Search

band annie's Weblog

I have a parallel blog in French at http://anniebannie.net

Open Search
Category

USRAEL

A War on Campus? Northeastern University Suspends Students for Justice in Palestine Chapter

Mock-eviction-notice-Syjil-Ashraf-Targum

The Northeastern University chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine has become the latest student group to face reprimand for organizing around the Palestinian cause. Northeastern has suspended the group until 2015, barring it from meeting on campus and stripping it of any university funding. The move comes just weeks after student activists distributed mock eviction notices across the campus during Israeli Apartheid Week. The notices were intended to resemble those used by Israel to notify Palestinians of pending demolitions or seizures of their homes. We speak to Northeastern Students for Justice in Palestine member Max Geller and Ali Abunimah, co-founder of The Electronic Intifada and author of the new book, “The Battle for Justice in Palestine.” His new book includes a chapter titled “The War on Campus.”

Transcript

          This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: The Northeastern University chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine has become the latest student group to face reprimand for organizing around Palestinian issues. Northeastern University has just suspended the group until 2015, barring it from meeting on campus and stripping it of any university funding. The moves comes just weeks after student activists distributed mock eviction notices across the campus during Israeli Apartheid Week. The mock notices were intended to resemble ones used by Israel to notify Palestinians of pending home demolitions or property seizures.

AMY GOODMAN: Northeastern University accused the student group of disregarding university policies over an extended period of time. Michael Armini, Northeastern’s senior vice president of external affairs, said, quote, “The issue here is not one of free speech or the exchange of disparate ideas. Instead, it is about holding every member of our community to the same standards, and addressing SJP’s non-compliance with longstanding policies to which all student organizations at Northeastern are required to adhere.”

We’re joined now by two guests. Max Geller is with us, Northeastern University School of Law student and a member of Students for Justice in Palestine. And Ali Abunimah is with us in studio, co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, author of a brand new book, The Battle for Justice in Palestine. His new book includes a chapter headlined “The War on Campus.” read on and see the video here

0

Museum Of Jewish Heritage In NY Bans Discussion of Truman’s Recognition of Israel: Too Controversial!

It is almost laughable. The organized Jewish community, which claims to
be worried about young Jews defecting in droves, just cannot help itself
from doing things that drive Jews (not just young ones) away. Between
supporting Netanyahu, advocating for war with Iran and maintaining the
occupation, and keeping silent as Israel evolves into a theocracy, it
also is in the business of preventing debate on all these things and
more.

The latest is this. Phil Weiss reports that the Museum of Jewish Heritage in New York has banned an appearance by New Republic journalist, John Judis, who has written a book
challenging the conventional wisdom about why President Truman
recognized Israel. The book argues that Truman recognized Israel in 1948
not because he was a fervent Zionist but because it was May of an
election year, he was trailing in the polls and he was heavily lobbied
by Zionists to do so. Shocking, right. Who would think that politics
would enter into a decision like that?

The museum (a museum, for heaven’s sake) has decided that this kind of
talk will not be permitted in its historically sacred halls. After
scheduling a talk by Judis, it cancelled it. (Obviously, after heavy
pressure from its donors who, like most organizational donors, are great
scholars who own many books).

Weiss asked the museum’s official spokesperson why the event was
cancelled. She said (this is not a joke):  “I looked into the situation
and here is our comment: We were interested in the book. We considered
it, but were concerned that the controversy would overshadow the
content. Therefore, we decided not to move forward with the event.”

The controversy? What controversy. The book is brand new and has barely
been reviewed yet. The spokesperson means that some donor called and
complained or, worse, the museum anticipates that some donor will
complain.

This is a museum banning historical discussion.

Of course, we are all accustomed to bans on free discussion at Jewish
venues. Peter Beinart ended up giving talks at local delicatessens and
the like because the censors kept him out of synagogues and Jewish
centers,  His book became a huge seller and a major force anyway. But
still. It’s the principle.

The organized Jewish community has lost its mind. Pretty soon, any
institution under any kind of Jewish auspices will have to abide by
speech limits set by the Jewish 1%. The 92nd Street Y already
does. (It will not allow any Palestinian to speak unless balanced by a
Jew). Brandeis wouldn’t permit President Carter to speak without a
simultaneous rebuttal by Dershowitz. Pretty soon, Mount Sinai hospital
will check what books patients are sneaking into their sick rooms.

