Vivek Will Talk to Known Antisemites but Not to Those Who Point It Out (Judean Rose)

So let me see if I’ve got this straight. Vivek Ramaswamy gave an interview to an antisemite and then got angry when the Washington Free Beacon reported that fact. No, wait. That’s not quite right. Ramaswamy didn’t know that Albert Faleski, aka An0maly, was an antisemite at the time of the interview, so it wasn’t nice that the Washington Free Beacon made it look like he did it on purpose. But actually, even if he HAD known Faleski was an antisemite, Ramaswamy might have still done the interview because of his amazing tolerance for all views and because of this presidential hopeful’s belief in free speech.

But no. That can’t be right either. Because if Ramaswamy really cared about freedom of speech, he wouldn’t have blocked the Washington Free Beacon’s access to his campaign for bringing up Faleski’s very public and virulent antisemitism in the context of the Ramaswamy interview.

Why isn’t the Washington Free Beacon free to talk about this? Why isn’t Ramaswamy tolerant of the media outlet’s sensitivity to and dedication to raising the issue of antisemitism—especially when the topic, by association, concerns a presidential candidate—I mean, first Ramaswamy goes on Russell Brand’s show and now this. In light of these facts, why does Ramaswamy’s campaign describe the Washington Free Beacon as acting in “bad faith?” 

Have you ever read the State Department’s “Defining Anti-Semitism” page?

They say it’s hate speech to say Jews killed Jesus, have more loyalty to Israel than other countries & saying they control large sectors of society.

Read here: https://t.co/w2SwtmAcBD pic.twitter.com/ixpz3brArz

— An0maly (@LegendaryEnergy) October 12, 2022

Zionists have the Republican Party by the nuts & they pass anti-American pass speech laws for their donors/Israel because that’s who controls them.

Facts don’t care about their feelings. They are selling America out to the highest bidder. https://t.co/kTFD43JAmo

— An0maly (@LegendaryEnergy) November 29, 2022

Here’s what happened:

On September 5, the Washington Free Beacon published a report by Alana Goodman on the aforementioned Faleski-Ramaswamy podcast. One day later, on September 6, Goodman reported that the Ramaswamy campaign had cut off free access to the Free Beacon, as a result:

Vivek Ramaswamy’s campaign said it would no longer facilitate access between the Washington Free Beacon and the candidate after the Free Beacon reported that Ramaswamy appeared on a podcast hosted by an anti-Semitic YouTuber on Tuesday.

The campaign’s decision comes after the Free Beacon reported on anti-Semitic comments, including the assertion that both the left and right push for "speech censorship on behalf of big Jewish power," made by social media influencer Albert Faleski, also known as "An0maly," who interviewed Ramaswamy this week. 

In other words, despite his declared commitment to the concept of freedom of speech Ramaswamy, did not at all like the Free Beacon mentioning Faleski’s extensive history of Jew-hating comments and tweets in its report of the podcast. The 38-year-old presidential candidate thinks that Goodman added unnecessary context designed to smear his reputation. But isn’t that also free speech? Instead, this is described by the Ramaswamy campaign as acting in “bad faith” (emphasis added):

Ramaswamy spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said on Tuesday that the Free Beacon acted in "bad faith" by highlighting Faleski’s comments in the context of Ramaswamy’s appearance on the show, adding that the campaign plans to cut off the Free Beacon’s access.

Are we all getting this? Because I’m finding it hard to take it in. Vivek goes on an antisemite’s youtube show in the name of free speech and tolerance, then denies all media access to the outlet that writes it up. 

If ever there were an exemplar of free speech for me and not for thee, this is it.

Which begs the question: If doing an interview with a virulent and quite public antisemite is acceptable in the name of free speech, why isn’t a factual report of the event acceptable as free speech?

Now, I’m not a Harvard graduate, or a 38-year-old, wet-behind-the-ears presidential candidate, but if I were, I sure as shooting would have my people research the background of those asking for interviews. If my people were to then find something suspicious, like the fact that the guy’s an antisemite, they would either turn down the interview, or pass that information along to me. This leaves us with a number of possibilities to consider regarding Vivek Ramaswamy’s appearance on the show of a known antisemite:

1.      Vivek Ramaswamy or his staff failed to do basic research before accepting the interview, then lied about it

2.      Ramaswamy didn’t care that Faleski is an antisemite, or agrees with and chose to amplify Faleski’s antisemitic conspiracy theories, and then lied about it

3.      Ramaswamy thought he could get away with appearing on an antisemite’s youtube show and got angry when he got caught

4.      Ramaswamy doesn’t really believe in free speech. He doesn’t even know what it is. When he says he is tolerant of other views, he is LYING. He punishes the media when they publish unpleasant truths about him. 

