Windows keeps asking me lately to hook my cell phone up to my desktop. My immediate reaction is always "NO!" to that sort of thing, but it would be handy to have access to my texts on the desktop. Has anyone done that? Is it a bad idea?

#Technology #Tech #Windows #Cellphones

Nixon, Brando, and Findley Walk Into a Bar Filled With Cell Phone Users…

Article republished by Jerry Alatalo | April 27, 2026

(Source: MiddleEastMonitor.com)

Jasim Al-Azzawi

Jasim Al-Azzawi worked for several media organisations, including MBC, Abu Dhabi TV, and Aljazeera English as a news anchor, program presenter, and Executive Producer. He covered significant conflicts, interviewed world leaders, and taught media courses.

What a President, a Movie Star, a Congressman, and a Cell Phone All Dared to Say

They all, in their own way and in their own time, dared to speak a truth that power worked hard to silence.

Paul Findley (L), Richard Nixon (M), Marlon Brando (R) [Wikipedia]

Richard Nixon was not a man given to moral clarity. But in the privacy of the Oval Office, away from the choreography of statecraft, he spoke with a bluntness that history rarely forgives and seldom forge “Let me explain something about the Jewish lobby in this country. They believe that being for Israel first does not mean that you’re putting America second. But an American president”, he insisted, “has to approach it differently. He’s always got to think first of what is best for America. An American president must make a decision that does not, in effect, give the Israelis a blank check”.

Nixon went further. “Every Jewish prime minister that I have known has enlisted American Jews to bring as much pressure as possible in the political process on American presidents”. These were not the words of a fringe voice or a conspiracy theorist. They were the words of the thirty-seventh president of the United States, speaking in the calculated, unsentimental register of realpolitik.

Marlon Brando, the greatest actor of his generation, arrived at similar conclusions through a different door, not the back corridors of power, but the front lots of Hollywood. When asked why he refused to accept the coveted Oscar award, he was unsparing: “Because of the increasing control of Zionists in Hollywood. They own the studios”, he said. “They shape the stories. They decide who gets heard and who doesn’t. I saw it clearly, and I couldn’t be part of that system anymore”. The actor who had made the whole world feel the weight of a man’s grief or ambition had looked behind the curtain and refused, on grounds of conscience, to keep performing.

Then there is Paul Findley, a Republican congressman from Illinois who served twenty-two years in the House of Representatives and, upon losing his seat, did the thing that defeated politicians rarely do: he told the truth about why. In his landmark 1985 book, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby, Findley documented with meticulous and damning precision how the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — AIPAC — had become the dominant force shaping Washington’s posture toward the Middle East. The lobby, Findley wrote, had developed a near-perfect system for punishing those who deviated and rewarding those who complied. His conclusion was stark: what passed for American policy toward Israel and the Palestinians was not policy at all. It was capitulation, dressed in the language of alliance.

Starving the militias: Washington’s smartest move against Iran’s proxies

A president. A superstar. A congressman. Three men from entirely different worlds, operating across five decades, arriving at the same uncomfortable coordinate on the map of American power.

For nearly eighty years, that coordinate remained a forbidden zone in mainstream political discourse. The machinery that enforced the silence was formidable: campaign finance, editorial gatekeeping, and the constant threat of the career-ending accusation of anti-semitism.

Legacy media were not merely complicit in the silence; they were, in many ways, its architecture. What Nixon, Brando, and Findley observed about concentrated influence in studios, newsrooms, and legislative chambers was not paranoia. It was a structural description of how certain narratives achieved dominance, and others were quietly buried.

And then came Gaza. And then came the cell phone

No editorial board approved the footage. No network anchor contextualized it before broadcast. No studio executive decided what the audience was ready to see. The images came directly from the rubble of Jabalia, from the corridors of Al-Shifa, from the faces of mothers carrying children in plastic bags. Small children were buried alive under the rubble. Older people are torn limb from limb. Hospitals destroyed. Starvation renders human beings mere bones and skin. The International Criminal Court issued two arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who had threatened to cut off food, electricity, and water to an entire civilian population.

READ: The inevitable decline and fall of Zionism

The military has a phrase for what happened next: “quantity has a quality all of its own”. The sheer, relentless, unmediated volume of images from Gaza did something that decades of scholarship, congressional testimony, and presidential recordings had failed to do. It broke the monopoly of narrative. The tsunami of images horrified the world and compelled people, especially across Europe and in a growing segment of the American public, to say what had long been considered unsayable: enough. Not in our names. No more arms. No more blank cheques. No more diplomatic cover at the United Nations and in every international forum where Israeli impunity had been shielded from consequence.

The journalist and war correspondent Sebastian Junger once observed that war is always a story told by survivors about the dead. For decades, in the American telling of the Israel-Palestine story, the dead were abstractions, statistics, footnotes, and regrettable collateral. The cell phone abolished that abstraction. It put a face, a name, a cry on every casualty. It made the dead impossible to manage.

We aren’t just seeing a shift in opinion; we’re seeing a shift in the architecture of permission. It’s a rewrite of who can speak, in which spaces, without risking their entire career. The young are leading it. The streets of London, Paris, and Chicago are leading it.

