Washington Report - May 2019 - Vol. XXXVIII, No. 3

cover1.qxp_May 2019 Cover 4/25/19 12:44 PM Page 1

TOTAL 2018 PRO-ISRAEL PAC CONTRIBUTIONS

IsraelLobbyandAmericanPolicy.org â&#x20AC;¢ www.wrmea.org

March 22, 2019 at the National Press Club Must-Read Conference Proceedings Other Voices Special Supplement

DISPLAY UNTIL 6/12/2019

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 11:53 AM Page c2

Unprecedented U.S. aid cuts will make life HYHQ PRUH GLIÆ¥FXOW IRU 3DOHVWLQLDQV LQ EH\RQG But where governments fail, people must step in. YOU FDQ FRQWLQXH EXLOGLQJ VFKRROV FRQQHFWLQJ KRPHV WR ZDWHU V\VWHPV JLYLQJ SDWLHQWV DFFHVV WR PHGLFLQHV YOU FDQ KHOS KRSH Æ¥QG D ZD\

anera.org/donate

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 3:29 PM Page 3

Table of Contents

The Israel Lobby and American Policy

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 WelCOmINg RemaRks—Dale sprusansky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Why Talking about the Israel lobby matters—Delinda C. Hanley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Israel’s Armor: The Israel Lobby and the First Generation of the Palestine Conflict—Walter Hixson . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

What Does a Censored Undercover News Investigation Reveal about the Israel lobby in america? —ali abunimah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Ideas Fair—Conor kelley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 U.s. Foreign aid and the Israeli Nuclear Weapons Program—grant F. smith. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 How The New York Times Rigs News on Israel-Palestine—James North. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

keyNOTe: Israel: more Than apartheid—susan abulhawa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

PaNel: FIgHTINg agaINsT Illegal seTTlemeNTs aND FOR FRee sPeeCH

The legal Battle for Justice against Israeli settlers and their american Financiers—martin F. mcmahon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Why I’m suing maryland to Protect my Constitutional Right to Boycott Israel—saqib ali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

What lessons Can activists Take away from the Promoting Human Rights by ending Israeli military Detention of Palestinian Children act?—Brad Parker. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

PaNel: THe VIRgINIa COalITION FOR HUmaN RIgHTs (VCHR)

What Is the VCHR?—Paul Noursi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Why VCHR Is Taking on the Virginia Israel advisory Board—James metz. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 How the VCHR Is Preventing Israel aﬃnity Organizations From Politicizing k-12 Textbooks —kathy Drinkard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

ClOsINg RemaRks—Delinda C. Hanley and grant F. smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 eleCTION WaTCH:

shocker: No Pro-Israel PaC Benjamins to Omar, Tlaib or Ocasio-Cortez—Janet mcmahon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Pro-Israel PaC Contributions to 2018 Congressional Candidates—Compiled by Hugh galford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 “OTHeR VOICes” sUPPlemeNT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Index to advertisers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 COVER PHOTO: PHIL PASQUINI May 2019

3

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 3:27 PM Page 4

American Educational Trust

Publishers’ Page

Managing Editor: Executive Editor: Editor:

Middle East Books and More Director:

Finance & Admin. Dir.: Art Director: Founding Publisher: Founding Exec. Editor:

JANET McMAHON DELINDA C. HANLEY DALE SPRUSANSKY AMIN GHARAD CHARLES R. CARTER RALPH U. SCHERER ANDREW I. KILLGORE (1919-2016) RICHARD H. CURTISS (1927-2013)

PHOTO PHIL PORTLOCK

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (ISSN 8755-4917) is published 7 times a year, monthly except Jan./Feb., March/April, May/June and Aug./Sept. combined, at 1902 18th St., NW, Washington, DC 200091707. Tel. (202) 939-6050. Subscription prices (United States and possessions): one year, $29; two years, $55; three years, $75. For Canadian and Mexican subscriptions, $35 per year; for other foreign subscriptions, $70 per year. Periodicals, postage paid at Washington, DC and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, P.O. Box 91056, Long Beach, CA 90809-1056.

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY CONFERENCE

took place on March 22, 2019—just two days before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the lobbying umbrella for Israel, held its annual policy conference in the nation’s capital. This was the sixth such conference, co-hosted by the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep) and the American Educational Trust, which publishes the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and runs Middle East Books & More. We hope this issue featuring our speakers’ words and images, as well as the first-ever “Ideas Fair,” captures the energy and inspiration generated at the Israel Lobby conference (which you can watch on our YouTube channel, Washington ReportonMiddleEastAffairs.) For more information (and to enjoy past conferences) please visit <israellobbyandamericanpolicy.org>. You’ll also find the final tabulation of “Pro-Israel PAC Contributions to 2018 Congressional Candidates” to help you spot politicians who have accepted pro-Israel influence peddling. Last, but not least, enjoy reading “Other Voices,” a 16-page insert usually available only to subscribers who pay an extra $15 a year. Please support the Washington Report (wrmea.org), 1902 18th St. NW, Washington, DC 20009, and the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep.org), P.O. Box 32041 Washington, DC 20007. Your contributions help us continue to expose and confront Israel’s influence on American policies. ■ 4

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

Published by the American Educational Trust (AET), a non-profit foundation incorporated in Washington, DC by retired U.S. foreign service officers to provide the American public with balanced and accurate information concerning U.S. relations with Middle Eastern states. AET’s Foreign Policy Committee has included former U.S. ambassadors, government officials, and members of Congress, including the late Democratic Sen. J. William Fulbright and Republican Sen. Charles Percy, both former chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Members of AET’s Board of Directors and advisory committees receive no fees for their services. The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs does not take partisan domestic political positions. As a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, it endorses U.N. Security Council Resolution 242’s landfor-peace formula, supported by nine successive U.S. presidents. In general, it supports Middle East solutions which it judges to be consistent with the charter of the United Nations and traditional American support for human rights, self-determination, and fair play. Material from the Washington Report may be reprinted without charge with attribution to Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. Bylined material must also be attributed to the author. This release does not apply to photographs, cartoons or reprints from other publications. Indexed by ProQuest, Gale Ebsco Information Services, InfoTrac, LexisNexis, Public Affairs Information Service, Index to Jewish Periodicals, Ethnic News Watch, Periodica Islamica. CONTACT INFORMATION: Washington Report on Middle East Affairs Editorial Office and Bookstore: 1902 18th St., NW, Washington, DC 20009-9062 Phone: (202) 939-6050 • (800) 368-5788 Fax: (202) 265-4574 E-mail: wrmea@wrmea.org bookstore@wrmea.org circulation@wrmea.org advertising@wrmea.org Web sites: http://www.wrmea.org http://www.middleeastbooks.com Subscriptions, sample copies and donations: P.O. Box 91056, Long Beach, CA 90809-1056. Phone: (888) 881-5861 • Fax: (714) 226-9733 Printed in the USA

