Skip to content

Month: May 2011

America’s Mysterious Files on Netanyahu: Spook, Terrorist or Criminal?

More people may want to read this intriguing article from 2011:

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

October 1996, pg. 11, Special Report, by Neve Gordon

Congress received him with great fanfare. President Clinton, who during the recent election campaign had backed his rival, Shimon Peres, appears to have had a change of heart. Yet who is Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and why did the political elite in the U.S. accept him with such warmth? A few important facts about Netanyahu and his objectives—which the U.S. media have obstinately neglected to reporthelp to clarify the enigma.

Netanyahu has lived both in Israel and the U.S.: first grade in Israel; second and third in the U.S.; fourth through eighth in Jerusalem; high school in suburban Philadelphia; military service in Israel; B.A. and M.A. at MIT. He held dual citizenship, which enabled him to travel freely between both countries, study in the U.S., receive federal loans to cover his education costs at MIT and work legally. Like every U.S. citizen, Netanyahu has a social security number, a credit account, and numerous other files in a variety of government offices.

Nevertheless, Netanyahu’s files differ from those of most U.S. citizens. The Israeli weekly Ha’ir reports that four requests for credit approval appear in U.S. social security file number 020-36-4537. Under each request one finds a different name: Benjamin Netanyahu, Benjamin Nitai, John Jay Sullivan and John Jay Sullivan Jr.—one man, four names.

Binyamin Netanyahu is the name Israel’s current prime minister was given at birth and which he now uses. In June 1973, during his studies at MIT, Netanyahu submitted a petition to the Boston court, asking to change his name from Netanyahu to Nitai; “I prefer a shorter name,” he wrote on the request form. The petition was approved, thus the second name has an explanation. The last two names, however, remain a mystery. Furthermore, the address attached to these names—somewhere in Malibu, California—does not exist. Who, then, is John Jay Sullivan?

Biranit Goren and Einat Berkovitch from Ha’ir tried to find out. They looked into Netanyahu’s credit account. This file is supposed to hold information regarding bank accounts, loans, credit cards and so forth; yet, surprisingly, the file was empty. It is as if Netanyahu never had a debt, had never taken out a loan, and always paid his bills up front and in cash.

Goren and Berkovitch then attempted to examine Netanyahu’s social security file, but were denied access. They did, however, find out that Netanyahu’s file has a different classification than most. They were denied access not merely due to the 1974 privacy act, but because the file had a “confidential” classification. Goren and Berkovitch have explained that such a classification only applies to five categories of people: those who work for one of three federal agencies—FBI, CIA, IRS—or those who are considered to be terrorists or criminals. Since it is unlikely that Netanyahu fits the latter two categories, or that he worked for the IRS, it appears that he was on the payroll of a security agency—the CIA or FBI.

 

Dual Citizenship

According to Israeli law, a person who runs for the Knesset (the Israeli parliament) cannot hold dual citizenship. Netanyahu claims that in 1982 he gave up his U.S. citizenship, yet he is unwilling to grant the press access to his file located in the U.S. Embassy in Tel-Aviv—the file which holds information regarding his citizenship. Interestingly, the status of his files in the U.S. has not changed, so according to U.S. law Netanyahu remains a U.S. citizen.

Netanyahu—the person who in 1982 left his job as a furniture salesman to be a policy adviser at the Israeli embassy in Washington, DC, and within 14 years became prime minister—is still in many ways a conundrum. By contrast, his political objectives are becoming clearer.

An Israeli proverb asserts that the intention of a person can be understood by examining the goals of his friends. And indeed, in order to gain insight into Netanyahu’s political objectives it is well worth looking at his acquaintances and financial supporters. Goren and Berkovitch report that Haagen-Daz founder Reuben Matheus, who contributed (until his death sometime last year) millions of dollars to Rabbi Meir Kahane’s fascist political party and to the Jewish settlement in Hebron, also contributed to Netanyahu. Marvin Josephine, the head of ICM, one of the biggest publishing companies in the U.S., is considered a major contributor to the Likud, and more specifically to Netanyahu. Another donor is Barry Slotnik, an attorney who has among his clients the Italian and Russian Mafias. (Slotnik was also a friend of Kahane, acclaiming him one of the biggest heroes in Jewish history.) Ted Arison, who owns cruise lines in the U.S., is considered not only a friend, but a confidant. His Calridge-Arison group is interested in purchasing “Bank Hapoalim,” the second largest in Israel.

Contributors and political allies from Australia—Joseph Brender, Bernard Moss, Mark Bissan and Jack Mendel—wish to invest in Israeli real estate and the textile industry. Mendel, one should note, lets Netanyahu use his luxury condo in Tel-Aviv. Sandy Eisenshtat, who allows Netanyahu to use his Jerusalem condo, owns an Israeli oil and gas company. In London, Netanyahu often stays with Rupert Murdoch.

