Zionists Out of the Peace Movement

Argentina and the "vultures" are back in the news, which makes this a good time to resurrect the post below, which was banned from Firedoglake last summer. Una versión de este artículo está disponible en español.

News of the Argentinian government's debt default is a hot media item recently but there is more to this story than meets the eye. The major actor pushing Argentina into default is a "vulture fund" manager named Paul Singer. Mother Jones last year portrayed Singer as "the GOP's Go-To Guy on Wall Street" which, while true, does not tell the whole story.

Like the New York Times, Mother Jones has covered up the Israel angle on Singer, which is an important part of his campaign against Argentina. Furthermore, in portraying him as a Republican, MJ neglects to mention Singer's strong ties to the Democratic Party.

As reported by the Inter Press Service (IPS) last year:

When Argentina defaulted on its national debt in 2001, U.S. hedge funds swooped in to buy the nation’s bonds at pennies on the dollar, confident they would eventually prevail in the U.S. legal system and force the country to pay out in full.

That battle is set to reach the Supreme Court later this year, but the country’s creditors on Wall Street – labeled 'vulture capitalists' by their critics – are also making their case in Congress and the court of public opinion, with a current media campaign aimed at painting Argentina as an increasingly rogue nation in bed with Washington's enemies.

The public relations effort, which focuses on Argentina's increasingly friendly relations with Iran ...

The vehicle for that effort is called the American Task Force Argentina (ATFA) and "the people who head up" the ATFA, "the main lobbying organization behind Singer's current campaign ... sit on the high councils of the Democratic Party and would likely be part of any Hillary Clinton administration."

The ATFA is led by three people: Robert Raben, whose legislative career began with seven years on Barney Frank's staff and who eventually served as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Clinton Administration; Robert J. Shapiro, who is a Senior Fellow of the Progressive Policy Institute and was appointed U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs under Bill Clinton, whom he advised during his first presidential campaign; and, Nancy Soderberg who served in the Clinton White House on the National Security Council and later as an Alternate Representative to the United Nations. Soderberg also helped the "tiny team [that] nailed down [the] Jewish vote for Obama" in 2012.

As IPS puts it: "The details of Argentina's relationship with Iran – which consists mostly of agricultural exports – are not terribly important to ATFA, however." Instead, the ATFA has chosen to portray Argentinian President Cristina Kirchner as having made "a pact with the devil" in reference to a 2013 "agreement establishing a joint 'truth commission' with Tehran" whose allegedly "only purpose ... is to whitewash Iran's responsibility for the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires ..."

Singer's targeting of Iran via the ATFA dovetails nicely with his own support of the Jewish state as Iran has long been in Zionist crosshairs. According to the IPS:

In 2007, Singer described himself as a believer in American exceptionalism, noting that he has given "millions of dollars to Republican organizations that emphasize a strong military and support Israel." Speaking to the New York Times, Singer explained that he believes the West "finds itself at an early stage of a drawn-out existential struggle with radical strains of pan-national Islamists."

But to return to the financial stakes for Argentina for a moment let's go back to the article by Conn Hallinan on truthdig:

A recent decision by federal District Judge Thomas Griesa in Manhattan may not only force Argentina to pay the vultures, it could unravel a 2006 debt deal between Buenos Aires and other creditors. Under the highly controversial principle of "pari passu" ("equal ranking among creditors"), if the vultures are compensated, so must all the other creditors, even those who settled back in 2006. That bill could reach $15 billion. Given that Argentina has only about $28 billion in foreign reserves, the tab could send Buenos Aires into a recession or force the country into bankruptcy.

The "sleight of hand" involves the fact that the countries the vultures prey on are not really in debt to creditors such as Singer and Eric Hermann of FH International Asset Management LLC. The hedge funds look for distressed countries, then buy their debt at bargain basement prices and sit on it. In the meantime, other creditors cut a deal to take a reduced payment on their bonds, which in turn helps improve the debtor's economy and allows it to emerge from default.

That's when the vultures sue, threatening to shut down outside aid programs, seize assets and freeze debtor nations out of international finance if they don't pay up. Recent examples involving Singer include the Republic of Congo being forced to pay him $90 million on a $10 million investment. Singer's investment of $48 million in Argentina's debt would net him a 1,608 percent profit if Buenos Aires pays in full. Peru was similarly plundered.

With the default announcement today Forbes was saying:

Things couldn't have come out worse. Everyone lost: Argentina defaulted on its sovereign debt for the second time in nearly 13 years, the holdout bond holders were left empty handed, and Federal Judge Thomas Griesa's strategy to force Argentine to negotiate a settlement with the so-called venture funds failed.