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:24 PM Page 5

Introduction

Introduction THE RISE OF THE INTERNET has helped Americans bypass traditional media and see the shocking reality of everyday life in Palestine. This has undoubtedly led to a rise in Palestine solidarity advocacy across all segments of the population. Even with the rise of online advocacy, however, old-fashioned organizing is still vital—as is hearing from experts who are able to put information into context. Education and effective advocacy were thus the pillars of this year’s March 22, 2019 Israel Lobby and American Policy conference. Washington Report executive editor Delinda C. Hanley noted that the Israel lobby is able to secure nearly unconditional U.S. support for Israel, despite polls showing that most Americans do not favor the aid. But with the recent election of individuals such as Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), this unflinching support for Israel is now being challenged. “Finally we’ve elected leaders who will openly debate...the harm all lobbies, especially the Israel lobby, cause to our political system,” Hanley said. University of Akron professor Walter Hixson shared findings from his new book, which uses recently unearthed documents to tell the early history of the Israel lobby in the U.S. Like other settler colonial states, Israel, with its U.S. lobby providing support and cover, has “worked relentlessly to establish facts on the ground” by using violence to “cleanse the land of its indigenous residents in the name of providential destiny, modernity and racial hierarchy,” Hixson explained. Ali Abunimah of the Electronic Intifada outlined the major findings of a leaked Al Jazeera documentary on the Israel lobby. The film “exposes the efforts of Israel and its lobbyists to spy on, smear, and intimidate U.S. citizens who support Palestinian human rights,” he noted. The film, in particular, reveals that The Israel Project and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, though not registered as foreign agents, are working to further the interests of the Israeli government. Grant F. Smith of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep), which co-sponsors the conference, tackled the official U.S. policy of nuclear ambiguity toward Israel’s nuclear weapons program. He noted that under U.S. law, it is illegal to supply assistance to Israel, since the country is not in compliance with the Arms Export Control Act and the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty. James North of Mondoweiss assessed the mainstream media’s coverage of Israel-Palestine, using The New York Times as a case study. “There’s a way of doing business at The Times in which they try and minimize Israel’s culpability,” he explained. North pointed out that the newspaper regularly publishes fluff pieces about Israel, deploys Orientalist frameworks, uses slanted language, ignores Palestinian citizens of Israel, and whitewashes the actions of extremist Israeli settlers. Author and poet Susan Abulhawa’s keynote address pro-

Dale Sprusansky vided a necessary, but chilling, review of Israel’s crimes at home and abroad. She cited the country’s degradation of Palestine’s natural landscape, the use of Gazans as lab rats for new military technology, and links to extreme right-wing governments. She revealed that the country has sold arms that perpetuated war, and even genocide, in South Sudan, Rwanda, Myanmar, South Africa, Bosnia, Nicaragua and elsewhere. Attorney Martin F. McMahon shared details of his ongoing litigation that charges American citizens, non-profits and other groups with aiding and abetting Israeli settlers’ genocide against Palestinians. After being struck down in U.S. District Court, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the case this year. Saqib Ali, a former Maryland state legislator and a freelance software engineer, discussed his ongoing lawsuit against Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan. In 2017, the governor issued an executive order banning BDS supporters from even bidding on state contracts. Ali claims this order violates both his First Amendment right to free speech and wrongfully precludes him from gaining a work contract from the state. Brad Parker of Defense for Children International provided three lessons for effective congressional advocacy. First, efforts should be “entirely built around evidence-based, rights-based advocacy.” Second, he said, “sustained and regular engagement with lawmakers and their staff, both in Washington and locally in district” is needed. Finally, “having advocates speaking from personal experience on the ground” is critical. Paul Noursi of the Virginia Coalition for Human Rights (VCHR) explained how the group put together an organized and unrelenting response to a proposed anti-BDS bill in the state legislature. “We organized, we pulled together the various groups who are interested in opposing it,” he said. “We attended meetings and hearings in the General Assembly.” James Metz noted that VCHR has challenged the Virginia Israel Advisory Board (VIAB), the only taxpayer-funded state agency in the country that promotes the interests of Israel. This summer, VCHR is going to ask the General Assembly to investigate VIAB’s merits as a state agency. Kathy Drinkard highlighted VCHR’s efforts to challenge the pro-Israel Institute for Curriculum Services’ (ICS) edits to the state’s K-12 textbooks. VCHR teamed up with local professors to create fact sheets outlining problematic edits to textbooks, such as referring to Israeli “settlements” as “communities.” It is our hope that this conference provided all who heard it— including a vast audience on C-SPAN—with the information and inspiration they needed. Many of the activists who spoke at the conference were motivated to action, in part, by our previous conferences. This year’s conference will, we hope, likewise prompt more people to get involved in local, national and international organizations fighting for truth and justice. ■ May 2019

5

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:24 PM Page 6

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

Welcoming Remarks Dale Sprusansky

6

refrain from talking here in the main ballroom. Please do it far beyond the walls so everyone in here can hear the important stuff being said. Today’s event is being live streamed on CSPAN2 and online, so we welcome our online and television audiences. We invite them to participate on Twitter using the #IsraelLobbyCon. They can send in their questions and their thoughts. Wi-Fi information for the people here is available on the back of your program. We’d also like to welcome dignitaries from several embassies today—Algeria, Malawi, Russia, South Sudan, Uzbekistan and Yemen. And, of course, we’d like to thank the wonderful staff here at the Press Club who have been working very hard to set this up. We were here late last night with them and we couldn’t do this without their work. And, of course, to our many generous donors, big and small, we wouldn’t even come close to being able to do this without your generous support, and we thank you tremendously, and you all—like activists—often go unnamed. ■ PHOTO PHIL PORTLOCK

Dale Sprusansky: Well, good morning, everyone. My name is Dale Sprusansky. I’m editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. And, on behalf of the Washington Report and the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, I would like to welcome you to today’s Israel Lobby and American Policy Conference. Now in its sixth year, a core goal of this conference is to advance the notion that it’s healthy and normal to challenge special interest groups and that no group, including the Israel lobby, ought to be exempt from critique. And, of course, challenging powerful lobbies helps promote transparent governance, accountability, and policies that promote human rights and the common good rather than special interests. And while this conference will assess the history of the Israel lobby and some of its latest agenda items, it will also highlight the work of grassroots activists who have worked diligently and often under the radar to challenge the lobby in productive, effective and tangible ways. We hope their words and example inspire our audience to get involved in local and national organizations that are committed to upholding the principles of truth, justice and human dignity. And so before we begin today’s program, just some information for our audience here. In the bags that were given to you at the reception desk, there are question cards and pens. You can use those to write questions as they come to you as our speakers are presenting. Ushers will be circulating to collect those question cards. Please feel free to hand them in as you write the question down. The moderators will appreciate having the questions before the Q&A sessions begin. Also, in your name badge that you were handed, at the back of it is a red ticket. That will give you a free beverage during our reception at 5:00 pm, so you do not want to lose that. We also ask, of course, that unless you were given prior permission, you do not film these events and that you also

IndextoAdvertisers Alalusi Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 American Friends of Birzeit University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 American Near East Refugee Aid (ANERA) . Inside Front Cover Amphorae Publishing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Barefoot to Palestine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Center for International and Regional Studies . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Kinder USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Land of Canaan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Middle East Children’s Alliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Mondoweiss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Palestinian Medical Relief Society (Friends of UPMRC) . . . . . 67 Playgrounds for Palestine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 United Palestinian Appeal (UPA) . . . . . . . . . . Inside Back Cover

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:24 PM Page 7

Delinda C. Hanley: Why Talking About the Israel Lobby Matters

Why Talking About the Israel Lobby Matters Delinda C. Hanley

Dale Sprusansky: And with that, I’d like to hand it over to Delinda Hanley, the executive director of the Washington Report, who will give a brief overview before we begin today’s conference. Thank you.

PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

Delinda C. Hanley: Thank you. Well, I have 10 minutes to tell you why talking about the Israel lobby matters—a subject that writers for our magazine, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, have been focusing on for more than three-and-a-half decades. And there’s a shout-out I have to give to [the late] Andy Killgore, who published the magazine and who is missing this conference—but his daughters are here—and my father, Richard Curtiss, is missing this, too, but my brother is here. This is a very important magazine to our families! So, in your bag you’ll find two issues of the print edition. We also offer a digital edition. I, of course, encourage everyone listening today on C-SPAN or everywhere else, if you are not a subscriber, please become one. Today, you’ll be hearing from distinguished speakers who have tackled the Israel lobby using keyboards, the courts, and citizen activism. They’re working to expose and end human rights abuses in Israel and preserve civil rights here. Quite a few of the speakers have attended this conference year after year, sitting in these chairs, inspired by Drs. John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt and Hanan Ashrawi, journalist Gideon Levy, and so many others. We hope today that you will be similarly motivated not only by our speakers, but by participants in this year’s Ideas Fair. During the breaks, we encourage you to visit each table and hear what others are accomplishing. Join their important work to make a difference in your own communities. This is the sixth year we’ve gathered to discuss what’s now a hot topic, thanks to the election of a new generation of members of Congress—many of them women. Democra-

tic Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan are fearlessly expressing some tough truths. They’re trying to bolster voting rights, overhaul the campaign finance system, reduce corruption in Washington, DC, and end the influence of special interests. I wish their elders in Congress would follow their lead instead of trying to shush them. I was at the Busboys and Poets on Feb. 27 for a town hall meeting that ignited one firestorm, and heard their lively conversation about universal healthcare, the environment, and ending U.S. involvement in foreign wars. Busboys owner Andy Shallal asked the two to address charges of anti-Semitism that flare up every time they discuss the Israel lobby or Israel. Tlaib talked about her grandmother and the hardships she faces living under Israeli occupation. She stated that this conversation is about human rights for everyone, emphasizing this conversation is not centered around hate; it’s actually centered around love. Omar agreed, adding: I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it’s OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country. And I want to ask, why is it OK for me to talk about the influence of the NRA, of fossil fuel industries or big pharma, and not talk about a powerful lobby that is influencing policy? I left that town hall meeting so inspired. I hope that finally we’ve elected leaders who will openly debate the influence of money in politics, and the harm all lobbies, especially Israel’s lobby, cause to our political system. So I was stunned when the press and legislators went nuts, accusing Omar of using anti-Semitic tropes. The charge of anti-Semitism is a red herring, and its overuse dilutes the very real danger of true anti-Semitism. But it’s the charge the lobby always makes to discredit people who dare to speak out. It’s the only response possible. May 2019

7

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:24 PM Page 8

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

That is because not even the Israel lobby can provide a persuasive defense of the Israeli government’s actions in the territories it occupies: shooting unarmed protesters, including children and medical workers, building ever more colonies or settlements, constructing apartheid walls and roads. Unlike the debate on guns, abortion or climate change, this conversation is closed before it can even start, when any criticism of Israel is labeled anti-Semitic. Full stop. Conversation closed. Of course, the lobby feels it must try to prevent any discussion of these issues, because when people raise the questions Reps. Tlaib and Omar have, there’s a very real possibility that other Americans will seek answers to these questions themselves. The lobby can only be effective in putting Israel’s interest ahead of Americans’ if its actions—some of which it tries hard to conceal—and its history are not open for discussion. But it looks like AIPAC’s Pandora’s box is opened, and we are proud to have been a major part in prying it open. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Israel has spent more than $63.5 million lobbying Congress and federal agencies in 2017 and 2018 alone—far more money than any country except South Korea, at $82 million-plus. The nonprofit constellation of Israel affinity organizations pushing to advance Israel from within the U.S. has revenues on track to reach $6.2 billion by next year. And most important of all are the individual political campaign contributions made in exchange for unquestioned political support for Israel. So why can’t we talk about the Benjamins? American taxpayers provide Israel with more than $3.8 billion annually in military aid. You’ll be hearing more on that later from our conference co-organizer, IRmep’s Grant Smith. Since 1948, Israel has received far more U.S. foreign aid than any other country, despite polls showing that most Americans oppose such aid. On March 6 Gallup claimed— although it was the lowest figure since 2009—that 59 percent of Americans sympathized more with the Israelis and only 21 percent sympathized more with the Palestinians. But for decades, Gallup’s lofty claims of U.S. sympathy for Israel, coming out just before AIPAC’s annual meeting, differed significantly from Pew Research. When IRmep fielded Gallup’s poll through the highly accurate Google survey platform between March 5 and 8, IRmep found that only 22.2 percent of Americans said they sympathize more with the Israelis, while 52.5 percent claimed they 8

held no opinion. Americans have long been told they are highly sympathetic to Israel and support giving most of the U.S. aid budget to Israel—when in fact they aren’t, and don’t. Meanwhile, this administration has halted U.S. humanitarian aid to Palestinians, including scholarships for Palestinian students attending American universities abroad—but we taxpayers can’t talk about it. Instead, the Israel lobby pushes the idea that our two nations have shared values. Sadly, that is becoming increasingly true. As Israeli elections near, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is pushing divisive politics. He declared that Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people and them alone, implying that 1.8 million Arabs and other minorities are at best second-class citizens. He accuses former military chief Benny Gantz, his main rival, of planning to form a governing coalition with— shudder—Arab Israelis. Netanyahu is backed by the far-right party known as Jewish Power and followers of the late Meir Kahane, an ultranationalist racist American Israeli rabbi and founder of the Kach Party, who inspired Baruch Goldstein to attack Palestinian worshippers at Hebron’s Ibrahimi Mosque in 1994. Like our own president, Netanyahu is pandering to farright voters and sowing division. Huge campaign billboards along Israel’s highways show Netanyahu and President Trump—who declared Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moved our embassy there—shaking hands. And now Trump’s given away the Golan Heights. In a couple of days, we’ll see a lot of members of Congress clamoring for a microphone at AIPAC’s policy conference, talking about shared values and shared foreign policy goals. They’ll be pushing for more handouts from the American taxpayer, a war with Iran, and—well, they were going to be pushing for Golan Heights, but they got surprised! They’ll be focusing on anti-Semitism and ignoring the dangers of Islamophobia and fear of immigrants. They’ll be talking about how the recent congressional resolution condemning hatred was diluted, because it did not exclusively target anti-Semitism or reprimand Omar. They’ll be talking about which party, the Democrats or Republicans, is better for Jews in America and Israel. Two weeks before Israelis go to the polls, both Bibi Netanyahu and his rival Benny Gantz will be campaigning for office at AIPAC’s policy conference. AIPAC has also invited Oded Revivi, a senior leader of the settler umbrella organization, to speak. As Ilhan Omar wrote in her March 18 Washington Post op-

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:24 PM Page 9

Dr. Walter Hixson: Israel’s Armor: The Israel Lobby and the First Generation of the Palestine Conflict

ed, “America’s image in the world is undermined when we don’t live up to our own values.” She called for an inclusive foreign policy—one that centers on human rights, justice and peace—as the pillars of America’s engagement in the world. When the speakers you’ll hear from today criticize Israeli government actions—spoiler alert: Susan Abulhawa’s critique will be unforgettable—it is because these actions

threaten peace in the region and also the national security of the United States. Just as it’s not anti-American to criticize our own government, it is not anti-Semitic to criticize the Israeli government or its lobbies in the United States, or to peacefully advocate for BDS. Like Omar, I am proud to stand up for real American values, and I know you are, too. Thank you for being here today. ■

Israel’s Armor: The Israel Lobby and the First Generation of the Palestine Conflict Dr. Walter Hixson

PHOTO PHIL PORTLOCK

Grant Smith: I have the honor of introducing Prof. Walter Hixson, who is the author of a halfdozen books about foreign policy. He’s taught history for 36 years, and he’s currently the distinguished professor of history at the University of Akron. Professor Hixson’s books include American Foreign Relations: A New Diplomatic History; American Settler Colonialism: A History; The Myth of American Diplomacy: National Identity and U.S. Foreign Policy; Parting the Curtain: Propaganda, Culture and the Cold War; and George F. Kennan: Cold War Iconoclast. Most exciting to us is Walter Hixson’s upcoming new book, Israel’s Armor: The Israel Lobby and the First Generation of the Palestine Conflict. He is going to be available after this presentation to meet with anyone who wishes at his Ideas Fair table, to talk about his book, copies of which will be available for pre-sale. He provided a copy to conference organizers early on, and we were simply astounded by his new sources of information that he has tapped. Those of you who have questions, please feel free to pass question cards to our helpers today who will collect them and provide them to me for moderated Q&A—and please help me welcome Prof. Walter Hixson.

