Category: Uncategorized

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.

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:

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.

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.

 

The Associated Press is the world’s oldest and largest wire service and is the major source of international news for news media all over the U.S. It is also blatantly pro-Israel.

Its “control bureau” for the region is staffed almost exclusively by Israeli and/or Jewish editors, who write the reports that it chooses to send out. Its pattern of reporting consistently emphasizes Israeli deaths, of which there have actually been very few in recent years, while minimizing Palestinian deaths, of which there have been a great many.

The deaily headlines that it features consistently reinforce the Israeli spin rather than the reality on the ground.

For example, Israel is once again shelling Gaza. In the last few days Israeli forces have killed eight Palestinians in Gaza, including a grandfather and three children, including an 11-year-old. It shelled a family out playing soccer. Dozens of people have been injured. Yet, these deaths barely remained in its headlines for one day. It did not report on the family members’ grief, the UN condemnation of Israel’s actions, etc. Yesterday, one Israeli died in a bomb blast in Jerusalem. This is still in its headlines, along with related stories.

Reading AP coverage always reminds me of the unusually honest admission by a student journalist reported in 2001 in San Francisco’s Jewish Bulletin about how he would report on Israel when he became a professional journalist:

“If I find a negative thing about Israel, I will not print it and I will sink into why did it happen and what can I do to change it. [He] said that even if he eventually wrote about negative incidents that happen in Israel, he would try to find the way to shift the blame.”

It is interesting to see that the media continue to refer to the tragic Itamar murders, without mentioning the indications that the perpetrator may have not been Palestinian. They also leave out a number of other details of considerable newsworthiness.

To try to counter this Israeli-spin-passing-as-reporting, we’ve created an an easily printed out hand-out of my article about Itamar, which includes an extremely long list of Palestinian children 13 and under killed by Israeli forces.

I hope people will distribute this as widely as possible. Bulk copies can be ordered from us at minimal or no cost. You can order these online or email us at orders@ifamericansknew.org

It is critical that we all work to expose this cover-up and disseminate the facts.

See Action Items below!

Former undersecretary of State for political affairs Marc Grossman has just been named as the new U.S. envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

There are serious problems with this:

(1) A federal court approved a subpoena for Grossman to learn to what degree he had shared classified information with AIPAC with the understanding that this would be passed on to Israel. Such an action is both illegal and treasonous. (The trial was then quashed. More.)

(2) An FBI whistleblower stated that the FBI had been investigating Grossman for many years, finding that he was doing special favors for Israel and Turkish interests, and that he was serving as a conduit to a group of congressmen who become, in a sense, the targets to be recruited as “agents of influence.”

Below is an excerpt from an interview by Philip Giraldi with former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds:

GIRALDI: …Basically, you map out a corruption scheme involving U.S. government employees and members of Congress and agents of foreign governments. These agents were able to obtain information that was either used directly by those foreign governments or sold to third parties, with the proceeds often used as bribes to breed further corruption. Let’s start with the first government official you identified, Marc Grossman, then the third highest-ranking official at the State Department.

EDMONDS:

Grossman became a person of interest early on in the investigative file while he was the U.S. ambassador to Turkey [1994-97], when he became personally involved with operatives both from the Turkish government and from suspected criminal groups. He also had suspicious contact with a number of official and non-official Israelis. Grossman was removed from Turkey short of tour during a scandal referred to as “Susurluk” by the media. It involved a number of high-level criminals as well as senior army and intelligence officers with whom he had been in contact…

GIRALDI:

So Grossman at this point comes back to the United States. He’s rewarded with the third-highest position at the State Department, and he allegedly uses this position to do favors for “Turkish interests”—both for the Turkish government and for possible criminal interests. Sometimes, the two converge. The FBI is aware of his activities and is listening to his phone calls. When someone who is Turkish calls Grossman, the FBI monitors that individual’s phone calls, and when the Turk calls a friend who is a Pakistani or an Egyptian or a Saudi, they monitor all those contacts, widening the net.