Here is the craziest irony. Most of the censors are liberals. They
welcome discussions on U.S. racism, imperialism, unjust wars and the
like. They love panel discussions criticizing U.S. indifference to the
Holocaust. In fact, I never heard of a Jewish institution banning a
discussion on any matter relating to the United States because it is
controversial.

But Israel!  Oh Lord no. Because the government of the State of Israel,
its policies and its official history is our Holy of Holies. Okay, I
shouldn’t say “our” because there is no “our” anymore. By “our” I mean
the millionaires and billionaires who run the community.

No wonder the organized community is going down the tubes. Soon we will
need a museum just to remind us what it was. And that is probably a good
thing.

source

0

Eugene Kaspersky Press Club 2013

Stuxnet Infected Russian Nuclear Plant, International Space Station
on November 12, 2013 at 12:47 AM

11/08/2013

SC Magazine:

Stuxnet had ‘badly infected’ the internal network of a Russian nuclear plant after the sophisticated malware caused chaos in Iran’s uranium facilities in Natanz.

The malware, widely considered to have been developed by the US and Israel as a means to disrupt Iran’s uranium enrichment plans, had crossed a physically separated ‘air-gapped’ network in the Russian plant after it was carried across on a USB device.

Eugene Kaspersky, the charismatic boss of the Russian antivirus company bearing his name, said a staffer at the unnamed nuclear plant informed him of the infection.

“[The staffer said] their nuclear plant network which was disconnected from the internet … was badly infected by Stuxnet,” Kaspersky said.

But USB devices were used to ferry malware cross a far greater air-gap: Russian astronauts had carried a virus on removable media to the International Space Station infecting machines there, Kaspersky said.

In a presentation given at the Canberra Press Club designed to give mainstream journalists a broad overview of the state of information security, the chief executive offered his view of the state of online crime and state-sponsored espionage.

0

Former Senator Weicker says he was ‘lobbied’ to be silent about Palestinian suffering

                    on October 21, 2013 20

Speaking at the Tree of Life Conference in Old Lyme, CT, yesterday, former Connecticut Senator and Governor Lowell Weicker Jr. compared the Israeli wall to the notorious wall that was built by East Germany.

He said:

“When I think of Israelis, Palestinians and today’s wall I’m reminded of yesterday’s East German wall and when that obstruction came down I remember an America that stood up and cheered. What then is the difference between that wall and the one that stands as an abomination in the holy land today? The difference is a resigned silence.

“It is one thing for a nation to defend itself against nonstop murderous sallies, as was the case in the early times of Israel. Quite another to use history as justification for an ongoing policy of isolation, internment, deprivation and humiliation as waged against today’s Palestinians.”

“Instead of insisting that Israel get to the business of peace in short order, the United States fuels indifference to Palestinian suffering by continuing a steady flow of aid, military and economic, to Israel as if they were the sole aggrieved party in the present standoff.”

“The United States Congress past (and that included me) and present has been successfully lobbied to close its eyes to the travesty that consumes the holy land.”

Editor: Note that South Carolina Senator Fritz Hollings also commented on the power of the lobby, when he was no longer up for reelection. Links here and here.

source

0

America happy to share raw intel with fellow occupier Israel

Posted: 12 Sep 2013 11:13 PM PDT

A killer story (and yet more evidence that the revelations from Edward Snowden are undeniably in the public interest).

This is by Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Ewen MacAskill in The Guardian:

The National Security Agency routinely shares raw intelligence data withIsrael without first sifting it to remove information about US citizens, a top-secret document provided to the Guardian by whistleblower Edward Snowden reveals.

Details of the intelligence-sharing agreement are laid out in a memorandum of understanding between the NSA and its Israeli counterpart that shows the US government handed over intercepted communications likely to contain phone calls and emails of American citizens. The agreement places no legally binding limits on the use of the data by the Israelis.

The disclosure that the NSA agreed to provide raw intelligence data to a foreign country contrasts with assurances from the Obama administration that there are rigorous safeguards to protect the privacyof US citizens caught in the dragnet. The intelligence community calls this process “minimization”, but the memorandum makes clear that the information shared with the Israelis would be in its pre-minimized state.

The deal was reached in principle in March 2009, according to the undated memorandum, which lays out the ground rules for the intelligence sharing.

The five-page memorandum, termed an agreement between the US and Israeli intelligence agencies “pertaining to the protection of US persons”, repeatedly stresses the constitutional rights of Americans to privacy and the need for Israeli intelligence staff to respect these rights.

But this is undermined by the disclosure that Israel is allowed to receive “raw Sigint” – signal intelligence. The memorandum says: “Raw Sigint includes, but is not limited to, unevaluated and unminimized transcripts, gists, facsimiles, telex, voice and Digital Network Intelligence metadataand content.”

According to the agreement, the intelligence being shared would not be filtered in advance by NSA analysts to remove US communications. “NSA routinely sends ISNU [the Israeli Sigint National Unit] minimized and unminimized raw collection”, it says.

Although the memorandum is explicit in saying the material had to be handled in accordance with US law, and that the Israelis agreed not to deliberately target Americans identified in the data, these rules are not backed up by legal obligations.

“This agreement is not intended to create any legally enforceable rights and shall not be construed to be either an international agreement or a legally binding instrument according to international law,” the document says.

In a statement to the Guardian, an NSA spokesperson did not deny that personal data about Americans was included in raw intelligence data shared with the Israelis. But the agency insisted that the shared intelligence complied with all rules governing privacy.

“Any US person information that is acquired as a result of NSA’ssurveillance activities is handled under procedures that are designed to protect privacy rights,” the spokesperson said.

The NSA declined to answer specific questions about the agreement, including whether permission had been sought from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (Fisa) court for handing over such material.

The memorandum of understanding, which the Guardian is publishing in full, allows Israel to retain “any files containing the identities of US persons” for up to a year. The agreement requests only that the Israelis should consult the NSA’s special liaison adviser when such data is found.

Notably, a much stricter rule was set for US government communications found in the raw intelligence. The Israelis were required to “destroy upon recognition” any communication “that is either to or from an official of the US government”. Such communications included those of “officials of the executive branch (including the White House, cabinet departments, and independent agencies), the US House of Representatives and Senate (member and staff) and the US federal court system (including, but not limited to, the supreme court)”.

It is not clear whether any communications involving members of US Congress or the federal courts have been included in the raw data provided by the NSA, nor is it clear how or why the NSA would be in possession of such communications. In 2009, however, the New York Times reported on “the agency’s attempt to wiretap a member of Congress, without court approval, on an overseas trip”.

The NSA is required by law to target only non-US persons without an individual warrant, but it can collect the content and metadata of Americans’ emails and calls without a warrant when such communication is with a foreign target. US persons are defined in surveillance legislation as US citizens, permanent residents and anyone located on US soil at the time of the interception, unless it has been positively established that they are not a citizen or permanent resident.

Moreover, with much of the world’s internet traffic passing through US networks, large numbers of purely domestic communications also get scooped up incidentally by the agency’s surveillance programs.

The document mentions only one check carried out by the NSA on the raw intelligence, saying the agency will “regularly review a sample of files transferred to ISNU to validate the absence of US persons’ identities”. It also requests that the Israelis limit access only to personnel with a “strict need to know”.

Israeli intelligence is allowed “to disseminate foreign intelligence information concerning US persons derived from raw Sigint by NSA” on condition that it does so “in a manner that does not identify the US person”. The agreement also allows Israel to release US person identities to “outside parties, including all INSU customers” with the NSA’s written permission.

Although Israel is one of America’s closest allies, it is not one of the inner core of countries involved in surveillance sharing with the US – Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. This group is collectively known as Five Eyes.

The relationship between the US and Israel has been strained at times, both diplomatically and in terms of intelligence. In the top-secret 2013 intelligence community budget request, details of which were disclosed by the Washington Post, Israel is identified alongside Iran and China as a target for US cyberattacks.

While NSA documents tout the mutually beneficial relationship of Sigint sharing, another report, marked top secret and dated September 2007, states that the relationship, while central to US strategy, has become overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of Israel.

“Balancing the Sigint exchange equally between US and Israeli needs has been a constant challenge,” states the report, titled ‘History of the US – Israel Sigint Relationship, Post-1992′. “In the last decade, it arguably tilted heavily in favor of Israeli security concerns. 9/11 came, and went, with NSA’s only true Third Party [counter-terrorism] relationship being driven almost totally by the needs of the partner.”

source

0

No Blank Check for Israel Rally: January 19, 2013 Washington DC

[youtube http://youtu.be/yt8smlZ41nA?]

see also article at Mondoweiss

0

Israel’s Invasion of US Justice, By Miko Peled

In an interview on Sixty Minutes with Bob Simon, Israel’s ambassador to the US Michael Oren made a chilling remark, the significance of which must not be overlooked. The interview was shown at the end of a report by Bob Simon on the situation of Christians in the Holy Land. Apparently when the ambassador heard about the report being made he called the Chairman of CBS and complained that his sources told him the report was going to be a “hatchet job.” At the end of the report Simon said to the Ambassador that he had never had anyone react to a story before it was even aired and before anyone had a chance to view it. The Israeli ambassador seemed taken aback for a second or two, but then he collected himself, and replied: “Well Bob, there’s a first time for everything.”

Israeli influence over America is not new and it has been well documented. From American politics to economic issues, to issues of foreign policy and national security Israel’s influence has shown its marks everywhere. Now, Israel’s influence has infiltrated the “holy of holies” of American democracy, the judicial system. As the ambassador said, “There is a first time for everything.”

The case of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) in which five Palestinian American Muslims were convicted and sentenced in a US court to decades behind bars based on questionable testimony by two anonymous Israeli intelligence officers, demonstrates the invasive nature of Israeli influence in American courts. There is an abundance of information about this case so we won’t get into too many details here, only to say that HLF, at one time the largest Muslim charity in the US was accused of providing “material support to Hamas.” It is a bewildering accusation to say the least. HLF provided much needed charity to Palestinians by raising modest funds for orphans and widows that had to qualify in order to receive these funds, and contributed to libraries and hospitals in the West Bank and Gaza.

Israeli authorities began a campaign against HLF in 1996. They closed down the HLF office in Jerusalem and arrested the local director, a Palestinian from Jerusalem. He was interrogated by the Israeli police, and the internal security service (Shabak). He was asked repeatedly if the organization has ties to Hamas and if moneys were given particularly to orphans whose fathers were members of Hamas who became Shahids, either through suicide attacks or because they were killed by Israel. He repeatedly claimed that HLF was not affiliated to Hamas, and that all recipients had to go through the same screening process by social workers who determined if they qualified for aid.

He showed that HLF did not in any way favor the orphans of Hamas “Shahids.” Still he was charged, convicted and had spent several years in an Israeli prison.
Israel skillfully manipulated the anti Arab and anti Muslim hysteria that took hold over America post 9/11 to pursue its campaign against HLF in the US. And indeed in 2002 the WSJ quoted Presidnet George Bush, who gladly served Israeli interests in this regard saying:
“The facts are clear,” Mr. Bush declared. “The terrorists benefit from the Holy Land Foundation, and we’re not going to allow it. … Money raised by the Holy Land Foundation is used by Hamas to support schools and indoctrinate children to grow up into suicide bombers [and] to recruit suicide bombers and support their families.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB101476025597651120.html

None of the things Bush said constitute clear facts, nor were they true.

Still, the Holy Land Foundation offices were placed under watch by the FBI, its main officers’ phones were tapped, their meetings recorded and a case was built against them. In 2007 a trial took place ending in an acquittal on most counts but the jury remained hung on a few charges. The judge declared a mistrial and a year later, in 2008, convictions with unprecedented long sentenced were meted out to the defendants. One juror said: “If they had been a Christian or Jewish group, I don’t think [prosecutors] would have brought charges against them.”

The justice department congratulated itself on a job well done in a piece on the FBI website declaring that this was the largest terrorism financing prosecution in US history.

http://www.fbi.gov/dallas/press-releases/2009/dl052709.htm

The Israeli Internal Security Service, the Shabak, posted on its website that one of two Israelis that testified in the HLF trial that brought town a terror financing organization, was an employee of the Shabak and that his testimony played a crucial role in the bringing convictions.

http://www.shabak.gov.il/publications/publications/pages/020609.aspx

In 2009 officers and volunteers of HLF, who became known as the HLF 5 were given unprecedented sentences for “funneling $12 million to Hamas.” $12 million is a laughable amount that only serves to demonstrate the absurdity of the accusations and the modesty of the HLF operations. In a discussion I had in Jerusalem where I described the jail sentences the HLF 5 received I got looks of disbelief. One Muslim leader who was present and was familiar with the HLF and with Hamas finally commented: “HLF was so small, how can anyone think it had any impact on Hamas?” Indeed.

In an affidavit by Israeli attorney Lea Tsemel it was made clear that Israeli security officers regularly lie in court in order to get convictions. In an interview to Israeli press, retired chief interrogator of the Shabak admitted this too. “The security officers know that an Israeli judge will always believe their testimony over that of an Arab.” he said. Now this is true of judges in the US as well. As the ambassador said: “There is a first time for everything.”

After being found guilty in the second trial, Mufid Aabdulkader, Shukri Abu Baker, Ghassan Elashi, Mohammad El Mezaine and Abdulrahman Odeh were immediately sent to Federal prison in Seagoville, Texas (this was November 24, 2008). Judge Jorge A. Solis who presided would not let them stay out until sentencing. He told all defendants they had 5 minutes to say goodbye to their families.

”The judge said we would have to choose 3 people from each family to say goodbye, because there were too many people. I let my three daughters say goodbye, so I did not even get to tell Mufid goodbye. It would not have taken that long if the judge had let us all say goodbye, perhaps 10 minutes.” Diana Abdukader, Mufid’s wife told me.

Sentencing took place on May 27, 2009. The prosecution tried to have the five men moved immediately to CMUs, but the families fought to have them stay at Seagoville where they could be close to their families. They were successful at keeping them there until April 22, 2010, when all but one were moved to the CMUs. Abdulrahman Odeh, went to general population at FCI Victorville in Adelanto, CA. Mufid and Ghassan were sent to Marion CMU, while Mohammad El-Mezzeine and Shukri Abu Baker were sent to the CMU in Terre Haute Indianna.

The following was written by Mufid Abdulkader, describing their transfer to the CMUs. Mufid is one of three defendants with whom I have been in touch for close to a year now via email and phone. All three had given me permission to publish what they had written to me. This is the first of several articles I mean to publish with material written by the HLF defendants.
“Dear brothers & Sisters, our trip to USP Marion started way before Thursday April 24, 2010, the day we were moved from Seagoville to USP Marion in Illinois. The trip went from Seagoville to Texarkana Texas to Oklahoma City to Philadelphia to Ohio to St. Louis, Missouri & finally ended when we were bussed (3 hours trip) from St. Louis to USP Marion in Marion Illinois. It was 6 days of pain, extreme discomfort, racist treatment by guards, we were singled out to be screamed at, it was a show of disrespect and racist behavior on many different levels.

On Wednesday March 31, I was suddenly called by the guard & told to see the Counselor. Once I saw the counselor, he immediately told me that he has received orders to handcuff me & move me to the Special Management Unit (SMU) at Seagoville. He said it was orders from way above (meaning the Warden) & he does not know why, he just followed orders. So one by one, El-Mezain, Shukri, Ghassan & I, were taken and placed in the SMU. The condition at the SMU are terrible. In the SMU you are held for 23 hours in a solitary confinement in a small cell. You are allowed 1 hour outside the cell (called recreation). It means literally to be taken out of your cell in handcuffs & placed in a cage closed from all sides including the top.”

“This only happens only Monday – Friday. On weekends you are kept in your cell for 24 hours. You are handcuffed thru a bean hole in the cell’s door prior to you going out of the cell, whether to go for the 1 hour recreation, see a doctor (very rare) or visit your family or get a hair cut. Getting a hair cut while handcuffed is a very painful experience. If the doctor needs to x-ray anything, you stay handcuffed & it is your responsibility to get in the position to take the x-ray for any part of your body (hand, leg, arm, ..etc) & suffer the pain caused by the handcuffs.”
“When you go see your family it is only thru thick glass windows. Hand cuffs are only taken after you are placed in the 4X5 feet room with thick glass and a phone. After you enter the room they open the bean hole & you extend your handcuffed hands (in extreme pain) to be removed. After the visit is over, again they open the bean hole & handcuff you again before they open the door to take you back to your cell. You cannot touch your family & only talk to them thru the one phone & they take turns to talk to you.”

“After 21 days they moved us to another cell. Then came the day we were expecting: Around 10 AM, 3 guards came & asked us if we want to go to outside recreation (the 1 hour outside) and we said yes. A few minutes later they came & they handcuffed us and and we were thinking that we were going to the outside cages for the one hour recreation & instead they took us to R&D (Receive and Discharge) Dept. This is the department where they receive inmates & ship them out. Now we realized that they were shipping us out of Seagoville & that was it!!! Ghassan & Shukri left their medical eye glasses in their cells & they asked the guards to get them & that is when the guard started screaming at Shukri & Ghassan.”

“They put a big handcuff around each leg with heavy chains and then handcuffed the hands from the front with heavy chains and tied the handcuffs from the legs and the hands together. This was done for all inmates but for us they had a special treatment. They used what is called the black box. The black box is a box that tighten your hands handcuffs & legs chains together make it extremely difficult to move your hands even to touch your face. It was very difficult to move especially when the handcuffs were very tight to start with. After that they walk us very slowly to the bus waiting outside. We walk and El-mezain was barely able to walk because they forced him to walk without his cane. He almost fell down several times. It took around 5 minutes to walk about 20 feet (6 meters) to the bus.”

This was only the beginning. Mufid’s account doesn’t ends here, there are pages and pages of descriptions of the horrors that these five men had to endure on their way to the CMU and at the CMU. And, as long as people on the outside sit quiet instead of crying for justice, they will continue to suffer.
Israel is on a mission to destroy Palestine and its people, and as part of that mission Israel holds thousands of Palestinian political prisoners in its jails. This is not new nor should it come as any surprise to anyone. But the Israeli invasion of US politics, media, national security and foreign policy all started at a point when someone said, “There is a first time for everything.”

Miko Peled
source

0

‘America and Israel are in it together,’ Clinton declares– and nary a word about settlements

by on December 3, 2012 84

At a time when Britain and France are considering withdrawing ambassadors from Israel over its latest settlement plans, Hillary Clinton addressed the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution Friday night and, declaring “America and Israel are in it together,” said nothing about settlements or occupation except when she three times praised Benjamin Netanyahu for a “settlement freeze.”

Clinton at Saban Center
Clinton at Saban Center, with Tamara Coffman Wittes

And in one pointed reference to a settlement, Gilo, Clinton bragged about visiting the colony.

Seated at dinner next to Haim Saban, an ardent supporter of Israel and the Democratic Party, Clinton seemed to be relaunching her political career.

Haim Saban with Hillary Clinton
Haim Saban with Hillary Clinton.
(Photo by Natasha Mozgovaya of Haaretz).

She called Saban “a friend, a colleague, a mentor, an inspiration to so many of us here tonight” and from start to finish Clinton took Israel’s side in the conflict. She accused Iran of fostering global terrorism “insinuating” itself into countries around the world, chastised Palestinians for not accepting Partition in 1947, and suggested that Palestinians should be content with a mini-state in Palestinian-controlled areas of the West Bank and not Gaza.

read the full article here

0

How the Israeli lobby works in the United States

“…Several years ago, I found out how AIPAC worked, directly…”

Arab News – One of the most influential lobbying groups in America, it is often argued that no politician can be elected into office without AIPAC’s support. No president can take the White House without affirming unbreakable allegiance to Israel, and attendance at the annual AIPAC meeting is mandatory. Once in office every member of Congress is expected to act, vote and defend the state of Israel on almost every issue, or face the consequences.

Originally called the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs, the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was an offshoot of the American Zionist Council, changing names in 1963. With a sole purpose to advocate for the state of Israel, AIPAC ought to be listed with the US government as a Foreign Agent; instead, the Committee continually denies receiving any funds from Israel.*

What are AIPAC’s tactics? How do they get away with controlling so much of government of the United States, and thus veto power at the United Nations? Several years ago, I found out how AIPAC worked, directly.

During the 1990s, I was actively involved in a major US symphony orchestra as a financial donor and artistic liaison, having studied classical piano for fifteen years and forever a frustrated pianist. Close to the conductor, main players, and several board members, another more significant contributor became a good acquaintance. She, like the conductor, was an ardent Zionist – her family sent to the concentration camps in Austria during the war. Throughout the years my professional involvement in Middle Eastern affairs was never brought up, and despite our opposite views on Israel we nevertheless were on good terms before 9/11.

After 9/11, the atmosphere in America became highly charged. My friend Sarah (not her real name) lost no opportunity in blaming Arabs for every attack in the US, for not only 9/11 but also every violent act before or since. Before we ended our relationship, she explained how AIPAC controlled Congress.

Several years earlier Sarah had been a leading AIPAC representative. Confident in America’s ability to go after the Arab “terrorists” who wanted to destroy Israel and the West, she explained how the wars in the Middle East were due to AIPAC’s influence. She knew the system from the inside because she was a part of it.

AIPAC watched every political race in every election, she explained. Whether local or national, AIPAC had dossiers on every candidate, grading each according to their loyalty to the Israeli state. Once the newly elected moved into their new offices in Washington DC, Sarah would lead a delegation of AIPAC members to the capital city to pay them a courtesy visit. The new Congressmen and women would welcome the lobby, AIPAC merely expressing good wishes for their new terms. The meeting would last less than 20 minutes, nothing but pleasantries and a photo-op having passed.

