The recent hack of George Soros’ “charitable” giving revealed nothing new. The man who told journalist Steve Kroft in a televised interview that roaming the streets of Budapest with his faux godfather to confiscate the property of his fellow Jews for the Nazis was the most exhilarating time of his life has long had a problem with both his Jewish roots and the creation of a Jewish state.
Most revealing in the interview was Soros’ comment that he felt no guilt about what he had done during the war years—not even survivor’s guilt, common among those who live through a catastrophe, troubled him.
So, the emergence of documentation showing how Soros funds those whose goal is to destroy the Jewish character of Israel—if not the Jewish state itself—is in keeping with the very essence of a man who as a child so identified with the aggressor that he relished the experience of working for the Nazis.
Ironically, when those who want to vilify Jews need a role model that conforms to their framing of a fictional and vile Jewish character, Soros figures prominently. Yet, Soros’ pattern of funding and political backing generally resembles that of the neo-Nazis and Islamists who so conveniently find something in Soros’ Jewishness to decry.
In reality Soros, with his progressive, anti-Zionist agenda, is actually one of them. He is as much a practicing Jew as the Iranian ayatollahs; and when it comes to foreign policy, finding daylight between him and them would require a microscope.
It is not surprising that Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine is hobnobbing with Alexander Soros, George’s son and intellectual heir apparent. Alexander Soros is a big fan of Tim Kaine.
And so he should be. Kaine is a prominent supporter of President Obama’s ill-conceived and daily-changing Iran deal with its secret memoranda that is not only an existential threat to Israel’s existence but is also changing the balance of power in the entire Middle East. This is all the more problematic as Turkey sinks into internal chaos as a result of the unsuccessful coup, which enhances Iran’s potential as a serious rival.
This is the very essence of Soros’ policies, which have shown greater opposition to a Jew building a bathroom in Jerusalem than the ayatollahs building a nuclear weapon in Iran.
Soros has repeatedly tried to hide his support for the anti-Zionist Jewish progressive. Consequently, J Street for years denied Soros’ support, which was hidden through a Hong Kong-based cutout.
Both Soros’ foundation and the New Israel Fund, another Soros beneficiary, fund Adalah, a group that trains Israeli-Arabs and Jewish progressives to wage lawfare against the Jewish state and is a strong advocate of BDS.
In my own experience sitting on a panel with a representative of the New Israel Fund at a synagogue in Oakland, California, the NIF panelist vehemently and with outrage denied the very suggestion that his organization funds Adalah. Yet, it does.
Clearly, organizations like J Street and NIF share Soros’ anti-Zionist agenda. Otherwise, they would not receive funds from him. But their sharing of that agenda needs to be hidden from their fellow Jews, who might appropriately conclude that these are not organizations seeking to liberalize the Jewish state as much as they want to destroy it.
The revelations from the hack of Soros’ foundation only add support to what we already know. Soros’ agenda is to destroy Israel as a Jewish state, and those who receive money from him share that agenda. Their attempts to distance themselves from Soros simply show that they cannot afford to have the Jewish community comprehend the actual nature of their intentions.
Two weeks ago US President Barack Obama infuriated Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman by saying at a Pentagon press conference that Israeli officials are now supportive of the Iran nuclear deal.
The spectacle of Russian planes taking off from bases inside Iran on Tuesday to attack targets in Syria shows, indeed, that the deal was a game changer – but not in the way Obama had in mind.
The Israeli military and security establishment, Obama said, “acknowledges this has been a game changer.” And, he pointed out, Israel was the country most opposed to the deal.
As former National Security Council head Yaakov Amidror said on Israel Radio Wednesday, beyond the technical matter of it being easier and more effective for Russia to attack Syria from Iran, there is also huge diplomatic symbolism in their choosing to do so.
This was not, as Amidror noted, a nice little deconfliction mechanism like the one Israel and Russia set up in September so that their pilots don’t accidentally shoot each other down over Syrian airspace. The deployment of Russian jets to bases in Iran is, as far as cooperation goes between states, the “full monty.”
And it is a degree of cooperation made possible in large part by the Iranian nuclear deal.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s fierce opposition to last year’s Iranian deal was not only based on the deal’s nuclear merits and not only motivated by fear that it would eventually give Iran a path to a nuclear bomb.
This was not, as Amidror noted, a nice little deconfliction mechanism like the one Israel and Russia set up in September so that their pilots don’t accidentally shoot each other down over Syrian airspace. The deployment of Russian jets to bases in Iran is, as far as cooperation goes between states, the “full monty.”
And it is a degree of cooperation made possible in large part by the Iranian nuclear deal.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s fierce opposition to last year’s Iranian deal was not only based on the deal’s nuclear merits and not only motivated by fear that it would eventually give Iran a path to a nuclear bomb.
His opposition also had to do with the fear that the deal would bring Iran – which had been completely isolated internationally – back into the world’s good graces and embolden it.
He feared that the deal would strengthen Tehran both financially and diplomatically so that it could further pursue its destabilizing designs in the region.
In fact, one of Netanyahu’s main criticism of the negotiations was that Iran’s destructive behavior in the region and in the world was not even on the table at the talks.
In fact, one of Netanyahu’s main criticism of the negotiations was that Iran’s destructive behavior in the region and in the world was not even on the table at the talks.
Moscow only decided to deliver the S-300 air defense missiles to Iran, a deal that had been postponed for years, after the deal was signed. From Moscow’s perspective this made perfect sense. Sanctions had been lifted, and if Iran was once again legitimate, why not go ahead and provide it with defensive arms? Using Iranian bases to fly sorties against Syria can be seen as an extension of that same logic. If Iran is no longer a pariah state, if it is legitimate to have normal relations with it, then why not take those relations as far as they can go and use Iran’s air bases to pursue what Moscow feels are its own interests? It is hard to believe Russia would have made that calculation had the nuclear deal not been signed, and had Iran remained outside the pale of international legitimacy.
Russian-Iranian military cooperation to the extent witnessed this week will have enormous significance for the Middle East. It sends a clear message to the entire region not only whose side the Russians are on, but how far they are willing to go to pursue their objectives.
As Obama said, the nuclear deal is a game changer. But this type of change is definitely not in the interests of the US, America’s traditional Sunni-Arab allies in the region, nor Israel.
As Obama said, the nuclear deal is a game changer. But this type of change is definitely not in the interests of the US, America’s traditional Sunni-Arab allies in the region, nor Israel.
No comments:
Post a Comment