AIPAC ARCHIVES Progressive Review
NOVEMBER 2007
1989: NORMAN FINKELSTEIN TAKES ON AIPAC FLACK WOLF BLITZER MARCH 2007
WHO NEEDS JIMMY CARTER WHEN YOU CAN CHILL WITH REV JOHN HAGEE?
MUZLE WATCH - AIPAC's policy conference, which "annually draws half of the Senate and a third of the House," greeted pastor John Hagee of Christians United for Israel with multiple standing ovations for his "fiery pro-Israel" speech.
Talk2Action states that Pastor Hagee, one of the most powerful leaders of the Christian Zionist movement "blames the Holocaust on Jews themselves and states that Nazi persecution of Jews was God's way of driving Jews to Israel, seems to blame Jews for the death of Jesus Christ, holds that Jews cannot get into heaven, calls liberal Jews 'poisoned' and 'spiritually blind,' believes that the preemptive nuclear attack on Iran that he advocates will lead to a Mideast conflict that will kill most Jews in Israel and perhaps also lead to the Nuclear destruction of the East and West coasts of the United States of America, and meets frequently with top leaders of the GOP and with contenders for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.". . .
Jews on First has [a] very important piece which further describes the Faustian bargain being made between many Jewish organizations and the Christian right. Abe Foxman has played an interesting role"
"The major Jewish organizations do not welcome Jewish criticism of their embrace of Christian Zionists. These Christians are seen as crucial to Israel's tourism industry and its domestic popularity.
"One exception is Abraham Foxman, the director of the Anti-Defamation League. In 2005 he urged the big Jewish organizations to take a stand against the Christian right, which, he warned, wants to establish a theocracy in the United States. Foxman's colleagues publicly rejected his call and he largely stopped his public criticism.
"Recently Foxman broke his silence with an op-ed in Time, in which he expressed gratitude for the Christian right's support of Israel and continuing disagreement with the religious right's domestic agenda. Foxman also made it clear that the Christian right sees its support for Israel as a quid pro quo for Jewish silence on its domestic agenda.
But does appreciating Christian right so-called support for Israel also require Jews to shut up about the mainstreaming of anti-Semitism? Apparently so. Jewish Week reports:
"But Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League and a strong critic of many Christian right groups, said he is not alarmed about Hagee's role in the policy conference. 'I think there is a role for him,' Foxman aid. 'He has earned a certain recognition with the community because of his support for Israel.'"
With friends like Hagee, who needs enemies?
http://www.muzzlewatch.org/
AIPAC'S POWER CONTINUES. . .
KEVIN KALLAUGHER, ECONOMIST - This week saw yet another reminder of the awesome power of "the lobby". The American Israel Public Affairs Committee brought more than 6,000 activists to Washington for its annual policy conference. And they proceeded to live up to their critics' darkest fears. . . The lobbyists had every reason to feel proud of their work. Congress has more Jewish members than ever before: 30 in the House and a remarkable 13 in the Senate. (There are now more Jews in Congress than Episcopalians.) Both parties are competing with each other to be the "soundest" on Israel. About two-thirds of Americans hold a favorable view of the place. . .
The Leviathan may be mightier than ever, but there are more and more Captain Ahabs trying to get their harpoons in. Some of the most determined are Arab-Americans, who have been growing in numbers and influence for years - there are probably about 3.5m of them - and who have been in the eye of a political storm since September 11th 2001. They are a growing political force in northern Ohio and Michigan, and their institutions, such as the Arab American Institute and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, have plenty of access to Middle Eastern money.
But so far their performance has been unimpressive. James Zogby has been promising a breakthrough for his Arab American Institute for 20 years. CAIR remains marginal. Arab-Americans are badly split between Christians (63%) and Muslims (24%). They have also been late in taking to politics. Between 1990 and 2004 Arab-Americans donated $788,968 to candidates and parties, compared with $56.8m from pro-Israeli groups. .
http://www.economist.com/world/na/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=8861497
FEBRUARY 2007
CARTER APPEARANCE COSTING BRANDEIS MILLIONS IN DONATIONS
JEWISH WEEK - The Brandeis campus is reeling in the wake of former President Jimmy Carter's visit. Major donors to Brandeis University have informed the school they will no longer give it money in retaliation for its decision last month to host former President Jimmy Carter, a strong critic of Israel. The donors have notified the school in writing of their decisions - and specified Carter as the reason, said Stuart Eizenstat, a former aide to Carter during his presidency and a current trustee of Brandeis, one of the nation's premier Jewish institutions of higher learning. . . Brandeis history professor Jonathan Sarna, who maintains close ties with the administration, told The Jewish Week, "These were not people who send $5 to the university. These were major donors, and major potential donors. "I hope they'll calm down and change their views," Sarna said. . .
Kevin Montgomery, a student member of the faculty-student committee that brought Carter to Brandeis, related that the school's senior vice president for communications, Lorna Miles, told him in a meeting the week before Carter's appearance that the school had, at that point, already lost $5 million in donations. . .
At [a] faculty meeting, Susan Lanser a professor of English, complained, "I know many, many faculty who do not feel they can speak freely about the Middle East" in public forums. And in an interview with The Jewish Week, Mary Baine Campbell, another English professor, spoke of "the chilling effect of knowing one speaks about things unwelcome by the administration in charge of working conditions and pay. They could be angels. I don't know. It's a slightly chilled atmosphere."
This vexed aftermath contrasted sharply with the widely praised tenor of the event itself. The university audience of almost 2,000 received Carter with notable civility and even gave him several standing ovations. At the same time, student questioners challenged him with tough and critical queries. . .
"I think everyone was surprised at how well he was received," said Michael Berenbaum, a Holocaust scholar and historian unaffiliated with Brandeis. "That may be the most important part of the story. Instead of coming as partisans, they listened to Carter attentively, asked tough questions and gave him an audience. The Jewish community may have a more significant generation gap than they understand between what young people are prepared to hear and what older activists are prepared to hear."
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=13674
A LIBERAL RABBI ON AIPAC
RABBI MICHAEL LERNER, TIKKUN - The most frequently repeated injunction in Torah are variations of the following command: "Do not oppress the stranger (the 'other'). Remember that you were strangers in the land of Egypt." Instead, the Jewish establishment has turned Judaism into a cheer-leading religion for a particular national state that has a lot of Jews, but has seriously lost siight of the Jewish values which early Zionists hoped would find realization there.
The impact of the silencing of debate about Israeli policy on Jewish life has been devastating. We at Tikkun are constantly encountering young Jews who say that they can no longer identify with their Jewishness, because they have been told that their own intuitive revulsion at watching the Israeli settlers with IDF support violate the human rights of Palestinian civilians in the West Bank or their own questioning of Israel's right to occupy the West Bank are proof that they are "self-hating Jews." The Jewish world is driving away its own young.
But the most destructive impact of this new Jewish political correctness is on American foreign policy debates. We at Tikkun have been involved in trying to create a liberal alternative to AIPAC and the other Israel-can-do-no-wrong voices in American politics. When we talk to Congressional representatives who are liberal or even extremely progressive on every other issue, they tell us privately that they are afraid to speak out about the way Israeli policies are destructive to the best interests of the United States or the best interests of world peace-lest they too be labeled anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. If it can happen to Jimmy Carter, some of them told me recently, a man with impeccable moral credentials, then no one is really politically safe. . .
When we approached some of the Israel peace groups to form an alliance with us to build the alternative to AIPAC we found that the hold of the Jewish establishment was so powerful that it had managed to seep into the brains of people in organizations like Americans for Peace Now (NOT the Israeli group Peace Now which has been very courageous), Brit Tzedeck ve'Shalom and the Israel Policy Forum or the Religious Action Center of the Reform movement--and as a result these peace voices are continually fearful that they will be "discredited" if they align with each other and with us to create this alternative to AIPAC. . .
http://www.tikkun.org
NOVEMBER 2006
JEWISH GROUPS FUNDED 62 CONGRESSIONAL JUNKETS TO ISRAEL LAST YEAR
FORWARD - Two of America's most influential Jewish organizations are gearing up for their first direct confrontation with the incoming, Democratic-led Congress. At issue are two key congressional perks, targeted for elimination, that Jewish organizations rely on to achieve community goals: overseas junkets, including dozens of trips to Israel each year, funded by Jewish organizations; and an estimated $25 million a year in earmarked funds for Jewish communal projects. Both the trips and the earmarked funding face possible elimination as part of the Democrats' pledge to fight corruption on Capitol Hill. . . .
With 41% of voters pointing in exit polls to corruption and scandals as an "extremely important" factor in how they voted last month, the Democratic victory is widely seen as a call for an overhaul of congressional ethical standards. . .
All-expense-paid tours to Israel are among the most common overseas trips made by members of Congress and their aides. Watchdog groups, using data from congressional filings, have reported that Israel is the leading destination for privately sponsored congressional trips. In the years 2000 to 2005, 164 of the 1,922 overseas congressional visits were to Israel. In the past year, 62 Congress members and staffers visited Israel on trips funded by pro-Israel and Jewish groups. Most of the junkets are sponsored by the main pro-Israel lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, through its sister organization, the American Israel Education Foundation. The foundation is the second-largest sponsor of overseas trips.