EDMONDS:

Correct.

GIRALDI:

And Grossman received money as a result. In one case, you said that a State Department colleague went to pick up a bag of money…

EDMONDS:

$14,000

GIRALDI:

What kind of information was Grossman giving to foreign countries? Did he give assistance to foreign individuals penetrating U.S. government labs and defense installations as has been reported? It’s also been reported that he was the conduit to a group of congressmen who become, in a sense, the targets to be recruited as “agents of influence.”

EDMONDS:

Yes, that’s correct. Grossman assisted his Turkish and Israeli contacts directly, and he also facilitated access to members of Congress who might be inclined to help for reasons of their own or could be bribed into cooperation. The top person obtaining classified information was Congressman Tom Lantos. A Lantos associate, Alan Makovsky worked very closely with Dr. Sabri Sayari in Georgetown University, who is widely believed to be a Turkish spy. Lantos would give Makovsky highly classified policy-related documents obtained during defense briefings for passage to Israel because Makovsky was also working for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). [Read entire interview]

The public should demand that Hillary Clinton investigate these charges, information from the FBI file on Grossman should be made public, and if sufficient evidence exists to indict Grossman, he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

The first steps are for people to

 (1) email and phone Secretary of State Clinton (202-647-5291) and ask when she is going to investigate these charges and provide information to the public on them (I just did this and Secretary Clinton’s assistant hadn’t yet even heard of them – hopefully, this ignorance will be significantly remedied by the end of the day);

(2) contact the media and ask that they cover these serious charges against this proposed U.S. envoy;

(3) share this information with everyone you know.

We can’t just sit on the sidelines and let this appointment proceed as “business as usual,” even though, sadly, it is, when Israel is concerned.

---

Update: Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 6:55AM

Even better than contacting the State Department about this is to contact your member of Congress (House or Senate) and ask him/her specifically about the cloud of suspicion that hangs over Grossman.

 

I subscribe to Brasscheck TV and have just viewed the following clip of Chicago mainstream “reporters” trying to block a radio reporter from asking Rahm Emanuel hardball questions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sce0TLA5UYE

UPDATE May 2012: The above video was apparently taken down by Youtube. However, I’ve now found it at another location. (I hope this stays up):

It’s an extremely revealing video and demonstrates the press corps’s failure to discharge its important duties. No wonder that many joined the attack on Helen Thomas, who actually asked real questions.

I have not heard of William J. Kelly before, the man trying to ask Mayoral candidate Emanuel about his alleged Chicago residency and his financial connections. Kelly is labeled a “conservative talk show host,” and I have no idea what his various political views are. I certainly applaud his attempt to ask Emanuel important, legitimate questions.

Emanuel, of course, is very close to Israel. His father was a pre-Israel terrorist and he himself held Israeli citizen for many years. In the first Gulf War rather than serve in the US military, Rahm went to Israel and volunteered for Israeli forces.

Following is some background about Emanuel that more people should know. It would be good if Kelly would sometime try to ask him about this, but I don’t know if Kelly would be willing to touch the “third rail,” as Helen Thomas calls it. In fact, he probably doesn’t even know this part of Emanuel’s bio:

In 1984, Emanuel and David Axelrod (Obama’s senior campaign strategist in 2008) worked alongside AIPAC on a campaign to unseat Illinois Senator Charles Percy who was then chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. That electoral success followed a victorious AIPAC-directed campaign in 1982 when Springfield attorney Richard Durbin was recruited to oppose Paul Findley, an 11-term Congressman. Findley learned too late the political costs visited on U.S. policy-makers who challenge the Israeli-fication of U.S. foreign policy.