But, not so fast. The Jewish Business News predicted, also today: "Paul Singer Will Likely Collect Most of His $1.3 Billion Even as Argentina Defaults on Debt Payments". And that's a good thing because, according to Liel Leibovitz, writing in Tablet Magazine: "Jewish law, in its infinite wisdom" says "Sorry, Argentina, but a Debt Is a Debt" and "Pay Up, Argentina: It's the (Jewish) Law" even if the return on 'investment' is 1,608% and payment results in possibly years of hardship for millions of people. Of course, if Argentina had a sugar daddy bankrolling them as Israel does they wouldn't be in this mess now would they?

Labels: Argentina, debt, greed, Iran, Israel, Paul Singer

El artículo que sigue fue traducido de una versión inglesa. Sin embargo, soy ni un locutor nativo del español. Me disculpo por cualquier error de la traducción. Las correcciones son agradables.

Las noticias del impago de la deuda del gobierno argentino es un elemento multimedia caliente recientemente, pero hay más en esta historia que parece a simple vista. El actor principal que empuja Argentina en default es un 'fondo buitre' gerente llamado Paul Singer. El año pasado la revista Mother Jones descrito Singer como "the GOP's Go-To Guy on Wall Street", que, aunque es verdad, no cuentan toda la historia.

Al igual que el New York Times, Mother Jones ha oculto la conexión de Israel detrás de los esfuerzos de Singer, que es una parte importante de su campaña contra Argentina. Además, en retratarlo como republicano la revista deja de mencionar los fuertes vínculos de Singer con el Partido Demócrata

Como ha informado la agencia Inter Press Service (IPS) el año pasado:

Cuando Argentina entró en suspensión de pagos (default) de su deuda en 2001, varios fondos especulativos estadounidenses se abalanzaron a comprar los deprimidos bonos por unos centavos, confiados en que a la postre vencerían en los estrados de su país y obligarían a Buenos Aires a pagar hasta el último dólar del precio nominal.

La batalla por esa deuda llegará a la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos este año, pero los acreedores de Wall Street –llamados "capitalistas buitres" por sus críticos—también llevaron el caso al Congreso legislativo y a la opinión pública con una campaña mediática que presenta a Argentina como una nación cada vez más "renegada" y asociada con los enemigos de Washington.

Este esfuerzo de relaciones públicas, que se centra en las relaciones crecientemente más amistosas de Buenos Aires con Teherán ...

El vehículo para que el esfuerzo se llama el Grupo de Tareas Estadounidense para Argentina (ATFA, por sus siglas en inglés). Las "personas que encabezan" la ATFA, "la principal organización de lobby detrás de la actual campaña de Singer ... se sientan en los altos consejos del Partido Demócrata y son probable que sea parte de cualquier administración Hillary Clinton".

El ATFA está liderado por tres personas: Robert Raben, cuya carrera legislativa comenzó con siete años en el personal de Barney Frank y que con el tiempo se desempeñó como Fiscal General Asistente del Director Adjunto en el gobierno de Clinton; Robert J. Shapiro, quien es un Senior Fellow del Instituto de Política Progresista y fue nombrado subsecretario de Comercio de EE.UU. para Asuntos Económicos del gobierno de Bill Clinton, a quien aconsejó durante su primera campaña presidencial; y, Nancy Soderberg que sirvió en la Casa Blanca de Clinton en el Consejo de Seguridad Nacional y luego como Representante Alterno ante las Naciones Unidas. Soderberg también ayudó al " pequeño equipo [que] clavado [el] voto judío de Obama "en 2012.

Como IPS lo expresa así: "Los detalles de las relaciones de Argentina con Irán –que consisten mayoritariamente en exportaciones agrícolas– no le interesan mucho a la ATFA." En cambio, el ATFA ha elegido para retratar el presidente argentino de Cristina Kirchner por haber hecho "un pacto con el diablo", en referencia a un 2013 "acuerdo que establezca un 'comisión de la verdad' conjunta con Teherán", cuyo supuestamente "único propósito ... es para encubrir la responsabilidad de Irán por el atentado contra el centro comunitario judío en Buenos Aires 1994 ..."

Focalización de Singer de Irán a través de la ATFA encaja muy bien con su propio apoyo del Estado judío como Irán ha sido durante mucho tiempo en el retículo en cruz sionistas. Según los IPS:

En 2007, Singer se describió a sí mismo como un creyente del excepcionalismo estadounidense y reveló haber aportado “millones de dólares a organizaciones republicanas que insisten en (la necesidad de) un ejército poderoso y en el apoyo a Israel”.