Officials from several Jewish organizations have been holding intense talks with Democratic staffers over the past week to ensure that Israel educational trips will be exempt from the new restrictions, but several sources said it is too early to determine where the Democrats are heading with the legislation. . .
http://www.forward.com/articles/jewish-groups-to-challenge-ethics-reform/
JIMMY CARTER: MEARSHEIMER & WALT WERE RIGHT
[Interview with Louisville Courier Journal]
Q. Earlier this year the London Review of Books published an article by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt called "The Israel Lobby." That article, which generated much controversy, argued that American foreign policies in the Middle East, especially regarding Israel and Palestine, are not reflective of genuine American interests in the region and instead reflect very influential and successful lobbying efforts on the part of Israel and American supporters of Israel. Do you think that assessment is correct?
CARTER: That's correct. Over the last 30 years of my life, one of my strongest commitments has been to bring peace to Israel and to have its existence accepted by all nations. I've traveled all over Israel. In fact, I've been to the Golan Heights three times, and we've conducted three elections there for the Palestinians. I've seen the intense debate in Israel about Israeli government policies, with the majority of Israelis habitually favoring the withdrawal from occupied territories in exchange for peace. But that debate does not even exist in the United States. A member of Congress would not dream of coming out in favor of Israel's withdrawal from occupied territories or condemn Israel's treatment of Palestinian people. And very few of the news media in this country would ever bring out an intense analysis of the issues involved in the Middle East as they are brought out fervently in Israel and throughout Europe. There's no doubt that there is a strong aversion to criticizing Israel in this country. I wouldn't say it's all because of intimidation, but that is one factor.
Q - How did lobbying affect your presidential administration's relationship with issues in the Middle East? Specifically, in the book you write about a March 1978 PLO attack in which a bus was seized and dozens of Israelis were killed. You immediately condemned that attack. A few days later, Israel invaded Lebanon. You write that before making any diplomatic response to that, you consulted with congressional supporters of Israel before stating that you expected Israel to withdraw from Lebanon, and before approaching the U. N. Did you feel under pressure in shaping the U.S. response to the invasion?
CARTER - Yes, there was a lot of pressure exerted on members of Congress and so forth on behalf of Israel. At that time, there was a general consensus between me and the key members of Congress, and that included Senator Javits, who was Jewish, that there was a presumption that Israel would withdraw from the occupied territories. When I negotiated with Begin and Sadat, that was one of the things I insisted upon, that both of them agreed to accept. If you read the Camp David Accords, which are in the book, they call for the withdrawal of Israel's military and political forces from the West Bank and Gaza, for full self-determination for the Palestinians. And the Knesset of Israel agreed with that in a Likud administration. So I felt then and now that the main thrust of my effort was to bring permanent peace to Israel, on the premise that they would accept international law and withdraw to their own territories. That was subsequently confirmed in the Oslo Agreement in 1993, and more recently the international quartet's (the U.S., Russia, the European Union and the United Nations) "Roadmap" also requires that Israel withdraw from occupied territories as its main premise.
In the meantime, Israel has been occupying and confiscating and colonizing increasing areas of Arab territory, which in my opinion is inimical to any sort of prospect of peace for Israel.
Q - In response to the 1978 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, your administration supported and the United Nations passed a resolution calling for the withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon. How many times over the last half-century has the United States sponsored resolutions that could be construed as anti-Israel? It strikes me as a rare thing over the last 60 years.
CARTER - Well, it has been. I mention in the book that we've vetoed resolutions, some of them overwhelmingly supported by the world community, probably now about 45 times, in fact twice within the last two weeks when Israel attacked the Gaza people and killed those 18 civilians. The United States vetoed the resolution that condemned that action. And I have to tell you that I have always considered myself a supporter of Israel -- but with the premise that Israel comply with international law and withdraw from occupying territories of the West Bank and Gaza. And what's degenerated in recent years, to a very disturbing degree, is the gross abuse of the Palestinians by the Israeli occupying powers. It's one of the most serious human-rights abuses about which I'm familiar. It aggravates and alienates not only the Palestinians and the Arab world, but most of the rest of the world. . .
AUGUST 2006
AIPAC PRESIDENT EXPLAINS HOW ORGANIZATION KEEPS POLITICIANS IN LINE
HOWARD FRIEDMAN, PRESIDENT, AIPAC - My fellow American, look what you've done. . . Israel is fighting a pivotal war for its life. . . Only ONE nation in the world came out and flatly declared: Let Israel finish the job. . That nation is the United States of America - and the reason it had such a clear, unambiguous view of the situation is YOU and the rest of America Jewry. . . How do we do it? . . . Decades of long hard work which never ends. . .
AIPAC meets with every candidate running for Congress. These candidates receive in-depth briefings to help them completely understand the complexities of Israel's predicament and that of the Middle East as a whole. We even ask each candidate to author a 'position paper' on their views of the U.S.-Israel relationship - so it's clear where they stand on the subject.
Members of Congress, staffers and administration officials have come to rely on AIPACs memos. They are VERY busy people and they know that they can count on AIPAC for clear-eyed analysis. We present this information in concise form to elected officials. The information and analyses are impeccable--after all our reputation is at stake. This results in policy and legislation that make up Israel's lifeline. . .
Now is the time for us, American Jews, to stand up and tell our elected officials that they must demand Iran halt its pursuit of atomic arms.
http://www.counterpunch.com/walsh08162006.html
MAY 2006
A RABBI ON WHY AIPAC IS BAD FOR ISRAEL AND AMERICAN JEWS
RABBI BRUCE WARSHAL, ST LOUIS JEWISH LIGHT - Oh my God, someone has publicly outed the "Israel Lobby." . . . I agree with Walt and Mearsheimer that AIPAC controls our American government policy toward Israel. But in their paper the two political scientists point out that, "In its basic operations, the Israel Lobby is no different from the farm lobby, steel or textile workers' unions, or other ethnic lobbies. There is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway US policy; the Lobby's activities are not a conspiracy of the sort depicted in tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
Coming from South Florida, I am acutely aware that our government policy toward Cuba is dictated by the Cuban Lobby. Why else would we have such an absurd opposition to Castro? If we can make peace with Red China and the "evil empire" of the Soviet Union, why do we continue an embargo against an obscure Communist island, if it were not for domestic political pressure? So it is with the Jewish domestic lobby. My complaint is that the self-appointed Jewish leaders who control AIPAC and other positions of power within the Jewish community do not represent the best interests of Jews, Israel or the United States in the long run.
Let's zero in on AIPAC. It is controlled by right-wing, rich Jewish neo-conservatives. As one manifestation of the truth of this assertion one merely has to look at its annual meeting this past month. At a time when Vice President Cheney's popularity has dropped below 20 percent, the 4,500 delegates to the AIPAC convention gave him a standing ovation for almost a minute before he even opened his mouth and then proceeded to give him 48 rounds of applause in a 35-minute speech. (As my colleague Leonard Fein pointed out, that's once every 43.7 seconds). Considering that 75 percent of American Jews voted for Kerry, it is obvious that these people are out of the mainstream of Jewish thought.
At the same conference, preceding the recent Israeli elections, these delegates were addressed by Ehud Olmert (Kadima), Amir Peretz (Labor) and Benjamin Netanyahu (Likud) by video link from Israel. Olmert and Peretz received polite applause. The AIPAC delegates cheered enthusiastically for Netanyahu, especially when he presented his hard line that was overwhelmingly rejected by the Israeli electorate. Once a great organization, today AIPAC does not even represent the feelings of the average Israeli, let alone the average American Jew.
This American Jewish neo-conservatism is unhealthy not only for America but for Israel as well. A prime example: The Israeli press reports that Israel is trying to find a way to deal with the Palestinians while not dealing with Hamas. Official public statements aside, they realize that they cannot cut off all contacts with the Palestinians and that the world cannot discontinue financial help; otherwise Israel will find a million starving Palestinians on its border, and this will not lead to peace or security for Israel. Privately, the Israeli government was against the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act (the Ross-Lehtinen-Lantos bill) which recently passed the House of Representatives. It would cut off all American contacts with the Palestinian Authority, even with its president Mahmoud Abbas, who is a moderate seeking peace. Despite Israel's private reservations, AIPAC not only pushed this bill, it was instrumental in writing it. Even though the AIPAC candidate lost in Israel, he won in the U.S. House of Representatives. Hopefully, the Senate and the White House will correct this.
Beware that you are reading treasonable material. If you "out" the Israeli lobby and you are Gentile, you're branded an anti-Semite; if you are Jewish, you're obviously a self-hating Jew. The Jewish establishment abides no criticism of Israel. You don't agree with me? Take this example: Last month a pro-Palestinian play entitled My Name is Rachel Corrie was to open at the New York Theatre Workshop, a "progressive" company on East Fourth Street. The play is based on the writings of a young British girl who was crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer when she was protesting the demolition of Palestinian homes in Gaza two years ago. Although the play was widely praised in London last year, it never opened in New York. The theater producers spoke to the ADL and other Jewish leaders, including big-money Jews on its board, and that was the end of that. . .