In piecing together the facts, we must also consider the timeline. First Ramaswamy told antisemite Russell Brand he’d cut aid to Israel, and then he did a show with antisemitic conspiracy theorist. When he is subsequently criticized for communing with Jew-haters, Vivek Ramaswamy lets it be known that he believes in free speech for all. All, that is, except for the Washington Free Beacon.

What do Epstein, Weinstein & 85% of the writers, producers & media execs making the most subversive programming have in common?

I’ll give you a hint, Trump & Republicans pass speech orders trying to stop you from saying the truth about it.

But it’s cultural to blame “white ppl”

— An0maly (@LegendaryEnergy) April 21, 2020

The Republican Party & the Rep. Media Establishment are Zionist > 🇺🇸. That means they will sacrifice America, Americans, their values, free speech & everything they claim to stand for to blacklist people who know they back hate speech laws & anti-boycott laws for Jewish donors.

— An0maly (@LegendaryEnergy) January 20, 2023

McLaughlin’s statement goes on to speak of Ramaswamy’s open media policy—his willingness to speak with even hostile media outlets (emphasis added):

Ramaswamy appeared on Faleski’s show because he will talk to any media outlet, even controversial ones, she said, adding that Ramaswamy wasn’t aware of Faleski’s anti-Semitic comments before the interview, but might have appeared on the show even if he was aware because of the campaign’s open media policy.

Once more, I have to ask, especially to those who say I have no proof that Ramaswamy is an antisemite--are you getting all this? This wet-behind-the-ears presidential candidate is saying he didn’t know Faleski was an antisemite, but even if he had, he still might have gone on the show. Vivek Ramaswamy doesn’t rule out talking to antisemites, only to those who point it out.

Not that it much matters. At this point, no one serious believes that Vivek Ramaswamy has a snowball’s chance in hell of becoming president. Definitely not this time around, and almost certainly not ever.

Wishing all my readers שָׁנָה טוֹבָה תִּכָּתֵבוּ וְתֵחָתֵמוּ!

*Updated for accuracy

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

Vivek Ramaswamy: Is He Good or Bad for the Jews? (Judean Rose)

Vivek Ramaswamy is a chameleon. He said he’d cut aid to Israel, then retracted the statement when it proved unpopular. This waffling on an issue near and dear to the hearts of 58% of American Jews leaves at least some of them scratching their heads and wondering: Is Vivek Ramaswamy good or bad for the Jews?

For some it’s enough to know that right out the gate, Ramaswamy is talking Jews and money, a subject that never bodes well for the Jews. The presidential hopeful staked out his position moreover, in a discussion with Russell Brand on Rumble. Brand has been known to feature anti-Israel Jews and celebrities in his videos. He once gave a platform to Hungarian Holocaust Survivor Dr. Gabor Maté, who used the opportunity to rain vitriolic untruths about Israel upon his listeners for a full 18 minutes, describing the most vicious—and fictitious—Israeli war crimes. In one whopper among the many, Maté asserts that the Israeli expression “mowing the lawn” refers to mowing down the innocent people of Gaza.

In actuality, the expression “mowing the lawn” refers to the need for the regular elimination of terror cells and rocket launchers in order to protect the innocent people of Israel. Israeli civilians have been the target of hundreds of thousands of rocket attacks emanating from Gaza. The IDF specifically chooses to manage the situation in Gaza, rather than carpet-bomb the place, in order to avoid civilian casualties, there.

In his introduction, Brand gave the Israel-hating Maté, whom he calls a “modern-day shaman” an impassioned and sympathetic introduction:

“[Maté] had this to say about the situation in Israel now. It’s one of the most beautiful, profound, and effective things I’ve ever seen anybody say about this conflict, and I fail to see how anybody could . . . I think anyone who sees it will be deeply moved by Gabor Maté’s wisdom and truth.”