Durbin was just elected to his third term in the Senate where he serves as assistant majority leader. He shares a house in Washington with New York’s Charles Schumer, third in the Senate leadership and one of 13 Jewish Senators (up from 11). Durbin and Schumer are junior to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. A Zionist-inclined Mormon (also known as “the Lost Tribe of Israel”), Reid concedes his admiration for the Israel lobby: “I can’t think of a policy organization in the country as well-organized and respected.”

Emanuel’s rapport with AIPAC’s extensive campaign-financing network enabled Bill Clinton to amass a record-breaking $72 million in 1992. Those funds helped his fledgling presidential candidacy weather the media storm over the Jennifer Flowers sex scandal and a controversy over his Vietnam-era draft status. Emanuel’s aggressive pro-Israel fundraising strategy also drained funds from rival Paul Tsongas who soon withdrew, citing a shortage of funds. Emanuel then served for five years as a senior strategist for the Clinton White House before joining investment bankers Wasserstein Perella where he became managing director of the Chicago office.

Of the nine Democratic members of the Illinois delegation elected in 2002, Emanuel was the only one to support the October 2002 Congressional resolution authorizing war in Iraq. In the course of winning his 2008 race with 74% of the vote, Emanuel was the topmost House recipient of campaign contributions from hedge funds, private equity firms and the securities industry.

Known since childhood as a “convinced Zionist,” Emanuel and his brothers attended summer camp in Israel. During the 1991 Gulf War, he joined the Israel Defense Forces as a civilian volunteer (akin to a reservist) where he worked in a motor pool repairing trucks. Operating as an adjunct to the Israel lobby as both a fundraiser and a member of Congress, Emanuel has long served as a loyal sayanim (Hebrew for “volunteer”) in support of policies pursued by Tel Aviv.

Following is an excerpt from an article in CounterPunch:

…in some respects, Emanuel is a mysterious fellow, as evidenced by his biography, which is readily available on Wikipedia and in the piece in Fortune (3). But there are a few things missing or not fully explained. First, as is often pointed out, Emanuel’s physician father was an Israeli émigré; but, according to Leon Hadar, he also worked during the 1940s with the notorious Irgun, which was labeled as a terrorist organization by the British authorities.(6) Perhaps Rahm’s current interest in terrorism was first kindled at his father’s Irgun knee.

Second, during the 1991 Gulf War, Emanuel was a civilian volunteer in Israel, “rust-proofing brakes on an army base in northern Israel.” (Wikipedia, New Republic). This is peculiar on two counts. Here the U.S. goes to war with Iraq, but Emanuel, a U.S. citizen, volunteers not for his country, but for Israel. Moreover, here is a well-connected Illinois political figure with a father who had been in the Irgun, but he is assigned to “rust-proof brakes” on “an army base.” Maybe.

Third, immediately upon his return from his desert sojourn, Emanuel at once became a major figure in the Clinton campaign “who wowed the team from the start, opening a spigot on needed campaign funds.”(3) How did he do that after being isolated overseas, and with no experience in national politics? Fourth, after leaving the Clinton White House, he decided that he needed some accumulated wealth and “security” if he were to stay in politics. So he went to work for Bruce Wasserstein, a major Democratic donor and Wall Street financier.

According to Easton, “Over a 2 1/2-year period he helped broker deals-often using political connections-for Wasserstein Perella. According to congressional financial disclosures, he earned more than $18 million during that period. His deals included Unicom’s merger with Peco Energy and venture fund GTCR Golder Rauner’s purchase of SBC subsidiary SecurityLink. But friends say his compensation also benefited from two sales of the Wasserstein firm itself, first to Dresdner Bank and then to Allianz AG.” Again for a newcomer to haul in $18 million in two years is almost miraculous. How did he do it? Next Emanuel won a seat in Congress in 2002, and by 2006 he was chair of the DCCC. Another near miraculous rise.

CounterPunch has just published my article about Helen Thomas, and we’ve also posted an annotated version with links, photos and videos on our news site as well.