Another example: 400 rabbis, including myself, signed a letter sponsored by Brit Tzedek v'Shalom that appeared in the Forward this past month. It was a mildly liberal statement that proclaimed that "we are deeply troubled by the recent victory of Hamas," but went on to urge "indirect assistance to the Palestinian people via NGOs, with the appropriate conditions to ensure that it does not reach the hands of terrorists." Pretty mild stuff. Yet pulpit rabbis across this country who signed the letter have reported a concerted effort to silence them. The letter has been branded a "piece of back-stabbing abandonment of the Jews of Israel." Synagogue boards have been pressured to silence their rabbis by that loose coalition called the "Israel Lobby."
Just another example of the Jewish establishment stifling any discussion of Israel that does not conform to the neo-conservative tenets of AIPAC and its cohorts. Beware of these self-appointed guardians of Israel and Jewish values. In the end they will destroy everything that makes Judaism a compassionate religion, and if in their zeal they do not destroy Israel, they certainly will not make it more secure.
APRIL 2006
EX CONGRESSMAN CHALLENGES ISRAEL LOBBY
PAUL FINDLEY, STATE JOURNAL REGISTER, IL - Words spoken years ago by George W. Ball, a distinguished diplomat, author and champion of human rights, have vivid, new currency: "When Israel's interests are being considered, members of Congress act like trained poodles. They jump dutifully through hoops held by Israel's lobby."
In the same interview, Ball said, "The lobby's most powerful instrument of intimidation is the reckless charge of anti-Semitism." Sadly, his words ring true today, verified by my own experiences and those of many of my colleagues in the U.S. legislature. . .
The fear of being charged with anti-Semitism outranks all other worries that bedevil politicians, and the lobby has marketed it so efficiently that a wall of silence shields the American people from awareness of the lobby's activities and U.S. complicity in Israel's longstanding abuse of international law and Arab human rights, violations that the rest of the world follows with dismay and anger.
Fear of the anti-Semitism stain is intensified these days, because the lobby has succeeded in redefining anti-Semitism to include any criticism of Israeli behavior, an inferred threat that prompts all major media to ignore or sanitize reports of Israeli violations. I know. I have experienced that fear myself and have observed closely as others, in Congress and out, have remained silent.
My authority for making these statements comes from being a close student of the lobby for over 30 years, the first 22 as a member of Congress. The lobby leaders chose me as their No. 1 target because I met unashamedly with PLO leader Yasser Arafat and later demanded the suspension of U.S. aid to Israel for its unlawful use of U.S.-donated military supplies.
In 1982, when the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the main center of Israeli lobbying in Washington, claimed credit for keeping me from election to a 12th term in the House of Representatives, I became the lobby's prize trophy. Two years later, Sen. Charles Percy, who was also guilty of failing to toe AIPAC line, joined me on the trophy shelf. Our fate has, no doubt, discouraged others from speaking out about Israel's misbehavior. . .
Last month, in a rare burst of academic candor, two other distinguished professors, John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard's Kennedy School, broke the silence with the publication of their 81-page, heavily footnoted study titled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy." . . . Mearsheimer and Walt quickly discovered why most of their academic colleagues behave much like the political poodles on Capitol Hill. Their study instantly became controversial, the subject of a vigorous, often vitriolic, discussion of Israel's role in U.S. foreign policy. . .
No matter what lies ahead, Mearsheimer and Walt have already well served the public. Their initiative has broken through a dangerous wall of silence. Thanks to publicity arising from their study, many thousands of U.S. citizens are aware for the first time that a domestic lobby on behalf of Israel exerts a significant role in forming U.S. Middle East policy, even on decisions of war. They are also now aware that religious communities - minority elements of both Christianity and Judaism - are the main pillars of the lobby.
This knowledge may bestir enough public curiosity to prompt a civilized and edifying public debate. It is difficult to conceive of a topic more urgently worthy of open, unfettered public examination.
http://www.sj-r.com/sections/opinion/stories/83937.asp
FBI SEEKING 25 YEARS OF JACK ANDERSON'S PAPERS IN AIPAC CASE
APRIL 17 - The Review has learned that the FBI is seeking to review all of the papers of the late investigative reporter Jack Anderson for the past 25 years as part of AIPAC case. This proposed extraordinary intrusion on press freedom and independence is expected to be rejected by the Anderson family.
The FBI claims to have information that AIPAC defendants Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman met with Anderson and/or one of his reporters and had shared classified information and that, further, Anderson or one of this reporters met with a related individual who could be considered a foreign intelligence agent. These purported contacts are said to go back to sometime in the early 1980s. This despite the fact that the AIPAC case involves a period beginning in 1999 when Anderson was in failing health.
The FBI request covered reporter's notes and source materials from 1980 to the present. The request was made despite the admission by the FBI agents that they had not reviewed Anderson's columns during the period to find out whether he had ever written on the subject.
The FBI further indicated that it would, after reviewing the files, remove all classified material either permanently or return it in a censored form.
The FBI attempt would expose untold scores of Anderson's sources - some of them perhaps still subject to legal or criminal action owing to materials in the files. It also constitutes a major new assault on the First Amendment.
The family reportedly contacted some 45 former staffers for Anderson and none could recall any significant contact with AIPAC.
[Our story was posted yesterday. This story appeared today. As this is written, no major media have given the story space]
SCOTT CARLSON, CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION - [Anderson's] archive, some 200 boxes now being held by George Washington University's library, could be a trove of information about state secrets, dirty dealings, political maneuverings, and old-fashioned investigative journalism, open for historians and up-and-coming reporters to see. But the government wants to see the documents before anyone else.
Agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation have told university officials and members of the Anderson family that they want to go through the archive, and that agents will remove any item they deem confidential or top secret. The Andersons, who have not yet transferred ownership of the archive to George Washington University, are outraged. They plan to fight the FBI's request.
Were he alive today, Jack Anderson "would probably come out of his skin at the thought of the FBI going through his papers," said Kevin N. Anderson, the journalist's son. If papers were taken -- even if some were stamped "declassified" and returned -- that would "destroy any academic, scholarly, and historic value" of the archive, Kevin Anderson adds. The FBI would not comment for this article. . .
The FBI's interest in the Anderson archive is "deeply disturbing and deeply in conflict with the academy's interests in freedom of inquiry, research, and scholarship," said Duane E. Webster, the executive director of the Association of Research Libraries. Tracy B. Mitrano, an adjunct assistant professor of information science at Cornell University, called the case "utterly alarming."
"Once you begin taking records out of library archives that researchers rely on for free inquiry and research purposes," she said, "it would be very difficult not to see it as a slippery slope toward government controlling research in higher education and our collective understanding of American history." . . .
Kevin Anderson says that the FBI approached his mother about a month after his father's death, asking about the archives. Kevin Anderson called the FBI, but agents would tell him only that they were investigating an espionage case and that they believed his father had received documents related to it. "They were talking about retrieving the documents to get the fingerprints of people who might have handled them," Kevin Anderson said.
At the same time, FBI agents made inquiries elsewhere, as well. Two agents showed up at the door of Mark Feldstein, a journalism professor at George Washington who helped the university acquire the archive and who is writing a biography of Jack Anderson. He says the agents told him they wanted to dig through the archive, and he found the visit "intimidating." Mr. Feldstein and his students have looked through the boxes, and he says he tried to tell the agents that there wasn't anything of interest to the FBI in them.
FBI agents also contacted Lizanne Payne, the executive director of the Washington Research Library Consortium, which maintains storage space for some 14,000 archival boxes for George Washington University. Ms. Payne said the FBI asked her if she knew the location of the Anderson archives in the collection. She did not. She speculated that had she known the location of the archive, the FBI might have tried to get the Anderson papers directly from her through a court order.
The FBI eventually told Kevin Anderson that the investigation centered on Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, two former officials with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee who have been charged with receiving and distributing national defense information. . .
"We want to stay true to his principles of First Amendment rights and journalistic freedoms," [Anderson] said. But more alarming to the Andersons is how the FBI might handle the archive if given access to it. The archive has not yet been organized and cataloged by George Washington University, so the FBI would have to pick through the entire collection to find any documents related to the AIPAC . . .
http://chronicle.com/temp/email2.php?id=dQwknd6xFcfdYpSsj3fMbdyN4FtTfDxh
EDITOR DEFENDS SCHOLARLY ARTICLE ON ISRAEL LOBBBY UNDER ATTACK BY ISRAEL LOBBY
[After trying the purgatory of silence, the Israel lobby has struck back at a scholarly article that points out the damage this lobby has caused. It has been joined by a few American publications such as the Washington Post. The Review, in fact, is one of the few American publications to have printed excerpts. Incidentally, Wilmers, the British editor who published the article, is Jewish]
PETER BEAUMONT, OBSERVER, UK - She is, in the words of her many admirers, the 'mater familias of London's liberal intelligentsia'. This weekend, however, Mary-Kay Wilmers, editor of the London Review of Books, is on the defensive - speaking out for the first time in an escalating transatlantic row that has seen her respected journal accused of promoting anti-Semitism. The argument has erupted over a cover article in the latest issue of the LRB by two prominent American academics on the influence of the pro-Israel lobby in the US. The article, which argues that the lobby holds a disproportionate and damaging sway over American foreign policy, prompted a bitter and growing controversy, particularly in the US, where rival camps have exchanged claims of anti-Semitism and intellectual intimidation by those accused of being members of 'the Lobby'.
