I was just reading a 2007 interview Sheldon Adelson gave to the Kahanist Jewish Press. In it, he rejects the idea of a two-state solution, which is not news. But the rejection of any rights for the Palestinian people, and his imputation of genocidal intentions to the Palestinians raises the question: how would Adelson resolve the conflict? In fact, I wonder whether any interviewer has asked him. If not, they should. Because the passage below is friggin’ scary:
There won’t be a two-state solution; there won’t be a one-state solution. The Palestinians want a “no state solution” for the Jews. They don’t want Jews at all. So all of this balagan about the settlements – it’s not about the settlements. It’s something to delay having to sit down and negotiate over a table that will have to lead to a conclusion that they will never agree to. They will have to agree that this is the end of the conflict and they will have to surrender what they call their “right of return to Israel proper.” They will never do either of those things. They don’t want the Jews or any other religion to be alive, so how are they going to get to the point of peace?
There isn’t a Palestinian alive who wasn’t raised on a curriculum of hatred and hostility toward the Jews. So how can you talk about giving up land? They publicly acknowledge that they have a multi-phased program. They’ll do it in steps: They’ll take the West Bank, then they’ll take a piece of the Galilee, and piece by piece they’ll want the rest of the land of Israel. There’s no chance for peace, and the settlements are just a red herring issue.
If you parse this carefully, you’ll note that Adelson first denies a two state solution, then denies the anti-Zionist formula for a one-state solution. At first, I even thought he was denying a right for Israel to have its own state. But what he really meant was to deny the anti-Zionist version of a single Jewish-Palestinian state.
If you continue, you realize that he’s ascribed such genocidal/exterminationist aspirations to Palestinians and foresees absolutely no possibility that they will ever agree to a peaceful settlement on Israel’s terms. The only possible outcome then can be either Israeli genocide against the Palestinians or forced population transfer. This means that Adelson isn’t just right-wing on Israel, but that he’s a Kahanist. The fact that this interview appeared in a publication for which Meir Kahane was once an editor and weekly columnist, then is no accident.
Frankly, I’m shocked that no one has asked the question or gotten an answer from him on this important question.
Why is it important? Because if, God forbid, Mitt Romney becomes president, Sheldon Adelson will have given $100-million or more (my prediction: possibly $200-million) to fund his campaign. For that hunk of change you get a helluva lot of political leverage to determine what U.S. policy toward Israel will be. You would get a U.S. president who would possibly support Israel’s annexation of the West Bank. A president who might even look the other way if Israel expelled Palestinians from the West Bank. Certainly, a president who would never make a peep if Israel became a Likudist state discarding democracy (except possibly for Jews). Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Thank you for this important piece of information.
Even if Mitt Romney, does become President, Sheldon Adelson would have to think long and hard, about the consequences of expelling Palestinians. I doubt even Mitt Romney, would turn a blind eye to genocide, even if Sheldon Adelson does fantasise about that, along with other Kahanists.
It would set a precedent. Sheldon should remember, that other countries could then expel their Jews to Israel. Himself included. Not only that, a lot of so called ‘allies’ of Israel would support that. The Armeggedonites who are his allies, see Jews as holding up the show by remaining in the diaspora.
Deïr Yassin says
A typo: ‘2007’ instead of 2011 in the blue link.
I just read an article in Haaretz on that Republican meeting in Florida, I think, where an American-Palestinian asked Romney about his point of view on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it was pretty much like reading this interview with Sheldon Adelson.
I guess they both are for the “Jordanian-solution”.
I read a comment somewhere: that in America when you say, even off , that the Jews should go back where they came from (and we’ll never know if Helen Thomas really meant ‘back to Israel’ as she claimed later), you get sacked and ostracized, but you can (‘have to’ as a Republican candidate ?) publicly endorse the transfer of Palestinians when you run for president.
Long live a new world order where the US gets peripherical.
Excuse my naivité, but Mr. Adelson already blew a similar sum on a presidential candidate (Gingrich), and doesn’t seem to be bothered by the loss. So another 100 million wasted on a candidate who – if he wins (not really that certain) – doesn’t endorse the letter of the casino millionair’s demands won’t, IMHO, disturb Adelson’s sleep. He’ll just build another casino to finance unsuccesful Republican candidates or “newspapers” handed out for free and treated accordingly…
So, let’s see. Hitler made a deal with the Zionists in 1933 to help create Israel and transfer all of them out of his homeland.
Between 1939-1945, Hitler then enacted the “Final Solution”.
Sounds like both of thee options have been tried by the Fuhrer for his successors. Vy reinvent za veel?
Benjamin, I am puzzled about a casino moghul being the biggest funder of the religous settlers, when Halacah forbids gambling. The secular or nationalist atheist rightists I can understand, since they disdain Halacha or don’t even believe in it.
But the religious settlers do. If they believe in God, then they should know Sheldon’s money funding them, cannot lead to any good. Surely there is a sign there for those who have the vision to see.
Forget what you think you know about Halacha (or any other religious doctrine, for that matter).
What best defines the religious-right — everywhere — is their adherence to unshakable moral-system which invariably allows whatever they expect to serve their own interest.
Richard Silverstein says
Adelson is secular I would guess. That how he can bifurcate his professional life from his Jewish life. Though if he is religious he can also justify promoting gambling by arguing how much “good” he’s able to do as a product of the sin of gambling.
If I remember correctly in the Wikileaks release there was clear evidence of then US Secretary of State Rice discussing the transfer of the Palestinian population to South America. (!) Anybody remember that?
I think, personally, that the US government has de facto if not de jure agreed to population transfer of Palestinians. Or to put it another way, the US government and the US Secretary of State, under Rice, Clinton, or whoever is next, would do nothing to prevent such a transfer while on-going, and would, I imagine, even publicly defend it as ‘responsible in the circumstances’ and find money to help it.
Deïr Yassin says
The Wikileaks release was about Palestinian refugees and not a transfer of the Palestinian populaton living in Palestine, though I don’t doubt many people, also in the US administration, dream about that:
Richard Silverstein says
Yup, right. Apparently, she hadn’t read her Herzl to know how ironic it was that he recommended founding Israel in Uganda!!
RE: “…This means that Adelson isn’t just right-wing on Israel, but that he’s a Kahanist… if, God forbid, Mitt Romney becomes president, Sheldon Adelson will have given $100-million or more (my prediction: possibly $200-million) to fund his campaign.” ~ R.S.
MORE FOOD FOR
“At This Point, I’d Say Romney Wins in November”, by M.J. Rosenberg, 5/30/12
ENTIRE POST – http://mjayrosenberg.com/2012/05/30/at-this-point-id-say-romney-wins-in-november-9-2/