In the aftermath of their indictment, one of the earliest strategies that Rich, Green, and their lawyers attempted to employ was that of claiming anti-Semitism was behind the legal measures brought against them: both claimed that they had been singled out because they were Jews. And so we find ourselves finding truth behind another ‘canard’ — that Jews have used accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ to avoid scrutiny of their behavior. In our bid to extricate ourselves from this one, let’s rely on the authority of the government investigators: the authors of House Report No. 454 write (p. 157) that this argument was “false,” “preposterous” and a (p. 159) “clumsy attempt to play the race card” that was so poorly executed that it was “rejected by associates like Abraham Foxman.”
This is a very interesting choice of words by our helpful authors — for they imply that if this false charge had a little more credibility, the jovial Mr. Foxman would have been on it in no time. Who am I to argue? The report goes on to state that investigators discovered (p. 157) that Rich’s lawyers were in possession of a 1988 memo which clearly listed almost fifty other criminal cases brought against non-Jewish crude oil resellers in the previous year. Rich, Green, and his associates knew that their Jewishness had nothing to do with the indictment — the charge of anti-Semitism was indeed used cynically in an attempt to escape scrutiny and punishment.
Both Green and Rich remained on the F.B.I’s Ten Most Wanted list for over a decade, until the pace of Rich’s appeal effort increased in intensity around 1999. During his period of self-enforced exile, Rich made repeated efforts to extract strategic advantage from the fact his daughter was dying of leukaemia, and later in his petition to the White House he claimed that he had been prevented from returning to her bedside and from attending her funeral because of Federal prosecutors. The authors of House Report No. 454 write (p. 155) that “nothing could be further from the truth. Rich knew that if he returned he would receive bail, and that he would not be incarcerated unless convicted of crimes he had been accused of committing. He was prevented from returning to visit his dying daughter only if he refused to face the U.S justice system. Rich’s desire to have his cake and eat it too, makes it difficult to generate sympathy for him in this matter. In fact, the only possible conclusion is that Marc Rich placed his own needs over those of his daughter.”
The frankly unbelievable level of cynicism seen in Rich’s behaviour towards his daughter, and the deeply immoral core of this particular aspect of the petition was by no means the only significant problem with it. Government investigators state (p. 154) that “the centrepiece of Marc Rich’s effort to obtain a Presidential pardon was the pardon petition, which was put together by the Marc Rich legal team. … The resulting document, which had a number of misrepresentations and factual inaccuracies, was a surprisingly poor effort, considering the amount of time and money that went into it.”
Funny, I was thinking precisely the same thing the other day about the thousands of shoddy works of history, philosophy and junk science that take up valuable space on the shelves of our libraries. The petition consisted of over thirty double-spaced pages, the first twenty of which “attempted to cast Rich and Green in a favorable, even likeable light.” The authors of House Report No. 454 comment that “these statements seem almost laughable given what the world knows about Marc Rich and Pincus Green.”
The statements also resurrected, and not for the last time, the charge of anti-Semitism. Entirely absent from the petition was any reference to the fact that that (p. 155) “Marc Rich’s business was built by supporting corrupt and dictatorial regimes across the world,” or that “deals with Third World countries meant that Rich himself gained monopolies over commodities that often paid developing nations less than fair-market prices.”
In fact, the Jewish activists behind the petition claimed that rescinding the charges on Rich would be in keeping with a ‘confluence of interests’ shared by Rich and the United States. Where have I heard that before? In the petition, signed by, among others, Abraham Foxman, it was stated: “Marc Rich has made amends. Over the past twenty years through his foundations he has donated over $100,000,000 to educational, cultural and social welfare programs. … His life has been committed to making the world a better place.”
A better place for who? For Jews. According to the authors of House Report No. 454 (p. 189), almost every cent that Rich donated went to Jewish causes, Jewish politicians, and Jewish organizations. The logic of the petition then is this: Rich defrauded United States taxpayers, 97% of whom are not Jewish, to the tune of over $100 million, and illegally funded a then enemy power, but because he funnelled this illegal cash into the coffers of his own tiny ethnic group he should be free from punishment.