It’s interesting to see the misreporting on Thomas’s words. For example, nowhere did she say the word “Jews.”

Another point also tells more about her critics than about her.

When one actually views the video, it appears that Thomas is referring to Israeli settlers. (Truthfully, the correct word should be colonists, but I’ll use the commonly employed euphemism).

Her words are: “Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people are occupied. And it’s their land…”

The reference to “occupied” would normally suggest the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinian Occupied Territories.  However, her attackers almost universally seem to have taken her words as referring to all of Israel.

In other words, in a sort of Freudian slip, her attackers acknowledge that all of the land of Palestine is occupied.

Interesting.

On April 4th we posted a report on our news site about how the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) targets student leaders from around the country, bringing over 1,000 students to its annual national convention in Washington D.C.

In a chilling JTA video from this convention, longtime AIPAC operative Jonathon Kessler is seen describing the Israel lobby’s’ plan to take over the University of California Berkeley student government, which had passed by 16-4 a resolution detested by the pro-Israel lobby.

In front of a cheering throng, Kessler announced:

We’re going to make certain that pro-Israel students take over the student government and reverse the vote. That is how AIPAC operates in our nation’s capitol. This is how AIPAC must operate on our nation’s campuses.

Yes, that is exactly what the Israel lobby has often succeeded in doing in Congress and throughout the United States. It has taken over numerous campus organizations, university departments, and even churches. (See my recent article giving some of the specifics of this decades-long campaign).

For years writers such as Paul Findley, Edward Tivnan, George Ball, Donald Neff, John Mulhall, Steven Green, James Abourezek, Andrew Killgore, Richard Curtiss, Janet McMahon, Delinda Hanley, James Ennes, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have described this process, but their books have been largely suppressed and/or attacked and only a very small portion of the American public is aware of ths information.

Please view the following video and send it to others. It is time for all of us – of all religions, races, ethnicities and political backgrounds – to oppose this fanatic, destructive, manipulative, and massively powerful special interest pressure group.

As an immediate, critical action, please contact the UC Berkeley student Senate and urge its members to override the extremely inappropriate veto by its absentee president. (More information here.)

Following is a moving letter that one person has already sent:

Dear members of the ASUC Senate,
 
My name is Anne Weinstein Garcia. I am  a Jewish American woman and a college teacher in Ann Arbor, Michigan. But I will always call California “home”.  I was born in California, received my doctorate from the University of California, San Francisco and was fortunate enough to be fully funded by a prestigious scholarship for my complete tenure there. Preceding my doctoral work (and post-doctoral studies in Cambridge, England), I had received other academic degrees in Fresno and San Diego.
 
I mention all of these experiences as evidence of what would appear to be a strong educational background.  
 
But at the ripe old age of 50 (almost 6 years ago), I discovered that my education in at least one arena was sadly lacking—the “story” of Israel.  Now I had been told a story over all those years—from my family, my friends, my temple and my community. This story was corroborated by the popular culture that emphasized the frequent persecution of people of the Jewish faith during Biblical times; I saw the film “The Ten Commandments” when I was 4 or 5 and read Exodus when I was 13. My understanding of why the state of Israel was to be celebrated was also based  on the narratives of various plays and films I attended as a young adult—I know the words to “Fiddler on the Roof” by heart.  And much of these “historical” events did take place—in one fashion or another.
 
Unfortunately, however, none of these experiences provided me with the factual basis of why Israel was founded, and equally importantly, how it was founded—namely, on the backs of the Palestinian people. The injustice that has been done to them for over 60 years now is so reminiscent of the mistreatment of Jews throughout history that one is blinded by the parallels.
 
By now I have to believe that you, as educated members of the Berkeley campus (a campus from which both of my nieces recently graduated and one of them is currently completing her residency at UC Davis), know full well that the only thing that stands between human rights for the Palestinians and the abuse of power by Israel is the political will of  Americans to do the right thing. We must stop supporting Israel’s mistreatment of these people—stop the diplomatic support, stop the political support and, in your case, stop the financial support.
 