Finally, Netanyahu has an ally in Ronald Lauder of the Este Lauder cosmetic dynasty who ran for mayor against Rudolph Giuliani. During his unsuccessful election campaign, Lauder called Giuliani an impostor who was not conservative enough to be a member of the Republican Party. Lauder is founder, major contributor, and chairman of Shalem Institute, a right-wing think tank located in Jerusalem. Dr. Hazoni, the Institute’s director, told Hanna Kim of the Israeli daily Ha’aretz that the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC and the Center for Social Policy Studies in London are his models. Like Heritage, which is thought to have developed Reaganomics, and the Center for Social Policy, which designed what is now called Thatcherism, it seems that Shalem Institute will introduce what in years to come will be known as Netanyism.

 

One of Netanyahu’s goals is to introduce an aggressive policy of privatization.

Following Thatcher, one of Netanyahu’s goals is to introduce an aggressive policy of privatization. According to Nahum Barnea and Shimon Shifer from Israel’s mass-circulation Yediot Ahronot, a bill proposing to establish a government institution for privatization was presented for review in the Ministry of Justice less than two weeks after the elections. This bill would create a loophole allowing Netanyahu to sell government firms regardless of limitations specified in existing laws. Any government agency that is opposed to an act of privatization must send a written statement to a ministerial committee explaining its opposition. The statement must reach the committee within 30 days—otherwise it is automatically rejected. Netanyahu will chair the ministerial committee for privatization, while the ministers of justice and finance will be its only other two members.

Most important, if the bill passes, the committee will be exempt from a number of existing laws. For example, the committee will not be obliged to call for bids before selling government firms. Furthermore, according to the coalition agreements between Netanyahu and the different parties which are now members of government, the ministerial committee “will by law have the authority to determine on matters of privatization without the need to receive the approval of any other body.” Thus, for example, Netanyahu will be able to sell Bezek, Israel’s national telecommunication company, to his friend Lauder, who has had his eye on this company for some time.

Netanyahu’s real religion is privatization, Barneah and Shifer claim. In a recent interview, Netanyahu told them that he took upon himself many responsibilities “not in order to concentrate power but to liberate it.” He intends to sell Israel’s land, firms and communications to investors from around the world. It is not surprising that international corporations like him, which may well explain why the political elite in the U.S. was so enthusiastic about him.

 

Friends and Clients

Netanyahu’s friends are potential clients, but like most buyers they would prefer to purchase Israel under slightly better conditions. Israel’s annual inflation is approximately 13 percent, a figure which is still considered high for investment. Luckily, the unemployment rate has gone down considerably under four years of Labor government, from 11.5 percent in 1992 to 6 percent in 1996, thus enabling Netanyahu to utilize the known method of lowering inflation by raising unemployment.

As the director of Shalem Institute indicated, the U.S. and British economic programs of the 1980s are the two models Netanyahu intends to follow. In 1980, annual inflation in the U.S. was 13.5 percent and in Britain 18 percent, while unemployment was 7 percent and 5 percent respectively. In 1983, annual inflation went down to 3 percent in the U.S. and 4.5 percent in Britain, while unemployment rose to 10 percent in the U.S. and reached 11 percent in Britain. Imitating these economic policies goes hand in hand with cutting back the last remnants of Israel’s so-called welfare state.

According to Gideon Eshet from Yediot Ahronot, Finance Minister Dan Meridor was asked by Netanyahu to submit the government budget a week after he entered office. It seems that due to “Operation Grapes of Wrath” in Lebanon and a few other unexpected expenses, Israel’s deficit had risen from the anticipated $2.4 billion to slightly over $3 billion. The following are a few of the steps Meridor offered to take in order to lower the deficit: 1) Downsize the public sector by 10,000 jobs. 2) Freeze the Ministry of Education’s budget. The direct impact of this step is that there will be more students in every classroom. 3) Reduce the health benefits provided by the national health program, while simultaneously increasing the cost of the program. On top of that, the Finance Ministry wants to raise the price of medicine and add individual participation in hospitalization costs and doctor appointments. 4) Raise women’s retirement age from 60 to 65, while simultaneously reducing the pension people receive from social security. 5) Lower the subsidy for public transportation.

