Cry me a river Mr.Part-time antisemite.
Part-time antisemite, Pertti Salolainen is, and has been, spinning his self inflicted political scandal into something that makes himself look the victim, though he alone, and the YLE journalist that just sat there like a-house-by-the-side-of-the-road, are guilty of promoting an antisemitic slur against US Jews.
The whole issue is not over Salolainen having this or that opinion of the conflict, or over Israel’s role, responsibilities, and supposed errors made, but simply that he characterized US Jews in a way that could have been read word for word from the Protocols of Zion, and now he’s disingenuously crying victim.
Watch the video tape, this has nothing to do with the Jewish lobby, nor his disagreement with the US vote on the PLO’s observer status. It’s all about his saying that ”Jews have the money and the media in their hands to a large extent”. He also takes another poke at Jewish loyalty in the following op-ed, though stops short of what he means. He’s not doing himself any favors in his op-ed.
U.S.-Israel policy must be able to be analyzed without stigmatization
Helsingin Sanomat: 11.12.2012 4
Pertti Salolainen Minister
MP (Conservative), Helsinki
Journalist Pekka Mykkänen aptly discussed in his analysis of the news (HS 12.4) U.S. Israel policy. He said that my comment on TV (YLE Morning TV 30, 11) had hit near the goal. So very close. I envy Mykkänen that he had access to six columns in the paper for his analysis. I had a TV show on this issue for about a minute.
Since the TV debate that has caused some comments and mistranslations, I would like to add to my analysis of the relationship between the United States and Israel.
First of all, most importantly: without U.S. contribution the two-state model can not be achieved. Therefore, it was, and is, important to find out why the United States did not support the Palestinian observer state status, even if the overwhelming majority of the UN, including Finland, supported it.
Israel is a strategic ally of the United States in a troubled Middle East, which receives substantial military aid.
In the United States a huge number of Christian and religious movements who respond very positively to Israel affect internal politics . This is of great political significance, which was highlighted in the last presidential election. Republican candidate Mitt Romney signaled his willingness to support Israel if it would bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.
As Mykkänen said, the U.S. Jewish population’s influence is greater than their demographics.
In particular, in the Senate and the House of Representatives the Israel lobby seems to have strong support. Also, in important foreign policy positions of influence, there are officials of Jewish background. This does not automatically mean that they would be biased.
President Barack Obama’s second official term sets expectations for the Middle East peace process, in terms of start-up. It is significant that the United States is like the EU strongly condemning the so-called E1 plan for settlement in the West Bank. Of course, it also can not accept Hamas rocket attacks on Israel.
I received a number of comments in respect of which some have been rude, I’m wondering whether we are back in the Soviet era, in which foreign policy analysis can not be presented without stigmatization. After all, in my analysis there was nothing anti-Semitic nor could it be, because, as my colleague Ben Zyskowicz said in this journal (HS 2 12) that he has known me intimately 40 years and has not observed any anti-semitism.