To this end, I strongly urge you to reaffirm Senate Bill 118A, despite the recent presidential veto. Divesting from the occupation is a critical nonviolent tool for putting pressure on Israel to abide by international law.  Stand tall against false criticism—you know and I know that there is nothing against Judaic principles when one protects the victim of an attack. And that is what has happened for 62 years—the Palestinians have been victims—the  “fall guys” for the entire world—not Hitler and his cronies who produced the Holocaust—but the people of Palestine who had NOTHING to do with it.
 
Jewish people around the world, whether they know it or not, will benefit from this important and appropriate action on the part of the Berkeley Student Senate.
 
Sincerely,
Anne Weinstein Garcia

(An excellent blog report on this can be seen on a site by Richard Brenneman.)

The battle with Michigan Radio, the powerful NPR affiliate in southern Michigan, the most listened to public radio service in Michigan, continues. After months of official stone-walling, public pressure finally forced Michigan Radio and University of Michigan officials (the U of M holds Michigan Radio’s licenses) to participate in a conference call with me and four Ann Arbor residents.

The entire situation with Michigan Radio has been bizarre. Normally, NPR stations plead for money. Yet, it has taken three public campaigns to get Michigan Radio, under the direction of Steve Schram, to even talk to us about giving them money.

Months after Schram promised he would respond “soon” to our request to be an underwriter, during which neither he nor anyone else under his control would reply to my phone calls or emails, I was again in Ann Arbor on a lecture tour.

This time I went to visit him in person, accompanied by approximately 20 concerned Ann Arbor residents, including at least one UM professor. There was no chanting or disruption; these individuals were simply there in support and to provide passersby with information on the situation. Also along was an independent filmmaker, who had learned about our planned visit and asked if he could film it. I, of course, said yes.

The station also knew about this visit ahead of time, since I had announced it at two of my lectures, and the receptionist knew who I was even before I introduced myself. Of course, my voice should have been enormously familiar, since I had spoken to her a multitude of times as she transferred me to voicemail after voicemail.

Mr. Schram would not deign to come out of his office to speak with us. He was, we were told, “in a meeting.” Another person told us he was “out of town.” When I asked which it was, the receptionist settled on “in a meeting.” I said I would wait. I also asked to speak with other individuals. Everyone I requested (eventually, every member of their staff) was, I was told, unavailable.

However, three individuals did come out, one by one, and briefly engaged with us.

The first was news staffer Tamar Charney. Sadly, she wasn’t there to cover citizens opposing censorship by their local powerful public radio station, an important breaking news story; she was there to defend the station from the public – a well-behaved group consisting largely of senior citizens, Quakers, etc.

The next to come out was Media Financial Officer Betsy Noren, who was quite angry, would not give  her name even though we were very willing to give ours, and demanded that we all leave the entire building (Michigan Radio has one suite).

Even though the station has a large reception area and our group was not disruptive, all except about 3-4 of us left the room. Ms. Noren said that was still too many to remain. We remained. I’ll tell more about our conversation with her later.

The third to come out was Steve Chrypinsky, marketing director. Mr. Chrypinsky served as Mr. Schram’s go-between, ludicrously taking messages from us to Schram and from Schram back to us. Chrypinsky maintained a pleasant demeanor and civil behavior despite a difficult situation, one of the few at Michigan Radio to do so.

Finally, after this silly back-and-forth method of communicating, Mr. Schram agreed to participate in a conference call on Friday at 1pm, April 2, 2010.

Conference Call – Officials make promises! (again)

On the line with me were four Ann Arbor residents (a businesswoman; a UM professor; a previous director of Michigan Media who had begun his long career with WUOM in 1949; and his wife, a Quaker with special concern and expertise on international issues).