My, what a fine confluence of interests. I certainly love it when my tax dollars fund Birthright Israel! According to the authors of House Report No.454 (p. 167), Mr. Foxman’s letter was “one of the most prominently displayed in the petition,” something they attributed to the fact that “Rich has given the ADL a total of $250,000 since he fled the country in 1983.” There’s that confluence of interests again — you see, all that illegal cash can now support the ADL’s efforts to teach your children that they’re bigots.
Although Foxman was to deny any quid pro quo in his involvement in the petition, government investigators wrote (p. 168): “Notwithstanding Foxman’s denial of quid pro quo, the payment to the ADL raises the general question of Marc Rich’s tactics in drumming up support for his pardon petition.”
What they mean by this is that Rich brought the full weight of Jewish influence to bear on his case. Among those organizations that were mobilized, “Marc Rich attempted to secure the assistance of the American Jewish Commmittee (AJC) with the promise of a large contribution.” Rich also “pledged $5 million to Birthright Israel” an organization run by Rich’s “long-time friend,” and fellow crook, Michael Steinhardt. Steinhardt subsequently “wrote a letter that was included in the petition.” The authors of House Report No.454 write that: “As with the public statements of the ADL and the AJC, a spokesman for Birthright Israel denied any quid pro quo relating to the $5 million pledge.” True exemplars of this impeccably moral group!
Further investigations revealed (p. 168) that following more cash donations, “yet another person with a connection to Birthright Israel also wrote a letter on behalf of Marc Rich. Rabbi Irving Greenberg, Chairman of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Council, wrote a letter on Holocaust Museum Council letterhead in favor of Marc Rich.” Greenberg was also President of the Jewish Life Network, “an organization that is a partner with Birthright Israel.”
Israeli support came following Rich’s contribution of $25,000 to Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert’s 1993 campaign. Olmert later wrote (p. 169) “a letter to President Clinton that was included in the petition.” The pardon petition (p. 189) contained letters from the Israeli minister for Foreign Affairs, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States, the speaker of the Knesset, a former Minister for Finance, a former Minister for Justice, the Israeli Government Secretary, and a former Director of Mossad. Attempts were also made (p. 190) to enrol Shimon Peres, Israel Singer (Secretary General of the World Jewish Congress), and Edgar Bronfman (President of the World Jewish Congress). Most of the legwork in getting all these figures on board was done by Avner Azulay, whom the authors of House Report No.454 describe (p. 196) as a “former high-ranking Mossad agent.”
Page 171 of the report shows organized international Jewry in all its glory, as letters in support of Rich poured in from the Chief Rabbi of France and the President of the Jewish Committee of Madrid. Both made frequent mention of Rich’s “philanthropy” but no mention of the exclusively Jewish nature of his philanthropy. I don’t know about you, but I just love it when the Chief Rabbi of France gets a say in a legal case pertaining to my tax dollars.
I also sympathize with the Spaniards. The authors of House No.454 state (195) that King Juan Carlos of Spain even wrote letter for Rich. They add that “It is unclear why the King took this action on Rich’s behalf. It is possible that the King was motivated by Rich’s support of Madrid’s Jewish community.”
Let’s simplify — King Juan Carlos was motivated by Madrid’s Jewish community, and the authors of House Report No.454 add (p. 195) that the king had also been lobbied by Israeli Foreign Minister, Shlomo Ben Ami. Let’s simplify it further — a group of Jews whistled and the King of Spain rolled over. Unless of course there’s evidence that King Juan Carlos was acting due to another ‘confluence of interests.’
