"America needs to follow the policies it has introduced in Germany. We have to go through a certain deNazification process." More here TNR
This man has done as much to undermine the survival of the Jews than the avowed enemies of Israel. He is a lowlife. Beware the Shadow party.
Soros attacks US pro-Israel lobby Ed Pilkington in New York, The Guardian
Group accused of helping to suppress debate
Financier criticises Bush policy on Palestinians
The financier and philanthropist George Soros has entered the debate about US policy on Israel, accusing the Bush administration of adopting a hopeless strategy towards the Palestinians partly because of the influence wielded in Washington by a pro-Israel lobby.
No Jew should speak up for Israel. No President should stand with Israel. That is the position of this self loathing Jew who turned fellow Jews into the Nazis during the Holocaust. Demon seed.
In an article in the New York Review of Books, he accuses the Washington-based American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) of being "remarkably successful" in suppressing criticism of US-Israeli policy towards the Palestinians.
Really where? The Palis narrative is center stage. Soros is a pimp for savages. And who would give him such a platform? The Soros owned left. That's who.
The Bush administration is once again in the process of committing a major policy blunder in the Middle East, one that is liable to have disastrous consequences and is not receiving the attention it should. This time it concerns the Israeli–Palestinian relationship. The Bush administration is actively supporting the Israeli government in its refusal to recognize a Palestinian unity government that includes Hamas, which the US State Department considers a terrorist organization. This precludes any progress toward a peace settlement at a time when progress on the Palestinian problem could help avert a conflagration in the greater Middle East.
Pimping for Hamas. Soros is a degenerate criminal. Over at The Soros Monitor read the piece, THE SOROS INFILTRATION on his depraved agenda to legalize drugs and prostitution. He's got Grover Norquist, his mole in the White House, helping him out on that one. What is little known is his ill gotten gains, "Daddy Weedbucks" is getting rich off growing the stuff in Latin America. Why do you think he buys all that undervalued land.
While economic speculators like George Soros amass profits at ever-increasing rates, the damage caused by their actions can be seen around the globe. In Latin America, the disparity in income and living conditions between the rich to grow.
More at Townhall here;
Soros is the biggest land owner in South America. He owns millions of acres of prime drug land, and thus it is no surprise that he is the money manager for some of the biggest drug lords in South America (due to the fact that his fund, Soros Fund Management LLC, is incorporated in, I think, Bermuda, he can't be touched by American legal authorities). It is also unsurprising that he is also one of the biggest supporters of legalizing drugs because he hopes to make billions off of getting children addicted to them.
Like I said -- degenerate but back to his article at the Leftarded New York Review of Books. Soros spews the following Jew hating invective;
The United States and Israel seek to deal only with the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, in the hope that new elections would deny Hamas the majority it now has in the Palestinian Legislative Council. This is a hopeless strategy because Hamas has said it would boycott early elections, and even if their outcome would result in Hamas's exclusion from the government, no peace agreement would hold without Hamas's support.
Shilling for Hamas. Perfect.
In the meantime Saudi Arabia is pursuing a different path.
Shilling for the Saudis. A differerent path? Same old Jew hating path, the destruction of the State and the people of Israel. ISRAEL WAS NOT EVEN INVITED TO THAT PEACE CONSPIRATORS CONFERENCE - what's different about that?
In a February summit in Mecca between Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, the Saudi government worked out an agreement between Hamas and Fatah, which have been clashing violently, to form a national unity government. According to the Mecca accord, Hamas has agreed "to respect international resolutions and the agreements [with Israel] signed by the Palestinian Liberation Organization," including the Oslo Accords.
Hamas is going to respect an agreement made with civilized men? Yeah I got it and you'll respect me in the morning, the check is in the mail, you're from your government, and you're here to help me, your wife doesn't understand you, he never inhaled, it's not the money, it's the principle of the thing......but we can still be good friends, no problem, you can go another 20 miles when the gauge is on "empty," I gave at the office, don't worry, he's never bitten anyone and it's totally OK -- I'm sterile.