At the Michigan Radio end participating by speaker phone were director Steve Schram, UM Vice-President for Communication David Lampe, Development Director Larry Jonas, and perhaps others listening in.

At the beginning of the call I announced that the conversation was being taped so that we would all be clear later about what had been discussed and agreed to. This is typical for conference calls. FreeConferenceCall.org, the organization we use for such calls, specifically includes this option.

Moreover, I believe deeply in openness and honesty and oppose back-room deals that exclude the public. The bedrock principle of journalism is the public right to know.

(By the way, I studied journalism at the University of Michigan; one of our required courses was on journalistic ethics. I wonder if this subject matter is still taught at the University of Michigan.)

The UM officials, signaling their (lack of) commitment to openness and transparency, said that they would prefer that the phone call not be taped; I reiterated that I would prefer that it be taped. While I understand the closed-door position of Mr. Lampe, as the PR person for the University of Michigan, I find it disappointing (but by now not surprising) that Steve Schram, director of broadcasting, took a position that is the antithesis of core journalistic principles. (Of course, If you have something you wish to hide, later deny or misconstrue, it makes sense not to tape the conversation.)

Rather than go into every detail of the phone call, for now I will concentrate on two agreements that resulted:

1. These UM officials asked me to (again) submit a specific request for underwriting, giving wording, dollar amount of support, etc. and promised that they would then respond within one week.

2. Far less enthusiastically (not that the above was enthusiastic) they finally agreed to consider whether they would correct erroneous emails about the situation sent by Michigan Radio to the public. We agreed that I would send them what I propose, and they would give a response within one week.

(This is, perhaps, the most significant aspect of our discussion. It is clear that something went deeply wrong in Michigan Radio’s handling of our request to be an underwriter. It is critical that the station address this problem so that it is not replicated with others in the future and so that listeners and the Regents of the University of Michigan, who hold the license for the stations of Michigan Radio, can be assured that the organization is performing its duties correctly and without bias.) 

Therefore, at Mr. Lampe’s request, I am sending Michigan Radio the following:

Action Required by Michigan Radio:

Send out a correction on the erroneous email from the director of development to members of the public.

This correction should contain the following information:

Last fall a Michigan Radio director sent an erroneous email to members of the public who had written to the station objecting to Michigan Radio’s refusal to allow If Americans Knew to be a sponsor. This email asserted that the situation had been “miscast by Alison Weir” and claimed that it was confusion over the sponsoring organization that had caused Michigan Radio to refuse a request by If Americans Knew to be a sponsor.

In reality, the rationale given to If Americans Knew was the decision by some members of Michigan Radio management that If Americans Knew was “too political.” Given the nature of other Michigan Radio sponsors, Michigan Radio has now determined that this decision was incorrect and is now willing to consider a sponsorship by If Americans Knew.

Michigan Radio apologizes to the public for this misleading communication and to If Americans Knew and Alison Weir for its inaccurate statement and for its months-long refusal to discuss the possibility of a sponsorship with If Americans Knew.

Michigan Radio will now undertake an internal investigation to determine why a different standard was applied to If Americans Knew than to other nonprofit organizations, why management directed staff members not to communicate with If Americans Knew concerning a sponsorship, why only public pressure was able to force Michigan Radio to speak with If Americans Knew, whether the fact that If Americans Knew provides information to the public about Israel-Palestine played a role in Michigan Radio’s mishandling of this situation, and whether personal connections to or biases regarding Israel among individuals concerned with Michigan Radio interfered with Michigan Radio’s normal relations with the public and the fulfillment of its journalistic duties as a public trust. (The preceding is my suggested wording.)

Background:

In September 2009, a new If Americans Knew chapter in Flint, Michigan contacted Michigan Radio to pursue being a sponsor, also known as an underwriter. An email exchange followed and on Oct. 1, 2009 a representative of this chapter sent the following email to the Michigan Radio representative who had been working with him in this effort:

Can you please review the following? How is this as a first draft? Our intent is to underwrite for the minimum $ amount of $1000 for 10 spots, 15 secs each.