The sympathetic platform that served the anti-Israel Maté is the same platform Ramaswamy chose for airing his views on ending U.S. aid to Israel, at the very start of his presidential campaign. According to a report in the JC, in his interview with Brand, Ramaswamy implied that Israel receives special treatment by the United States:

A US presidential candidate has said that Israel should not be receiving more aid than its neighbours and promised to cut back US funding to the Jewish state.

Vivek Ramaswamy, a long-shot Republican candidate for the president, said during an interview with Russell Brand on the right-wing social network Rumble that any additional funding Israel receives currently would be redundant. He said: “Come 2028, that additional aid won’t be necessary in order to still have the kind of stability that we’d actually have in the Middle East by having Israel more integrated in with its partners,”

While Ramaswamy admitted that the close relationship between the US and Israel had benefited both countries, he added: "There’s no North Star commitment to any one country, other than the United States of America.”

Twelve days later, Ramaswamy reversed himself. From the Free Beacon:

Facing backlash for his proposal to halt U.S. funding to the Jewish state by 2028, Vivek Ramaswamy’s campaign now says he does not support cutting military funding to Israel unless the country "tells the U.S. that it no longer needs the aid."

The fact-check section on Ramaswamy’s website was updated Monday to say that he "won’t cut aid to Israel until Israel tells the U.S. that it no longer needs the aid."

"That’s what Vivek actually said, so don’t believe the opponents’ lies that he wants to cut aid to Israel—which makes zero sense as a foreign policy priority any time in the foreseeable future," said Ramaswamy’s campaign.

The statement is a reversal from the candidate’s promise earlier this month that "come 2028, that additional aid won’t be necessary." It is also the clearest sign yet that he supports continuing the funding, which accounts for roughly $3 billion annually and which Israel primarily spends on the U.S. defense industry.

The shift comes as Ramaswamy has come under fire from pro-Israel leaders and his Republican primary opponent Nikki Haley, who said during last week's debate that Ramaswamy was "completely wrong to call for ending America's special bond with Israel."

Ramaswamy hit back at Haley, a fellow Indian-American, in the campaign statement, writing "Keep lying, Nimarata Randhawa." Haley’s maiden name was Randhawa prior to her marriage to Michael Haley in 1996. Her first name is "Nimarata," although she goes by her middle name "Nikki."

His campaign said he would "also partner with Israel to ensure that Iran never acquires nuclear capabilities." He described Israel’s current affiliation with the United States as a "client relationship" and said his policies would turn it into a "true friendship."

Ramaswamy’s conflicting answers on aid to Israel have irked both supporters and opponents of the Jewish state.

Aside from Ramaswamy’s flip-flop on Israel, there are other troubling factors for Jews to consider in assessing the potential threat of a Vivek Ramaswamy in the White House. Ramaswamy boasts that he was a “key member” of Jewish leadership society Shabtai, during his time at Yale Law School. Originally called “Eliezer” and then “Chai Society,” Shabtai is both secret and exclusive (emphasis added):

Meet Eliezer, the secret Yale society that's hiding in plain sight. The "secret" lies in the private networking and intimate bonding among a cohesive, self-selecting, truly diverse membership. A list of who belongs to Eliezer exists, but the contents are strictly off the record. Everything is word of mouth and by invitation only, not to exclude but to include the most interesting Yalies from over the walls of Yale's various courtyards: college, graduate schools and faculty.

Founded in the fall of 1996 by Rabbi Shmully Hecht, Ben Karp, Cory Booker and Michael Alexander as an intellectual salon and Jewish leadership society, the group that started out as a social club for would-be and current leaders of the Yale community has blossomed into an organization recognized the world over, yet with a decidedly secular twist. "There was no question that Eliezer was a Jewish association," says New York Times critic at large Edward Rothstein, a member of the society, "but also no question that along with its elements of religious observance and allusion, the aura was nonsectarian intellectual."

It's not just a "secular twist" when so many members of this Jewish society, including Ramaswamy, are not Jewish. But even among the Jewish participants, Shabtai’s “truly diverse membership” is just that. There is respected rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, and truth-seeking, antisemitism-fighting Bari Weiss. But then there are the other Shabtai participants, who, like Maté, feel compelled to lie and spew hate about Israel, for example William Schabas, Norman Finkelstein, Jeremy Ben-Ami, Richard Blumenthal, and Peter Beinart. The roster of antisemitic participants in this “Jewish leadership society” is long and distressing, and because of Shabtai’s veil of secrecy, we have no way to gauge the extent of interactions between members.