It gets better. Part of the petition was a tax analysis from two academics which ‘proved’ that Rich hadn’t actually committed fraud at all. This particular piece of fiscal sleight of hand was (p. 156) produced by the delightfully named but now both sadly deceased Professors Martin Ginsburg and Bernard Wolfman. You can safely bet your last cent these gentlemen weren’t Episcopalians. On page 160 of House Report No.454, the authors write that although the petition contained pleading claims that Ginsburg and Wolfman were “independent,” this was misleading. The authors write (p. 160): “Professor Ginsburg, husband of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was paid $66,199 for his work on the Rich case.” Wolfman was paid $30,754, after being hired as a consultant by one of Rich’s firms and paid between $300 and $400 per hour. Nor did they come to their conclusions independently of each other — “rather they worked jointly.” The authors add (161) that “Ginsburg and Wolfman sold their names to the highest bidder.” Of course, none of this has been mentioned in the gushing obituaries afforded to both men by such prestigious journals as the Harvard Law Review. Wolfson and Ginsburg weren’t the only ones on the take.
Between 1993 and 2000 Denise Rich, ex-wife of Marc Rich, gave over $1 million to the Democrats (p. 175), and between 1998 and 2000 she gave $450,000 to the Clinton Library (p. 176). Ehud Barak led a lobbying effort to Clinton in 2000, and claimed (pp. 188, 643) in a phone call to the President on December 11, 2000 that Rich was guilty only of “violating certain rules of the game.” Oh, is this the game in which U.S. taxpayers were illegally deprived of over $100 million, and only Israel and diaspora Jewry benefited? Gee I love that game, can we play again?
Once the petition was lodged, Jewish America’s much-lauded ‘moral authority’ was brought to bear on the White House. Some wise-guy had the idea that Elie Wiesel possessed the “the moral authority” to present Rich’s case. Wiesel (p. 193) claimed to investigators that he refused these advances, not because of Rich’s obvious guilt but because “he had already written a letter requesting a commutation of Jonathan Pollard’s sentence and … felt that he could not make another request.” Didn’t want to use up all that ‘moral authority’ in one go?
Government investigators subsequently found out that Wiesel was being frugal with the truth (not for the first time in his life I suspect), and that (pp. 193–4) “while this seemingly would have been the end of Wiesel’s involvement in the Rich pardon campaign, there is evidence that it was not. Several e-mails indicate that Wiesel may have lobbied the White House”, including at meetings, and in phone calls. This ‘moral authority,’ together with all the letters, the petition, and the ‘tax analysis’ were added to the once more resurrected claim of anti-Semitism. The authors of House Report No. 454 write (p. 159) that notes from Rich’s lawyer suggest “it is possible that he raised the spectre of anti-Semitism in his last-minute appeal to the President on January 19, 2001. … It is unfortunate the President found Rich’s arguments believable — when in fact they were completely inaccurate — a fact the President could have discovered with minimal due diligence.”
Clinton caved in; the pardon was granted. Facing an outcry due to the obvious injustice of what had taken place, the day after the pardon Clinton wrote in a New York Times op-ed that he had acted under pressure “from many present and former high-ranking Israeli officials of both major political parties and leaders of Jewish communities in America and Europe.” For this openness, Clinton was accused by outraged Jewish leaders of “whipping up anti-Semitism” and “scapegoating” Jews.
Wiesel was partly telling the truth. A miserable Jonathan Pollard told investigators (p. 191) from his cell that he felt Marc Rich’s pardon came at his expense. Pollard is reported as saying “”I should have waved a dollar bill in front of them and convinced them that I had a lot of money. This is the depths to which we have sunk as a nation, that an agent has to bribe his own government to rescue him. This is how low we have sunk.” Of course, Mr. Pollard could have saved himself a lot of trouble by enlightening himself with a subscription to The Occidental Quarterly prior to his act of high treason.