Support for Michigan Radio comes from… “

If Americans knew dot org”. A non-profit organization focused on media coverage of the Palestine-Israel conflict. Executive Director Ms. Alison Weir will visit south east Michigan the week of Oct 12^th.  Details on the web at “if americans knew dot org”.

The underwriting representative then phoned him, telling him that Michigan Radio would not run the spot.

My associate then emailed this person:

“Thank you for the call earlier today. I communicated the Michigan Radio decision back to our group. We are disappointed that the station declined to approve our announcement.

“In order to be completly clear, please send me an e-mail stating the specific reason or reasons for the non-approval of the underwriting. As you stated, if our request did not meet an FCC guideline or rule, or the station rules or policy, please indicate which specific guideline or policy we did not meet.

“Again, this is so we can clearly understand the reason, and not have a mis-read or mis-interpretation based on our verbal conversation over the phone.

The Michigan Radio representative then emailed him the following response (also on Oct. 1):

“I’ll be glad to share with you what management discussed with me.  In the underwriting packet (the first email attachment that I sent to you), on the page titled “MAKING YOUR CREDIT WORK FOR YOU MICHIGAN RADIO UNDERWRITING COPY GUIDELINES” (bottom paragraph):

“Michigan Radio reserves the right to refuse any request for underwriting that would violate an FCC rule or policy, violate station policies or adversely affect the reputation or financial condition of the station. No announcements will be aired on behalf of political organizations, political candidates or their committees, or that express a view on issues of public importance or interest or religious belief. No more than one (1) event may be listed in any underwriting announcement. No more than 6 underwriting announcements may air in one day (and may be less depending on inventory).”

The Flint chapter then, finding it difficult to communicate with me during this time since I was on an extended speaking tour in Alaska, and with my Michigan tour rapidly approaching, decided not to try to fight the station over this determination. Instead, a different organization sponsored an announcement. 

On Oct. 13^th I arrived in Michigan and learned about the above situation. Disturbed that our organization had not been allowed to be a sponsor and still wishing to run an announcement by If Americans Knew, I phoned Michigan radio several times over the following week to try to discuss the situation.

I never received a reply, though on Oct. 15^th the Michigan Radio representative emailed my Flint associate,

“I did share Allison Wier’s message with my manager, Kathy Agosta. I am not able to respond, and I’m asking that you contact Kathy. Her email is kagosta@umich.edu.”

I then tried to contact Kathy Agosta, the first of a multitude of failed efforts to reach Ms. Agosta. I never received a reply.

I then phoned and emailed numerous other staff members at Michigan Radio and again was astonished to find that no one would talk with me or respond to my simple request that they phone or email me in return.

Finally, as days passed and it became clear that no one from Michigan radio would respond to my phone calls or emails, and hoping to resolve the situation while I was still on my speaking tour in Michigan, I at last sent out a press release about the situation followed by a phone call to the news director at Michigan Radio about what appeared to be censorship by a public radio station (a subject that is normally considered newsworthy). This director said he would look into the matter.

After he had done so, the news director told me that he had been told that Michigan Radio had made the decision not to run spots from us because If Americans Knew was “political” and this violated their underwriting guidelines.

I pointed out that we are not a political organization, that we are a 501c3 educational organization, that Michigan Radio allows sponsorship by similarly structured nonprofit organizations, many of which advocate for causes, and that their refusal to accept our sponsorship constituted censorship.

Nevertheless, this news director told me he would not cover this story (though a reporter, I believe it was Tamar Charney, did later come to cover one of my talks; I don’t know whether or not the station aired a report on this. Her interview with me at the time was somewhat hostile.).

Meanwhile, Michigan Radio business personnel and management refused to even discuss the situation with me.

Again, our only recourse was to tell the public what was going on and to ask that others contact the station about its unethical conduct and abuse of power.