Then again, Ramaswamy’s Shabtai membership may just help us to clarify and further refine our original question: Would it be good or bad or the Jews to have a U.S. president who hangs out with the likes of Peter Beinart and William Schabas—or even one who nods his head at the things they say? What impact might these Shabtai participants have had on Ramaswamy in determining his stance on U.S. aid to Israel?

On the other hand, many staunch supporters of Israel have reservations about continuing to take America’s money. For one thing, if Israel were to stop accepting U.S. aid, no one could rightfully say that Jews control America’s the purse strings. Of course, haters like Gabor Maté would say it anyway, and continue to lie through their teeth about Israel.

Also, U.S. aid represents only a small fraction of Israel’s defense budget. Many say Israel can do without that money. “Israel clearly could survive without U.S. assistance, which constitutes just 3 percent of its state budget today and less than 1 percent of its GDP, a fraction of its value when it began," says Charles Freilich, a former Israeli deputy national security adviser writing for the left-wing fifth-column-rag Haaretz.

Michael Oren, formerly Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., cites other figures to show that American aid is less important to Israel today than it once was “Back in 1985, American aid represented nearly one-half of Israel’s defense budget. Today, it accounts for only 19%.”

Another issue to consider in being for or against American military aid for Israel, is that while antisemites demonize Israel for “sponging” off of America, the truth is that America is the main beneficiary of U.S. aid to Israel. More from Oren (emphasis added):

Though now taken for granted, American defense aid for Israel began belatedly and grew in fits and starts. Throughout its first two decades, while assisting Israel economically, the United States refused to sell Israel any arms, much less aid it militarily. A breakthrough occurred during the Kennedy administration, which sold Hawk anti-aircraft missiles to Israel, followed by President Lyndon Johnson, who allowed it to purchase Patton tanks and Skyhawk aircraft. Even then, Israel fought the 1967 Six-Day War with French weaponry—AMX tanks and Dassault Mystère fighters, plus some American army surplus—but in the process proved its worth as a potent Cold War ally. The result was an inchoate U.S.-Israel strategic alliance that burgeoned during Israel’s War of Attrition (1967-1970) with Soviet-backed Egypt and then in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. In Operation Nickel Grass, the United States replenished Israel’s battlefield losses with some 55,000 tons of military equipment.

The material was paid for, not donated. Outright military aid to Israel would only be offered in 1979, after the Camp David Accords with Egypt, when President Carter earmarked roughly $3 billion for Israel. The grant, though, was spread out over several years and used to reimburse Israel for the airbases it evacuated in Sinai. Not until the mid-1980s, in the Reagan years, did Israel receive an average of $1.8 billion per year, increased by the Clinton administration to $2.4 billion. In large measure, the money offset the phasing-out of American economic grants to Israel as well as the massive sale of American arms to Arab countries. Still, the amount grew to just over $3 billion in 2008 with the start of President George W. Bush’s 10-year memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. In addition to the MOU annuity, Israel also sought “plus ups”—congressional grants for missile defense and other one-time expenditures, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. In time, this would make Israel the largest single recipient of American military aid since World War II, a total of more than $150 billion.

But that number is also misleading. The aid comes in the form of foreign military funding (FMF) designed to facilitate the foreign military sales (FMS) of American military equipment. This means that nearly three-quarters of the aid is spent in the United States, as a subsidy for the domestic arms industry, creating tens of thousands of jobs. Thanks to that money, the Israel Defense Forces have become the world’s most American-equipped army, with the largest fleets of F-16 and F-35 jets outside of the United States. For companies such as General Dynamics and Lockheed-Martin, there can be no better advertisement for their fighters than their use by Israel’s famed air force. And while Israel’s critics in the United States often claim that it receives the greatest amount of American aid, in fact Germany, Japan, and South Korea get many times more. Their allotments, though, are not characterized as aid but as items in the U.S. defense budget.

