Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
42. Kissinger? That's who you want to hang
Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:25 PM
Mar 2013

your hat on? This guy:

But Nixon’s hard-wired anti-Semitism is an old story. What has caused many heads to swivel is a recording of Henry A. Kissinger, his national security adviser. Mr. Kissinger is heard telling Nixon in 1973 that helping Soviet Jews emigrate and thus escape oppression by a totalitarian regime — a huge issue at the time — was “not an objective of American foreign policy.”

“And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union,” he added, “it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern.”

In New York, the epicenter of Jewish life in the United States, some jaws are still not back in place after dropping to the floor.

Bad enough that any senior White House official would, without prodding, raise the grotesque specter of Jews once again being herded into gas chambers. But it was unbearable for some to hear that language come from Mr. Kissinger, a Jew who as a teenager fled Nazi Germany with his family, in 1938. Had he not found refuge in this country and in this city — the Kissingers settled in Washington Heights — he might have ended up in a gas chamber himself.

“Despicable,” “callous,” “revulsion,” “hypocrite,” “chilling” and “shocking” were a few of the words used this week by some leaders of Jewish organizations and by newspapers that focus on Jewish matters.

Conspicuously, however, many groups and prominent individuals stayed silent. They include people who would have almost certainly spoken up had coldhearted talk of genocide come from the likes of Mel Gibson or Patrick J. Buchanan, neither a stranger to provocative comments about Jews.

Even some who deplored Mr. Kissinger’s remarks tempered their criticism. The Anti-Defamation League called the recorded statements “outrageous,” but said they did not undermine “the important contributions and ultimate legacy of Henry Kissinger,” including his support of Israel. The American Jewish Committee described the remarks as “truly chilling,” but suggested that anti-Semitism in the Nixon White House might have been at least partly to blame.

“Perhaps Kissinger felt that, as a Jew, he had to go the extra mile to prove to the president that there was no question as to where his loyalties lay,” the committee’s executive director, David Harris, said in a statement.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/17/nyregion/17nyc.html?_r=0

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Damned if they do, damned if they don't Tempest Mar 2013 #1
What are the conditions placed on them? JDPriestly Mar 2013 #2
The U.S. has been moving the goal posts for years now on this issue. Tempest Mar 2013 #6
How about you explain what "conditions" that have been made that you cstanleytech Mar 2013 #10
But you mentioned "conditions." What are they? JDPriestly Mar 2013 #13
I often see the red herring used of "but Israel has nukes". cstanleytech Mar 2013 #15
well, there must be a reason why they have them reorg Mar 2013 #40
the conditions placed on Iran exceed their actual contractual obligations reorg Mar 2013 #38
Israel's nuclear program and weapons are irrelevant. Behind the Aegis Mar 2013 #4
From your perspective, not Iran's. n/t Tempest Mar 2013 #7
They can use that red herring all they want, doesn't relieve them of their duties. Behind the Aegis Mar 2013 #8
When the US applies sanctions on Israel to end its nuclear program, this will be the right thing leveymg Mar 2013 #14
Red herring, not a double standard. Behind the Aegis Mar 2013 #18
Israel's nuclear bombs are outside the NPT, and the initial batch were made of plutonium stolen from leveymg Mar 2013 #20
Well you got one thing correct, FINALLY. Behind the Aegis Mar 2013 #21
I'm surprised you didn't know about the Israeli theft of plutonium from a US Navy nuclear plant, leveymg Mar 2013 #22
Oh...that explains it. Behind the Aegis Mar 2013 #23
And pretty obviously untrue. If it is US plutonium, I am sure we gave it to them. stevenleser Mar 2013 #24
Yup, especially given the nature of those sites. Behind the Aegis Mar 2013 #25
If you prefer the term, diversion of U.S. nuclear materials to Israel, that's still illegal under leveymg Mar 2013 #26
How can Israel be in violation leftynyc Mar 2013 #27
The US is in violation of the NPT for diversion; Israel in violation of US law for receipt leveymg Mar 2013 #28
You just asserted it was a theft. Now because it suits your purposes, you are saying it was transfer stevenleser Mar 2013 #29
If the transfer was authorized, it was diversion. If unauthorized, theft. Take your pick. leveymg Mar 2013 #32
Again, that analogy doesnt work. Israel never signed the NPT. If you want to assert hypocrisy your stevenleser Mar 2013 #34
Yawn leftynyc Mar 2013 #31
No, not up in arms. I don't expect that Israel will be prosecuted, but I don't think sanctions on leveymg Mar 2013 #35
Sorry, leftynyc Mar 2013 #36
A past President stated this. Also, read Hersh's, The Samson Option leveymg Mar 2013 #39
Here's more from that '07 NYT article about Israel's nuclear blackmail of the US leveymg Mar 2013 #41
Kissinger? That's who you want to hang leftynyc Mar 2013 #42
None of that makes Kissinger's statements about the diversion untrue, nor does it change the fact leveymg Mar 2013 #43
You are accusing Israel of leftynyc Mar 2013 #44
No, Israel cannot be in violation of a treaty it never signed and to which it is not a party. nt stevenleser Mar 2013 #30
Steven, read more carefully. I said if not a theft, the transfer would be an NPT violation leveymg Mar 2013 #37
What do many think nineteen50 Mar 2013 #3
Of course they aren't. Cough cough. Myrina Mar 2013 #5
Oh, no, that's code for "We will liberate them soon" Blandocyte Mar 2013 #9
Odd, If that was the code then we should have invaded N. Korea by now. nt cstanleytech Mar 2013 #11
Well, if Iraq had actually possessed WMDs... I wouldn't have been against the war... Comrade_McKenzie Mar 2013 #12
You never seem to be a big fan of that freedom and democracy stuff cpwm17 Mar 2013 #16
"Nukes" are a pretext ronnie624 Mar 2013 #33
Are we sure this is LBNs? ripcord Mar 2013 #17
Video here Ash_F Mar 2013 #19
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Nuclear watchdog agency s...»Reply #42