It is clear which sector—the poor—will pay for Israel’s deficit, and it is also evident how Netanyahu intends to lower inflation. This is not to say that everything Netanyahu wants, Netanyahu will get, since the opposition in Israel is still strong. It does indicate, however, that Netanyahu is not only a right-wing politician in the Israeli context—opposing peace with Israel’s neighbors—he is also right-wing in an economic and neo-conservative sense. Like a small child who sneaks into his parents closet, dons a pair of daddy’s shoes and begins walking around the house, Israel’s recently elected Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is attempting to mimic his U.S. and British progenitors—Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

“Israel Is Not Alone” member knocks phone out of my hand – Press TV films incident

We had just completed a CNI press briefing at the National Press Club, when the next group scheduled to use the room, “Israel Is Not Alone,” began to enter. One of their members saw our signs and began a discussion with a member of the CNI group. The conversation was heated but within appropriate bounds. Another “Israel Is Not Alone” member, however, then approached the CNI man in a somewhat threatening posture and loudly began to berate him.

At that point Lt. Col Karen Kwiatkowski, who had spoken on our panel, thought she recognized the man and he was asked his name. At first he only gave his first name, Jerry, but eventually also gave his last name: Boykin.

Lt. Gen Boykin (three stars) is known for making offensive statements about Islam and supporting Israel.

For some reason, I actually thought I might be able to convince him to rethink his positions. I told him I had been born at West Point and tried to tell him about Palestine. I was holding a booklet from our press conference, and asked him fervently to read it. He didn’t say anything.

As I was trying to describe the facts, another man came up and began haranguing me. He was almost shaking with fury. He yelled that Muslims tear the fingernails off Christians and similar things. I tried to answer him, but he shouted over everything I tried to say. I got my phone out and tried to video what he was yelling at me. I then tried to resume my conversation with Boykin and tell him about my first trip to Palestine, but the man continued shouting at me, drowning out my words, so I again tried to video what he was yelling at me. He suddenly violently hit my hand and phone, knocking the phone across the room.

I was stunned. A bit shaken, I asked someone to get security, which they did. Some of the “Israel Is Not Alone” group, probably realizing that their member had just crossed a serious line and was guilty of battery, brought me the pieces of my phone (fortunately, and surprisingly, it still works). The man (I haven’t yet learned his name) proffered an unconvincing apology.

Some people have suggested that I file charges. It turns out that a Press TV crew apparently filmed the whole incident and led off with part of it on their broadcast about our conference. You can see the video and news report here.

I’m undecided about filing charges. I know that if the situation were reversed, they would do so.

I don’t know what’s behind this angry, disturbed man. Was he angry because he was spreading such venemous lies? Or is it that the people behind “Israel Is Not Alone” are exploiting a vulnerable man and intentionally creating or fueling his rage?

Text of Press TV report:

Tempers flared at the prestigious National Press Club in Washington, DC .

A pro Israeli advocate knocked a camera out of the hands of Alison Weir, President of the Council for the National Interest Foundation. The group just finished their press conference on what they call unjustifiable US Aid to Israel.

The two sides met when the Press Club scheduled a pro Israeli news conference to follow held in the same room. The altercation illustrates heightened tensions on differing views regarding America’s relationship with Israel.

The Council for the National Interest Foundation wants Americans to know how much of their tax dollars are going to Israel.

CNIF alleges Israel receives so much aid and special treatment because the US Congress is controlled by AIPAC, America’s pro Israel lobby. Executive director Phillip Giraldi says Israel spends a lot of money on U.S. elections.

The Council for the National Interest Foundation says many members of Congress fear, if they don’t always side with Israel, that they will face retaliation in their own re-election campaigns.

Giraldi is a former CIA counter terrorism expert. He questions why America gives aid to Israel when Israel conducts more espionage for profit against the US than any other US friendly country.

Retired Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski worked at the Pentagon and says Israel receives preferential treatment.

Kwiatkowski believes America is beginning to take more interest in US foreign policy in the Middle East in large part due to tough economic times. More and more Americans want to know where their hard earned tax dollars are going and why.


Update: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 at 11:55AM

I’ve just learned that the furious man was William J. Murray, chair of the “Religious Freedom Coalition.”


Update: Friday, January 31, 2014 at 5:50PM

I later learned the name of my assailant: William J. Murray.

Murray is the head of something called The Religious Freedom Coalition, a fervently anti-Muslim organization. He is also, apparently, the son of infamous atheist proponent Madeline Murray O’Hare.

I consulted an attorney about the incident, and he advised me to file a police report since Murray’s actions seemed to constitute “assault and battery.”

I filed a pollice report and then waited and waited. Finally, the detective in charge of determining whether or not to prosecute Murray decided not to do so. The detective’s name is in another notebook somewhere. As I recall, it was Rosenbaum or something similar.

Setting the record straight about Helen Thomas and Move Over AIPAC

I had not been planning to write about the controversy inside the Move Over AIPAC coalition that occurred awhile ago, but I’ve discovered that an inaccurate statement was published by Mondoweiss about this.