The article, by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, was originally written for, but rejected by, the Atlantic Monthly and picked up by the LRB, when Wilmers 'became aware of its existence'. . .
The two authors, despite the row, describe themselves as 'philo-Semites'. Wilmers says they are members of the Realist School of US Foreign Policy which insists that America should be guided by its own interests and not by Israel's. . .
Wilmers believes, too, that the most angry denunciations of anti-Semitism - while designed to serve the purpose of censorship by those attempting to forestall criticism of Israel - may actually encourage anti-Semitism in the long run.
'It serves a purpose. No one wants to be thought of as anti-Semitic because it is thought of as worse than anything else, although it is not worse being anti-Semitic than being anti-black or Islamophobic.
'Really, one of the most upsetting things is the way it can contribute to anti-Semitism in the long run just by making so many constant appeals and preventing useful criticism of Israel. No one can say Israel's posture does not contribute to anti-Semitism, yet charges of anti-Semitism are used to justify that policy.'
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1744960,00.html
EXCERPTS OF THE ARTICLE
http://prorev.com/aipac.htmMARCH 2006
JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS, PUBLISHERS, HARVARD PUT LID ON CONTROVERSIAL REPORT
ORI NIR, FORWARD - In the face of one of the harshest reports on the pro-Israel lobby to emerge from academia, Jewish organizations are holding fire in order to avoid generating publicity for their critics. Officials at Jewish organizations are furious over "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," a new paper by John Mearsheimer, a top international relations theorists based at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, the academic dean of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. . . .
Despite their anger, Jewish organizations are avoiding a frontal debate with the two scholars, while at the same time seeking indirect ways to rebut and discredit the scholars' arguments. Officials with pro-Israel organizations say that given the limited public attention generated by the new study - as of Tuesday most major print outlets had ignored it - they prefer not to draw attention to the paper by taking issue with it head on. As of Wednesday morning, none of the largest Jewish organizations had issued a press release on the report. . .
http://www.forward.com/articles/7548
SCHOLARS COULDN'T FIND AMERICAN PUBLISHER
ORI NIR, FORWARD - John Mearsheimer says that the pro-Israel lobby is so powerful that he and co-author Stephen Walt would never have been able to place their report in a American-based scientific publication. "I do not believe that we could have gotten it published in the United States," Mearsheimer told the Forward. He said that the paper was originally commissioned in the fall of 2002 by one of America's leading magazines, "but the publishers told us that it was virtually impossible to get the piece published in the United States."
Most scholars, policymakers and journalists know that "the whole subject of the Israel lobby and American foreign policy is a third-rail issue," he said. "Publishers understand that if they publish a piece like ours it would cause them all sorts of problems."
http://www.forward.com/articles/7550
HAARETZ, ISRAEL - Harvard University has decided to remove its logo from a study that denounces the pro-Israel lobby's impact on American foreign policy, in order to distance itself from the study's conclusions. The university also appended a more strongly worded disclaimer to the study, stating that it reflects the views of its authors only. The former disclaimer said merely that the study "does not necessarily" reflect the university's views. . .
The study's many critics claim that its academic quality is poor, and that it is essentially a political polemic rather than genuine academic research. Well-known researchers such as Marvin Kalb, also of Harvard's Kennedy School, said this week that the study fails to meet minimal academic standards. . .
One of the study's claims is that American opponents of Israel are consistently silenced by charges of anti-Semitism from the pro-Israel lobby. Congressman Eliot Engel of New York, in an interview with Haaretz this week, termed the study itself a form of anti-Semitism and said that it deserved the American public's contempt.
The study also accused the pro-Israel lobby of monitoring academics to ensure that they do not diverge from the pro-Israel line. They will undoubtedly see proof of this contention in Harvard's decision to distance itself from the study due to pressure applied by pro-Israel donors. According to the New York Sun, Robert Belfer - who gave the Kennedy School $7.5 million in 1997 in order, among other things, to endow the chair that Walt now occupies - called the university and asked that Walt be forbidden to use his title in publicity for the study.
Israeli officials have been concerned over the study, saying it is liable to be used to delegitimize Israel among the American intelligentsia. As of yesterday, however, it did not seem to have won much support among academics specializing in American foreign policy.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/698307.html
DANIEL LEVY, HAARETZ - The new John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt study of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" should serve as a wake-up call, on both sides of the ocean. The most obvious and eye-catching reflection is the fact that it is authored by two respected academics and carries the imprimatur of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. The tone of the report is harsh. It is jarring for a self-critical Israeli, too. It lacks finesse and nuance when it looks at the alphabet soup of the American-Jewish organizational world and how the Lobby interacts with both the Israeli establishment and the wider right-wing echo chamber.
It sometimes takes AIPAC omnipotence too much at face value and disregards key moments - such as the Bush senior/Baker loan guarantees episode and Clinton's showdown with Netanyahu over the Wye River Agreement. The study largely ignores AIPAC run-ins with more dovish Israeli administrations, most notably when it undermined Yitzhak Rabin, and how excessive hawkishness is often out of step with mainstream American Jewish opinion, turning many, especially young American Jews, away from taking any interest in Israel. . .
The study is at its most devastating when it describes how the Lobby "stifles debate by intimidation" and at its most current when it details how America's interests (and ultimately Israel's, too) are ill-served by following the Lobby's agenda.
The bottom line might read as follows: that defending the occupation has done to the American pro-Israel community what living as an occupier has done to Israel - muddied both its moral compass and its rational self-interest compass. . .
Not yet a tipping point, but certainly time for a debate. . . Some talking points for this coming debate can already be suggested:
- First, efforts to collapse the Israeli and neoconservative agendas into one have been a terrible mistake - and it is far from obvious which is the tail and which is the dog in this act of wagging. . .
- Second, Israel would do well to distance itself from our so-called "friends" on the Christian evangelical right. . .
- Third, Israel must not be party to the bullying tactics used to silence policy debate in the U.S. and the McCarthyite policing of academia by set-ups like Daniel Pipes' Campus Watch. . .
In the words of the simplistic Harvard study authors, "the Lobby's influence has been bad for Israel ... has discouraged Israel from seizing opportunities ... that would have saved Israeli lives and shrunk the ranks of Palestinian extremists ... using American power to achieve a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians would help advance the broader goals of fighting extremism and promoting democracy in the Middle East." . . .
In short, if Israel is indeed entering a new era of national sanity and de-occupation, then the role of the Lobby in U.S.-Israel relations will have to be rethought, and either reformed from within or challenged from without.
[Daniel Levy was an advisor in the Prime Minister's Office, a member of the official Israeli negotiating team at the Oslo B and Taba talks and the lead Israeli drafter of the Geneva Initiative]
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=698051
CONGRESS BACKS OFF OF TRAVEL PAYOLA BAN BECAUSE OF ISRAEL LOBBY
ORI NIR, FORWARD - With lawmakers fearing a public backlash over the Abramoff scandal, many members of Congress on both sides of the aisle were lining up behind legislation that would outlaw privately funded trips and place severe restrictions on gifts and meals from lobbyists. But then Jewish organizations, in the lead of a loose coalition of nonprofit groups, moved to block the reforms on travel, arguing that one of their most effective lobbying tools has been privately sponsored trips to Israel for lawmakers. Israel is the number one foreign destination of privately funded congressional trips, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Washington's powerful pro-Israel lobby, is the second largest underwriter of such overseas travel.
The tide appears to have turned against those pressing for a ban on travel, according to congressional insiders. They say that a solid bipartisan majority now favors watered down legislation that would impose some restrictions on privately funded travel by legislators and require full transparency, but still allow privately funded trips. The severe restrictions on gifts and meals remain.
"We've all been successful in making sure that there are no immediate rushes to action" on travel reform, said William Daroff, vice president for public policy at the United Jewish Communities, the umbrella group of North American Jewish federations. "We are very comfortable with the bill that is now being debated on the Senate floor because it brings about a good combination of smart reform that aims to rid the system of many of the abuses while not imposing a ban."