En entrevista con el periódico The New York Times, Singer dijo creer que Occidente “se encuentra en una etapa temprana de una prolongada lucha existencial con grupos radicales de islamistas pannacionales”.

Pero volvamos a las apuestas financieras de Argentina por un momento vamos a ir de nuevo a el artículo de Conn Hallinan en Truthdig:

Una reciente decisión del juez de distrito federal Thomas Griesa en Manhattan no sólo puede obligar a Argentina a pagar a los buitres, podría desentrañar un acuerdo sobre la deuda de 2006 entre Buenos Aires y otros acreedores. Bajo el principio muy controvertido de "pari passu" ("clasificación de igualdad entre los acreedores"), si se compensan los buitres, así que deben todos los demás acreedores, incluso los que se establecieron en 2006. Ese cuenta podría alcanzar los $15 mil millones. Teniendo en cuenta que Argentina tiene sólo alrededor de $28 mil millones en reservas en moneda extranjera, en la pestaña podría enviar a Buenos Aires en una recesión o forzar al país a la bancarrota.

El "juego de manos" implica el hecho de que los países que los buitres se aprovechan no están realmente en deuda a acreedores, tal como Singer y Eric Hermann de FH International Asset Management LLC. Los fondos de cobertura buscan los países en dificultades, y luego comprar su deuda a precios de ganga y lo manténgalo. Mientras tanto, los demás acreedores llegaron a un acuerdo para tomar un pago reducido de sus bonos, que a su vez ayuda a mejorar la economía del deudor y le permite salir de default financiero.

Fue entonces cuando los buitres demandar, amenazando con terminar los programas de ayuda exterior, confiscar los activos y excluir las naciones deudoras de las finanzas internacionales, si no pagan. Ejemplos recientes que involucran Singer incluyen la República de Congo está obligado a pagarle $90 millones en una inversión de $10 millones. El inversión de Singer de 48 millones de dólares en la deuda argentino se le ganaria 1.608 por ciento de beneficio si Buenos Aires paga en su totalidadsi Buenos Aires paga en su totalidad. Perú fue saqueado de manera similar.

Con el anuncio de del default financiero Forbes estaba diciendo:

Las cosas no podían haber salido peor. Todos perdieron: Argentina dejó de pagar su deuda soberana, por segunda vez en casi 13 años, los holdouts, o "no colaboradores" se quedaron con las manos vacías, y la estrategia de la jueza federal Thomas Griesa para forzar argentino para negociar un acuerdo con los así llamados fondos de capital riesgo fallaron.

Pero, no tan rápido. La Los Noticias de Negocios Judío predijo, también hoy: "Paul Singer Recogerá Probablemente la Mayoría de sus $1.3 mil millones a Pesar de que Argentina Los Impagos de Pagos de la Deuda". Y eso es una buena cosa porque, de acuerdo con Liel Leibovitz, la escritura en la Revista Tableta: "La ley judía, en su infinita sabiduría", dice "Lo siento, Argentina, pero una deuda es una deuda" y "¡A Pagar!, Argentina: Es la (judía ) Ley" incluso si el retorno de la "inversión" es 1.608% y el pago posiblemente cause años de dificultades para millones de personas. Por supuesto, si la Argentina tenía un viejo rico financiando ellos como hace Israel ellos no estarían en este lío ahora ¿verdad?

Labels: Argentina, debt, Español, greed, Iran, Israel, Paul Singer

Except for two minor references to it in a post on another subject, I didn't really write much about the American Jewish Committee's annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion, the results of which were released last December. And I'm not really going to write much about the survey today but I will provide links below to two important analyses of the survey results.

Here's one comment though: Jim Lobe writes, "US Jews appear to have become more opposed ... to the US carrying out a military attack against Iran's nuclear facilities" but I think it is important note that there is good reason to believe that something else is driving this apparent decline in support. With the rise in awareness that the US invasion of Iraq was in no small part orchestrated by and for Israel and American Jews, particularly the neocons (who are not all Jewish), has come a concerted effort at spin control.

In the case of Iran, in 2006, Israeli and US Jewish leaders clearly told Bush to soft pedal the association between American military operations against Iran (present and future) with Israel. They didn't tell him not to attack Iran on behalf of Israel, they just told him not to be so darn obvious about it. As the Jewish Daily Forward reported: When asked how he thinks Jewish groups should pursue the Iran issue, [Israeli Prime Minister] Olmert reportedly implied that he would prefer a low profile ..." Such psychological operations are known as hasbara--the Zionist war on truth.