So what have we learned? Well, it’s clear that the ‘moral authority’ of these organizations is a fable. We need not condemn every Jew, to demonstrate that the many Jewish figures described here constitute an extremely wealthy and cohesive criminal network of international dimensions that has and will bring immeasurable harm. Notice that the Jews aiding Marc Rich are not marginal, isolated individuals; they are Jewish elites—at the center of Jewish life in Israel and the Diaspora. Financial crimes are morally acceptable within the Jewish community, as indicated by the fact that Jews like Marc R ich, Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken are pillars in the Jewish community and major donors to Jewish charities. How many of these fools would be swayed by information that the state of Israel stepped in to help a wealthy ethnic brother because he greased their palms, and because for them the interests of American taxpayers come somewhere beneath those of a bullfrog. It really doesn’t matter how closely anything we have discussed comes to echoing a ‘canard’ because all is truth and ‘canards’ are worthless — fit only for the purpose of assisting the ADL and like organizations in the delusion that they are saintly paupers wandering the earth ever in search of peace and love.
The stance of the ADL is in fact riddled with schizophrenic contradictions which the sane and informed man finds intellectually offensive. In one recent example, during a prolonged rant in Abraham Foxman’s Jews & Money: The Story of a Stereotype, the ADL director claims that, “Jews are just another ethnic minority,” and yet in the same chapter writes: “the Jewish federation movement makes up one of the ten largest charitable organizations in the United States. Bear in mind that Jews constitute just under 2 percent of the total population of the country”; “Jewish foundations represent almost 18 percent of the total 39,000 private foundations identified by the Foundation Centre — another enormous disproportion in view of the tiny size of the Jewish population”; “Jews have enjoyed success in the business world out of proportion to their share of the population”; and that in relation to Jews in the media and Hollywood “the idea that Jews are unusually successful does have a grain of truth.”
Just a grain Mr. Foxman? While we’re at it we may as well call the Sahara a sandbox, and Titanic a bath toy.
You see, according to Mr. Foxman and the ADL, Jews are at one and the same time “just another ethnic minority” and nothing at all like any other ethnic minority. The “rules of the game” are a little different for them. You might say they are equal — just a little more equal than the rest of us.
Take care in your interpretation of this puzzle wrapped inside an enigma, for your ‘interpretation’ may have harmful ‘potential,’ and this ‘potential’ is another bargaining chip on which our peaceful paupers like to trade. Conceptually, this contradiction is similar to the practice of Jewish organizations which ‘exile’ from the ‘community’ those few of their ethnic brothers and sisters who may see fit to criticize the Jewish ‘way of life’ or the actions of the Israeli government. Eliminating the ideological outsiders, of course, leaves a more or less ideologically homogenous rump. But woe to the man who implies that all Jews are alike. Enforcing homogeneity and criticizing the acknowledgment of that homogeneity go hand in hand for these dreamers. You might say that organized Jewry is diverse — just differently diverse from the rest of us. I have no patience for such dreamers, particularly when their deception and self-deception comes at the expense of my people.
At the conclusion of Mr. Foxman’s epic tome, he almost plagiarises Kevin Macdonald when he writes: “We all have that grain of tribal loyalty inside us that makes us care just that little bit more about ‘people like us’ than about ‘those others.’ Maybe it has evolutionary roots: There may have been adaptive value to behaviors that increased the survival of ‘my’ genes as opposed to those of the people in the next valley. … It’s usually expressed in such forms as our love for a culture and traditions we find familiar and beautiful, the pride we feel about accomplishments by members of our group, and the desire to see what is best about our heritage preserved and extended into future generations.”
Hear, hear Mr. Foxman, but forgive me if I doubt your sincerity. You and your organizations, pockets bulging with finances of dubious origin, have never shown the slightest acceptance of our desire to preserve our heritage and our people.
I’ll close, as I began, with some words from the noble Marcus Aurelius:
If someone can prove me wrong and show me my mistake in any thought or action, I shall gladly change. I seek the truth, which never harmed anyone: to harm is to persist in one’s self-deception and ignorance.
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book Six, Verse 21.
 Ibid, p.90.
 Ibid, p.91
 Ibid, p.93.
 Ibid, p.97.
 Ibid, p.232.