In the past five years, Aipac and its affiliated American Israel Education Foundation spent almost $1.1 million dollars on trips -- most of them to Israel -- for members of Congress, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, a Washington lobbying and campaign finance watchdog organization. Aipac is second only to the well-funded Aspen Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, which has spent close to $ 3.5 million on trips for members of Congress since 2000. During the period surveyed, Israel was the foremost destination for such travel, accounting for 164 out of 1,922 privately funded trips overseas by members of Congress. Almost all trips to Israel are funded by Aipac, with some financed by local Jewish federations and other Jewish groups, including the American Jewish Committee. The dovish Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation spent more than $200,000 on congressional trips to Middle Eastern countries, including Israel.
http://www.forward.com/articles/7506
HOW THE ISRAEL LOBBY ENDANGERS THE UNITED STATES
[This is the best report on the Israel lobby we have ever seen. The full report gives considerable historical background omitted below. John Mearsheimer is the Wendell Harrison Professor of Political Science at Chicago. Stephen Walt is the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. This is from the excerpt printed in the London Review of Books; the full report can be found at the Kennedy School site]
JOHN MEARSHEIMER AND STEPHEN WALT - Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain. . .
Other recipients get their money in quarterly installments, but Israel receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and can thus earn interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for military purposes are required to spend all of it in the US, but Israel is allowed to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidize its own defense industry. It is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank. Moreover, the US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems, and given it access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the US gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its NATO allies and has turned a blind eye to Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Washington also provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support. Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members. . .
This extraordinary generosity might be understandable if Israel were a vital strategic asset or if there were a compelling moral case for US backing. . . Backing Israel was not cheap, however, and it complicated America's relations with the Arab world. For example, the decision to give $2.2 billion in emergency military aid during the October War triggered an OPEC oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage on Western economies. . .
The first Gulf War revealed the extent to which Israel was becoming a strategic burden. The US could not use Israeli bases without rupturing the anti-Iraq coalition, and had to divert resources (e.g. Patriot missile batteries) to prevent Tel Aviv doing anything that might harm the alliance against Saddam Hussein. History repeated itself in 2003: although Israel was eager for the US to attack Iraq, Bush could not ask it to help without triggering Arab opposition. So Israel stayed on the sidelines once again. . .
Saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around. Support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question that many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel's presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and to attract recruits.
As for so-called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire threat to vital US interests, except inasmuch as they are a threat to Israel. Even if these states acquire nuclear weapons - which is obviously undesirable - neither America nor Israel could be blackmailed, because the blackmailer could not carry out the threat without suffering overwhelming retaliation. . .
A final reason to question Israel's strategic value is that it does not behave like a loyal ally. . . According to the General Accounting Office, Israel 'conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any ally'. . . Israel is hardly the only country that spies on the US, but its willingness to spy on its principal patron casts further doubt on its strategic value. . .
That Israel is a fellow democracy surrounded by hostile dictatorships cannot account for the current level of aid: there are many democracies around the world, but none receives the same lavish support. The US has overthrown democratic governments in the past and supported dictators when this was thought to advance its interests - it has good relations with a number of dictatorships today. . .
[Another] justification is the history of Jewish suffering in the Christian West, especially during the Holocaust. Because Jews were persecuted for centuries and could feel safe only in a Jewish homeland, many people now believe that Israel deserves special treatment from the United States. The country's creation was undoubtedly an appropriate response to the long record of crimes against Jews, but it also brought about fresh crimes against a largely innocent third party: the Palestinians.
This was well understood by Israel's early leaders. David Ben-Gurion told Nahum Goldmann, the president of the World Jewish Congress:
"If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country . . . We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that". . .
So if neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America's support for Israel, how are we to explain it?
The explanation is the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby. We use 'the Lobby' as shorthand for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. This is not meant to suggest that 'the Lobby' is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues. Not all Jewish Americans are part of the Lobby, because Israel is not a salient issue for many of them. In a 2004 survey, for example, roughly 36 per cent of American Jews said they were either 'not very' or 'not at all' emotionally attached to Israel.
Jewish Americans also differ on specific Israeli policies. Many of the key organizations in the Lobby, such as the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, are run by hardliners who generally support the Likud Party's expansionist policies, including its hostility to the Oslo peace process. The bulk of US Jewry, meanwhile, is more inclined to make concessions to the Palestinians, and a few groups - such as Jewish Voice for Peace - strongly advocate such steps. Despite these differences, moderates and hardliners both favor giving steadfast support to Israel. . .
Jewish Americans have set up an impressive array of organizations to influence American foreign policy, of which AIPAC is the most powerful and best known. In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was ranked second behind the American Association of Retired People, but ahead of the AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association. A National Journal study in March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place in the Washington 'muscle rankings'.
The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals. . . Neo-conservative gentiles such as John Bolton; Robert Bartley, the former Wall Street Journal editor; William Bennett, the former secretary of education; Jeane Kirkpatrick, the former UN ambassador; and the influential columnist George Will are also steadfast supporters. . .
The Lobby pursues two broad strategies. First, it wields its significant influence in Washington, pressuring both Congress and the executive branch. Whatever an individual lawmaker or policymaker's own views may be, the Lobby tries to make supporting Israel the 'smart' choice. Second, it strives to ensure that public discourse portrays Israel in a positive light, by repeating myths about its founding and by promoting its point of view in policy debates. The goal is to prevent critical comments from getting a fair hearing in the political arena. Controlling the debate is essential to guaranteeing US support, because a candid discussion of US-Israeli relations might lead Americans to favour a different policy. . .
A key pillar of the Lobby's effectiveness is its influence in Congress, where Israel is virtually immune from criticism. . . Another source of the Lobby's power is its use of pro-Israel congressional staffers. As Morris Amitay, a former head of AIPAC, once admitted, 'there are a lot of guys at the working level up here' - on Capitol Hill - 'who happen to be Jewish, who are willing . . . to look at certain issues in terms of their Jewishness . . . These are all guys who are in a position to make the decision in these areas for those senators . . . You can get an awful lot done just at the staff level.'
AIPAC itself, however, forms the core of the Lobby's influence in Congress. Its success is due to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it. . .
AIPAC's influence on Capitol Hill goes even further. According to Douglas Bloomfield, a former AIPAC staff member, 'it is common for members of Congress and their staffs to turn to AIPAC first when they need information, before calling the Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, committee staff or administration experts.' More important, he notes that AIPAC is 'often called on to draft speeches, work on legislation, advise on tactics, perform research, collect co-sponsors and marshal votes'.
The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that US policy towards Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world. In other words, one of the three main branches of the government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. . .
Thanks in part to the influence Jewish voters have on presidential elections, the Lobby also has significant leverage over the executive branch. Although they make up fewer than 3 per cent of the population, they make large campaign donations to candidates from both parties. The Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates 'depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 per cent of the money'. And because Jewish voters have high turn-out rates and are concentrated in key states like California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania, presidential candidates go to great lengths not to antagonize them.
Key organizations in the Lobby make it their business to ensure that critics of Israel do not get important foreign policy jobs. Jimmy Carter wanted to make George Ball his first secretary of state, but knew that Ball was seen as critical of Israel and that the Lobby would oppose the appointment. . . When Howard Dean called for the United States to take a more 'even-handed role' in the Arab-Israeli conflict, Senator Joseph Lieberman accused him of selling Israel down the river and said his statement was 'irresponsible'. . .
The Lobby's perspective prevails in the mainstream media: the debate among Middle East pundits, the journalist Eric Alterman writes, is 'dominated by people who cannot imagine criticizing Israel'. He lists 61 'columnists and commentators who can be counted on to support Israel reflexively and without qualification'. Conversely, he found just five pundits who consistently criticize Israeli actions or endorse Arab positions. . .
The Israeli side also dominates the think tanks which play an important role in shaping public debate as well as actual policy. . . Over the past 25 years, pro-Israel forces have established a commanding presence at the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, the Center for Security Policy, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. These think tanks employ few, if any, critics of US support for Israel.
Take the Brookings Institution. For many years, its senior expert on the Middle East was William Quandt, a former NSC official with a well-deserved reputation for even-handedness. Today, Brookings's coverage is conducted through the Saban Center for Middle East Studies, which is financed by Haim Saban, an Israeli-American businessman and ardent Zionist. The centre's director is the ubiquitous Martin Indyk. What was once a non-partisan policy institute is now part of the pro-Israel chorus. . .
The Lobby also monitors what professors write and teach. In September 2002, Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes, two passionately pro-Israel neo-conservatives, established a website (Campus Watch) that posted dossiers on suspect academics and encouraged students to report remarks or behavior that might be considered hostile to Israel. This transparent attempt to blacklist and intimidate scholars provoked a harsh reaction and Pipes and Kramer later removed the dossiers, but the website still invites students to report 'anti-Israel' activity. . .
No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-Semitism. Anyone who criticizes Israel's actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy - an influence AIPAC celebrates - stands a good chance of being labeled an anti-Semite. Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism, even though the Israeli media refer to America's 'Jewish Lobby'. In other words, the Lobby first boasts of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. It's a very effective tactic: anti-Semitism is something no one wants to be accused of. . .