• "US Jews tilt rightwards on Israel" by Jim Lobe
• "American Jews on War and Peace: What Do the Polls Tell Us and Not Tell Us?" by James Petras

Labels: Iran, Iraq, Israel, US politics

I will probably write more about this later but for now it will suffice to say that I was present at the events reported and described below. The video below is very dark but the audio conveys some of what happened. Two police officers were pinning a protester face down to the floor. Shortly after the man said, "I can't breathe," he lost consciousness and when the police turned him over I saw a bloody wound on his forehead. He was later transported to a hospital emergency room and remained there for about seven hours.



The heavy-handed attack of the police was in violation of the University of Michigan's Standard Practice Guide 601.1, which reads, in part:

5. Within the confines of a hall or physical facility, or in the vicinity of the place in which a member of the University community, invited speaker, or invited artist is addressing an assembled audience, protesters must not interfere unduly with communication between a speaker or artist and members of the audience. This prohibition against undue interference does not include suppression of the usual
range of human reactions commonly displayed by an audience during heated discussions of controversial topics. Nor does this prohibition include various expressions of protest, including heckling and the display of signs (without sticks or poles), so long as such activities are consistent with the continuation of a speech or performance and the communication of its content to the audience.

6. Protesters have rights, just as do speakers and artists. The standard of "undue interference" must not be invoked lightly, merely to avoid brief interruptions, or to remove distractions or embarrassment. The University has an obligation to provide members of the community, and invited speakers and artists, with personal security and with reasonable platforms for expression; moreover, it has an obligation to insure audience access to public events. The University does not, however, have the obligation to insure audience passivity. The University cannot accept stipulations by invited speakers or artists of terms of appearance that are inconsistent with allowing full freedom of expression to the University community. Protesters and other members of the University community, for their part, have an obligation not to abuse their rights of expression to harass or intimidate speakers in ways that unduly interfere with free expression or communication (see Guideline 5). It is, of course, always within the rights of protesters to express their opposition to a speaker in appropriate ways outside of the hall or physical facility or area where a lecture, meeting, or performance is being held, or to organize alternative forums. ...

11. Officers of the University’s Department of Public Safety will act in accordance with the procedures outlined in this document. When non-University security forces are summoned, it is understood that they are not under the direct control of the University, but they should be made aware of University policies set forth in these guidelines.

Below are a couple of excerpts, with my commentary in bold, from an Ann Arbor News article:

3 protesters jailed after disrupting Iran lecture at U-M
Hecklers call visiting speaker 'warhawk'
Saturday, December 02, 2006
BY DAVE GERSHMAN
News Staff Reporter

Three Ann Arbor residents accused of disrupting a lecture on the Middle East were arrested at the Michigan League Thursday evening, campus police said.

Raymond Tanter, a professor emeritus at U-M and current faculty member at Georgetown University, was scheduled to give a lecture called, "Stalled international diplomacy and problematic U.S. military options for Iran.'' The event was organized by a student group, the American Movement for Israel. ...

Inside the building, Brown said organizers repeatedly warned a heckler over the course of an hour as Tanter gave his talk. Finally, organizers asked police to remove the most vocal and abusive protester, a 47-year-old woman, Brown said. The woman was arrested after she refused to leave.

I was seated several rows behind the group of protesters and arrived well before they were seated. At no time did their behavior exceed what is permitted under the University's Standard Practice Guide.

Police said several other people interfered with officers arresting the woman, and two of them were arrested. The names of the people arrested were not released, but the other two were a 49-year-old man and a 60-year-old man, Brown said. ...

Police plan to seek several charges against the three protesters, Brown said.

Henry Herskovitz, a frequent protester of Israeli policies in the Middle East, told The News that he was one of the people arrested. He called Tanter a "warhawk'' and said Tanter implied that Iran should be attacked - a claim Tanter denies. ...

If Ray Tanter is not a war hawk then I don't know who is (actually, Tanter is, apparently, a "chicken hawk" who advocates war but preferred Indiana University to the battlefields of Vietnam). It is true that Tanter does not favor overt US or Israeli military attacks on Iran but he certainly bolsters the case for such attacks. According to Vanity Fair (March 2007), in a 2005 speech at the National Press Club:

Tanter went as far as to suggest that the U.S. consider using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. "One military option is the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, which may have the capability to destroy hardened deeply buried targets. That is, bunker-busting bombs could destroy tunnels and other underground facilities."