I’m surprised this statement was sent to Weiss, since most people had sought to keep this discussion only within the coalition itself. However, now that this has become public, it seems important to set the record straight:

Awhile ago Move Over AIPAC organizers issued a press release, which they didn’t send to the coalition but which was published by a number of Israeli and pro-Israel publications. It said:

“Helen Thomas was invited to speak, as a journalist who is fearless about questioning power and unnecessary wars, but because some of her comments have sparked controversy, several members of the coalition and our grassroots community had concerns about her appearance.”

As a member of two coalition organizations, I was extremely concerned about this. I felt it was important that Helen not be pushed out of our conference as she had been pushed out of numerous other speaking engagements by the ADL and Israel partisans, and I tried to contact the organizers about the situation by phone and email.

Unfortunately, I received no response.

I then contacted some other coalition members, endorsers, and panelists, who looked into the situation more.

Two individuals managed to speak to Helen Thomas directly. Thomas told them that she “did not withdraw voluntarily,” that she had been “pressured into it,” and that she had been “disinvited.”

James Abourezk wrote an article containing information on this.

We also learned that Jewish Voice for Peace had objected to Thomas. [JVP staff members have since informed me that they were not part of this action and were not informed of it.] We were unable to discover who else (if anyone) objected.

It seemed extremely inappropriate to us that in a coalition of about 100 groups, only one or two had been involved in an important discussion about a prominent speaker.

While JVP has often done excellent work and many of its members are exemplary human rights defenders, the organization also, by its own admission, includes members who support Israel’s right to discriminate. Jeffrey Blankfort has occasionally written about this.

It’s perhaps indicative that JVP’s media monitoring website had carried an article that, while it criticized the media’s handling of Thomas, stated: “It’s impossible to defend Grande Dame of White House journalists Helen Thomas’ recent off the cuff statement …. It was deeply offensive and wrong.”

My article on Thomas provided an entirely different perspective, as did that by Ralph Nader.

A number of prominent endorsers and panelists, among these James Abourezsk, Paul Findley, Hatem Bazian (founder of American Muslims for Palestine), Hedy Epstein, Hassan Fouda, and a number of others (there were eventually about 20 signatories) sent a statement to coalition members saying:

Dear fellow Move Over AIPAC endorsers,

We are deeply concerned that Helen Thomas has said that she was pressured into withdrawing from speaking at the upcoming Move Over AIPAC conference. This was apparently done at the behest of two anonymous groups, one of which threatened to leave the conference if Helen spoke at the event. It appears that none of the other close to 100 groups endorsing the conference were part of this discussion. Since the Lobby prefers to work in darkness, the objecting parties should not be allowed to remain invisible.  Granting them anonymity enables exactly what we oppose.  

We are appalled that conference organizers caved to pressure to remove Thomas from the agenda and we call on them to reconsider this decision.

The ADL and associated organizations and individuals have pushed Helen out of numerous previously scheduled lectures, pressured organizations to rename or dissolve journalistic scholarships in her name, and have otherwise committed a sustained assault on one of the nation’s only top journalists willing to oppose the Israel Lobby. Please see the recent CounterPunch article on Helen Thomas by James Abourezk and the article last year by Ralph Nader denouncing the smears and bigotry of anti-Semitism against Arab American, Helen Thomas, that led to the dictated firing of this legendary journalistic pioneer.

We will not stand by and allow this to be done at a conference we are endorsing and whose stated goal is to oppose this very lobby.

We call on Move Over AIPAC to affirm the invitation to Helen Thomas to speak at the upcoming event. As a veteran White House correspondent, Helen has had many years to observe the workings of the Lobby from the inside and can undoubtedly make uniquely salient contributions to the event. 

We invite all conference endorsers of commitment and principle who refuse to see Helen Thomas silenced once again – this time by a project of which we are a part – to join us.

I am pleased that the organizers then re-invited Helen Thomas to speak. I am not surprised that she declined to do so.

Now most of us are moving forward as positively as possible. I am pleased that a number of excellent op-eds relating to the conference have been successfully placed (including by the Washington Report‘s Janet McMahon and by Hedy Epstein), and that the event will most likely be a success.

Nevertheless, the fact that one or two individuals/organizations played a major behind-the-scenes  role in the unfortunate episode with Helen Thomas (and probably continue to do so on other aspects) is disturbing.

Once again, very few Palestinian organizations – who probably have the valid worry that they are being used as tokens – are taking part. Even those who have publicly remained as endorsers have withdrawn their active participation.

I am looking forward to a future conference and a movement in which this type of thing doesn’t occur; in which groups with partial commitment do not call the shots, and in which the full diversity of this movement for justice is integrally represented. I feel that time is coming.