[..]The Saudi government views this accord as the prelude to the offer of a peace settlement with Israel, along the lines of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, [my new favorite oxymoron- Atlas]a settlement to be guaranteed by Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, based on the 1967 borders and full recognition of Israel.
The Saudis and the terror sponsoring countries are going to GUARANTEE ISRAEL'S SECURITY? That's like Sollozzo telling Sonny in the Godafther that the Tattaglias guarantee the Corleone investment.
Sauudi King Abdullah at the Arab League meeting to be hosted by Saudi Arabia at the end of March. But no progress is possible as long as the Bush administration and the Ehud Olmert government persist in their current position of refusing to recognize a unity government that includes Hamas. The recent meeting between Condoleezza Rice, Abbas, and Olmert turned into an empty formality.
Blame Bush! Blame the Jooooooooooos. Cool with the murderers.
Then came the blunder I am talking about. Israel, with the strong backing of the United States, refused to recognize the democratically elected Hamas government and withheld payment of the millions in taxes collected by the Israelis on its behalf. This caused great economic hardship and undermined the ability of the government to function. But it did not reduce popular support for Hamas among Palestinians, and it reinforced the position of Islamic and other extremists who oppose negotiations with Israel. The situation deteriorated to the point where Palestine no longer had an authority with whom it would have been possible for Israel to negotiate.
Blame the Joooooos. Plenty of money for guns, kassams, and TVs (don't forget TVs, that all important weapon on the war on propaganda.) They refuse Israeli medicines, demand cash, have been busted with 111 truckloads of TVs but no money for food and basic supplies.
Defenders of the current policy would argue that Israel cannot afford to negotiate from a position of weakness. But Israel's position is unlikelyto improve as long as it pursues its present course of military escalation.
Huh? Who is escalating? Who has Iran rearmed to the teeth in Lebanon? Soros is a cancer on the world. It goes on and on like this here, plenty for the KosKids and the anti-semitic strain of the Democratic party to inject in their veins.
The case against those who disagree with Israel's current policy is spelled out in detail by Alvin H. Rosenfeld in a pamphlet published by the American Jewish Committee. After reviewing the rise of new anti-Semitic currents, particularly in the Muslim world and Europe, Rosenfeld equates anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism and asserts that Jewish critics of Israeli policies reinforce both. He acknowledges that criticism by itself is not anti-Semitic; indeed, he writes, "the biblical prophets stood on the side of justice and were never hesitant to denounce their people's behavior when they saw it deviating from the standards of justice." But, he contends, "to condemn Israeli actions and, at the same time, to forego any realistic historical and political frameworks that might account for such actions" is not acceptable. The use of "exaggerated and defamatory terms," he writes, renders Israel indistinguishable from the "despised country regularly denounced by the most impassioned anti-Semites."
To call Israel a Nazi state...or to accuse it of South African–style apartheid rule or engaging in ethnic cleansing or wholesale genocide goes well beyond legitimate criticism.
To talk about victims turning into aggressors falls in his view in the same category.
Rosenfeld states the case too gently, IMAO. Forgive me for not running the Anti-Christ's response.
On December 20, 1998, there appeared this exchange between Soros and Steve Kroft on "60 Minutes":
Kroft: "You're a Hungarian Jew ..."
Kroft: "... who escaped the Holocaust ..."
Kroft: "... by posing as a Christian."
Kroft: "And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps."
Soros: "Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that's when my character was made."
Kroft: "In what way?"
Soros: "That one should think ahead. One should understand that--and anticipate events and when, when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a-- a very personal threat of evil."
Kroft: "My understanding is that you went ... went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews."
Soros: "Yes, that's right. Yes."
Kroft: "I mean, that's--that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?"
Soros: "Not, not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't ... you don't see the connection. But it was--it created no--no problem at all."
Kroft: "No feeling of guilt?"
Kroft: "For example, that, 'I'm Jewish, and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be these, I should be there.' None of that?"
Soros: "Well, of course, ... I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was--well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in the markets--that is I weren't there--of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would--would--would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the--whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the--I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt."