s “tough vetting” is practically identical, by the way, to Republican candidate Donald Trump’s call for “extreme vetting.”

Huma Abedin will continue to be a major concern, should Hillary Clinton win in November (which at the moment appears like a foregone conclusion). To be fair, other than a few expressions of derision about AIPAC which rattled US Jews, rightfully so, and the unkind email to Hillary’s rich Israeli supporter from Hollywood, the media, Jewish and otherwise, have yet to catch Abedin in a scandalous anti-Israel statement, the kind that White House staff resignations are made of. All we have at the moment is innuendo, and our sleepless nights.

JNi.Media

Analysis: Should Israeli Settlers Fear Trump’s Peace Negotiations? [video]

Thursday, July 21st, 2016

Donald Trump’s website mentions only two foreign countries by name: in its Positions section it deals with “Reforming The US-China Trade Relationship To Make America Great Again,” and in its Issues section, which is a series of videos with the candidate spending about a minute speaking forcefully on the issues, the one country that’s mentioned as an “issue” is, you guessed, Israel.

Should Israelis and US Jews be concerned that the Jewish State is so clearly a burning issue for Trump? Not if you believe the opening, where Trump straightens his gaze at the camera and declares, “I love Israel, I’m very pro-Israel.” He hasn’t said it about any other country in quite this total fashion.

But what to Trump is the Israel issue begins and ends with what he considered, back in March, when he shot this video, a challenge to his skills as negotiator. You can be a Trump supporter and still be perplexed by the amount of personal prestige the candidate has invested in being that one American president who finally brought peace to “Israel and the Palestinians.”

“Trump is plainly the best bet for the Jews,” Seth Lipsky wrote in the NY Post Wednesday, citing neoconservative Norman Podhoretz, who berated Hillary for the 2012 rejection by the Democratic convention of restoring both God and Jerusalem to the DNC platform.

True enough, but Trump was booed at his AIPAC appearance last December when he, too, refused to commit to moving the US embassy to Jerusalem.

“Trump’s also the candidate siding with religious Americans whose rights are in jeopardy from the proliferating series of laws and court rulings in which religious persons are being asked to bow to a liberalism hostile to religious law,” Lipsky argued.

But religious Jews are not under attack by the liberal government anywhere in America: unlike in Europe, Jewish rituals are not under attack anywhere, with the possible exception of the Bay area; why even the latest NYC policy on oral suction in circumcision is restricted to educational pamphlets, rather than court orders.

The problem with Trump regarding Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria (and, possibly, eastern Jerusalem) is the candidate’s eagerness to make a difference in the age old Israeli-Arab conflict.

Here is what Trump said on tape in March, which the campaign has chosen to keep up there as one of his key concerns:

“I would love to see a deal be made between Israel and the Palestinians. It’s probably the hardest negotiation there is. Great negotiators have tried and they failed. It’s just so deep seated, the hatred, the level of distrust.

“But I’m going to give it an awfully good shot. I want to remain as neutral as possible, because if you’re not somewhat neutral the other side is never going to do it.

“But just remember, Israel, I love you, we’re gonna’ see if we can get something done, it has to be done for both sides, it cannot continue to be the way it is. Let’s see what we can negotiate, let’s see if it can be done.”

Does the last paragraph strike you as something you might tell your child before taking him for his booster shots? It’ll hurt, for sure, but remember, Daddy loves you very much and when the doctor is done poking you Daddy will buy you an ice cream cone.

There’s no doubt that presumptive Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is easily as worrisome when it comes to Israel. She is surrounded by anti-Israel advisors, one of whom is a radical Muslim. It is a tough call to make — which Roman emperor will bring more trouble to tiny little Judea: Hillary, who might end up just talking the talk but avoid the actual walk; or Trump, who might just, God forbid, decide to test his skills — and then what would Israel do when the Arabs agree to some of his proposals and a victorious Trump turns to Netanyahu and says, Brother, I got you a great deal, just hand over control of eastern Jerusalem and take the Jews out of the “territories.”

We welcome a civilized discussion of the concerns raised in this article.

David Israel

Clinton’s Big Jewish Donors are Hollywood Leftists

Tuesday, August 4th, 2015

If Hillary Clinton is elected President, her positions on Israel can be determined now by the Jews in Hollywood who are her biggest financial backers.

All of them are leftists with American-based dreams of Arabs and Jews living in peace and love while racism in America goes from bad to worse.

The one exception to the Hollywood Hit List is Haim Saban, who is on the right side of the left. It is not coincidental that he was born in Egypt and lived there 12 years before his family made Aliyah to Israel.

No one understands the Arab culture better than Sephardi Jews who are from Muslim countries. That explains why pure Ashkenazim like Shimon Peres think exactly like “liberal” American Jews who view peace as a handshake between Yasser Arafat and Yitzchak Rabin.

Among those American Jews are Hollywood moguls Spielberg and Katzenberg, both of whom donate generously to Jewish causes and passionately love an Israel that exists in their dream of a country that allows them to feel comfortable as Jews in the Diaspora.

Soros needs no introduction. He is the sugar daddy for J Street, the self-acclaimed pro-Israel lobby that promotes peace with Hamas and has come out in favor of the nuclear agreement with Iran, coined as the ObamaDeal.

Hillary Clinton has lots of support from Hollywood Jews, among them Barbra Streisand, who warmed the hearts of Jews around the world two years ago with her version of the Aveenu Malkeinu prayer in one of the two-month-long 90th birthday parties for Peres.