Even within the American political class, there is a whispered consensus that Findley described. We’re hearing the literal break in the silence. The unspoken rule that you must censor yourself before you speak is falling apart.

Nixon feared giving Israel a blank check. Brando feared a culture in which certain stories could not be told. Findley documented the machinery by which both fears were, for decades, well-founded. What they could not have foreseen was the device in every pocket that would, finally, make the silencing incomplete.

The cell phone did not create the suffering in Gaza. But it denied the world the comfort of not knowing.

That denial, it turns out, was what justice needed most.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

***

[Editor’s note: Here are the responses from DuckDuckGo’s “Search Assist” on what Nixon, Brando and Findley said and wrote about Israeli political power inside America:

Nixon (1913-1994): Richard Nixon acknowledged the significant influence of the Jewish lobby in the United States, noting its impact on U.S. policy decisions regarding Israel. He emphasized that U.S. security interests should not be subordinated to the interests of Israel due to this lobby’s influence, which he described as stemming from financial contributions and media control.

U.S. Department of State Duck of Minerva

Nixon’s Views on Israeli Political Power in America

Acknowledgment of Influence

Richard Nixon recognized the substantial influence of the Jewish lobby on U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding Israel. He noted that this influence was evident through:

• Financial contributions to Congress members
• Control over media narratives

Policy Implications

Nixon expressed concern that the interests of the United States were sometimes subordinated to those of Israel due to this lobby’s power. He articulated several key points regarding this dynamic:

Summary of Nixon’s Stance

Nixon’s approach can be summarized as follows:

Nixon’s writings and statements reflect a complex relationship with the influence of the Jewish lobby, balancing support for Israel with a commitment to U.S. national interests.

Brando (1924-2004): Marlon Brando expressed admiration for Jewish culture and acknowledged the significant contributions of Jews to American arts and theater. He also highlighted the need for a Jewish homeland, advocating for the establishment of a state in Palestine, which he believed was essential for the survivors of the Holocaust to live freely. Brando stated that Jews have contributed more to American culture than any other group.

wrmea.org Literary Hub

Marlon Brando’s Views on Jewish Influence and Israeli Political Power

Admiration for Jewish Contributions

Marlon Brando expressed a deep admiration for Jewish culture, stating that Jews have made significant contributions to American arts and theater. He believed that without Jewish influence, American culture would lack much of its richness, particularly in areas like Broadway and popular music.

Advocacy for a Jewish Homeland

Brando was a strong advocate for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. He argued that this was essential for Holocaust survivors to have a place where they could live freely. His activism included participation in the play “A Flag Is Born,” which aimed to raise awareness and funds for Zionist causes, emphasizing the need for a Jewish state.

Remarks on Political Influence

In a notable interview, Brando commented on the influence of Jews in Hollywood and American culture. He suggested that Jewish individuals have played a pivotal role in shaping the best aspects of American culture, which has sparked discussions about their political power and influence within the United States.

Summary of Key Points

Brando’s views reflect a complex understanding of Jewish identity and political power in America, highlighting both admiration and advocacy for Jewish rights and representation.

Findley (1921-2019): Paul Findley, in his book “They Dare to Speak Out,” argued that the Israel lobby has significant influence over U.S. government policies, shaping a biased approach towards the Middle East. He highlighted how this influence stifles open debate and criticism of Israel within American political discourse, often leading to repercussions for those who challenge the status quo.

Wikipedia merip.org

Overview of Paul Findley’s Views

Paul Findley, a former U.S. Congressman, expressed significant concerns about the influence of the Israel lobby on American politics in his book “They Dare to Speak Out.” He argued that this lobby plays a crucial role in shaping U.S. foreign policy towards Israel and the Middle East.

Key Points from “They Dare to Speak Out”

Influence on U.S. Policy

• Findley claimed that the Israel lobby has a strong grip on U.S. government policies, leading to a biased approach towards the Middle East.
• He noted that this influence often stifles open debate and criticism of Israel within political circles.

Consequences for Dissent

• Individuals who challenge the pro-Israel narrative face significant repercussions, including political backlash and social ostracism.
• Findley himself experienced this firsthand, as his criticisms contributed to his defeat in the 1982 Congressional election.

Public Perception and Media

• He highlighted how the media often reflects a lopsided view favoring Israel, which further complicates public understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
• Findley emphasized the need for a more balanced discussion regarding U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

Reception of Findley’s Work

Critical Acclaim

• “They Dare to Speak Out” became a Washington Post bestseller, indicating its impact and resonance with readers.
• Reviews acknowledged Findley’s access to influential figures, providing original insights into the political dynamics surrounding U.S.-Israel relations.

Controversial Reception

• Some critics described the book as one-sided, arguing that it presented a narrow perspective on complex issues.
• Despite this, Findley’s work has been influential in discussions about the role of lobbying in American politics, particularly regarding Israel.

Findley’s writings continue to provoke thought and discussion about the intersection of politics, lobbying, and foreign policy in the United States.

***

Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments. Thank you very much. Peace.]