Israel's advocates, when pressed to go beyond mere assertion, claim that there is a 'new anti-Semitism', which they equate with criticism of Israel. In other words, criticize Israeli policy and you are by definition an anti-Semite. When the synod of the Church of England recently voted to divest from Caterpillar Inc on the grounds that it manufactures the bulldozers used by the Israelis to demolish Palestinian homes, the Chief Rabbi complained that this would 'have the most adverse repercussions on . . . Jewish-Christian relations in Britain', while Rabbi Tony Bayfield, the head of the Reform movement, said: 'There is a clear problem of anti-Zionist - verging on anti-semitic - attitudes emerging in the grass-roots, and even in the middle ranks of the Church.' But the Church was guilty merely of protesting against Israeli government policy.
Critics are also accused of holding Israel to an unfair standard or questioning its right to exist. But these are bogus charges too. Western critics of Israel hardly ever question its right to exist: they question its behavior towards the Palestinians, as do Israelis themselves. Nor is Israel being judged unfairly. Israeli treatment of the Palestinians elicits criticism because it is contrary to widely accepted notions of human rights, to international law and to the principle of national self-determination. And it is hardly the only state that has faced sharp criticism on these grounds. . .
Can the Lobby's power be curtailed? One would like to think so, given the Iraq debacle, the obvious need to rebuild America's image in the Arab and Islamic world, and the recent revelations about AIPAC officials passing US government secrets to Israel. . . But that is not going to happen - not soon anyway. AIPAC and its allies (including Christian Zionists) have no serious opponents in the lobbying world. They know it has become more difficult to make Israel's case today, and they are responding by taking on staff and expanding their activities. Besides, American politicians remain acutely sensitive to campaign contributions and other forms of political pressure, and major media outlets are likely to remain sympathetic to Israel no matter what it does.
The Lobby's influence causes trouble on several fronts. It increases the terrorist danger that all states face - including America's European allies. It has made it impossible to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a situation that gives extremists a powerful recruiting tool, increases the pool of potential terrorists and sympathizers, and contributes to Islamic radicalism in Europe and Asia.
Equally worrying, the Lobby's campaign for regime change in Iran and Syria could lead the US to attack those countries, with potentially disastrous effects. We don't need another Iraq. At a minimum, the Lobby's hostility towards Syria and Iran makes it almost impossible for Washington to enlist them in the struggle against al-Qaida and the Iraqi insurgency, where their help is badly needed.
There is a moral dimension here as well. Thanks to the Lobby, the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians. This situation undercuts Washington's efforts to promote democracy abroad and makes it look hypocritical when it presses other states to respect human rights. US efforts to limit nuclear proliferation appear equally hypocritical given its willingness to accept Israel's nuclear arsenal, which only encourages Iran and others to seek a similar capability. . .
There is a ray of hope, however. Although the Lobby remains a powerful force, the adverse effects of its influence are increasingly difficult to hide. Powerful states can maintain flawed policies for quite some time, but reality cannot be ignored for ever. What is needed is a candid discussion of the Lobby's influence and a more open debate about US interests in this vital region. Israel's well-being is one of those interests, but its continued occupation of the West Bank and its broader regional agenda are not. Open debate will expose the limits of the strategic and moral case for one-sided US support and could move the US to a position more consistent with its own national interest, with the interests of the other states in the region, and with Israel's long-term interests as well.
LONDON REVIEW OF BOOKS EXCERPT
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.htmlKENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT FULL REPORT http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011
THE MYSTERIOUS TRANSFORMATION OF THE AIPAC CASE
THE INDICTMENT OF TWO former AIPAC officials, Steven J. Rosen and Ketih Weissman, has, intentionally or not, created a confused situation out of something that initially was a lot clearer. In essence, despite the indictment, the Bushites may not really want to press the case to its logical conclusion because of the embarrassment to Israel and its American lobby. It is at least possible that the Bushites have thrown in a gratuitous attack on the free press - arguing that journalists can be prosecuted for reporting secret matters - in order to get the case of their backs.
Here's how the New York Times describes the matter:
|||| "The feeling in the Jewish community is one of indignation at AIPAC's being unfairly targeted by federal prosecutors for trying to find out what everyone in this town is trying to find out - what the government is thinking," said Douglas M. Bloomfield, who was a legislative director of AIPAC in the 1980's and who now writes a syndicated column on American Mideast policy. . .
The case has set off alarms among the policy groups, lobbyists and journalists who swap information, often about national security issues, with executive-branch officials and Congressional staff members. They were not reassured by a remark from the federal judge hearing the case, at Mr. Franklin's sentencing in January, that the laws on classified information were not limited to government officials.
"Persons who have unauthorized possession, who come into unauthorized possession of classified information, must abide by the law," the judge, T. S. Ellis III, said. "That applies to academics, lawyers, journalists, professors, whatever."
A January legal brief by lawyers for Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman - written in part by Viet D. Dinh, a conservative former assistant attorney general in the Bush Justice Department - argued that the charges were a dangerous effort to criminalize conduct protected by the First Amendment. That argument gets fervent support from people who may not share the AIPAC officials' conservative views on foreign policy. . .
Peter Raven-Hansen, a law professor at George Washington University, said the case raised several legal issues and undoubtedly would end up in the next edition of his textbook on national security law. "Leaving aside the idea that this might chill exchanges with the press, this is a guaranteed formula for selective prosecution," Mr. Raven-Hansen said. In other words, he said, so many people have conversations involving borderline-classified information that the government will not be able to prosecute them all and will have to pick and choose, raising a fundamental fairness question. ||||
Notice how, curiously, what started out as what would have been called an espionage case if the alleged parties had been working on behalf of, say, Iran or Palestine instead of Israel - in which secret information was transferred to an Israeli diplomat - has been mysteriously transformed into a freedom of the press cause celebre even though the indicted parties were not journalists at all. This point, deliberately or not, as been badly muddled by the media and others with the help of a Bush administration that does not seem all that bothered by having this red herring raised.
It may help to go back the alleged events. For example, Antiwar reported last June:
||| From what we know about [their] breakfast meeting, Franklin handed over a draft of a presidential "finding," an internal policy paper that would set out the parameters of our actions vis-a-vis Iran. The indictment further relates that Franklin "disclosed to [Rosen] and [Weissman] national defense information relating to" the document. Franklin and his AIPAC friends certainly acted like espionage agents. At one point, they met at Union Station in Washington, D.C., early in the morning:
"In the course of the meeting, the three men moved from one restaurant to another restaurant and then finished the meeting in an empty restaurant."
If these were just three guys out to discuss U.S.-Israel relations over lunch, why all the cloak-and-dagger stuff? They obviously suspected they were being followed: with justification, as it turns out. Franklin insisted on faxing materials to Rosen's residence rather than the AIPAC office: no need to take unnecessary risks.
They were careful when it came to the possibility of being followed but threw caution to the winds when talking on the phone. They probably never suspected the FBI was listening: after all, in order to tap someone's phone, the cops have to go to a real live judge and come up with some compelling evidence that it's necessary. Apparently, the FBI had no trouble meeting that standard.
Rosen was apparently quite a braggart: in a conversation with a journalist about the purloined internal policy paper, he confessed, "I'm not supposed to know this" and averred that it was a "considerable story." His braggadocio may be his undoing, however, as this conversation helps make the case that Rosen knew he was breaking the law.
Rosen and Weissman soon passed their prize acquisition directly over to the Israelis: on Aug. 15, 2002, Naor Gilon, chief political officer at the Israeli embassy in Washington, met with Franklin at a Washington, D.C., restaurant, where Gilon explained to Franklin that "he would be the appropriate person with whom the defendant should talk" - that is, if he had anything really pressing to say. A month later, Franklin called the embassy, and they handed him over to Gilon. They met again on Jan. 30, 2003, after months of playing phone tag, at an unspecified location near the Israeli embassy building in Washington, where they discussed Iran's nuclear program. They met regularly from February through May and throughout the summer, sometimes at the Pentagon Officers Athletic Club; the focus seemed to be on Iran's nuclear program and the U.S. response. At one point, Gilon arranged for Franklin to meet with "former" top Mossad official Uzi Arad, now head of the Herziliya Center in Israel. The three of them chatted about Iran's nukes. ||||
Given that Israel, backed by the considerable political clout of AIPAC, is pushing us toward armed conflict with Iran, this is no small matter. The sort of policies that AIPAC supports have, in fact, been extraordinarily costly to the United States including the disastrous war against Iraq and the stunning loss of America prestige in the world as a result of our anti-Muslim jihad.
There are strong motivations to suppress the case against Washington's most powerful political lobby. As the NY Times notes, "Though AIPAC is not accused of wrongdoing, some lawyers say a trial could prove embarrassing for the group, because it could delve into the inner workings of the organization and the internal roles played by Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman.
||| "A trial has got to be a concern for AIPAC," said Neal Sher, a former federal prosecutor and a former executive director of AIPAC. "You don't know what might come out. A trial might reveal its inner workings, its dealings with the government and its dealings with Israel." Mr. Sher, like other former AIPAC officials, said one particularly sensitive point for the group would be any evidence that it ever acted at the behest of Israeli officials. AIPAC officials have never registered as agents of Israel and have never been required to, because they have not acted at the "order, request, direction or control" of Israel, said Philip Friedman, the group's general counsel.