He talks openly of the need for regime change and the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Moreover, during his presentation, Tanter advocated reversing the US State Department's designation of Mujahedeen-e Khalq as a "foreign terrorist organization" so that they can receive more financing from expatriate Iranians and expand their covert war and terror campaign to destabilize Iran. This echoes Tanter's remarks in a recent interview for Ha'aretz, an Israeli daily:

"But attacking will not provide a fundamental solution to the problem. It will not eliminate Iran's nuclear program, but will only delay it. In order to bring about a halt to the nuclear program, there has to be a regime change there. Such a change is possible and can take place within a short period of time. From the moment that the Mujahideen-e-Khalq is removed from the U.S. State Department's list of terror organizations, they will bring about regime change in less time than it takes the regime of the ayatollahs to obtain nuclear weapons."

How much time are we talking about?

"I tend to accept the assessment of Israeli intelligence rather than that of the CIA, that Iran will have nuclear weapons within one to three years."

In point of fact, the CIA denies there is any "conclusive evidence" of a clandestine Iranian nuclear weapons program, according to a recent piece by Seymour Hersh (see Hersh on CIA, Iran & Israel).

In any event, Tanter's bona fides as a war hawk are well-established from his former senior positions on the National Security Council and in the US Defense (formerly the "War") Department to his founding of the Iran Policy Committee, which is composed primarily of retired military officers with an ex-CIA operative as Executive Director.

Tanter, who teaches a course at Georgetown on terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, said he had to abandon the power point presentation and "wing it'' because of the protesters. He said he opposes using military force in Iran, but believes the United States needs to keep military options on the table to reinforce diplomatic solutions.

"I had an academic presentation, which I was not allowed to make because of the protesters," he said. ...

It is patently false that "he had to abandon his power point presentation." He never really started it due to computer problems not because of the protesters. After a lengthy delay, he started his lecture without the use of the computer and when it finally started working he made no use of it, except to point at one slide.

Below is another interesting excerpt from the Ha'aretz interview.

But the regime in Iran and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were elected in democratic elections.

"The elections were democratic only de jure. The council for the defense of the Islamic regime rejected hundreds of candidates and allowed only its own candidates to participate in the elections. That's how Ahmadinejad was elected by default when the corrupt candidate, former president Rafsanjani, opposed him. It was a choice between a killer and a crook. Eighty percent of those eligible to vote did not participate in the elections. [In the recent US midterm elections 60% of those eligible to vote did not participate--PeaceMonger] We believe that the moment the organization is able to operate from Iraq it will gain public favor in Iran.

"People will go into the streets to demonstrate. That happened already in 1981, when half a million Mujahideen-e-Khalq supporters did that. The regime will order the demonstrators dispersed by force and suppressed. Those who will try to carry out the order are the Basaji, the armed street militia of the Revolutionary Guards. They will shoot at demonstrators, a civil war will break out, and then in the heat of the events the army will intervene, stop the bloodshed, remove the ayatollahs and take over."

But even then there will be no guarantee that Iran will stop trying to obtain nuclear weapons. We know that this is an Iranian national ambition, regardless of ideology and world view.

"Mujahideen-e-Khalq have already declared that they are not interested in manufacturing nuclear weapons. But no one cares if a democratic Iran has nuclear weapons. Who cares if Israel or India has nuclear weapons?"

So, Tanter clearly envisions that the Mujahideen-e Khalq's attacks will lead to "civil war" in Iran, followed by a military takeover which he apparently foresees as a "democratic Iran." Tanter doesn't mind nuclear proliferation as long as the nukes are held by pro-Israel and pro-US regimes.

Finally, for old times sake here are a couple of quotes from Tanter in an October, 2002, article in the Michigan Daily entitled "Hillel rally urges campus to take stance":

"One of the problems is that the military capabilities that America has - which are second to none in the world - are largely irrelevant to deterring terrorists," Tanter said. "So it is also true that the great military capacity of the Israeli defense forces cannot defer terrorists. So what do you do? You go after the terrorist organizations. And what do you do to the leaders? You destroy them. You kill them."

Regarding the war on Iraq, Tanter said it was "an antidote" and that there would be no backlash. "Arab people won't go crazy, Muslim people won't go crazy. They'll roll over because they hate Saddam Hussein."

In his lecture on Thursday, Tanter acknowledged supporting the 2003 US invasion of Iraq but claims not to support the US occupation, probably, because the Iraqi resistance didn't get the "no backlash" memo. He also stated that the Saudi regime is working directly with the Israeli government against Iran.

My thanks to S. for the video and thanks to B. for the Standard Practice Guide info.

Last revised: 12/04/2006, 11/09/2007

Labels: free speech, Henry Herskovitz, Iran, police repression, Raymond Tanter, University of Michigan, Zionism