In response to a great many communications from the public on this, on Oct. 16 Michigan Radio Director of Development Larry Jonas, who had failed to respond to any of my inquiries, finally began to reply to members of the public, sending them the following email (not sent to me):

“This issue has been miscast by Ms. Weir, when in fact the issue is about adherence to FCC underwriting regulations.

“Michigan Radio was initially contacted by a gentleman in the Flint area who indicated that he was interested in establishing an underwriting schedule of announcements that would include information about Ms. Weir’s talk.

“The gentleman initially asked that the sponsorship be attributed to an organization to which he appeared to have no apparent affiliation.  Michigan Radio is required by FCC rules to identify the sponsoring entity in an underwriting announcement and not a third party.

“For that and other reasons, we were concerned that accepting the sponsorship may put us afoul of FCC regulations.

“He subsequently indicated that the Flint Islamic Center, the organization that would be hosting her talk, and of which he is a member, should be identified as the sponsoring organization.  Those announcements identifying that organization and Ms. Weir’s talk have aired as ordered.”

The reality is that it was Mr. Jonas who was misrepresenting the facts. As described above, we had twice been informed that Michigan Radio was not willing to work with us because they had decided we were “political.”

Moreover, this “political” rationale was again given to us, also twice, on March 29^th, when I and others visited Michigan Radio in person. 

On this visit a woman who refused to give her name (her website photo shows she was Media Finance Officer Betsy Noren) volunteered that we were prohibited from being a sponsor because we were “political.”

We were also told by Marketing Director Steve Chrypinsky that we were prohibited from being a sponsor because we were “political” and this would violate a guideline that stated: “No announcements will be aired on behalf of political organizations, political candidates or their committees, or that express a view on issues of public importance or interest or religious belief.”

When we noted that we are not a political organization, he pointed out the final clause: “…or that express a view on issues of public importance or interest or religious belief.”

(Incidentally, these Michigan Radio guidelines differ from NPR guidelines, which make it clear the prohibition refers only to the content of the spot itself, not whether or not an organization expresses views.)

Again, we pointed out that there are a number of Michigan Radio sponsors who express views on issues of public interest; some even have entire segments of their websites that specifically focus on legislation.

In other words, Michigan Radio has applied to us a standard that it didn’t apply to such others as the Nature Conservancy, the ACLU of Michigan, the Michigan Education Association, and the Jewish Federation of Detroit, which advocates for Israel, to name just a few of the Michigan Radio sponsors who espouse views on issues and even, in some cases, specifically discuss legislation.

To make matters worse, Michigan Radio management then misled the public about this double standard and unethical behavior, giving members of the public an entirely different, and untrue, purported rationale for refusing to run our spots.

If Michigan Radio has any commitment to accuracy and ethical behavior, it will now correct this erroneous email, by

(1) informing all recipients of its inaccurate information that the communication from Mr. Jonas was erroneous,

(2) by admitting the true rationale on which station officials had decided not to run our spots, and

(3) by apologizing to the public and to If Americans Knew for its actions.

(4) Finally, most important of all, Michigan Radio will now undertake an internal investigation to determine

• why a different standard was applied to If Americans Knew than to other nonprofit organizations,
• why management directed staff members over many months not to communicate with If Americans Knew concerning a sponsorship,
• why only public pressure was able to force Michigan Radio management to speak with If Americans Knew,
• whether the fact that If Americans Knew provides information to the public about Israel-Palestine played a role in Michigan Radio’s mishandling of this situation, and
• whether personal connections to or biases regarding Israel among individuals concerned with Michigan Radio interfered with Michigan Radio’s normal relations with the public and the fulfillment of its journalistic duties as a public trust.

As a licensee of the public airwaves, as a publicly funded organization, and as a journalistic institution, Michigan Radio has legal, ethical, and constitutional responsibilities. It needs to fulfill them.