But the question of dual loyalty, to the United States and to Israel, became touchy after the investigation was revealed. At last year's conference, the group broke with tradition and did not sing the Israeli national anthem. This year, officials have said, the tradition will be restored. Both the American and Israeli anthems are on the program. |||
Whatever happens, one things should be clear: this does not have to be a case about freedom of the press to be fairly prosecuted. And those who would make it such may have other things on their mind.
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6316
AUGUST 2005. . .
LOBBYISTS FOR ISRAEL CHARGED WITH SPYING
JERRY SEPER, WASHINGTON TIMES - Two former employees of a pro-Israel lobbying group were indicted yesterday by a federal grand jury in Virginia on charges of illegally receiving and disclosing classified U.S. defense information they obtained from a veteran Pentagon analyst -- who was arrested in May on charges of leaking secret documents. Steven J. Rosen, of Silver Spring, a 63-year-old former director of foreign policy issues for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and Keith Weissman, of Bethesda, a 53-year-old former senior Iran analyst at the organization, were accused of receiving national defense information and giving it to unauthorized persons, including an agent of a foreign government. The analyst, Lawrence A. Franklin, 58, of Kearneysville, W. Va., was arrested by the FBI on charges of illegally disclosing classified information -- nearly two years after he first was identified as suspected of having passed national security documents involving Iran to AIPAC. Mr. Franklin, who has pleaded not guilty in the case, has been a Defense Department employee since 1979 and held a "top secret" security clearance. . .
The indictment said Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman, in an effort to "influence persons within and outside the United States," cultivated relationships with Mr. Franklin and others "to gather sensitive U.S. government information, including classified information relating to the national defense." . . . The surveillance is thought to have targeted Naor Gilon, a political adviser at the Israeli Embassy in the District.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050804-114057-6702r.htm
DOUG IRELAND: PLAN INVOLVED ISRAELI ATTACK ON IRAN
DOUG IRELAND, DIRELAND - Here's what the stories in today's Washington Post and New York Times on the new indictments of the two AIPAC spies aren't telling you: their espionage was principally about helping to prepare an attack by Israel on Iran. And one of the Israeli embassy officials who knows all about AIPAC's role in helping plan the attack on Iran has been whisked out of the country and out of the reach of U.S. prosecutors, the Israeli daily Ha'aretz reports this morning.
The neo-cons in the Pentagon had long been arguing for an attack on Iran to take out its nuclear facilities that had the potential to be converted for development of nuclear weapons. Wolfie's man Doug Feith had been particularly assiduous in pressing the case for a "forward strategy" against Iran. Feith's views are madly extremist. . .
When, for purely electoral reasons with the Iraq occupation going so disastrously, the White House decided against a direct attack by the U.S. on Iran, the neo-cons went to Plan B -- an attack on Iran by proxy, from Israel. The principal classified documents leaked to Israel through AIPAC -- the leaks that that began the investigation of the AIPAC spy ring, which has been going on now for over a year -- concerned Iran. They were leaked by Feith's deputy, Larry Franklin, also now under a five-count indictment for spying.
The plan for an Israeli attack on Iran has been long envisioned -- both in Washington and by Sharon's government -- but this attack is now in a highy advanced state of planning and could come as quickly as Sharon snaps his fingers to order it. Back on March 13, the London Times -- in a report that was largely ignored in the U.S. -- reported that: "The inner cabinet of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, gave 'initial authorization' for an attack at a private meeting last month on his ranch in the Negev desert,"
The London Times went on to describe how "Israeli forces have used a mock-up of Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant in the desert to practise destroying it. Their tactics include raids by Israel's elite Shaldag (Kingfisher) commando unit and airstrikes by F-15 jets from 69 Squadron, using bunker-busting bombs to penetrate underground facilities. The plans have been discussed with American officials who are said to have indicated provisionally that they would not stand in Israel's way if all international efforts to halt Iranian nuclear projects failed...." And, the Times added, "US officials warned last week that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities by Israeli or American forces had not been ruled out should the issue become deadlocked at the United Nations."
Just a few weeks before that revelation of the concretization of Israeli plans for the Iran attack, Bush let the cat out of the bag in an off-the-cuff remark captured by London's Daily Telegraph, in a February 18 article headlined, "AMERICA WOULD BACK ISRAEL ATTACK ON IRAN." The Telegraph reported that Bush said: "Clearly, if I was the leader of Israel and I'd listened to some of the statements by the Iranian ayatollahs that regarded the security of my country, I'd be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon as well. And in that Israel is our ally, and in that we've made a very strong commitment to support Israel, we will support Israel if her security is threatened."
http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/08/the_real_aipac_.html
EARLIER STORIES
HOW THE ISRAEL LOBBY, CHRISTIAN ZIONISTS AND CORPORATIONS WORK TOGETHER
MITCHELL PLITNICK, JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACE - In working for a just resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict, we constantly bump into the fact that the powerful party is the state of one of history's most oppressed groups. Some get frustrated by always having to address anti-Semitism while working toward a just resolution to the plight of the Palestinians. But we're kidding ourselves if we believe for a moment that anti-Semitism is not an integral part of the problem. It is that history which creates the fear and anger that drive many Israeli policies. And if we fail to recognize the legitimate fear that history has instilled in the Jewish people, we fail before we start.
When dealing with the question of US support for Israel's occupation, this awareness is especially critical. One of the classic anti-Semitic myths is that of Jews manipulating governments and other seats of power behind the scenes. That pretty closely describes the work of a lobby, and there is a powerful one, with a Jewish face, working to push particular policies regarding Israel. . .
There is a real need to be clear about who "the Lobby" is. It is sometimes called "The Jewish lobby", which is inaccurate and misleading, and foments just the sort of conspiracy theorizing we must avoid. It implies that a population of 5.2 million Americans dictates a very crucial area of foreign policy to a nation of over 296 million.
The face and voice of the lobby is Jewish, because Jews are the most sympathetic and most passionate about this cause. But the votes that the lobby can deliver are not Jewish votes. Christian Zionist groups, numbering some 20 million strong, having their biggest strengths in areas where there are few or no Jews, and also voting at high rates, give the lobby its voting power. This is why many of the most radical bills in Congress are brought by members from Bible Belt states with virtually no Jews in them.
These two groups can mobilize votes and sympathy. They can mobilize some significant money as well, but nothing like what major corporations can raise. Corporations, which have enormous lobbying networks and many ways of funneling perfectly legal contributions to favored candidates, and who are involved in the sale of military and hi-tech equipment, derive huge benefits from the ongoing state of hostility in the region. . .
The fact that AIPAC, the ADL, B'nai Brith, the Conference of Presidents and other Jewish organizations work hard to convey to politicians and others that Jews have a large amount of power cannot be ignored. Jews' actual political power, while considerable relative to our numbers, is easily dwarfed by more powerful sectors of American society, such as Christian groups and large corporations.
Jews contribute a great deal of money to campaigns, but it is overwhelmingly given to Democrats and a great portion of it comes from wealthy Jews who historically have shown little attachment to Israel, but great attachment to the liberal-leaning ideals of the Democrats. Jewish contributions have never been based solely on Israel, and are less so now than they have been in the past.
AIPAC clearly played a pivotal role in its early days in the defeat of Illinois Representative Paul Findley and Senator Chuck Percy. However, claims of their influence on subsequent defeats of other members of Congress such as Pete McCloskey, Earl Hilliard and Cynthia McKinney, as well as other public officials such as Adlai Stevenson and George Ball are much more dubious. It is the reputation that matters politically, and AIPAC certainly has that. But their actual ability to determine the fate of particular candidates has been greatly exaggerated, not least by AIPAC's supporters and activists. . .
Further, when it comes to Congress, the biggest reason AIPAC is so successful is that there is no serious opposition. Elected officials see no political capital to be gained by voting against the wishes of the many constituents they hear from favoring unconditional support of Israeli policies. It's not that they don't believe that other voters would agree with them if they voted against the wishes of the pro-occupation lobby; it's that they see no evidence that they would gain votes and support, while they are getting a message that voting against AIPAC's wishes will cost votes and support. . .
American policy depends on the popularity of Israel in the US. The "almighty lobby" still needs to devote huge resources to PR to maintain that. Its power, as formidable as it is, is largely based in public perception of its strength and the absence of serious opposition. Its effects are mostly felt in the stifling of debate on the question of Israel, among the intellectual elites, in Congress and in the mainstream media. Policy continues to be decided by a perception of US interests, and the mainstream of that perception continues to see Israel as the key to US influence in the Middle East. Jews can be found on both sides of that debate.
http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/jvfp/content.jsp?content_KEY=557#commentary
AIPAC SECOND ONLY TO STATE OF THE UNION IN DRAWING POLITICIANS
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/23/AR2005052301565.htmlDANA MILBANK, WASHINGTON POST - During the pro-Israel lobby's annual conference yesterday, a fleet of police cars, sirens wailing, blocked intersections and formed a motorcade to escort buses carrying its conventioneers -- to lunch. The annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has long produced a massive show of bipartisan pandering, as lawmakers praise the well-financed and well-connected group. But this has been a rough year for AIPAC -- it has dismissed its policy director and another employee while the FBI examines whether they passed classified U.S. information to Israel -- and the organization is eager to show how big it is.