Another former ambassador, Yoram Ettinger, says that U.S. aid to Israel is an investment:

The U.S. does not give foreign aid to Israel, the U.S. makes an annual investment in Israel, one that provides the American taxpayer a return on investment of several hundred percent . . .

. . . While Israel is a grateful recipient of several hundred U.S. military systems, it also serves as a battle-tested, cost-effective laboratory for the U.S. defense and aerospace industries, which employ—directly and indirectly—3.5 million Americans. Moreover, the Israel Defense Forces serve as a laboratory for the U.S. military itself, which enhances U.S. performance on the battlefield.

By serving as such a laboratory, Israel enhances the economy, national security and homeland security of the United States.

For example, the Israeli Air Force flies the U.S. company Lockheed-Martin’s F-16 and F-35 combat aircraft. This provides both Lockheed-Martin and the U.S. Air Force with invaluable information on operations, maintenance and repairs.  This information is then used to manufacture a multitude of upgrades for next-generation aircraft.

The F-16 itself has been improved by several hundred Israeli-driven upgrades, including to the cockpit, fire control, wings and fuel tanks. This has spared Lockheed-Martin 10-20 years of research and development—which would have cost billions of dollars. It also enhances the company’s global competitiveness, increases its multi-billion-dollar exports and expands its employment base. Similar advantages are enjoyed by Boeing, the manufacturer of the F-15, which is also flown and upgraded by the Israeli Air Force.

Indeed, Israel is the Triple-A store for Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, G.D., Northrop Grumman, L3Harris Technologies, G.E., Oshkosh, Honeywell and many other U.S. defense and aerospace companies. This enhances the image of these companies abroad and multiplies their export markets, because other countries assume that if Israel—with its unique national security challenges—uses these companies’ products, they must be of high quality.

And of course there’s the matter of allies keeping tabs on each other and also the sharing intelligence. Says Ettinger, “[The] benefits [of U.S. aid to Israel] extend to the realm of intelligence. According to a former head of U.S. Air Force Intelligence, Gen. George Keegan, the U.S. would have to establish five CIAs in order to procure the intelligence provided by Israel. The annual budget of the CIA is around $15 billion.”

Even those Israelis who feel that Israel would be better off not taking any more U.S. aid, admit that there is a difference between want and need. They may not want the aid, and may resent what people say about Israel taking that aid. But that aid is a reflection of U.S. Israel relations, a tangible representation of a firm alliance between these two countries. 

American politicians who want to cut aid, are generally not well-disposed to maintaining a collegial relationship with Israel. They prefer to withhold aid to keep Israel in line, or use it as a cudgel with which they can bludgeon Israel and make it behave. As Michael Oren writes, “Asked during the 2020 presidential race whether they would use American aid as leverage to pry diplomatic concessions from Israel, Democratic candidates Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Beto O’Rouke, and Pete Buttigieg all replied ‘yes.’ Asked by Israeli journalist Zvika Klein why young American Jews protest against Israel rather than Iran or Syria, Peter Beinart explained, ‘As Americans, we don’t provide $3 billion in military aid to Iran or Syria … without us, Israel couldn’t do everything it does.’”

Ramaswamy calls Israel a “client state” unable to stand on its own feet without the beneficence of the American people. That doesn’t sound as though he has an informed or realistic opinion about U.S. aid to Israel. Rather, it sounds as though he looks down his nose at Israel. He's patronizing.

In his desire to cut off the money pipeline to Israel, Vivek Ramaswamy is no different and certainly no better than the above-referenced Dems, radicals, and self-hating Jew-hating Jews. The difference is that Ramaswamy has now hedged his bets and couched his comments by putting the onus on Israel to end the aid, as per the per the quote from his website, “He ‘won’t cut aid to Israel until Israel tells the U.S. that it no longer needs the aid.’"

Does this mean that as president, Ramaswamy would strong-arm Israel to forfeit the aid until the Jewish State cries “Uncle?” In light of the benefits America accrues from the aid it “gives” to Israel, the idea is repugnant. Israel is not America’s whipping boy.

Ramaswamy gives the impression of being a wet-behind-the-ears smart-aleck upstart. He has been rude to Nikki Haley, and refers to U.S. ally Israel as a “client state.” Vivek has little--read no--chance of becoming the Republican nominee. Vivek Ramaswamy can however, still do damage to perceptions of Israel, and more generally, to the Jewish people.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More