She also is a big donator for promoting Arab-Jewish relations, a seemingly lofty ambition that in reality is based on the idea of the American melting pot where everyone destroys their roots in order to be a giant tree without roots.

Is it any wonder why assimilation in the United States is near 70% and Arab-Jewish intermarriages are becoming more commonplace in Israel?

Katzenberg is known to be a very close with President Barack Obama and contributed heavily to his election campaigns.

Spielberg undeniably has promoted Jewish causes but his latest film on the Munich Massacre is making him more of an outcast to anyone to the right of Soros.

The movie described the Mossad agents’ hunt for the Black September terrorists who murdered 11 Israeli athletes at the Olympics in Munich in 1972.

The London Guardian reported two months ago:

Although almost nobody has yet seen the film, it has already been criticized by both Israelis and Palestinians fearful of reports about how they are portrayed.

However, the director told Time Magazine that the film is a ‘prayer for peace,’  and that the biggest enemy in the region is not the Palestinians or the Israelis but the intransigence that exists between the two sides.

If Clinton wins the Democratic party’s nomination for president in the 2016 race, it is clear where she will lean when it comes to Israel.

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Mega-B Jewish Philanthropists Organize to Fight BDS

Monday, June 1st, 2015

Jewish mega billionaires Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban and others are gathering members of The Tribe this weekend for a secret meeting on how to fight the Boycott, Divest & Sanction movement against Israel.

In the past year, student groups at a record 15 universities have adopted resolutions that demanded divestiture of the funds of their college funds from Israel-linked firms.

Adelson, who owns a casino as well as a vast array of media outlets, will host the meeting in Las Vegas, according to a report by The Forward newspaper.

A select list of pro-Israel activists have been invited to the closed-door weekend, which is not being discussed on the record by anyone.

The summons received by those who were invited requested their presence for an effort to brainstorm with the philanthropists at the Venetian Hotel.

Israeli-born Los Angeles Hollywood billionaire mogul Haim Saban is apparently one of the active movers behind the initiative, according to a source quoted in the report. Saban has already apparently spoken with former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren, now a Knesset Member, to discuss the idea of setting up a task force to deal with BDS activists on American college campuses. The project would be aimed at countering anti-Israel activity on campus.

Another Israeli-born philanthropist, California real estate developer Adam Milstein, is allegedly the brains behind the actual structuring of the project. Milstein recruited Canadian businesswoman Heather Reisman along with Adelson.

Hana Levi Julian

PI-INOs (Pro-Israel In Name Only) Continue to Give Cover to Obama

Thursday, April 16th, 2015

U.S. President Barack Obama held two meetings with American Jews last week. They were the best of meetings, they were the worst of meetings. In reverse order.

The worst part of the worst meeting – from the perspective of Americans who care about regional stability in the Middle East and the continued existence of the Jewish State – was an offer made by J Street-esque Jews who promised to “do the leg work” for Obama if he decides to remove the “veto protection of Israel” at the United Nations, as reported in the Algemeiner.

At the first meeting, the Jewish organization heads represented the concerns of pro-Israel Americans regarding this administration’s recent actions, particularly regarding steps to allow Iran to come out from under the yoke of international sanctions regarding its nuclear program.

Participants in this meeting included representatives from the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the World Jewish Congress, The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, AIPAC, B’nai Brith, the ADL, the Jewish Federations, representatives of the three major streams of Judaism, and partisan and leftist groups such as the National Jewish Democratic Council, the Israel Policy Forum, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, J Street and the National Council of Jewish Women, according to the JTA.

At the second meeting, the one with those who claim to be pro-Israel when it suits them, but who are first, last and always pro-Democratic party policies (we’ll call them PI-INOs: Pro-Israel In Name Only), encouraged Obama in his belief that he “is a member of the tribe” because they, like he, understand his far-leftist orientation to be really a form of Social Justice Judaism.

Those present at this meeting included major Jewish Democratic party donors and fundraisers, including ones associated with AIPAC and J Street. They included the Israeli-American Haim Saban, who is believed to be, unlike others present, at least somewhat critical of Obama’s Middle East policies.

But a theme, originally laid out in a lengthy, glowing New York Times magazine about J Street when it was first launched, was played out again at this second meeting. This theme is, at least for those most closely associated with J Street, they serve as Obama’s “blocking back” for American Jews, presenting his adverse position on matters typically of great concern to American Jews, softening up the crowd, and taking the initial body slams.

Obama was encouraged, according to sources present at the meeting who shared what transpired with the Algemeiner, to “take steps against Israel and remain steadfast in his approach to Iran negotiations.” A “J Streeter” went so far as to have “pushed Obama to remove the veto protection of Israel at the UN in the event that a Security Council resolution called for the creation of a Palestinian State.”

This “J Streeter” reportedly said “if you decide to go against Israel at the UN, ‘let us know first, and we’ll do the legwork for you in the community.” The conversation described at least that participant as actively pushing the president to work against Israel’s concerns on the world stage.

Another participant at this second meeting reportedly encouraged Obama to continue with his negotiations with Iran and remain firm against Congress’s efforts to intervene.

The president later changed course on the Congressional initiative known as the Corker bill, fueling speculation that it actually ended up being a net positive for the administration’s efforts. There are conflicting views that the administration caved because it recognized a tidal wave was going to wash over them anyway, but careful analysts such as former U.S. Naval intelligence officer J.E. Dyer suggest that is too optimistic a view.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/pi-inos-pro-israel-in-name-only-continue-to-give-cover-to-obama/2015/04/16/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: