I sometimes try to get establishment loyalists to explain to me exactly why we’re all meant to be terrified of this “Russian propaganda” thing they keep carrying on about. What is the threat, specifically? That it makes the public less willing to go to war with Russia and its allies? That it makes us less trusting of lying, torturing, coup-staging intelligence agencies? Does accidentally catching a glimpse of that green RT logo turn you to stone like Medusa, or melt your face like in Raiders of the Lost Ark ?
“Well, it makes us lose trust in our institutions,” is the most common reply.
Okay. So? Where’s the threat there? We know for a fact that we’ve been lied to by those institutions. Iraq isn’t just something we imagined. We should be skeptical of claims made by western governments, intelligence agencies and mass media. How specifically is that skepticism dangerous?
When you try to get down to the brass tacks of the actual argument being made and demand specific details about the specific threats we’re meant to be worried about, there aren’t any to be found. Nobody’s been able to tell me what specifically is so dangerous about westerners being exposed to the Russian side of international debates, or of Russians giving a platform to one or both sides of an American domestic debate. Even if every single one of the allegations about Russian bots and disinformation are true (and they aren’t), where is the actual clear and present danger? No one can say.
No one, that is, except the Atlantic Council.
In an absolutely jaw-dropping article that you should definitely read in its entirety, Elizabeth Braw took it upon herself to finally answer the question of why Russian propaganda is so dangerous, using the following hypothetical scenario:
What if Russia suddenly announced that its Baltic Fleet had dispatched an armada towards Britain? Would most people greet the news with steely resolve in the knowledge that their governments would know what to do, or would constant Kremlin-influenced reports about the incompetence of British institutions make them conclude that any resistance was pointless?
I mean, wow. Wow! Just wow. Where to even begin with this?
Before I continue, I should note that Braw is a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council, the shady NATO-aligned think tank with ties to powerful oligarchs whose name comes up when you look into many of the mainstream anti-Russia narratives, from the DNC hack to the discredited war propaganda firmBellingcatto Russian trolls to the notorious PropOrNot blacklist publicized by the Washington Post. Her article, published by Defense One, is titled “We Need a NATO for Infowar”, and it argues that westerners need to be propagandized by an alliance of western governments for our own good.
Back to the aforementioned excerpt. Braw claims that if Russian propaganda isn’t shut down or counteracted, Russia could send a fleet of war ships to attack Britain, and the British people would… react unenthusiastically? Wouldn’t cheer loudly enough as the British Navy fought the Russians? Would have a defeatist emotional demeanor? What exactly is the argument here?
That’s seriously her only attempt to directly address the question of where the actual danger is. Even in the most cartoonishly dramatic hypothetical scenario this Atlantic Council member can possibly imagine, there’s still no tangible threat of any kind. Even if Russia was directly attacking the United Kingdom at home, and Russian propaganda had somehow magically dominated all British airwaves and been believed by the entire country, that still wouldn’t have any impact on the British military’s ability to fight a naval battle. There’s literally no extent to which you can inflate this “Russian propaganda” hysteria to turn it into a possible threat to actual people in real life.
It gets better. Check out this excerpt:
Such responses to disinformation are like swatting flies: time-consuming and ineffective. But not addressing disinformation is ineffective, too. “Western media still have this thing where they try to be completely balanced, so they’ll say, ‘the Russians say this, but on the other hand the Americans say this is not true,’ They end up giving a lie and the truth the same value,” noted Toomas Hendrik Ilves, the former president of Estonia.
I just have so many questions. Like, how desperate does a writer have to be for an expert who can lend credibility to their argument that they have to reach all the way over to a former president of Estonia? And on what planet are these people living where Russian narratives are given the same weight as western narratives by western mainstream media? How can I get to this fantastical parallel dimension where western media “try to be completely balanced” and give equal coverage to all perspectives?
Braw argues that, because Russian propaganda is so dangerous (what with the threat of British people having insufficient emotional exuberance during a possible naval battle and all), what is required is a “NATO of infowar”, an alliance of western state media that is tasked with combatting Russian counter-narratives. Because, in the strange Dungeons & Dragons fantasy fairy world in which Braw penned her article, this isn’t already happening.
And of course, here in the real world, it is already happening. As I wrote recently, mainstream media outlets have been going out of their minds churning out attack editorials on anyone who questions the establishment narrative about what happened in Douma. A BBC reporter recently admonished a retired British naval officer for voicing skepticism of what we’re being told about Syria on the grounds that it might “muddy the waters” of the “information war” that is being fought against Russia. All day, every day, western mass media are pummeling the public with stories about how awful and scary Russians are and how everything they say is a lie.
This is because western mass media outlets are owned by western plutocrats, and those plutocrats have built their empires upon a status quo that they have a vested interest in preserving, often to the point where they will form alliances with defense and intelligence agencies to do so. They hire executives and editors who subscribe to a pro-establishment worldview, who in turn hire journalists who subscribe to a pro-establishment worldview, and in that way they ensure that all plutocrat-owned media outlets are advancing pro-plutocrat agendas.
The western empire is ruled by a loose transnational alliance of plutocrats and secretive government agencies. That loose alliance is your real government, and that government has the largest state media network in the history of civilization. The mass media propaganda machine of the western empire makes RT look like your grandmother’s Facebook wall.
In that way, we are being propagandized constantly by the people who really rule us. All this panic about Russian propaganda doesn’t exist because our dear leaders have a problem with propaganda, it exists because they believe only they should be allowed to propagandize us.
And, unlike Russian propaganda, western establishment propaganda actually does pose a direct threat to us. By using mass media to manipulate the ways we think and vote, our true rulers can persuade us to consent to crushing austerity measures and political impotence while the oligarchs grow richer and medicine money is spent on bombs. When we should all be revolting against an oppressive Orwellian oligarchy, we are instead lulled to sleep by those same oligarchs and their hired talking heads lying to us about freedom and democracy.
Russian propaganda is not dangerous. Having access to other ways of looking at global geopolitics is not dangerous. What absolutely is dangerous is a vast empire concerning itself with the information and ideas that its citizenry have access to. Get your rapey, manipulative fingers out of our minds, please.
If our dear leaders are so worried about our losing faith in our institutions, they shouldn’t be concerning themselves with manipulating us into trusting them, they should be making those institutions more trustworthy.
Don’t manipulate better, be better. The fact that an influential think tank is now openly advocating the former over the latter should concern us all.
In my last piece, I wrote that one of the downsides of the probable D-Notice slapped on the Skripal Case was that we may well be deprived of our daily dose of farcical nonsense, such as whether the poison was administered in the restaurant, the car, the cemetery, the flowers, the luggage, the bench, the porridge, the door handle or – and I’m surprised nobody has thought of it yet – perhaps the cat. There is no doubt an FSB manual waiting to be found which explains how cats can be safely used as conduits for “Novichok”, and it has almost certainly been put together by the dashingly handsome, astonishingly intelligent, but inexplicably bitmapped ruthless ex-KGB assassin, “Gordon”, who was apparently a suspect a couple of weeks ago, but is no longer deemed a person of interest.
But despite the D-Notice, on the morning of 5th May it seemed that the torrent of patent absurdities was actually not about to cease anytime soon. In an interview with the New York Times, the Director General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Ahmet Uzumcu, said the following:
“For research activities or protection you would need, for instance, five to 10 grams or so, but even in Salisbury it looks like they may have used more than that, without knowing the exact quantity, I am told it may be 50, 100 grams or so, which goes beyond research activities for protection.”
My immediate reaction was to ask why only 50-100 grams (which the New York Times helpfully tells its readers is between about a quarter-cup to a half-cup of liquid)? Why not a whole bucketful of Novichok, splashed indiscriminately over the front door of Mr Skripal’s house?
It is testimony to the truly uninquisitive minds of the dutiful stenographers at the New York Times and the rest of the media which ran with the same story, that none of them appear to have wondered to themselves something along these lines:
“Huh? 100 grams of military-grade nerve agent? Of a type said to be 5-8 times more lethal than VX, which itself has a median lethal dose of 10 milligrams. And we’re now apparently talking about 100,000 milligrams! And yet not only are the Skripals alive (well at least they were when last Yulia got hold of a phone) but the population of Salisbury seems to be doing okay as well. In fact no-one died (apart from the cat and the guinea pigs). Does Mr Uzumcu know what he’s talking about?”
My next reaction was to wonder whether actually he knows exactly what he’s talking about. But I’ll come back to that in a moment.
“In response to questions from the media, the OPCW Spokesperson stated that the OPCW would not be able to estimate or determine the amount of the nerve agent that was used in Salisbury on 4 March 2018. The quantity should probably be characterised in milligrams. However, the analysis of samples collected by the OPCW Technical Assistance Visit team concluded that the chemical substance found was of high purity, persistent and resistant to weather conditions.”
As an aside, I’d love to know which media asked the questions. My guess is that it wasn’t any of those organisations who had repeated the claims made in the New York Times.
But what of the statement itself? Taken at face value, along with Mr Uzumcu’s original statement, it is very odd for a number of reasons:
1. Firstly, it says that the OPCW would not be able to estimate or determine the amount of the substance used. But of course this is exactly what Mr Uzumcu did appear to say, when he mentioned the quantities 50 and 100 grams.
2. Secondly, the statement says that the quantity should probably be characterised in milligrams. Not bucketfuls then? But of course the problem with this is that it does appear to leave Mr Uzumcu looking rather stupid, as if he:
a) Doesn’t know his grams from his milligrams and
b) Doesn’t realise that a cupful of military grade nerve agent 5-8 times more toxic than VX would kill people – like, lots and lots and lots of people
3. And thirdly, the milligrams for grams exchange completely undercuts the whole point Mr Uzumcu was making. He was saying that it appeared from the amount used that it could not have been produced in any old laboratory, as he had admitted a week before when he had said it could be produced “in any country where there would be some chemical expertise.” Rather, the point he was making was that quantities like 50-100 grams could only point to military production of the agent, rather than simply for research purposes.
This is all very bizarre. That’s hardly surprising, though, since there is almost nothing about this case that has not been extremely odd. From what I can tell, there are only really two possible explanations for this latest bout of strangeness.
One possible explanation is that Mr Uzumcu is simply incompetent, and so lacking in knowledge that he doesn’t know his grams from his milligrams, nor that half a cup of deadly nerve agent would wipe out hundreds, if not thousands, of people (not to mention being impossible to put on a door handle in the first place, at least not without the kind of protection that might just draw attention). However, this seems to me fairly unlikely. I assume that you don’t become Director General of the OPCW and remain in the position for eight years if you really are that inept.
But is there another more revealing explanation?
If you go back and read Mr Uzumcu’s statement, it is very noticeable that he does not actually state that he personally believes the quantity of the poison used in Salisbury was 50 or 100 grams. What he actually said is:
“For research activities or protection you would need, for instance, five to 10 grams or so, but even in Salisbury it looks like they may have used more than that, without knowing the exact quantity, I am told it may be 50, 100 grams or so, which goes beyond research activities for protection” [my emphasis].
It looks likethey may have used more than that? From what does it look like that? From the months long, multi-million pound clean up job being undertaken, by any chance?
And of the quantity, he says he was told this. But the question is, who told him?
I can’t be sure, but my hunch is that he does know his grams from his milligrams; that he is well aware that 50-100 grams of the stuff would be enough to have killed the Skripals outright, along with hundreds or possibly thousands of others in the surrounding area; and also that he understands full well that the current multi-million pound clean up operation in Salisbury, which is precisely intended to give the impression that there was so much of the stuff that it might make up half a cupful, or perhaps even a whole bucketful, is something of a farce.
And so even though his original statement at first seems absurd, I’m fairly convinced that it was not a display of incompetence on his part. Rather, together with the subsequent clarification, it was very likely a signal that he believes his source for the claim to be either incompetent or – shall we say – economical with the actualité. And it may be that his real aim was – as diplomatically as possible – to let certain folks in Britain know that he’s not as convinced by some of their claims as they might like him to be.
I first encountered Trotskyists in Minnesota half a century ago during the movement against the Vietnam War. I appreciated their skill in organizing anti-war demonstrations and their courage in daring to call themselves “communists” in the United States of America – a profession of faith that did not groom them for the successful careers enjoyed by their intellectual counterparts in France. So I started my political activism with sympathy toward the movement. In those days it was in clear opposition to U.S. imperialism, but that has changed.
The first thing one learns about Trotskyism is that it is split into rival tendencies. Some remain consistent critics of imperialist war, notably those who write for the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS).
Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of “permanent revolution” into the hope that every minority uprising in the world must be a sign of the long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving eye of mainstream media. More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf of the alleged revolution.
A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March 1, 2018) entitled “Revolution and counterrevolution in Syria” indicates so thoroughly how Trotskyism goes wrong that it is worthy of a critique. Since the author, Tony McKenna, writes well and with evident conviction, this is a strong not a weak example of the Trotskyist mindset.
McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group of children who simply wrote some graffiti on a wall by “beating them, burning them, pulling their fingernails out”. The source of this grisly information is not given. There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies.
But this raises the issue of sources. It is certain that there are many sources of accusations against the Assad regime, on which McKenna liberally draws, indicating that he is writing not from personal observation, any more than I am. Clearly, he is strongly disposed to believe the worst, and even to embroider it somewhat. He accepts and develops without the shadow of a doubt the theory that Assad himself is responsible for spoiling the good revolution by releasing Islamic prisoners who went on to poison it with their extremism. The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamic fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable evidence of Assad’s perverse wickedness.
This interpretation of events happens to dovetail neatly with the current Western doctrine on Syria, so that it is impossible to tell them apart. In both versions, the West is no more than a passive onlooker, whereas Assad enjoys the backing of Iran and Russia.
“Much has been made of Western imperial support for the rebels in the early years of the revolution. This has, in fact, been an ideological lynchpin of first the Iranian and then the Russian military interventions as they took the side of the Assad government. Such interventions were framed in the spirit of anticolonial rhetoric in which Iran and Russia purported to come to the aid of a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund”, according to McKenna.
Whose “ideological lynchpin”? Not that of Russia, certainly, whose line in the early stages of its intervention was not to denounce Western imperialism but to appeal to the West and especially to the United States to join in the fight against Islamic extremism.
Neither Russia nor Iran “framed their interventions in the spirit of anticolonial rhetoric” but in terms of the fight against Islamic extremism with Wahhabi roots.
In reality, a much more pertinent “framing” of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies. The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or to have been, the last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights. There are a few alternative hypotheses as to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse Islamic extremism in order to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks.
It is remarkable that McKenna’s long article (some 12 thousand words) about the war in Syria mentions Israel only once (aside from a footnote citing Israeli national news as a source). And this mention actually equates Israelis and Palestinians as co-victims of Assad propaganda: the Syrian government “used the mass media to slander the protestors, to present the revolution as the chaos orchestrated by subversive international interests (the Israelis and the Palestinians were both implicated in the role of foreign infiltrators).”
No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to.
Only one, innocuous mention of Israel! But this article by a Trotskyist mentions Stalin, Stalinists, Stalinism no less than twenty-two times!
And what about Saudi Arabia, Israel’s de facto ally in the effort to destroy Syria in order to weaken Iran? Two mentions, both implicitly denying that notorious fact. The only negative mention is blaming the Saudi family enterprise for investing billions in the Syrian economy in its neoliberal phase. But far from blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting Islamic groups, McKenna portrays the House of Saud as a victim of ISIS hostility.
Clearly, the Trotskyist delusion is to see the Russian Revolution everywhere, forever being repressed by a new Stalin. Assad is likened to Stalin several times.
This article is more about the Trotskyist case against Stalin than it is about Syria.
This repetitive obsession does not lead to a clear grasp of events which are not the Russian revolution. And even on this pet subject, something is wrong.
The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. Doesn’t that tell them something? Isn’t it quite possible that their much-desired “revolution” might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse?
Throughout history, revolts, uprisings, rebellions happen all the time, and usually end in repression. Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth than a reality, especially as Trotskyists tend to imagine it: the people all rising up in one great general strike, chasing their oppressors from power and instituting people’s democracy. Has this ever happened?
For the Trotskyists, this seem to be the natural way things should happen and is stopped only by bad guys who spoil it out of meanness.
In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence and “modernization” – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. If the Bolshevik revolution turned Stalinist, maybe it was in part because a strong repressive leader was the only way to save “the revolution” from its internal and external enemies. There is no evidence that, had he defeated Stalin, Trotsky would have been more tender-hearted.
Countries that are deeply divided ideologically and ethnically, such as Syria, are not likely to be “modernized” without a strong rule.
McKenna acknowledges that the beginning of the Assad regime somewhat redeemed its repressive nature by modernization and social reforms. This modernization benefited from Russian aid and trade, which was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed. Yes, there was a Soviet bloc which despite its failure to carry out world revolution as Trotsky advocated, did support the progressive development of newly independent countries.
If Bashar’s father Hafez al Assad had some revolutionary legitimacy in McKenna’s eyes, there is no excuse for Bashar.
“In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit—by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers.”
The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified “revolution”.
This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization?
McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: “If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between the rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain, or any other advanced capitalist country?”
One could turn that around. Shouldn’t such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: “if we can’t defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?”
The trouble with Trotskyists is that they are always “supporting” other people’s more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war.
For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go home and mind their own business.
Diana Johnstone is a political writer, focusing primarily on European politics and Western foreign policy. She received a Ph.D. at the University of Minnesota and was active in the movement against the Vietnam War. Johnstone was European editor of the U.S. weekly In These Times from 1979 to 1990, and continues to be a correspondent for the publication. She was press officer of the Green group in the European Parliament from 1990 to 1996. Her books include Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton, CounterPunch Books (2016) and Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions, Pluto Press (2002).
Seeing little support amid international criticism over its violent crackdown on Palestinian protesters, Israel has announced it will not be seeking a rotating two-year non-permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council.
“After consulting with our partners, including our good friends, the State of Israel has decided to postpone its candidacy for a seat on the Security Council,” the Israeli delegation to the UN said.
At the same time, the diplomatic mission stressed that the country will remain “active” in the United Nations to exercise the country’s rights in the decision-making processes of the world body. “This includes the Security Council as well as an emphasis on areas related to development and innovation,” the statement added.
The State of Israel, which has never been a member of the UNSC, decided to throw in the towel after realizing that it had little chance of beating Germany and Belgium in the upcoming United Nations General Assembly vote, which is set to choose the rotating members of the Council on June 8, a source at the UN told Reuters.
Earlier, the Palestinian Authority noted that the Arab states would prevent Tel Aviv from obtaining enough votes to assume a seat at the Council. “We are doing everything possible to convince as many countries as possible to block the vote on Israel’s bid for a seat at the Security Council,” Riyad al-Maliki, Foreign Affairs Minister of the Palestinian National Authority, noted earlier.
“A country that violates international laws and conventions, that violates UN resolutions and principles, cannot sit down to dictate the fate of security and peace around the world,” he added.
The Jewish state’s decision to withdraw its bid comes amid massive international criticism over its use of lethal force to suppress the so-called ‘Great March of Return’ protests along the Gaza border which have been ongoing weekly since March 30. According to the Palestinian Health Ministry, the Israeli crackdown has resulted in at least 45 deaths, inclusive of two journalists, who were shot despite wearing jackets marked ‘PRESS’. More than 6,700 others have been injured in the ongoing rallies, set to conclude on May 15.
Brussels and Berlin will now run uncontested in the Western European and Others group at next month’s vote in the UN General Assembly when the 193-member body will decide on five new members for a two-year term, starting on January 1, 2019. Belgium and Germany, however, still need to secure a two-thirds majority to be elected.
The UNSC, in which the five permanent members –the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia– hold veto powers, is the only UN body that can make legally binding decisions. In addition to permanent members, there are five seats for African and Asian states, two for the Latin American and Caribbean states, two for Western European and other states, and one for Eastern European states. The rotation system was devised to ensure geographical representation on the Council.
Three years ago, I wrote an article entitled “JFK and the Inconceivable Doctrine,” in which I pointed out how many lone-nut theorists in the JFK assassination have reached their conclusion based not on an examination of the circumstantial evidence in the case but instead simply on the notion that it is inconceivable that the U.S. national-security establishment would have carried out a domestic regime-change operation by assassinating an American president.
I would invite readers to read or review that article. The purpose of this article is to elaborate on this theme.
A lone-theorist might say, “Jacob, it is just inconceivable that the CIA and the Pentagon would engage in assassination.”
Yet, the evidence is overwhelming that both the Pentagon and the CIA have assassinated people and, in fact, continue to assassinate people.
The circumstantial evidence indicates that as far back as 1953 the CIA was specializing in the art of assassination. That fact is demonstrated by the discovery in the 1990s of a top-secret CIA assassination manual that was being developed as part of the U.S. national-security state’s regime-change operation against Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz. Entitled “A Study of Assassination,” the manual not only details methods to assassinate people, it also examines ways to prevent people from discovering that the CIA was behind the assassination. For example, the manual recommends tossing a person out of a high-story building and making it look like a suicide, so that people wouldn’t suspect that the CIA has assassinated the victim.
The CIA’s assassination manual was not simply an intellectual or theoretical exercise. It was an actual manual for assassinating people. In fact, the CIA actually developed a list of people to be assassinated as part of its 1954 regime-change operation against Guatemala.
A lone-nut theorist might say, “Jacob, fair enough. By the time of the Kennedy assassination, the CIA was specializing in the art of assassination. But it is simply inconceivable that the CIA would assassinate an innocent person.”
But the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly establishes that the CIA was assassinating innocent people. For example, before Kennedy became president, the CIA targeted Congo leader Patrice Lumumba for assassination. He was innocent in the sense that he had never initiated any act of violence against the United States.
As part of the CIA’s 1954 regime-change operation against Guatemala, the CIA developed a top-secret list of Guatemalan officials who were to be assassinated as part of the operation. We are still not permitted to see the names of the people on that top-secret list but there is little doubt that Arbenz was at the top of the list. Fortunately for him, he escaped from the country before they could assassinate him. Arbenz was innocent in the sense that he and his government had never initiated any act of violence against the United States. In fact, the only reasons he was targeted for regime change were because of his socialist-communist proclivities and his desire to establish friendly and peaceful relations with the Soviet Union, including Russia.
There was also the CIA’s top-secret assassination partnership in the early 1960s with the Mafia, the world’s premier criminal and heroin-running organization at that time. The purpose of that partnership was to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro, notwithstanding the fact that neither Castro nor the Cuban government had ever initiated any act of violence against the United States. Like Arbenz, Castro was considered to be a legitimate target of assassination because of his devotion to socialism and communism and his desire to have normalized, friendly, and peaceful relations with the Soviet Union, including Russia.
In the early 1970s, there was the CIA’s plot to kidnap and assassinate Gen. Rene Schneider, the overall commanding general of Chile’s armed forces. What had Schneider done to deserve kidnapping and assassination? He opposed the U.S. national-security establishment’s desire for a military coup that would oust Chile’s president, Salvador Allende. That was it. That’s why he was murdered.
A lone-nut theorist might say, “Okay, fair enough, Jacob. They do assassinate innocent people, that is people who have never initiated any act of violence against the United States. But it is simply inconceivable that they would assassinate a democratically elected leader of a country.”
Once again, however, the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly supports the contrary. Arbenz, after all, was the democratically elected president of Guatemala. Lumumba was the democratically elected prime minister of the Congo. Allende was the democratically elected president of Chile. (While the evidence indicates that Allende committed suicide rather than be taken prisoner by his national-security establishment during the coup, there is no doubt that the U.S.-supported Chilean military was trying to assassinate Allende during the coup by firing missiles from jet planes into his position in the national palace.)
A lone-nut theorist might say, “Okay, Jacob, I am willing to acknowledge that they do assassinate democratically elected leaders. But it is simply inconceivable that they would murder an American citizen.”
Yet, the circumstantial evidence indicates otherwise. During the Chilean coup, for example, two Americans, Charles Horman and Frank Teruggi, were executed by the Chilean national-security establishment. A top-secret State Department investigative report concluded that U.S. intelligence had played a role in those murders. The report didn’t detail the exact role but it had to be that U.S. intelligence simply requested their Chilean counterparts to execute Horman and Teruggi. The report recommended further investigation but, not surprisingly, that recommendation went nowhere.
Why did U.S. intelligence officials want Horman and Teruggi dead? Three reasons. One, the two men believed in socialism and were supporters of Allende, who, like Arbenz and Castro, was a socialist. Two, Horman had discovered U.S. national-security state complicity in the coup, something U.S. officials were determined to keep absolutely top secret. Three, Teruggi was considered a traitor because he opposed U.S. intervention in the Vietnam War.
There is also the case of Frank Olson, an American civilian working for the U.S. national-security establishment. He had a crisis of conscience regarding the U.S. national-security establishment’s top-secret MKULTRA program and its illegal use of germ warfare against the North Korean people during the Korean War. As detailed in the book A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA’s Cold War and the Netflix series Wormwood (both of which I highly recommend), Olson was thrown out of high-story hotel in New York City, but it was made to look like suicide from an MKULTRA drug experiment against him that had supposedly gone awry. That, of course, was precisely one of the methods of assassination that were recommended in that top-secret 1953 CIA assassination manual.
And of course, there are the recent assassinations of American citizens Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman, along with the entire formal assassination program that has now become an open and permanent program within the U.S. government.
A lone-nut theorist might say, “Okay, Jacob, I will acknowledge that they are willing to assassinate American citizens if they are convinced that “national security” requires it. But it is simply inconceivable that they would assassinate a democratically elected president of our country.”
But what if the president of the United States is perceived to be an even greater threat to “national security” than, say, Patrice Lumumba, Fidel Castro, Jacobo Arbenz, and Salvador Allende?
Indeed, as Douglas Horne details in FFF’s ebook JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated, there was a vicious war that was being waged below the radar screen between Kennedy and the Pentagon and the CIA over the future direction of the United States, something they kept secret from the American people for decades.
Kennedy was determined to establish peaceful and friendly relations with the Soviet Union, including Russia, Cuba, and the rest of the communist world, which, needless to say, would have removed the justification for converting the federal government to a national-security state in the first place.
The U.S. national-security establishment, not surprisingly, considered Kennedy’s actions to be akin to surrender or defeat at the hands of the communists. As far as they were concerned, peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union, Russia, and the rest of the communist world was impossible. For them, this was a fight to the finish, even if that meant nuclear war.
The Pentagon and the CIA considered Kennedy to be a naïve, incompetent, treasonous president who was placing America in much greater danger than foreigner leaders like Arbenz, Castro, and Lumumba were doing and like Allende would later do.
For his part, Kennedy considered people with that type of mindset to be nut-balls. That’s why after seeing an advertisement accusing him of treason in the Dallas Morning News on the morning of the assassination, he turned to his wife Jackie and remarked, “We are headed into nut country today.”
Notwithstanding the overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence pointing toward a national-security domestic-regime change operation carried out on November 22, 1963, many lone-nut theorists continue to hew to the notion that it is just inconceivable that the U.S. national-security establishment would act to protect America from a president whose policies were perceived to constitute a grave threat to “national security.” To actually explore the evidence in the case is still just too frightening for them.
Hollywood gala on November 2, 2017 to raise funds for “Friends of the IDF”, which supports Israeli soldiers. The event raised $54 million. Since FIDF has been made tax exempt in the U.S, donors were able to write their donations to soldiers for a foreign military off their U.S. taxes.
The pro-Israel special interest group is one of the most significant and pervasive special interest groups in the United States. It consists of numerous institutions and individuals that work to influence Congress, the president, academia, the media, religious institutions, and American public opinion on behalf of Israel. It has been active in the U.S. for many decades.
Below is a partial list, in no particular order, of groups and individuals that publicly support Israel. Some of these are official lobbying groups whose primary purpose is to lobby governmental officials for pro-Israel policies. Others are groups or individuals that work to influence the media, academia and/or others in a pro-Israel direction. Some do this full-time; others as one portion of a diverse array of activities. While they span the political spectrum and range from hardcore supporters of the Israeli right to liberal critics of some Israeli policies, all support Israel.
We will continue to update and add entities to this very incomplete list as staffing and time allow. (Also, we have been creating this roster for a number of years, so some links below may now be broken and some information may need to be updated; we will work to fix these as soon as possible.)
Below this list are some recommended books and additional resources on the Israel lobby.
• The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC): AIPAC is the most prominent governmental lobbying organization on behalf of Israel. Fortune Magazine typically rates it as the second most powerful lobby in the U.S. AIPAC frequently writes legislation for members of Congress, which extraordinarily large majorities of both parties typically endorse. It has a$100 million endowmentand annual revenue of about$60 million and spends about $2-3 million each year in lobbying Congress. AIPAC’s annual conventions are typically a who’s who of high government office from both parties pledging their loyalty to Israel. Some years ago an AIPAC official announced that they planned to take over student governments.
• Pro-Israel Political Action Committees (PACs): AIPAC does not give campaign contributions itself but instead uses a campaign finance network consisting of around thirty Pro-Israel Political Action Committees (PACs), which AIPAC is constantly signaling. Only four of these PACs have names that indicate their true agenda, such as ‘Allies for Israel’ or ‘World Alliance for Israel.’ The rest have innocuous names like ‘National Action Committee’ or ‘Heartland PAC.’ Constituents usually don’t realize their candidates are receiving money from PACs that advance the interests of a foreign government. (More info below)
• Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (CoP): This group of 51 Zionist organizations also advocates on behalf of Israel, including a focus on Iran. It had revenues of over $2.2 million in 2011. All members of the CoP sit on AIPAC’s executive committee. The Conference of Presidents focuses on lobbying the Executive branch while AIPAC concentrates on Congress.
• The American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF):AIEF is a subsidiary of AIPAC that takes Congressional Representatives on all-expense-paid trips to Israel. In August 2011, 81 members of Congress from both parties took trips to Israel with the AIEF. Its annual budget is over $26 million, and its executive director, Richard Fishman, is officially “not compensated,” but he receives $395,000 annually from affiliates. Roll Callreports that in 2012 “The American Israel Education Foundation spent more than $650,000 last year — more than any other group — to send more than 60 lawmakers and staffers to Israel for tours of Jerusalem, seminars on Israeli politics and discussions of asymmetric warfare, according to congressional travel filings.”
• The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP):WINEP is a highly influential think tank that pushes Israel-centric Middle East policies. It was founded by a former AIPAC employee, and while it claims to promote a “balanced and realistic” understanding of the Middle East, it is “funded by individuals deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda.” It is frequently called upon by both the government and the media to provide “expert” analysis on Middle East issues. Its 2010 revenues were $9.4 million, and its net assets total $23.5 million. Former AIPAC member MJ Rosenberg stated: “I was working at AIPAC and it was Steve Rosen who cleverly came up with the idea for an AIPAC controlled think-tank that would put forth the AIPAC line but in a way that would disguise its connections.” More information is here.
• Anti-Defamation League (ADL): The ADL bills itself as a civil rights institution devoted to stamping out anti-Semitism. But in practice, it regularly works to promote Israeli interests and attacks virtually any prominent person who criticized Israel and labels them “anti-Semitic.” It has also been involved in a large spying operation against American citizens who opposed the policies of Israel and the Apartheid regime in South Africa. It is an architect of “hate crimes legislation” that may effectively criminalize criticism of Israeli policies. The ADL is a member of the CoP with revenues of around $68 million and as of 2008 had net assets of over $185 million. Abe Foxman, its former national director, made $688,280 per year. When he retired he took a position at an Israeli think tank. The current director is Jonathan Greenblatt.
• International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (aka Stand for Israel): Founded in 1983 by Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein “to promote understanding between Jews and Christians and build broad support for Israel,” it promotes advocacy for Israel among mostly right-wing Christians. It has annual revenues of nearly $100 million.
• Central Fund of Israel, based in Manhattan,says it funds “over 250 charitable causes in Israel.” A Ha’aretz investigation found it funneled much of its money to settlements; it has sent money to an extremist Israeli organization in which the “rabbis heading the yeshiva published a book that discussed the circumstances in which non-Jews can be killed.” It has received “tens of millions of dollars” in donations. In 2015 its revenue was $20 million.
It also sponsorsReservists on Duty, established in 2015 by Israeli soldiers to travel to US college campuses to advocate for Israel and to train American Jewish students to speak on behalf of Israel.
The Gideon Project was created by Reservists On Duty “to give students fluent in English a chance to represent and defend Israel internationally after their service.” Soldiers speak on campuses throughout the U.S. Video here.
• Christians United for Israel (CUFI):CUFI is a right-wing Evangelical Christian organization run by David Brog, a Jewish American attorney who previously practiced corporate law in Tel Aviv, Israel. He’s the author of Reclaiming Israel’s History. In 2007, the Forward newspaper listed Brog in its “Forward 50” most influential Jews in America. The titular founder of CUFI is John Hagee. CUFI, which distorts Biblical teachings, has high-level contacts with the Israeli government. Despite a budget of $7 million, it may be losing ground as more evangelicals learn the facts about Israel. It has a lobbying arm, called CUFI Action Fund, first reported in The Washington Post, run by Gary Bauer, one of the signers of the Statement of Principles of Project for the New American Century (PNAC) on June 3, 1997. Bauer also serves on the board of the Emergency Committee for Israel. In 2010 he received the Defender of Israel Award from the Zionist Organization of America. CUFI Action Fund’s Communications Director is Ari Morgenstern, an Israeli citizen who previously served at the Israeli Embassy in Washington. The fund, Bauer said, will have a multimillion-dollar budget and a dozen staffers who will focus on pro-Israel lobbying among members of Congress and presidential candidates. In 2017 it began a scorecard of legislators’ every vote and comment about Israel.
• Simon Wiesenthal Center: According to its website: “The Simon Wiesenthal Center is a global Jewish human rights organization that confronts anti-Semitism, hate and terrorism, promotes human rights and dignity, stands with Israel, defends the safety of Jews worldwide, and teaches the lessons of the Holocaust for future generations.” It has “a constituency of over 400,000 households” in the US. It is headquartered in Los Angeles, with offices in New York, Toronto, Miami, Chicago, Paris, Buenos Aires, and Jerusalem.” It gave its “Humanitarian Award” to Harvey Weinstein in 2015 despite the open secret of Weinstein’s assaults on women. In 2011 it had an annual budget of $24 millionand net assets of $67 million.
• The Israel Project: Founded in 2003, the Israel Project specializes in pro-Israel propaganda targeting the press and the American public. In 2009, a secret handbook commissioned by The Israel Project and written by Republican pollster and strategist Frank Luntz, “The Global Language Dictionary,” was exposed by two Newsweek reporters. The handbook crafts language and talking points for Israel advocates in simplistic, diversionary, and dishonest ways. The organization has 70 employees and an $11 million annual budget. In 2011 it opened additional bureaus in India and China and launched a website in Arabic.
• Friends of the Israeli Defense Forces (FIDF): This American organization supports the Israeli armed forces. It hosts lavish fundraisers and has fourteen regional offices in the U.S. and one in Latin America. FIDF also brings hundreds of Israeli soldiersto the U.S. every year to lecture at synagogues, universities, and schools in order to increase American support for Israeli policies. It has annual revenues of around $60 million and net assets of $80 million.
• Hadassah (Women’s Zionist Organization of America): Founded in 1912, Hadassah is “a volunteer organization that inspires a passion for and commitment to its partnership with the land and people of Israel.” It has chapters across the U.S. and “more than 330,000… Members, Associates and supporters.” It regularly advocates on behalf of Israel and is currently pushing anti-Iran legislation. It has annual revenues of nearly $100 million and $400 million in net assets.
• America’s Voices in Israel (AVI): A project of the Conference of Presidents, AVI works to “strengthen American understanding of and support for Israel by inviting U.S.-based radio talk show hosts to see Israel and broadcast their programs live from Jerusalem.” It also brings celebrities and other “opinion makers” on guided tours of Israel.
• The Jewish Agency for Israel: The name is often shortened to just “The Jewish Agency.” According to its website, founded in 1929, this links “Jews around the world with Israel as the focal point… ” Major activities include Jewish Zionist education and building a global Jewish community. “In addition to extensive programs in Israel, it operates in close to 80 countries on five continents through a network of over 450 emissaries, including hundreds of formal and informal educators. The world Jewish community participates in the Jewish Agency’s decision-making process through the Assembly, its supreme governing body, and its Board of Governors, which is responsible for policy making and oversight.” The Jewish Federations of North American are a fundraising partner, with individual Jewish Federations from numerous American cities listed.
James S. Tisch: Chairperson of the Jewish Agency Board of Governors. According to its website, Tisch is President and Chief Executive Officer of Loews Corporation, chairman of the Board of Directors of Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., a member of the Board of Directors of CNA Financial Corporatio, a director on the board of the General Electric Company, Chairman of the Board of WNET, parent of WNET Channel 13 and WLIW Channel 21, a member of the Board of Directors of The New York Public Library, serves on the Executive Committee of the Partnership for New York City, a Trustee of the Mount Sinai Medical Center, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, President and Chairman Emeritus of Federation Employment and Guidance Service (F.E.G.S.), past Chairman of the Board of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, past Chairman of the Board of United Jewish Communities, past President of UJA-Federation of New York, and a former director on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
• Young Judaea: According to its website, the organization was founded in 1909 and is “the oldest Zionist youth movement in the United States.” It brings young people to Israel and also has numerous summer camps in the US that serve to “instill a lifelong love” of Israel. It’s annual budget is approximately $200,000.
• American Friends of Likud: According to its website, AFL “has developed unparalleled relationships with the Likud [a right-wing Israeli political party] Ministers and Members of Knesset as well as other Israeli dignitaries and policy and opinion makers. Our programs feature these individuals as guest speakers, lecturers and educators. Our special relationships with Israel’s leaders, dignitaries, journalists, etc. have been developed over the years and are based on a mutual belief in a right-leaning Likud philosophy.” Based in New York City, it is a has an annual budget of approximately $300,000. AFLis reported to be “one of hundreds of ‘Friends of’ Israel organizations in the US – all 501c3 tax-exempt charities raising funds to send to their parent organizations in Israel.”
• American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE) [Jewish Virtual Library]: This nonprofit organization was established in 1993, according to its website, in order to “strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship.” Its principal publication is Myths & Facts:A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. It also works to fight “the delegitimization of Israel,” producing materials to oppose the BCS campaign and publishing the StopBDS.com website. There seem to be a number of AICE branches. The one in Chevy Chase assets of almost $11 million as of 2013. Its leader is Mitchell Bard. The organization sometimes funds professorson US campuses.
• The Israel Allies Foundation: Its website states: “Pioneered by MK Rabbi Binyamin Elon, the Israel Allies Foundation (IAF) works with Congress and parliaments around the world to mobilize political support for Israel based on Judeo-Christian values.” Officially titled International Israel Allies Caucus Foundation, it coordinates similar caucuses in 35 countries and has approximately $2 million in resources.
• Americans United with Israel: The American branch of the international organization United with Israel, which states that it is “a global community comprised of individuals who are deeply committed to the success and prosperity of Israel. Our primary mission is to build a massive network of pro-Israel activists and to educate and promote unity with the People, Country and Land of Israel.” It is a tax-exempt organization. 2014 revenue was $590,000. It’s head is Kaylene Ladinsky, associate publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times.
• The Jewish Policy Center: Its website says it provides timely perspectives and analysis of foreign and domestic policies by leading scholars, academics, and commentators” and “passionately supports … U.S.-Israel security cooperation, and missile defense. We support Israel in its quest for legitimacy and security.” The JPC also says: “We also support U.S. efforts to spread democracy in the Middle East. We believe it is critical to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil. We support Washington’s efforts to deter dangerous states from acquiring nuclear weapons. Finally, we lend our full support to Israel in its long war for security in the Middle East.”
• The Haym Salomon Center: According to its website, The Haym Salomon Center is a news and public policy group that produces content that often appears in mainstream and new media outlets. Its articles have been published in USA Today, the New York Daily News, Fox News, The Hill, the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, etc. Many of its articles focus on Israel, the dangers of “political Islam,” and”antisemitism,” which frequently means opposition to Israeli human rights violations. It operates under Over the Horizon nonprofit organization, which in 2014 had approximately a quarter of a million dollars.
• The Foundation for Jewish Camp: This nonprofit foundation states on its website that in in Jewish camps “Israeli culture is celebrated through song, food, art, and dance,” and reports, “The magic of Jewish camp is rooted in its 24/7 atmosphere” and says that “connection to Israel” is “entwined with basketball, arts and crafts and swimming.” It notes that some camps are particularly “focused on Zionism and the role of Israel in Jewish life.” It reports that in one of these, CAMP INC., “Israel education will be embedded in the program as campers learn about Israel through the lens of their entrepreneurial sector. Campers will learn from high-level mentors, teachers, and business pioneers. Camp Inc., under the direction of Josh Pierce, will be operated by the Boulder JCC.” Another, URJ 6 POINTS SCIENCE ACADEMY “will immerse them in a vibrant Jewish community filled with Jewish music, Shabbat experiences, and living connections to Israel.” It states that the Academy, the 14th in the Union for Reform Judaism’s camp system, will be located in the Boston, MA area. Funding comes from a grant of $8.6 million jointly funded by The Jim Joseph Foundation and the AVI CHAI Foundation.
• The Jim Joseph Foundation: This is a DBA of the Shimon Ben Joseph Foundation, which faqs.org reports has assets of $837,220,914. Its website reports that among the activities its sponsors is “Israel Education,” which includes “twinning day schools with schools in Israel; integrating Israel education with learning taking place in general studies courses; and showcasing Israel’s arts and culture so students and teachers are in direct contact with what is happening in Israel today.”
• The Avi Chai Foundation: According to its 2010 form 990 report it had total assets of $614,997,808. One of its primary North American focuses, according to its website, is “Promoting Jewish Peoplehood and Israel.” It states: “Israel studies and Israel advocacy have become centerpieces of AVI CHAI’s peoplehood efforts in North America. All of the day schools receiving support from AVI CHAI have agreed to include in their materials, as an expression of their own philosophy, the following statement: “The creation of the State of Israel is one of the seminal events in Jewish history. Recognizing the significance of the State and its national institutions, we seek to instill in our students an attachment to the State of Israel and its people as well as a sense of responsibility for their welfare.”
JTA reports: “The Avi Chai Foundation, one of the leading supporters of Jewish day schools, includes on its website a section on Israel Education and Advocacy. It requires all schools receiving its support to abide by a statement saying that they ‘seek to instill in our students an attachment to the State of Israel and its people as well as a sense of responsibility for their welfare.’ It provides books on defending against anti-Israel campaigning on college campuses.”
• Stand with Us: Stand with Us has headquarters in Los Angeles and chapters in Israel, Europe, Britain, Australia, and South Africa. Its annual budget is at least $4 million, though this may only cover the U.S. section. It has a number of divisions, including StandWithUsCampus, StandWithUs International, United4Freedom, Stand4Facts, LearnIsrael, Librarians for Fairness, and Emerson Fellows. Student leaders are trained to advocate for Israel on campuses around the country. The organization has erected numerous pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian billboards around the U.S. “Israelis invested $57 billion in U.S. Companies” is one of them. For a deconstruction of this billboard go here.
• Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI): The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports:
Washington observers may feel there is no obvious shortage of pro-Israel lobbyists in the city—but a group of leading American conservatives thinks otherwise and has set up a new campaign group to attack President Obama over his ‘anti-Israel’ stance. The Emergency Committee for Israel presents a potent combination of Republican Party neoconservatives and Evangelical Christians. The new group’s board includes Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol and Gary Bauer, a former Republican presidential candidate who leads the group American Values, as well as Rachel Abrams, a conservative writer and activist.
Its website says: “The Committee for Israel is committed to mounting an active defense of the US-Israel relationship by educating the public about the positions of political candidates on this important issue, and by keeping the public informed of the latest developments in both countries. Join us to help support Israel and her many friends here in the United States.” The group makes his videos, Its board is here.
The Committee produced an advertisement against Ron Paul that ran in South Carolina because of Paul’s opposition to U.S. aid to Israel and other countries, and another one against Rush Holt, who was defeated by Cory Booker, whose largest donor was a pro-Israel PAC. ECI funded tens of thousands of dollars worth of anti-Obama advertising.
“[Leona Helmsley] left instructions for her charitable trust fund… to benefit dogs. But the courts ruled that the Leona and Harry Helmsley Trust Fund she had established after her husband’s death was not legally bound to fund animals only, and that its grants should be directed solely at the discretion of the trustees she had appointed. Fortunately for the State of Israel, Mrs. Helmsley chose Sandor (Sandy) Frankel, 69, a local Jewish attorney who worked closely with her the last 18 years of her life, to be one of the four trustees who now oversee that major trust. Frankel, who is married to an Israeli and has visited Israel frequently since he was a teenager, is proud to say that he has a passion for the Jewish state.
Among the projects receiving its multi-million grants was a new press center in Israel. At its opening Frankel announced: “Our hope is that with the opening of the club’s doors, the press will flock here, and will accurately report” on the country and its people.
• AMIT: According to its website: “Founded in 1925, AMIT is the world’s leading supporter of religious Zionist education and social services for Israel’s children and youth, nurturing and educating Israeli children to become productive, contributing members of society.” It has numerous chapters throughout the U.S. It sponsors lectures about Israel, holds screenings of Israeli films, participates in pro-Israel parades, etc. In 2011 its annual expenses were over $8 million and its net assets were $11,705,151. Its executive vice president was paid $120,292.
• Aaron and Marie Blackman Foundation, Inc: Net assets of about $7 million(see also here and here). Distributes grants to various Israeli organizations and other organizations with relationships with Israel.
• Jewish Day Schools: Many of these schools work to “instill in our students an attachment to the state of Israel.” (they sometimes use this version: “we seek to instill in our students an attachment to the State of Israel and its people as well as a sense of responsibility for their welfare.” They frequently have school trips to Israel (e.g. the Jewish Day school in Seattle), and include it in curricula, e.g. in Sacramento: “sixth-graders pursue a curriculum centered on Israel.” Their mission statements note that they teach “the centrality of the State of Israel” (see Contra Costa Jewish Day School). These are usually tax exempt institutions, which means they are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers. JTA reports: “In April 2002, day schools throughout the country — Block Yeshiva High School in St. Louis, the Ramaz School in New York and the Ida Crown Jewish Academy in Chicago, to name a few — sent students by bus or plane to a pro-Israel rally in Washington, D.C. “’They drove us to every single rally,” said Shira Galston, a 2004 graduate of Ramaz. “There was no question [of] do you want to go to the rally. We’re going to the rally. Whenever there was something that happened, there was never a question of what side the school was on.’” The Frisch school (Jared Kushner is an alum) hosts training sessions for a project in which teens carry out social media missions assigned from Israel. The Avi Chai Foundation, one of the leading supporters of Jewish day schools, includes on its website a section on Israel Education and Advocacy. It requires all schools receiving its support to abide by a statement saying that they “seek to instill in our students an attachment to the State of Israel and its people as well as a sense of responsibility for their welfare.” It provides books on defending against anti-Israel campaigning on college campuses. See this statement by Avi Chai. (It is important to note that such support for Israel came only after years of pro-Israel efforts to obtain this. The American Jewish population did not originally support Zionism, and there are many groups and individuals today who oppose this ideology, both in the U.S. and in Israel itself.)
• Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA): The Jewish Council for Public Affairs acts as an umbrella for many smaller organizations. One of its three goals, as announced in its mission statement, is to work for “the safety and security of the State of Israel.” Its annual funding is $3,128,795 and comes primarily from private individuals.
• Jewish National Fund (JNF): The Jewish National Fund is an international organization founded at Basil Switzerland by Theodore Herzl in 1901. The fund was originally created with for the purpose of purchasing land in Palestine for a future Jewish state. Today the main focus for the JNF is land “reclamation” and forestry. However, the group also serves to fund IDF military installations. The organization is well funded by donors with total assets of $1.15 billion dollars.
• Zionist Organization of America (ZOA): The Zionist Organization of America was established in 1887, making it the oldest pro-Israel organization in the US. Their goal is to spread the Zionist message wherever in all aspects of American life. Their objectives include spreading Zionism on American campuses, work to advance the interests Israel and Jewish people within the American legal system. They also engage in pro-Israel lobbying, with expenditures totaling$299,900 in 2009. Their finances include over $8 Million in assets and $2.5 million from donors.
• American Jewish Committee (AJC): The American Jewish Committee, founded in 1906, is based is San Francisco. In its mission statement, the AJC espouses support for leftist values, such as “shared democratic values” and “energy independence of the US,” while also advocating the right of Israel to exist as an exclusionary Jewish state. Its annual income is about $49,525,000 and comes largely from private individuals, with its assets totaling$132,310,000. It played a major role in creating the new Israel-centric definition of antisemitismthat is being embedded around the world.
• World Jewish Congress: The World Jewish Congress is an international organization representing Jews in 100 countries. Supporting Israel is one of the key components of its mission. Although its global finances are unknown, its US offices have an annual revenue of $5,521,674.
• Friends of Aish Hatorah: Aish Hatora, Hebrew for “fire of the Torah,” is an Orthodox Jewish organization founded in 1974 and headquartered in Jerusalem. The group is known for a number of pro-Israel programs, including The Theodore Herzl Mission, which brings heads of state to Israel for one week each year. They also have a program called the Hasbara Fellowship, where people can come from around the world to learn how to effectively engage in pro-Israel propaganda. The group has also been linked to the distribution of an anti-Islamic propaganda film during the 2008 American presidential campaign. Because Aish Hatora is based in Jerusalem with various global branches, the details of their funding are unknown.
• Chabad: Chabad-Lubavitch, based on an 18th century Hasidic movement, is one of the the largest Jewish organizations in the world. It is a fervent supporter of Israel. One Chabad Rabbi has encouraged Jewish people to kill “Arab men, women, and children.” Chabad sometimes openly teaches that “the soul of the Jew is different than the soul of the non-Jew.” The group has a reported net worth of $1 billion dollars.
• Republican Jewish Coalition: The Republican Jewish Coalition Jewish is a lobbying group whose mission statement includes the “embrace of pro-Israel foreign policy.” The RJC maintains close links to the Likud party of Israel. They also control a Super Pac, which has upward of 2 million dollars in their war chest. Their Annual revenue is $10,067,507. The vast majority of their funding comes from various organizations.
• National Jewish Democratic Council: The National Jewish Democratic Council is a group dedicated to maximising Jewish support for the Democrat party, increasing support for “Jewish domestic and foreign policy priorities,” and “secur[ing] a democratic Jewish state in Israel.” NJDC supports Likud policies and pushes for a hawkish stance against Iran, urging the President of the United States to “stand with Israel.” Its annual income is $1,161,195 and is funded by private individuals.
• Foundation for Defense of Democracies: The Foundation for Defense of Democracies is an international organization whose claimed goal is “fighting terrorism and promoting freedom” and “defend[ing] free nations from their enemies.” It developed from the educational initiative Emet, which was created to “win American sympathy for Israel’s response to the Palestinian intifada.” While its mission may appear neutral, the organization is dedicated to promoting the security of Israel. Among its other projects is the Iran Project, which revolves around “supporting energy sanctions.” It is funded largely by private individuals’ donations. Its annual income is$7,267,839.
JINSA: JINSA is a non-profit organization whose mandate includes promoting a “a strong U.S. military, a robust national security policy, and a strong U.S. security relationship with Israel…” Their total revenue is $3,332,140 from contributions and program services.
• Saban Center at Brookings: The Saban Center for Middle East Policy is part of the Brookings Institute. Its mission statement includes a two-state solution for Israel/ Palestine. “Ardent Zionist” Haim Saban, a former AIPAC official, funds the institute.
• Center for Security Policy: Founded and led by neoconservative Frank Gaffney, a longtime Israel partisan, CSP works to promote a close US-Israelrelationship and to position Israel’s enemies as allegedly US adversaries. It’s annual budget is approximately $4 million and Gaffney himself earns over $288,000 yearly. The Institute for Policy Studies states: “…(CSP) is a prominent member of the neoconservative advocacy community that has promoted extravagant weapons programs, an Israel-centric view of Middle East peace, and a broad “war on terror” against ‘Islamofascists.’……A primary target of CSP’s work is Iran.”
• MEMRI: The Middle East Media Research Institute is an organization founded in the US in 1998. It’s stated objective is to “inform the debate over US foreign policy in the Middle East.” However, MEMRI is a shadowy organization that does not disclose names of staff members nor office locations. Analysts have commented that MEMRI appears to function as a propaganda organization that circulates biased translations in order to portray Arabs in the most negative possible light. One of the organization’s founders worked as an Israeli military intelligence officer. MEMRI has full non-profit status in the US and receives donations and grants amounting to $4,872,208 annually.
• Hillel: Hillel is a Jewish international student organization. According to its web page, Hillel “fosters an enduring commitment to Jewish life, learning and Israel.” Its president has stated: “We are a pro-Israel organization. It is part of our mission to encourage students to build an enduring commitment to Israel as a Jewish and democratic homeland.” Hillel sponsors and promotes free “birthright” trips to Israel. These trips position Israel as the “homeland” for European and American Jews. Hillel collects annual revenue of $25,920,017, primarily from gifts, grants, and contributions. Hillel has had a program to try to expand its reach by “paying students to attract other students” to Hillel.
In 2014 some students launched an Open Hillelto challenge the Hillel establishment and work to allow campus groups “to adopt policies that are more open and inclusive than Hillel International’s, and that allow for free discourse on all subjects within the Hillel community” and that represent “a Jewish community where the full diversity of Jewish views on Israel-Palestine is accepted and celebrated.”
• Birthright Israel: Birthright Israel is an organization that provides free ten-day holidays to Israel for young Jewish adults, age 18 to 26. Their objective is to, “strengthen Jewish identities, Jewish community, and solidarity with Israel…” Their web page strongly emphasizes support for Israel.Philanthropists, along with 14,000 individual donors, fund Birthright Israel. Their total revenue is $101,960,863.
• David Project: The David Project is a non-profit educational program for the dissemination of pro-Israel propaganda in schools. Their primary goal is justification for Israeli actions, which is often referred to in the Hebrew term, “hasbara” (explaining). Their objective is, “work[ing] directly with students and Israel groups to help them reach out to their peers and talk about Israel.” The David Project has annual income of $2,824,763. However, the source of this income is unclear.
• Amcha Initiative: The Amcha Initiative is a group whose stated objective is to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitism. Their definition of anti-Semitism is broad and encompasses virtually any criticism of Israel, including criticism of Israel’s human rights abuses. The group also lists the Boycott Divest and Sanction movement as an example anti-Semitism. Their annual income is $199,155. The source of this income is unclear.
• Young Israel: The National Council of Young Israel is a group of 146 Orthodox Jewish congregations. Starting in 1912, Young Israel’s web page claims that the group has always been “fiercely Zionist” and even boasts the acquisition of arms for the Jewish terror group Haganah. Young Israel currently offers material support to the Israeli Defense Force as it engages in attacks on Palestinians in Gaza. Because Young Israel is an umbrella for over 100 individual non-profit organizations, it is difficult to ascertain the amount and sources of the group’s income.
• Ateret Cohanim: American Friends of Ateret Cohanim is a non-profit organization based in Jerusalem. The purpose of the organization is the urban renewal of Jerusalem through Jewish gentrification. Their web site boasts of a new Jewish presence in the Christian and Muslim quarters of the Old City, and proclaims Jerusalem to be a city belonging to every single Jew, in spite of the fact that Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem is still not recognized under international law. The group maintains an office in New York with annual revenue of $1,054,618.
• Elad: The Ir David foundation (Amutat EL-AD) is a non-profit organization established in 1986 by David Be’eri, a former elite military commander of the IDF. According to their web page, the group “is dedicated to the preservation and development of the Biblical City of David and its environs.” However, the Ir David foundation is best known for its policy of “Judaization of east Jerusalem” through forced evictions and housing purchases. In recent years, their activity in East Jerusalem has been linked to violent clashes between Palestinians and the new Jewish residents. Ir David has a US auxiliary in New York called Friends of Ir David with total annual revenue of $5,884,950.
• BBYO (formerly B’nai B’rith Youth Organization): Its website says: “BBYO is the leading pluralistic teen movement aspiring to involve more Jewish teens in more meaningful Jewish experiences. For 90 years, BBYO has provided identity enrichment and leadership development experiences for hundreds of thousands of Jewish teens.” It pridesitself on its “unwavering commitment to the State of Israel.” The site says: “BBYO’s history is closely tied to that of the State of Israel. As the future leaders of the global Jewish community, it is our responsibility to learn about, appreciate and advocate for Israel.” Its 2015 annual budget was $27 million.
• Israeli-American Council: According to the Jewish Daily Forward, the Israeli American Council (IAC) aims to establish the Israeli expatriate community living in the U.S. community “as a ‘strategic asset’ for Israel in the U.S.” The goal is to be a “a potent political force in the future.” IAC was established in Los Angeles in 2007, but expanded dramatically in 2013 when casino mogul Sheldon Adelson’s began to serve as its main funder. About 700 expatriate Israelis participated in the “first-ever national political conference exclusively devoted to the expat Israeli community” in Nov. 2014. It has an annual budget of $17.5 million.
According to a 2013 report, “Current IAC programs include: Tzav 8 (recruiting thousands for pro-Israel rallies); Financing the Israeli “Shlichim” at all major campuses in Southern California; Organizing and funding the Los Angeles Independence Day Festival – the largest Jewish festival in North America, as well as dozens of ceremonies, holidays and mass events for the community; Sifriyat Pijama B’America, through which 10,000 families nationwide enjoy Hebrew bedtime books sent to their kids by mail, free of charge on a monthly basis; IAC-BINA club, consisting of approximately 1,500 Israeli and American Jewish young adults who convene discussions and activities relating to Jewish identity and support for Israel; establishing and funding the IAC-Care project in which thousands of the community members volunteer and organize large scale drives; and Mishelanu (the leadership program for Israeli-Americans students). More information is available on its website.
• America-Israel Chamber of Commerce Chicago: An American 501(c)6 tax-exempt organization founded in 1958 that facilitates trade and investment between the US and Israel, promotes Israeli goods and services, trade delegations and business match-making events, and works closely with the Government of Israel to advance bilateral trade. It is a sponsor of the website BuyIsraelGoods.org. The organization, which is tax deductible in the U.S., urges people to buy goods from a foreign country.
This is just one of a dozen such tax-exempt America-Israel Chambers of Commerce in the U.S. listed by the The Association of America-Israel Chambers of Commerce.
Influential Pro-Israel Individuals
• Daniel Shapiro, past US Ambassador to Israel, gave a speech in which he detailed his extremely close, life-long ties to Israel, concluding: “[A]s a committed Jewish American, with deep roots in the American Jewish community and warm bonds of affection with Israel, I will have an opportunity to draw on those associations to help make the U.S.-Israel relationship, strong as it is, even stronger in the years ahead.” He stated that “ensuring Israel’s future” drives all US policies. See “US Ambassador: Support for Israel drives all US policies”
According to Wikipedia: Shapiro served as a professional staff member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, he was a legislative assistant and senior foreign policy adviser to Senator Dianne Feinstein, he sat on the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton, he was deputy chief of staff (primarily on foreign policy issues) for U.S. Senator Bill Nelson, he was vice president of the Washington, D.C., lobbying firm Timmons & Company, served as an advisor to then-U.S. Sen. Barack Obama on Middle East and Jewish community also assisting as strategist and fundraiser, accompanied Obama on his July 2008 trip to Israel; In January 2009, Shapiro was appointed senior director for the Middle East and North Africa of the U.S. National Security Council. Focusing on Israel, he attended every Israel-related meeting, and met with every senior Israeli diplomat and military officer who visited Washington, D.C. Shapiro often accompanied U.S. Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George J. Mitchell on his trips to the region, and played a central role in talks regarding the Middle East Peace Process and the strengthening of military cooperation between the U.S. and Israel. He maintained close relations with Benyamin Netanyahu, in spite of tensions between the Israeli prime minister and President Obama.[14] Shapiro took leave of the President of Israel, Reuven Rivlin, on January 17, 2017 before holding his final meeting with Netanyahu two days later, which one newspaper described as a “terse farewell.”After concluding his service as ambassador to Israel, Shapiro became a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies (Israel) at Tel Aviv University.
• Howard Berman, Democratic Congressman from California, acknowledged in a 2008 interview with the Forward, “Even before I was a Democrat, I was a Zionist.” He went on to explain that “an interest in the Jewish state” was one of the main reasons he first sought a seat on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, where he is the top Democrat. Berman, who is known as “the Congressman from Hollywood,” also told the Forward, “He is particularly keen on getting the House more involved in Iran-related issues.”
• Martin Indyk, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel (he was naturalized as an American citizen before being nominated for this position); currently Special Envoy for Israeli Palestinian Negotiations. At one point he had his security clearance revoked, the only time this has happened to a U.S. ambassador. See video.
• Sheldon Adelson, a businessman and casino magnate, is worth over $28 billion dollars. He owns a number of resorts as well as the Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom, the most largely circulated paper in Israel. Adelson set a new record in political donations by giving $70 million (to Republicans) in the 2012 elections, nearly triple the previous highest amount. He also funds pro-Israel organizations such as Birthright Israel, which takes thousands of young Jewish Americans on recruiting visits to Israel.
• Rahm Emanuel, powerful Democratic politician, was a Congressman, chair of the House Democratic caucus, mayor of Chicago (despite allegations that he had not been a Chicago resident), in Bill Clinton’s administration (had been Clinton’s main fundraiser), White House Chief of Staff under President Obama, etc. Volunteered with the Israeli military during the first Gulf War (his father had served in the pre-Israel terrorist group the Irgun), was Israeli citizen until age of 18. Jeffrey Goldberg says Emanuel “is deeply and emotionally committed to Israel and its safety. We’ve talked about the issue a dozen times; it’s something he thinks about constantly.” See video.
• Stuart Weitzman, shoe designer, donated $1 million to Maccabi USA. The Maccabiah is an Olympics-style competition held every four years in Israel.
• David Satterfield, U.S. diplomat who holds the rank of “Career Minister” who has worked on Middle East issues for over 40 years.. Among his positions have been second-highest diplomat at the US Embassy in Baghdad. In 2002 Satterfield discussed secret national security matters in two meetings with Steven J. Rosen, a top AIPAC official.
The Islamophobia Industry: Institutions and individuals who promote Islamophobia, including Aubrey and Joyce Chernick, Frank Gaffney, Pamela Geller, David Horowitz, Stephen Emerson, David Yerushalmi, and others. (more)
Eric Weider, publisher of American History, Civil War Times, Military History, and eight other history magazines.
Hollywood tycoon Arnon Milchan, who produced Pretty Woman,Mr. & Mrs. Smith, and Fight Club, worked for the Mossad.
Politicians
(we have just begun compiling this category)
Charles “Chuck” Schumer, top Democraatic leder in the Senate
There’s no card to carry that says one is part of the Israel lobby. But taken as a whole, this sampling of powerful pro-Israel organizations demonstrates how information is systematically skewed before it reaches the American public. Politicians and journalists are systematically harassed, often losing jobs, if they step out of line.
There is no comparable pressure from the Arab-American side, much less from stateless Palestinians, who have no army, little money, and very little cultural influence or PR savvy. By contrast to the $3 million given by pro-Israel PACs in 2010, the two Arab-American PACs—Arab American Leadership Council PAC and Arab American Political Action Committee—gave a total of $36,500.
Many members of the lobby have promoted policies against Iran and Iraq.
* PACs: Usually a PAC can only donate $5,000 for a primary and $5,000 for general elections. But with thirty “unaffiliated” PACs marching in lockstep behind AIPAC, this can balloon up to $300,000 for any given candidate. The extent of this influence remains hidden from view. They also use “bundling,” which means taking various individual donations and handing them over en masse to a candidate, so that on the books it shows up as several individual donations, but everyone except the FEC understands who’s really controlling the money.
A 1996 book called Stealth PACsreports that “in 1988, Israel’s lobby had 78 PACs spending more than $5.5 million to bribe Congress to vote more aid for Israel. That was more than total contributions together of the two next largest special interests in the United States—the real estate lobby and the teamsters.”
During the 2010 elections, Israel-affiliated contributions were the third highest of any special interest at nearly $3 million (with almost equal amounts given to Democrats and Republicans). But because that number was broken into pieces and hidden behind unrelated names, pro-Israel contributions didn’t “officially” make the top twenty.
One example is Washington Pac, founded by Morris Amitay, former head of AIPAC. Its website states: “…over three million dollars has been carefully distributed on a bipartisan basis to Senators, Representatives, and candidates… Its Capitol Hill location enables the PAC to meet with Representatives and Senators on an almost daily basis. The Advisory Board holds regular luncheons with U.S. Senate candidates, and the PAC’s newsletter has earned an esteemed reputation for its analysis of the U.S. Senate races.”
• Teva: Not all PACs with connections to Israel are included in the pro-Israel list. For example, the parents company of the Teva PAC Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, is Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, an Israeli company, the world’s largest generic drug maker. It has achieved its astronomical sales by at times infringing on patents (although Judge Sidney Stein just rejected a similar claim – Stein also rejected a freedom of speech law suit related to the Palestinian issue ). Teva’s website states, “Teva Government & Public Affairs seeks to provide legislators and policy makers with both policy and political assistance on issues of importance to patients, the company, its customers, and the pharmaceutical industry as a whole.
We also recommend subscribing to the If Americans Knew news blog, where we post new items on this category frequently, as well as on Israel-Palestine in general.
Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy | May 3, 2018
According to declassified FBI and DHS files, Benjamin Netanyahu was a member of a nuclear weapons technology smuggling ring targeting the United States.
GAZA CITY, PALESTINE — Israeli officials have deemed peaceful protests by Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip to be tantamount to a “state of war,” arguing that soldiers were well within their rights firing live ammunition at unarmed protesters participating in ongoing mass mobilizations at the eastern fence enclosing the besieged territory.
In response to a High Court petition by human rights advocates, authorities in Tel Aviv noted that “the state opposes the applying of human rights law during an armed conflict,” arguing that even the Red Cross deemed human rights law inapplicable during wartime.
According to the Gaza Health Ministry, 50 Palestinians have been killed in the protests while over 6,200 protesters have sustained injuries at the hands of Israeli forces deploying live ammunition or rubber-coated steel rounds and other less-lethal munitions.
The state attorneys’ argument attempts to give international and domestic legal status to the military suppression of peaceful protest and the suspension of international human rights law enforcement, allowing occupation forces the right to use lethal force against unarmed demonstrators.
#Watch | Bizarre symptoms appeared on some protesters who suffered suffocation from gas bombs thrown by Israeli occupation forces on peaceful protesters in the #GreatReturnMarch. pic.twitter.com/v5BpB7DtTQ
— Quds News Network | #GreatReturnMarch (@QudsNen) April 21, 2018
Since March 30, residents of the captive region have held large-scale demonstrations to draw attention to the continuing dispossession of the people of Palestine and theft of their ancestral land by the Tel Aviv government, with the support of the U.S. government.
Organizers hope to continue the rallies until May 15, when Israelis will celebrate the 70th anniversary of the establishment of the State of Israel. The date is mourned by Palestinians as Nakba Day, or “The Day of Catastrophe,” when the ongoing process of ethnic cleansing and expansionism was commenced by the extremist Zionist militia, which later united as the “Israeli Defense Forces” or Israeli military. From 1947 to 1949, around 750,000 Palestinians out of a total population of nearly 1.9 million were expelled from the land of Palestine.
Around two-thirds of Gaza’s 2 million Palestinians are war refugees, or their descendants, who are confined to what is tantamount to a large-scale, open-air prison camp. Speaking to Reuters, 24-year-old protester Ahmed said:
If it wasn’t for the occupation we would have lived as free as people like in other countries … If they don’t allow us back, at least they should give us a state.”
Grim facts reveal intentional abuse
The manner in which protesters, including children, have been injured – live ammunition fired at the groin, neck, limbs, and abdomen – suggests that Israeli troops intentionally aim to inflict maximum harm that could result in life-altering disabilities, paralysis, amputation or the sterilization of civilian participants in the marches.
Many are struck by a new explosive type of ammunition known as the “butterfly” bullet, which causes massive deformities and creates exit wounds as large as a fist. The bullet expands upon hitting targets, decimating human flesh and bone or “pulverizing” internal organs, according to local health officials.
Butterfly bullet is a type of bullets that launched faster than sound and causes severe damage in flesh layers and bone when hitting the human body. It is used by the Israeli army snipers against the armless demonstrators on the borders of gaza. #BDSOurWeapon@basemn63#Israel70pic.twitter.com/tNc79jqe4Q
According to Marie-Elisabeth Ingres, the head of the Doctors Without Borders mission in the Occupied Palestinian Territories:
Half of the more than 500 patients we have admitted in our clinics have injuries where the bullet has literally destroyed tissue after having pulverized the bone … These patients will need to have very complex surgical operations, and most of them will have disabilities for life.”
The Israelis, however, cite the law when justifying their use of deadly force. In a statement to Al Jazeera, an Israeli military official said:
The IDF only employs means that are lawful under international law. No new bullets or gas have been employed during the recent events in the Gaza Strip.”
Cold-blooded mass murder and repression
While Israeli authorities claim that the peaceful protests in Gaza constitute a state of war, videos captured of Israeli soldiers show them casually discussing how best to inflict harm on unarmed Palestinians while facing little to no danger from protesters.
In a video released in April, a sniper can be seen expressing elation after shooting a protester who was allegedly throwing rocks, exclaiming “Yes!”
According to a new survey by the Israel Democracy Institute and Tel Aviv University, 83 percent of Israeli respondents “strongly support” the open-fire policy while around 71 percent of Israelis reject the easing of a crippling blockade imposed on Gaza for the past 11 years.
Israeli authorities consistently claim that the protests are organized by Islamist Palestinian resistance group Hamas, which has ruled the Strip since winning elections in 2007, and that the protest aims to provide cover for alleged “terrorist attacks” using stones and Molotov cocktails. Various factions and civil-society groups have endorsed the march, however, and deny that Hamas has a monopoly on leading the mass actions or that the protests have any ulterior motives beyond the stated demands for the right to return to their former homes in historic Palestine.
Palestinian academic Rashid Khalidi noted that the methods used by the Israeli army indicate a fear of peaceful protest as well as an inherently racist attitude toward the people of Palestine:
So, heavily armored Israeli soldiers with sniper rifles at hundreds of meters are picking off, systematically, Palestinian protesters or people who try to approach the fence or whatever. And that this is a policy that the government is proud of … I think it tells us a lot about Israel’s attitude towards Palestinians, that they are subhuman.
… [A]t the rate at which things are going, unfortunately, we’re probably likely to see even more savage, vicious, brutal, murderous repression.”
Speaking on World Press Freedom Day, US State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert preached freedom from oppression for all journalists – unless they are Palestinian and the oppressor is Israel.
Nauert started her Thursday briefing by praising the State Department press pool and urging accountability for the “apparent assassination” of a BBC journalist in Afghanistan on Monday (one of the nine that were killed in that attack). She then profusely condemned the many violations of journalists’ rights across the world. Among the perpetrators, she listed Myanmar, Egypt, Turkey, Tanzania, Cambodia, the Philippines, Malta, Mexico and, of course, China and Russia. All of them were chastised as oppressive governments that repress, detain or outright murder unwanted journalists.
Once Nauert was done with her opening speech (which included congratulating one of the journalists present on her promotion and praising another’s dress choice), she moved on to other topics – but was pulled back on track by the first reporter to ask a question:
“Would you also condemn the recent deaths of journalists, Palestinian journalists in the Gaza Strip?”
Nauert answered that too many journalists die across the world, and the State Department can’t mention them all.
She said that the US, of course, is “always saddened by the loss of life,” but “Israel has a right to defend itself.”
Israel has been defending itself from Palestinian protesters across the border in Gaza for a month now. Within that time, the defensive action, which includes live gunfire, has claimed 45 lives – two of them journalists’ – and caused 6,000 injuries, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. The Israel Defense Force (IDF) says the Gazans were rioting, throwing improvised explosives and trying to break through the border fence.
When pressured further, Nauert claimed no detailed knowledge of any journalists killed or injured by the IDF, and ultimately told the pool reporters to go ask the Israeli government.
One more proof, if one were needed, that protesting Israel in the United States can be a perilous activity. Last Friday, Zionists groups organized a rave in Washington Square Park in NYC to celebrate Israel’s 70th Anniversary. (the rave post dated Israel’s independence day due to permit issues)
Protestors gathered nearby with the goal of reminding Zionists that their rave celebrated “the racism and the apartheid that is Zionism,” as NYU student Sheelan Mirza said.
“The ideology of Zionism is antithetical to Palestinian liberation,” remarked SJP President Khalid Abu Dawa. The protestors chanted, “Displacing lives is ’48, there’s nothing here to celebrate,” referencing the Nakba, the mass expulsion of Palestinians from their land.
A member of Students for Justice in Palestine was arrested after burning an Israeli flag, and another student was arrested when he crossed into the rave as the rave was ending, grabbed the microphone and yelled, “Free Palestine.”
These arrests were met with an unusually harsh response for student protestors, both students were held at a local precinct until 10:30 pm and then jailed overnight in Manhattan criminal court.
The next morning at their arraignments, the students were charged with a variety of harsh and seemingly inapplicable charges. The student arrested for burning the flag was charged with second-degree reckless endangerment (creating a substantial risk of physical injury to another) and resisting arrest. Each charge carries a substantial potential fine and the possibility of a year in jail.
The student who grabbed the microphone was charged with disorderly conduct, robbery in the second degree (a felony with a penalty of up to 15 years in prison) assault in the third degree and criminal mischief in the third degree. SEE for definitions and penalties.
The following video shows the protestor grabbing the microphone and his arrest. While the protestor might have disturbed the rave, this hardly looks like the commission of a serious felony. No one was hurt. Despite their relatively mild actions, both students have court dates in June for very serious charges that can follow them for life.
The Israel celebrants were more sanguine and apparently felt free to instruct the protestors. NYU sophomore and Realize Israel board member Bryan Buch said his organization is open to discussion, but the rave is not the place for it. Buch commented, “When you have a birthday, you don’t go out and you say, ‘Oh, you remember when you did that? You just say congratulations.” Of course, if you are mourning the Nakba, congratulations may not be the correct term for noting successful ethnic cleansing. In fact, Israel’s birthday party seems a uniquely appropriate place to remind Israel’s supporters of the human costs of their celebration.
Realize Israel president Adela Cojab compared the Israeli anniversary to the Fourth of July. “Every single country has their (sic) own nuances, …. but let’s say a Fourth of July barbecue isn’t the place to discuss it.” Just a reminder to Ms Cojab, Israel’s nuances are not yet America’s, nor is its independence day July 4th and even during America’s fourth of July celebrations one is still entitled to criticize America and even burn its flag.
Israeli settlers attacked Palestinians in the West Bank village of ‘Einabus with the assistance of Israeli soldiers, according to a new report by human rights NGO B’Tselem.
On the morning of 6 March, two Palestinians – ‘Ahed Hamad and Yasser Hamad – went to the northern part of the village to pave a road intended to help residents access their farmland.
Shortly after they began work, some 30 Israeli settlers, “some of them masked”, arrived from the direction of the notorious Yitzhar settlement, located some four kilometres away.
“The settlers surrounded the bulldozer and began throwing stones at it, breaking the windshield,” stated B’Tselem. “The two men tried to escape, but some of the settlers pursued them, throwing stones and hitting them, until they managed to escape into the village.”
“The settlers who remained near the bulldozer threw stones and sticks at it and slashed its tyres.”
Some 50 village residents then went to protect their lands, after which “the settlers returned in larger numbers, accompanied by soldiers”.
Settlers and Palestinian residents “threw stones at each other”, while Israeli occupation forces “fired live bullets, rubber-coated metal bullets and teargas” at the Palestinians. Six Palestinians were injured, of whom four were taken to hospital.
According to B’Tselem: “This incident is not unusual: settlers have attacked Palestinians in the presence of soldiers hundreds of times, with the soldiers sometimes – as in the present case – joining in the assault.”
Israel effectively condones this conduct and reaps the benefits: the Palestinian residents, who know they face a possible attack with no protection at any given time, hold back from going to their farmland – to tend the land or graze flocks – and this makes it easier for the state to take over the land.
An Israeli court has convicted a renowned Arab poet of using her poems to provoke violence against the Tel Aviv regime’s military forces.
Dareen Tatour, who has been under extended house arrest since January 2016, was charged on Thursday in connection with three posts that she made on social media during a wave of attacks on Israeli soldiers which began in 2015.
In the indictment, Israeli prosecutors said they made the decision based on one specific poem — “Resist My People, Resist” — which was posted on Facebook, and three other posts that Tatour made, calling on Palestinian people to rise up to protect the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem al-Quds.
The poem includes such lines as, “I will not succumb to the ‘peaceful solution,’ Never lower my flags, Until I evict them from my land.”
She also wrote in the poem, “Resist the settler’s robbery, And follow the caravan of martyrs.” This is a reference to Israel’s illegal settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian lands.
The indictment further claimed that the poem’s “content, its exposure and the circumstances of its publication created a real possibility that acts of violence or terrorism will be committed.”
Following her indictment, Israeli newspapers quoted Tatour as saying, “My trial ripped off the masks.”
“The court said I am convicted of terrorism. If that’s my terrorism, I give the world a terrorism of love,” she added.
The case has drawn international attention after Israel initially arrested Tatour in 2015 and then put the 36-year-old poet under house arrest.
Describing her arrest as a violation of freedom of expression for a poet, more than 150 literary figures, including authors Alice Walker and Naomi Klein, have so far called for her immediate release.
Member of Israeli Parliament, Ahmad Tibi, who is with the Joint (Arab) List at the Knesset, also condemned the court’s verdict, saying Tatour has received the conviction only because she was Arab.
“Dareen Tatour was found guilty solely because she is an Arab,” he tweeted. “[Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, rabbis, and right-wing politicians continue to incite freely solely because they are Jewish.”
As the West prepares to march off to yet another war in the Middle East, we should perhaps remind ourselves of who is giving the West their marching orders.
In February 2003, just weeks before the US and their allies launched their attack on Iraq and her peoples, a delegation of US congressmen, together with the US Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, a well known pro-Zionist and neoconservative war-hawk, were in Israel at the invitation of the Israeli government then led by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Addressing the congressmen, Sharon told them ‘that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq’. Later, Sharon told John Bolton ‘that Israel was concerned about the security threat posed by Iran, and stressed that it was important to deal with Iran even while American attention was focused on Iraq’. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.