Upon leaving the team would then add, “Anything you need to know about the Middle East, contact us. We’ll provide whatever information you need. Here is our telephone number and someone will get back to you right away.”

No laws were broken, no monies were exchanged, and no threats were implied. The novice politician had someone to call at anytime day or night to learn about the pressing issues of the Arab world. The ongoing issues of the region meant the new Congress member had to become rapidly informed. If no one else was available – and they never were – AIPAC was ready.

Settled in to office, a fortnight later Sarah would bring a second delegation back to Washington to “see how they were getting along”. Again, they would offer on-call expertise on the Middle East 24 hours a day, and invite them on an all-expenses paid trip to Israel to witness the “terror” Israelis suffered every day. Upon their departure, this time AIPAC would present a check for a few thousand dollars “as a donation” to the Congressman’s office.

At this point, strict lobbying rules would kick in and every contribution would have to be carefully noted. However, the implicit message was left that there would always be more money where that sweetener came from.

The more allied they were to the Jewish state, the more benefits the politicians would receive. It was easy to deliver promising post-Congressional careers to those who were overtly pro-Israeli, but the harder work went to the more neutral members. With no counterefforts by any Arab or Muslim groups, AIPAC’s massaging of the message on the Middle East dominated: They were highly reactive to calls, instantly available, ready to provide support and receptive to all requests for analysis. AIPAC has an almost exclusive ability to control the narrative because until there is an equally well-organized, heavily staffed, dedicated and immediately responsive alternative, empty words and promises leave any contrary explanations far behind.

“After our second visit, an AIPAC member would then follow-up every week to remind the Congressman that we were available,” Sarah continued. “We were constant, polite and as regular as clockwork.” The methodology so well crafted, AIPAC could not fail.

After a few months, a third visit raised the stakes. Senior AIPAC delegates would visit the office, this time with a metaphorical gun in one hand and cash in the other. Funds could never be presented directly lest laws are broken. Instead, having studied the Congressman’s family, friends, hobbies, chosen causes and voting record, AIPAC would add financial incentives to make the more reluctant “see the light” for its services.

“Your eldest daughter is going to college next year isn’t she? That’s expensive. Perhaps a full scholarship could be arranged,” Sarah illustrated. Or, “Your wife lost her position last year? Maybe we can help secure a new career for her” in a law-firm, think-tank or other environment where AIPAC maintained leverage. If not direct, other benefits important to the Congressman would be dangled. The point was lost on no one.

Skirting laws, AIPAC’s largesse was provided with heavy expectations. A Congressman knew that if he did not vote in favor of Israel in the next Bill, his perquisites would be dropped. Moreover, it was evident that support for his re-election bid was either guaranteed, or -if not pro-Israel enough – not only withdrawn but an organized campaign would ensue to make sure he was defeated.

AIPAC works with a heavy but quiet fist. It has been using propaganda and threats for decades because it works. Having tried unsuccessfully to influence the British government in the 1940s, the Zionist body switched to manipulating the US Congress because it was an easier more malleable target, as the officials admitted themselves.

Thanks to the multi-million dollar multi-generational policy of organization coupled with implied blackmail, every US Senator and Representative will at the very least look the other way when Israel continues to violate international laws, occupy and steal Palestinian territory, illegally blockade Palestinians and bomb innocent civilians. The alternative is the end to a political career.

Just ask President Jimmy Carter or Ambassador Charles “Chas” Freeman.

* Editor’s Note: Funding from a foreign gov’t/entity is not absolutely required to be considered a foreign agent.  The FARA statute says:

“(1) any person who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant, or any person who acts in any other capacity at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal or of a person any of whose activities are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal, and who directly or through any other person—(i) engages within the United States in political activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal;

(ii) acts within the United States as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee or political consultant for or in the interests of such foreign principal;

(iii) within the United States solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of value for or in the interest of such foreign principal; or

(iv) within the United States represents the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the Government of the United States; and

(2) any person who agrees, consents, assumes or purports to act as, or who is or holds himself out to be, whether or not pursuant to contractual relationship, an agent of a foreign principal as defined in clause (1) of this subsection. ”

For a list of other institutions in the Israel lobby see: Introduction to the Israel Lobby

1

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