Reporters arriving at the convention center yesterday were given a list of "Food Facts" for the three-day AIPAC meeting: 26,000 kosher meals, 32,640 hors d'oeuvres, 2,500 pounds of salmon, 1,200 pounds of turkey, 900 pounds of chicken, 700 pounds of beef and 125 gallons of hummus.
Another fact sheet announced that this is the "largest ever" conference, with its 5,000 participants attending "the largest annual seated dinner in Washington" joined by "more members of Congress than almost any other event, except for a joint session of Congress or a State of the Union address." The group added that its membership "has nearly doubled" over four years to 100,000 and that the National Journal calls it "one of the top four most effective lobbying organizations."
AIPAC ARCHIVES
http://prorev.com/aipac.htmPENTAGON OFFICIAL ARRESTED FOR LEAKING SECRETS TO PRO-ISRAEL GROUP
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/05/politics/05spy.html?DAVID JOHNSTON AND ERIC LICHTBLAU, NY TIMES - Federal agents arrested a Pentagon analyst on Wednesday, accusing him of illegally disclosing highly classified information about possible attacks on American forces in Iraq to two employees of a pro-Israel lobbying group. The analyst, Lawrence A. Franklin, turned himself in to the authorities on Wednesday morning in a case that has stirred unusually anxious debate in influential political circles in the capital even though it has focused on a midlevel Pentagon employee.
The inquiry has cast a cloud over the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which employed the two men who are said to have received the classified information from Mr. Franklin. The group, also known as AIPAC, has close ties to senior policymakers in the Bush administration, among them Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is expected to appear later this month at the group's annual meeting.
The investigation has proven awkward as well for a group of conservative Republicans, who held high-level civilian jobs at the Pentagon during President Bush's first term and the buildup toward the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and who were also close to AIPAC. They were led by Paul D. Wolfowitz, the former deputy defense secretary who has been named president of the World Bank. Mr. Franklin once worked in the office of one of Mr. Wolfowitz's allies, Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary for policy at the Pentagon, who has also said he is leaving the administration later this year.
GUARDIAN - Mr Franklin's arrest is a serious blow to the group of neo-conservative ideologues who worked for the under-secretary of defence for policy, Douglas Feith. They played an important role in taking the US into the Iraq war, and have since then advocated regime change in Iran. Mr Feith, 58, is due to retire this summer and his adviser on the Middle East, Harold Rhode, is also reported to have left his job.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5186235-110878,00.html
AIPAC, WJC LOBBIED AGAINST UN RELIEF HEAD IN PALESTINE
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1394439,00.htmlCHRIS MCGREAL, GUARDIAN - The Bush administration has blocked the reappointment of the UN's Palestinian refugee agency chief, Peter Hansen, after a campaign by conservative and Jewish groups in the US, and the government in Jerusalem which accused him of being an "Israel hater." Some European and Arab governments were keen for Mr Hansen to stay on at the end of his nine-year tenure but the US supported Israel's assertion that the head of the UN Relief and Works Agency is biased and soft on "terrorists". This week Mr Hansen sent an email to staff saying he will leave on March 31. . .
Mr Hansen infuriated the Israeli government with public criticisms of the military's wholesale destruction of Palestinian homes which he described as a grave breach of international humanitarian law. He also spoke out against the killing of children by indiscriminate Israeli gunfire hitting UN-run schools, and Israeli policies that have contributed to economic collapse and growing hunger among about 1m refugees in Gaza.
The Israeli ambassador to the UN, Dan Gillerman, often attacked Mr Hansen, saying he was exceeding his remit and calling him an "Israel hater."
Pro-Israel groups in the US, such as the World Jewish Congress and the America Israel Public Affairs Committee, lobbied strongly against him.
Late last year, a US congressman, Tom Lantos, met the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, and told him the Bush administration wanted Mr Hansen out. A UN source said that at a meeting in New York last month, Mr Annan told Mr Hansen: "I don't have the political capital with the Americans to keep you.". . .Mr Hansen said Mr Gillerman's description of him was "outrageous".
"I don't have a record of being an Israel hater but I can't in all honesty not criticize Israel's actions that harm Palestinian refugees," he said. "My job is not to put myself at the midpoint between the Israeli view and the refugees' view. My job was to represent the refugees."
RICHARD SALE, UPI - An FBI investigation into alleged Israeli espionage against the United States and the possibility a pro-Israel lobby group was involved in passing classified U.S data to Tel Aviv has intensified because a confessed Pentagon spy has stopped cooperating with federal law enforcement officials, U.S. government sources said. Larry Franklin, a Pentagon analyst in the Near East and South Asia office who worked for the Defense Department's Office of Special Plans confessed last August to federal agents he had held meetings with a contact from the Israeli government during which he passed a highly classified document on U.S. policy toward Iran, these sources said. . .
In 2001, the FBI discovered new, "massive" Israeli spying operations in the East Coast, including New York and New Jersey, said one former senior U.S. government official. The FBI began intensive surveillance on certain Israeli diplomats and other suspects and was videotaping Naor Gilon, chief of political affairs at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, who was having lunch at a Washington hotel with two lobbyists from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobby group. Federal law enforcement officials said they were floored when Franklin came up to their table and sat down.
The FBI confronted Franklin in August 2004, and there seemed to be progress on the case, but after Franklin hired Washington lawyer Plato Cacheris, Franklin's cooperation abruptly ceased, federal law enforcement officials said. The turnabout apparently infuriated the FBI, former federal law enforcement officials said. Franklin could not be reached for comment. . .
An FBI consultant told United Press International: "The FBI were hopping mad. The FBI had been kicked very hard in their macho. They are very, very macho." On Dec. 1, FBI agents visited the AIPAC offices in Washington and seized the hard drives and files of Steven Rosen, director of research, and Keith Weissman, deputy director of foreign policy issues. The FBI also served subpoenas on AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr, Managing Director Richard Fishman, Communications Director Renee Rothstein, and Research Director Raphael Danziger. . .
AIPAC has consistently denied any wrongdoing in the affair. . . But a former federal law enforcement official said Israeli spying against the United States had been "widespread" for many years, and that during the Cold War, Israeli penetration of U.S. operations was second "only to the Soviet Union."
"Few people realize that the Israeli Counterintelligence Desk at the Bureau was second in size only to the CI Soviet desk," he said.
WASHINGTON POST - The FBI expanded its counterintelligence investigation of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee yesterday, seizing computer files at the lobbying group's Washington offices and serving grand jury subpoenas on four staff members, according to AIPAC and FBI officials.
The FBI previously obtained computer files from AIPAC in connection with a probe of a Defense Department analyst, Lawrence A. Franklin, suspected of providing classified information to the group. Authorities are also investigating whether the information, including a draft directive on U.S. policies toward Iran, was then passed on to Israel, sources have said. . .
Franklin, who had been in discussions with federal prosecutors, is no longer taking part in plea negotiations, according to sources familiar with the investigation. It remains unclear when, or whether, any charges would be filed against him, officials said.
THE BACK STORY: WHAT IS AIPAC UP TO
http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=3467[An excellent piece on the covert power of AIPAC]
JUAN COLE, ANTI-WAR - The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is a lobbying group that used to support whatever government was in power in Israel, and used to give money evenhandedly inside the U.S. My perception is that during the past decade AIPAC has increasingly tilted to the Likud in Israel, and to the political right in the United States. In the 1980s, AIPAC set up the Washington Institute for Near East Policy as a pro-Israeli alternative to the Brookings Institution, which it perceived to be insufficiently supportive of Israel. WINEP has largely followed AIPAC into pro-Likud positions, even though its director, Dennis Ross, is more moderate. He is a figurehead, however, serving to disguise the far right character of most of the position papers produced by long-term WINEP staff and by extremist visitors and "associates" (Daniel Pipes and Martin Kramer are among the latter).
WINEP, being a wing of AIPAC, is enormously influential in Washington. State Department and military personnel are actually detailed there to "learn" about the Middle East. They would get a far more balanced education about the region in any Israeli university, since most Israeli academics are professionals, whereas WINEP is a "think tank" that hires by ideology.
I did some consulting with one U.S. company that had a government contract, and they asked me about WINEP position papers (many of them are just propaganda). When I said I would take them with a grain of salt, the guy said his company had "received direction" to pay a lot of attention to the WINEP material. So discipline is being imposed even on the private sector.
Note that over 80% of American Jews vote Democrat, that the majority of American Jews opposed the Iraq war (more were against it than in the general population), and that American Jews have been enormously important in securing civil liberties for all Americans. Moreover, Israel has been a faithful ally of the U.S. and deserves our support in ensuring its security. The Likudniks like to pretend that they represent American Jewry, but they do not. And they like to suggest that objecting to their policies is tantamount to anti-Semitism, which is sort of like suggesting that if you don't like Chile's former dictator Pinochet, you are bigoted against Latinos. . .