Walter Hixson: Thank you, Grant. Thank you to Delinda, Janet, Dale and all the folks with the Washington Report and with the Institute, it’s a great honor for me to be here. I’d also like to thank all of you who are activists in this cause or interested in this cause, whether participants here or organizers, people watching on television, watching online. I’d also like to especially thank Eyewitness Palestine. They have a table here. I went on a threeweek trip which was indispensable and pivotal in my intellectual development on this subject…I recommend that to anyone, especially you students here who might be interested. Normally I don’t like to read a talk, but in the interest of time efficiency—and it’s also very helpful, when you’re dealing with Israel and the lobby, to say exactly what you mean— so I will read this talk. This conference speaks truth to power. We gather here because we support truth and justice in Palestine. We also insist on a free and open discussion of the Israel lobby and its impact on American democracy as well as world politics. All of you already know that the Israel lobby is extremely powerful. For the record, it constitutes easily the most powerful diaspora lobby representing the interests of a foreign nation in all of American history. But you may not know how May 2019

9

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:24 PM Page 10

PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

deeply rooted it is—in fact, the extensive lobbying efforts of Zionists and their Jewish and Christian sympathizers in the United States—and there’s not enough work on the Israel lobby by scholars, for reasons that may be obvious. [John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy] is good, but doesn’t go back to the deeper roots of the conflict as I’m able to do in this book on the first generation. I’ll talk about it, but then I’ll talk about the subsequent project I’ve undertaken. So, the influence of the lobby flourished throughout the first generation of the Palestine conflict, which is what the book is about. As good a date as any to fix the origins of the Israel lobby in the United States is the 1942 Biltmore Conference held in the heartland of American Zionism, New York City. Zionists quickly discovered that they can mobilize Jewish organizations, as well as groups such as the American Christian Palestine Committee. It’s also important to point out that there was considerable dissension among Jewish Americans, including the American Council on Judaism, which utterly opposed Zionism and utterly opposed the religion being hijacked for the cause of creating a so-called Jewish commonwealth. So it’s certainly a mistake to assume that Jewishness equals Zionism, and always has been. So the Biltmore Conference—after that, Zionists quickly discovered that they can mobilize these organizations. The nascent lobby efficiently lined up the two main political parties in support of the creation of the Jewish commonwealth, the admission of masses of refugees, and crucial U.S. financial assistance to accommodate them. Military assistance would come later. A well-organized and effective Zionist lobby thus pre-dated the creation of Israel. It was poised to ensure that Israel would receive the diplomatic, political and military support that would enable it to undertake decades of aggressive expansion, in direct violation of myriad U.N. resolutions, principles of human rights, and international law. From the beginning, the purpose of the lobby was to insulate the Zionist state from widespread criticism, to deflect and distort the 10

truth about its aggression so that it could reap the benefits of the security and massive financial assistance from the most powerful country in the world. Louis Lipsky, an American Zionist from Rochester, declared that propaganda and persuasion would provide “the armor that Israel cannot live without.” The key figure in the first generation of the lobby, however, was a little known Zionist from Cleveland, Isaiah Leo Kenen. Working hand in hand with the famous Israeli diplomat Abba Eban, Kenen became the workhorse of the Israel lobby. His personal papers, available at the Center for Jewish History in New York, yet largely neglected by scholars, reveal the early history of the lobby. Those and myriad other papers, along with State Department records and an abundant secondary literature, provided the research foundation for the book that I have done. The Palestinians and the Arab world had no comparable lobby in the United States, which had the largest Jewish population in the world and millions of moderate and fundamentalist Protestants as well. They were ready to line up behind the Jewish refugees in Palestine and the Zionist agenda. Full awareness of the horrors of Nazi genocide, combined with ignorance of the impact of Zionist aggression in Palestine, underlay U.S. public support. Buoyed by the growing U.S. support, Israel expanded its borders, rejected international mediation, and turned a blind eye to the plight of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees. When the U.N. mediator Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden pressured Israel to compromise, a terrorist troika that included future Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir had him gunned down in his jeep at a Jerusalem roadblock in September 1948. By that time, with a presidential election looming in November, the lobby exercised a powerful influence over the Truman administration. Zionists worked through David Niles, a White House adviser on Jewish affairs—which became an essential post in future presidential administrations. They all had a specifically Jewish affairs or Zionist lobby adviser. Israeli patriarch Chaim Weizmann assiduously cultivated Truman with the help of the president’s former business partner, Eddie Jacobson, a Zionist from Kansas City.

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:24 PM Page 11

Dr. Walter Hixson: Israel’s Armor: The Israel Lobby and the First Generation of the Palestine Conflict

Fully aware and frequently resentful of the pressure exerted on him by the Israel lobby, Truman nonetheless ultimately sided with it and against the advice of the State Department. The United States became the first nation to recognize Israel, supported a massive influx of Jewish migrants, and glossed over the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. President [Dwight] Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles presented a greater challenge for Israel and the lobby than had Truman. The Republican administration entered office in 1953, determined to rein in Israel and forge a Middle East peace that would protect oil supplies, allow Arab moderates to fend off extremists, and support the overarching foreign policy of containment of communism. Israel appeared vulnerable when Ariel Sharon manifested a lifelong zeal for indiscriminate slaughter of vulnerable Arab people as he orchestrated a massacre at the West Bank village of Qibya in October 1953. Deeply alarmed by the impact the massacre might have on American public opinion, Kenen mobilized the local [Jewish] councils to calm the waters in the wake of the indiscriminate killing of innocent villagers in their homes. Kenen soon realized that the political power of the lobby already was so well ensconced that representatives and senators of both parties could be counted on to line up behind Israel in a crisis. This was an important moment, as Qibya showed that Israel could massacre people and rely on the lobby to effectively manage the political fallout. Israel thus could continue to lash out violently across its already expanded borders, regularly carrying out assaults disproportionate to any provocation, in Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon. In 1957, Eisenhower did force Israel to pull back after it had invaded Egypt—but even then, Israeli aggression was rewarded with critical new navigation rights that would enable it to precipitate the pivotal 1967 war. In the period between [the 1956] Suez [crisis] and the 1967 war, John F. Kennedy won the [1960 presidential] election, backed by overwhelming Jewish political support. In 1962, JFK pronounced the existence of the “special relationship” and opened the military supply spigot by selling Israel Hawk surface-to-air defensive missiles. The Israelis showed their appreciation to Kennedy by repeatedly lying to him about the nuclear research program in the desert at Dimona. They pledged not to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East, when in fact they were committed to doing precisely that. Israel refused to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iran, by contrast—here’s a moment

of humor in our talk—like the overwhelming majority of nations in the world, Iran, of course, is a signator. By the Kennedy years, the lobby had reorganized several times and established its structural component, AIPAC— you’ve heard of that—backed by influential supporters in both political parties. Kenen regularly stuffed congressional mailboxes with copies of the Near East Report, the welledited and highly successful propaganda newsletter that he created. Inside the White House, the Jewish affairs adviser Myer “Mike” Feldman undermined efforts to rein in Israel. The lobby ensured that the State Department and the few members of Congress who asked troublesome questions— notably Sen. J. William Fulbright—were kept at bay. The lobby then targeted, and in 1974 helped defeat, Fulbright, and drive him out of the Senate. Noting that the Kennedy administration was virtually powerless against Israel and the lobby, adviser Robert Komer, himself Jewish, asked in frustration, “What kind of relationship was this?” To Komer and the State Department diplomats, it was obvious that Israel and the lobby were the tail that wagged the strategic dog of American Middle East policy. In his blurb for my book, John Mearsheimer wrote that it is “especially good at showing how a select group of pro-Israel Americans profoundly influenced President Lyndon Johnson, who was like putty in their hands.” Johnson had been pro-Israel since his youth, when his Aunt Jessie infused him with the biblical lore that God had chosen the Jews to inherit the Holy Land. Johnson also enjoyed the company of close Jewish friends and advisers—Eppie Evron, Abe Fortas, Arthur Goldberg, Arthur and Mathilde Krim, among others. Johnson apparently did not directly green light Israel’s initiation of the June 1967 war, but neither did he flash a red signal. As several Israeli leaders subsequently openly acknowledged, Israel in 1967—as in 1956—launched the June war as a first, rather than a last, resort. The Israelis, as well as the CIA, knew that Israel was the more powerful force, could defeat all the Arab rivals combined, and that is precisely what Israel did, initiating a blitzkrieg attack rather than seeking a negotiated settlement of maritime and territorial disputes. After the war, which included the apparently deliberate attempt to sink an American spy ship, the USS Liberty, killing 34 and wounding 171 U.S. sailors, Johnson reversed a generation of U.S. policy upholding the 1949 borders. He acquiesced to the lobby in support of an occupation of Arab territories that extended in myriad directions, far beyond the 1949 armistice lines. The lobby thus enabled Israel to exploit May 2019

11

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:24 PM Page 12

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

the sweeping military triumph by embarking on a messianic quest for the Greater Israel. My study culminates with the pivotal decisions in 1967: initiating an illegal occupation and the emergence of a violently regressive apartheid state. Before most Americans even knew that it existed, the lobby had played a pivotal role in enabling Israel to launch an aggressive war to choose land over peace with the Palestinians and its other Arab neighbors, and to continue to thumb its nose at the U.N. and international law. The United States not only enabled the illegal occupation, it bolstered the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] with advanced weaponry, including tanks and F-4 Phantom jets, Skyhawks as well, despite Israel’s contempt for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. By 1967, Israel and the lobby had achieved a stranglehold over modern American political life. “The U.S. position is all that can be desired,” Kenen declared after the Six-Day War. “The U.S. is working like never before.” The lobby achieved its success by circumventing the foreign policy bureaucracy and applying pressure directly on the president and the Congress through campaigns to secure financial assistance, armaments and unstinting diplomatic support for Israel. By the 1970s, the lobby and Kenen himself began to be identified and chronicled by the press. Asked in 1973 to explain the operations of the lobby, Kenen responded, “I put it very succinctly in one sentence: We appeal to local leadership to write or telegraph or telephone their congressmen and urge them to call upon the president to overrule the Department of State, and this has been going on now for some 20 years.” At the time of the interview, the Near East Report achieved a circulation of nearly 30,000. As Kenen suggested and as my book shows, throughout the first generation of its existence, from Truman through the Johnson years, the lobby successfully fended off persistent State Department efforts to forge an “impartial or balanced diplomacy between Israel and the Arabs.” While Israel carried out cross-border attacks, stonewalled refugees and rejected diplomacy, the lobby successfully undermined the advice of area experts—some of whose children organize the [Washington Report] magazine and sponsored this conference—who warned that the imbalanced pro-Israeli policy would perpetuate instability and achieve security for no one, including Israel. American professional diplomats—often wrongly dismissed as pro-Arab or even anti-Semitic, neither of which was true—warned about the consequences, including the rise of extremism in the Arab world. Their prophecy would 12

come full circle in the 21st century. Well, you know what’s happened since. All these images [of recent presidents and members of Congress speaking at AIPAC conferences] will be familiar to all of you. I now turn to a broader interpretive study I have undertaken on the history of the U.S.-Israeli special relationship, going beyond where this book ended up. When I began intensive study of Israel-Palestine several years ago, I was susceptible to the familiar stereotypes: age-old religious conflict, ancient enmities, neither side willing to compromise. Now that I know better, I am, of course, charged with being one-sided. So let me say this. Palestinians and Arabs are human and have made many mistakes to be sure. The historical record clearly shows, however, that the Palestine conflict is rooted in Zionist aggression. Accelerating settler colonization has both caused and perpetuated the conflict, and, moreover, has foreclosed genuine opportunities for a peace settlement—in 1949, even more clearly in 1967, and in the 1990s as well. In everyday life, we learn and teach our children that it is inappropriate to blame the victim. The same is true in diplomatic history. No one blames Poland for being invaded in 1939. Accordingly, the focus of what follows is where it belongs, squarely on the aggressors and their apologists. Today, Israel and its American backers have become increasingly transparent in their regressive policies, claiming Jerusalem as the eternal capital, savagely cutting off Gaza as well as aid to the Palestinian refugees, engaging in targeted killings and collective punishment—and now, yesterday, the United States signed off on another illegitimate land grab, the annexation of the Golan Heights. All of these actions are in direct violation of international law. We may not be able to stop these actions at this moment in time, but what we can do as scholars and activists is to call to account Israel and the United States. Specifically, we must gain a clearer understanding of Israel’s core identity and the ways in which the lobby attempts to cover up Israel’s crimes. Application of the framework of settler colonialism to explain Israeli history has been a step in the right direction. But what does this label really mean? Here’s a brief overview: Animated by nationalist and religious discourses, settler states such as Israel, the United States, Australia and South Africa, among others, are congenitally aggressive. They strive to cleanse the land of its indigenous residents in the name of providential destiny, modernity and racial hierarchy. Settler colonial states work relentlessly to establish facts on

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:24 PM Page 13

PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

Dr. Walter Hixson: Israel’s Armor: The Israel Lobby and the First Generation of the Palestine Conflict

the ground. They embrace violent solutions, including regular resort to massacre. They reject legal restraint and they abhor external authority. The drive to lay claim to the biblical Holy Land meant that Israel would not agree to a negotiated settlement of the Palestine conflict. The peace process became a sham, providing cover for the establishment of ever more facts on the ground. Fueled by aggressive instincts and mythical destiny, Israel became a reactionary and rogue state, building illegal settlements in contempt of the U.N., repressing Palestinians in contempt of human rights. Knowing that the lobby had its back, Israel ignored the State Department and rebuffed American presidents, thereby affirming Moshe Dayan’s famous quip, “Our American friends offer us money, arms, and advice. We take the money and we take the arms; we decline the advice.” The Israeli patriarch [David] Ben-Gurion liked to say, “It’s not important what the Gentiles say, what matters is what the Jews do.” The Israeli political system has empowered a series of bigoted, bellicose leaders who showed utter contempt for Arabs and the determination to violently dispossess them. The early Zionist leaders bore the psychic scars and traumas of the bloodlands of East Central Europe from which they came. They carried the terrible burden of the Nazi genocide that took the lives of their family members and some six million Jews. As a result, they were quick to brand Arab leaders like Nasser as the next Hitler. Diplomacy became a reprise of Munich; any effort at compromise was dismissed as appeasement. This time, they vowed, the Jews would be the aggressors. The Israeli leaders thus inherited, internalized and perpetuated an intolerant Hobbesian worldview that was inimical to peacemaking. For most of its existence, Israel has been led by men who should be held accountable for war crimes. I do not make such an accusation lightly. Abundant evidence exists under international law to make the case against at a minimum Ben-Gurion, [Moshe] Dayan, [Menachem] Begin, Sharon, [Yitzhak] Shamir and [Binyamin] Netanyahu. They must be held to account in the dock of history, if nowhere else.

Millions of decent, caring people live in Israel. Some of them bear a heavy burden of regret and frustration over their country’s actions, as do many of us with respect to American policies, both at home and abroad. The crucial point, however, is that neither peace-minded Israeli citizens nor liberal American Jews have thus far been able to break through the iron wall of Israel’s militant chauvinism or to unhinge the right-wing vise grip on political power. The conclusion seems inescapable: The militant and messianic settler state selects like-minded leaders. I think it is essential to come to grips with the militant core of Israeli identity in order to understand the role of the lobby. The lobby provides cover for Israel’s congenital aggression, its pursuit of land over peace, its flaunting of international law. While Israel carries out violent and criminal acts, the lobby functions to insulate it from criticism, to distort history and reality. In sum, to provide what Lipsky described: “the armor Israel cannot live without.” Such is the hubris of imperial settler states like Israel and the United States that even as they engage in violent repression, they simultaneously insist on being loved, honored, and accredited as model democracies. Historical denial and policing of dissent are thus among the primary characteristics of the militant settler state. Efforts to unpack Israeli—or, for that matter, American—mythology, and to expose the aggression that inheres within are invariably attacked as subversive. For Israel, like the Soviet Union of old, glasnost [transparency] could become a deadly virus. For these reasons, Israel and the lobby smear and condemn their critics unmercifully, which brings us to the recent remarkable, deeply disturbing, and yet highly revealing case of Rep. Ilhan Omar, that Delinda has already spoken of. Representative Omar may have been guilty of hitting the send button on some loosely worded tweets, clearly as rare and heinous a crime as there is in America today. Israel’s apologists attacked Representative Omar for linking “Benjamins” with the Israel lobby—that is, for having the temerity to suggest that a political lobby in a capitalist society might raise and use money in an effort to shape public opinion and May 2019

13

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:24 PM Page 14

PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

the resultant national security policy. This, of course, is precisely what the Israel lobby does do. Nonetheless, Representative Omar apologized for the tweet, showing a degree of stateswomanship that you may never see nor hear from the Israel lobby. Think about all the people that CAMERA and other Zionist attack groups have smeared over the years. Have you ever known them to apologize? Israel’s vocal partisans in Congress, backed by the lobby, stepped up the Orwellian assault on Representative Omar when she stated another rather obvious truth: namely, that the lobby demands political allegiance to the state of Israel. So we have a situation in which a lobby was created for the express purpose of promoting uncritical bipartisan support for Israel, yet when a member of Congress, on the Foreign Affairs Committee at that, dares to point this out, she is viciously attacked and inundated with death threats. Derrida and Foucault would be no doubt gratified that the Israel lobby has mastered the concept of tropes, as well as the ability to use them to manipulate an all too easily confused Internet-addled mass society. Tropes, as the French theorists taught us, are deployed for the purpose of exercising power. While Representative Omar herself never used the term “dual loyalty,” her critics unleashed this particular trope as if she had. She was then promptly saddled with the scarlet letter of anti-Semitism. Unreflective journalists, including the so-called liberal news media, jumped on the bandwagon, affirming and spreading the word to the point that a canard effectively became the truth, namely that Omar had trafficked in anti-Semitic discourse. What she had done in actuality was attempt to criticize Israel and illuminate the role of the lobby. These are the reasons that she had to be smeared and silenced. Smears and distortion undermine free speech and dissent in a supposedly democratic society, but even worse in this case, they cheapen and detract from the chilling reality of actual anti-Semitism—the hate-filled stereotypes and violent attacks such as Charlottesville, and especially the massacre at the Pittsburgh synagogue in October of last year. 14

Let’s consider another trope: “Islamic terrorism.” In the United States, in Israel, and other countries, you are free to use this trope at will. It is perfectly acceptable to link the world’s second largest religious tradition, with millions of adherents and scores of countries all over the globe, with terrorism. If you say Islamic terrorism, there will be no lobby, no trope police to step in with smears and vilification. You are free to inspire people to take action like the mass murders last week in the New Zealand mosque. If you apply “axis of evil” or “evildoers” to Islamic countries, that is well and good. However, if you are a non-white Islamic congresswoman who wears a headscarf and you condemn as evil Israeli war crimes killing innocent civilians in the Gaza Strip, you are an anti-Semite. The smearing of Omar calls to mind the remark Netanyahu once made—unaware that he was being recorded—about how easy it was to manipulate discourse and to move public opinion in the United States. It also lays bare the cynical tactics of the Israel lobby. From Qibya to the killing fields of Gaza, Israel and the lobby have discovered that a tenacious and relentless propaganda campaign can cover up almost any crime, justify almost any calumny, overcome almost any political challenge. Israel and the lobby have learned to mobilize fast, to attack without restraint, to eliminate perceived threats and, ultimately, to turn them to their own advantage. Israeli propaganda thus mirrors Israeli military power: both deploy campaigns of shock and awe, allowing the bodies to fall where they may, ever willing to make truth the first casualty. As I bring this talk to a close, bear with me while I engage in a final bit of historical reflection. We live in dangerous times. The distortions and deep divisions within this country sometimes remind me of the antebellum years in American history. Ominously, it was a time when the political system collapsed. In the year 1858, the nation confronted irreconcilable national divisions as a result of its long embrace of crimes against humanity. At that moment, a little known former oneterm congressman from the Midwest seized the national spot-

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:24 PM Page 15

Dr. Walter Hixson: Israel’s Armor: The Israel Lobby and the First Generation of the Palestine Conflict

light by declaring, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” A nation, he declaimed, “could not endure, permanently, half slave and half free.” It was true of the United States in 1858, and it is true of Israel-Palestine today. Something— somewhere, somehow, sometime—is going to have to give. In 1861, Abraham Lincoln went on to become president. He famously wore a top hat which reposes in the Smithsonian, just a few blocks from where I stand today. Encircling Lincoln’s top hat is a black silk mourning band through which he honored the memory of his son Willie, who died prematurely at age 11. I think back to Lincoln and his top hat, and then to the president we have today—a flag-hugging certifiable narcissist demagogue who sports a red MAGA ball cap. The juxtaposition of Lincoln and Trump reminds me of the famous quotation from The Education of Henry Adams. The acerbic historian and scion of the vintage American political family wrote, “The progress of evolution from President Washington to President Grant was alone enough to upset Darwin.” I hate to think what Henry Adams might say today. Amid the horrific civil war over which he agonized on a daily basis, Lincoln repeatedly demonstrated an astonishing ability to say so much in so few words, including the breathtaking poignancy of his remarks at Gettysburg in November 1863. Months later, in April 1864, Lincoln revealed the epic purity of his prose in a letter to a Kentucky newspaper editor when he declared, “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.” Let me conclude in the same spirit. Let us declare here today that if demanding the right to exist while denying it to your neighbor is not wrong, nothing is wrong. If driving people from their land and demolishing their homes is not wrong, nothing is wrong. If asserting absolute authority over a historic city, rightful home to people of all faiths is not wrong, nothing is wrong. If slaughtering children for throwing stones at their oppressors is not wrong, nothing is wrong. If terror and deprivation that are being inflicted every day upon the imprisoned people of Gaza is not wrong, nothing is wrong. If supplying $125 billion to finance a regime that commits such crimes against humanity is not wrong, nothing is wrong. If converting the Congress of the United States into a lapdog for Israeli policies is not wrong, nothing is wrong. Let us also emphasize once again that if anti-Semitism is not wrong, nothing is wrong. Cynical deployment of baseless charges of anti-Semitism, however, in order to legislate against free speech, stifle criticism of a foreign nation, or insist on the right to outlaw boycott of an apartheid state—if these things are not wrong—nothing is wrong. As we continue to struggle, no matter what the odds and the monies arrayed against us, let us derive inspiration from another antebellum freedom fighter. “I am earnest,” William Lloyd Garrison declared in 1831 when he launched the publication of the first issue of the antislavery newspaper The Liberator. “I will not equivocate—I will not retreat a single

inch—and I will be heard.” Thank you. [Standing Ovation]

Questions & Answers

Grant Smith: We’ve got a few questions, and a hard stop in six minutes. I’ll try to get through as many as I can. Professor, please expand on the relationship of the lobby and the JFK administration. Was JFK convinced ideologically or politically? And as a corollary to that developing relationship, is the lobby controlling a U.S. policy of Israeli expansion in the Middle East? Walter Hixson: JFK is a very interesting case because his father, of course, had been Ambassador to the United Kingdom in the 1930s and was associated, in the minds of many Jews, with appeasement of Nazi Germany. And Kennedy himself had some anti-colonial sentiments. But there’s some very interesting material at the Kennedy Library, where I did research. And when he wanted to run for president, some Boston Zionists basically worked with him, and he understood that he wanted to generate Jewish support. His views changed and he became a Zionist, in essence. What’s interesting about the research that I did on these presidents through Johnson, and including Johnson—they all were at various times extremely upset and angry with the pressure the Israelis brought to bear. They’ve got the State Department reports. They also had the larger goal of containing communism. In the Cold War, they feared that all-out U.S. support for Israel would lead to Arabs aligning with the USSR. So there’s a lot of conflict in all the administrations, but certainly, ultimately, yes, the lobby does enable Israeli expansion. There’s no doubt about that. Grant Smith: So, a question here about the U.N. in history. It says, because Israel continues to ignore U.N. resolutions condemning its behavior, is the U.N. even able to decertify Israel from this building or from this body? Walter Hixson: Well, I’m not an expert on the history of the U.N. or on international law, but having said that, the U.N. has always been—I mean, it’s headquartered in New York. It was basically an American idea of Roosevelt’s, drawing on Wilson’s original League of Nations. U.S. funding has always been instrumental. American power and the U.N. have always been inextricably linked. So in many respects—especially with the way the U.N. is set up, with the Security Council and veto power—and if you know anything about the U.S. record when it comes to U.N. resolutions on Israel, you’ll see many votes with the United States and the great power, the Marshall Islands, lining up against the rest of the world. So the United States effectively has something of a veto power over the U.N. May 2019

15

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:24 PM Page 16

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

Grant Smith: And if you could comment on bringing this forward, how might the Israel lobby be influencing U.S. policy in Syria? Walter Hixson: Well, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s very clear that the so-called neocons and Trumpâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;and Obama was under pressure as wellâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; but they would love to not only obviously control Syria, but invade Iran, attack Iran. Thereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a desire out there to do that. And now, especially with the Golan annexation, obviously, this is an Israeli border state that it very much wants to contain. But Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m sure many of you know, as a result of interventions in Lebanon, they donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t always go the way the Israelis liked them to go. And so I think Syria and Lebanon and other statesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Hezbollahâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;are going to be around for Israel to have to deal with. Grant Smith: And a question about advisers and liaisons: You mentioned Eddie Jacobson and some other names. Does a similar pattern exist in Congress, where each member of Congress would necessarily have such an adviser on their staff to help in understanding the Middle East? Walter Hixson: Youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d have to look at individual congressmen. One of the problems with this subject is thatâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;look, Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve got tenure, Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m nearing retirement, Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m a distinguished professor. I can take this on. Junior members, historians and political scientists run the other way from this topic. So itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

not studied enough. We donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know answers to all the questions we need answers to like that. There is a book, a manuscript Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m looking at now, on the role of Congress in the â&#x20AC;&#x2122;70s which is very good. But we have a lot more to learn in these areas, because itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s understudied, because of the power of the lobby, again. Grant Smith: OK, a question from an Internet viewer. You said specifically that AIPAC founder Isaiah Kenenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s papers have not been the subject of much interest. Why do you suppose thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s so? Walter Hixson: I think itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the same answer that I just mentioned. The papers were astonishing to me. There is Kenen basically laying out the whole early history of the lobby. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s much harder to get at the later history. Theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve gotten a little smarter about not making things available, I think. But again, I think itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s just very difficult. When I published an op-ed piece in Akron, Ohio, where I live and teach, I was attacked by the Cleveland/Akron lobby. My university administrators get nervous. This is how it works. So, younger scholars, junior scholars, donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t go there. Grant Smith: All right everybody, you can visit with Professor Hixson in the Ideas Fair and talk more about his new book. Join me in thanking Professor Hixson. Walter Hixson: Thank you. â&#x2013;

(Advertisement)

! " Alalusi Foundation has provided sponsorships to over 5,193 Orphans in Iraq.

$45

! " " # $% && '(374 ) * ) +

! " # $500 $ "% & '( ) * +*,+ # -

16

) + . " ! / " ( . 0 # 0 ! 1 0 . 2 3 4 ) )

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:24 PM Page 17

Ali Abunimah: What Does a Censored Undercover News Investigation Reveal About the Israel Lobby in America?

What Does a Censored Undercover News Investigation Reveal About the Israel Lobby in America? By Ali Abunimah

search: Middle Eastern Policy and the Washington Report, for inviting me back here for the second year in a row. It’s an honor and pleasure to see so many people here this morning. Some of you were in the room last year, when I stood here to talk about this documentary. At that time, nobody had seen it, and Grant asked me, “Do you think we’ll ever see it?” I don’t remember exactly what I said, but I think I said we will see it or I didn’t know. What happened was, back in March of last year, our publication, The Electronic Intifada, was the first to publish reports of the contents of the documentary. In August, we were the first to publish video excerpts from the film. And in November, we, along with Al Akhbar in Beirut and Orient XXI in France, actually published the entire film. Now, for those of you who don’t know anything about this film, and there may be some people, first let me give credit to the team at Al Jazeera investigations led by Clayton Swisher and Phil Rees and their colleagues, and, of course, the undercover reporter known as Tony, who did a really fantastic historic piece of journalism—a four-part documentary going undercover in The Israel Project, revealing candid conversations by top Israel lobbyists who did not know that they were being recorded. But, unfortunately, this fantastic piece of journalism was suppressed, and I’ll say more about that in a moment. Let me just ask how many of the people in this room have actually watched the documentary or any part of it? I’m going to say that that’s maybe about 25 to 30 percent, which is pretty good—but really, I would like to encourage everyPHOTO PHIL PORTLOCK

Janet McMahon: I’m Janet McMahon, managing editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. I first became aware of our next speaker in the 1990s, when I began reading his masterful letters to National Public Radio, pointing out their errors of omission and commission alike—which, of course, were numerous. Journalist Ali Abunimah is the co-founder and executive director of the widely acclaimed The Electronic Intifada, a nonprofit, independent online publication focusing on Palestine. He has been an active part of the movement for justice in Palestine for two decades and was the recipient of the 2013 Lannan Cultural Freedom Fellowship. A graduate of Princeton University and the University of Chicago, Ali is a frequent speaker on the Middle East, contributing regularly to numerous publications. He is also the author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the IsraeliPalestinian Impasse, and The Battle for Justice in Palestine. And he will be signing both books in the Ideas Fair room during the morning break immediately following our question-and-answer session. The Electronic Intifada has been at the forefront in fighting censorship by obtaining, releasing, and contextualizing “The [Israel] Lobby,” the suppressed Al Jazeera documentary exposing the strategies and activities of the Israel lobby in this country. Today, he will be addressing the question: “What does a Censored Undercover News Investigation Reveal about the Israel Lobby in America?” So please join me in welcoming Ali Abunimah. Ali Abunimah: Thank you very much, and good morning, everyone. Thank you to the organizers, the Institute for Re-

May 2019

17

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:24 PM Page 18

PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

one to watch it. It’s available online free at The Electronic Intifada and other sites. Already hundred of thousands of people, if not maybe in the low millions, have seen it, if you are to add up all the different copies that are out there. What does this film reveal? First, a little bit of background. The film was made by Al Jazeera in 2016 and was completed in 2017. But, as I mentioned, it was censored after Qatar—of course, the Gulf state that funds Al Jazeera— came under intense pressure from the Israel lobby. Now, this is remarkable, because it is a film about the power of the Israel lobby, and the same lobby succeeded in getting Qatar to suppress this film, all the while denying that the Israel lobby has any power or influence. [Laughter] Now, late last year, the director general of Al Jazeera claimed at a conference in the U.S. that the reason the film had not been shown was due to outstanding legal issues. This was flatly contradicted by his own journalists. We know that, in fact, the film had been completed, and it had passed through all of the usual and rigorous legal standards review that Al Jazeera does. We know how rigorous that is, because in January of 2017 Al Jazeera did actually broadcast a similar film focused on the Israel lobby in the UK. That film revealed that a spy at the Israeli Embassy called Shai Masot was working secretly, in his words, to take down a British government minister who was deemed too critical of Israel, and to secretly set up a pro-Israel organization within the opposition Labor Party. This was being run out of the Israeli Embassy. When this was revealed, the British expelled Shai Masot—but the British government very quickly swept all this under the carpet. But, significantly, after the film was broadcast—and you can watch that film on the Al Jazeera website, because they did actually broadcast it—after the film was broadcast, Israel lobby groups and individuals in 18

the UK filed a raft of complaints with Ofcom [Office of Communications], the British broadcast regulator. We don’t really have an equivalent in the U.S. where you can complain about FOX, or CNN, or MSNBC, or Rachel Maddow’s mad conspiracies claiming Russia is going to cut off the heating of Americans in the depth of winter. There’s no one to complain to for that. But in the UK they have a powerful broadcast regulator that can actually take away your license. Ofcom did an eight-month investigation and threw out every single complaint against the documentary. There was no bias. There was no misrepresentation. There was no unfairness in it. And the U.S. film was made to exactly the same standards by exactly the same journalists. This film, which I again encourage you all to watch, exposes the efforts of Israel and its lobbyists to spy on, smear and intimidate U.S. citizens who support Palestinian human rights, especially the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement. It shows that Israel is running covert and semicovert black ops from a government agency called the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, which is staffed by many people from Israel’s intelligence agencies, and that this effort is being done in collusion with an extensive network of U.S.-based organizations who are not registered under FARA [the Foreign Agents Registration Act] as agents of a foreign power. But based on what is in the documentary, they clearly should be. These organizations include the Israel on Campus Coalition, The Israel Project, and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies—it’s more like the foundation for defense of apartheid, occupation, sniper murder and so on. It also showed how the Israeli Embassy in Washington itself was running some of these operations. For example, a woman called Julia Reifkind—who at the time was an Israeli Embassy employee, but previously was an AIPAC campus activist in California—described her typical daily work as

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:24 PM Page 19

Ali Abunimah: What Does a Censored Undercover News Investigation Reveal About the Israel Lobby in America?

“mainly gathering intel, reporting back to Israel to report to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Strategic Affairs.” She discusses how the Israeli government is “giving our support to various front groups,” in “that behindthe-scenes way.” She also talks about using fake Facebook profiles to monitor campus and pro-Palestine groups. And, again, these efforts are run in direct coordination with the Ministry of Strategic Affairs whose director general is a woman called Sima Vaknin-Gil, who was herself a former military intelligence officer. She talks about how her operation, run through the ministry, has mapped the universe of Palestinian rights activism globally, “not just the United States, not just campuses, but campuses and intersectionality and labor unions and churches.” And she says that this data is used for “offense activity” against Palestine activists. The film also shows Jacob Baime, executive director of the Israel on Campus Coalition, describing how his organization runs a multi-million-dollar effort. He doesn’t say exactly where those millions come from, but he talks about millions of dollars using corporate-level enterprise-grade social media intelligence software—those are his words—to gather lists of Palestine-related student events on campus, “generally within about 30 seconds or less of them being posted online,” and how this information is then filtered to this network of organizations that are working to sabotage these groups, and that this effort is coordinated with the Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs. Jacob Baime describes how the Israel on Campus Coalition is part of this Israel-run or Israel-coordinated strategy. It uses anonymous websites to target activists: “With the antiIsrael people, what’s most effective, with what we found at least in the last year, is you do the opposition research, put up some anonymous website, and then put up targeted ads on Facebook.” He talks about Canary Mission as a good example, and adds, “It is psychological warfare.” One of the cases in the film that’s profiled is Prof. Bill Mullen at Purdue University in Indiana, who found himself the target of just such an anonymous smear campaign, where websites went up featuring totally false accusations of sexual harassment and anti-Semitism against him, even to the point where these websites mentioned his young daughter and his wife. So you can imagine the psychological effect on someone of seeing websites with that kind of false allegation.

“

Other websites targeting student leaders in Indiana included one which claimed that a young woman was a terrorist, and another which claimed that a young Muslim woman activist was engaging in late-night drinking and sex, and other activities which were calculated to try to shame her and to bring her into disrepute with her family and her community. The film named convicted tax evader Adam Milstein, who is also the chair of a lobby group called the Israeli-American Council—which is positioning itself to the right of AIPAC, if you can believe such a thing—as being the mastermind and key funder of Canary Mission, an anonymous website that, again, targets students and professors. I should mention that Jacob Baime of the Israel on Campus Coalition described this strategy to smear, and target and intimidate people as inspired by Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan—for all the success that it has had, since the U.S. is, of course, now in direct negotiations with the Taliban, 18-odd years after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan. Nonetheless, it shows the mindset that Israel and its proxies in the United States are waging a war on American citizens, including teenagers on college campuses who are exercising their constitutional rights to speak up about an issue they care about deeply. We have it from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. Sima Vaknin-Gil, the director general of the Foreign Ministry, states very explicitly, we have FDD—that’s the Foundation for Defense of Democracies—we have FDD. We have others working on projects including data gathering, information analysis, working on activist organizations, money trail. This is something that only a country, with its resources, can do the best. So she states on camera and in the film that these groups are working with the Israeli government to carry out these operations. But when we checked on the U.S. government’s Foreign Agents Registration Act website, we did not find the Foundation for Defense of Democracies or any of its principals registered as agents of the Israeli government. One of the revelations in the film that I found particularly amusing, let’s say, is the efforts of The Israel Project. The Israel Project is a lobby group based here in Washington. It’s run by a former Clinton administration official, Josh Block, who also worked for AIPAC previously. And it also works closely with the Israeli government. And the Israel Project— actually, the undercover reporter Tony, as he’s known in the

These efforts are run in direct coordination with the Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs.

“

May 2019

19

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:24 PM Page 20

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

tray Israeli militarism as cute and empowering. They actually posted a photo of an Israeli F-16 fighter jet painted pink. Pink is a very important color to The Israel Project. And then the post said, “The Israeli Air Force has painted fighters in pink in aid of breast cancer awareness month. How cool is that?” And then it adds, “This is fierce. Women, by the way, need an Air Force all their own.” So feminist. Of course, at the same time that this is going on, dozens of women in Gaza are documented to have died due to Israel’s siege, denying them potentially life-saving treatment. Dozens of cancer patients—I should say, many of them women—are documented by the World Health Organization to have died because Israel would not allow them out of the Gaza ghetto to obtain life-saving treatment. But this is the propaganda that Cup of Jane is pushing, and it’s very clear why—or The Israel Project is pushing—and it’s very clear why. It’s because Israel’s brand is toxic and you can’t sell it directly, especially to young people, and so you have to try and mix it in with hip, cool stuff that looks innocuous or even progressive. The film shows one of the staffers at The Israel Project explaining the logic behind this. One Jordan Schachtel says, “We’re putting together a lot of pro-Israel media through various social media channels that aren’t The Israel Project’s channels. So we have a lot of side projects that we are trying to influence the public debate with. That’s why it’s a secretive thing, because we don’t want people to know that these side projects are associated with The Israel Project.” In fact, this network of pages run by The Israel Project are not labeled as being run by The Israel Project. Or they just say project of TIP, T-I-P. Nobody who doesn’t know what The Israel Project is would have any idea what TIP is. So it was a covert effort. Now, when we asked Facebook to comment on this and to look into it, their media office said, “OK, we’ll have a look.” They got back to us and they said—we asked specifically, does any of this violate your terms of service? Remember, this is at the same time as Facebook is taking down pages of legitimate news organizations, and legitimate organizations, based on the claim that they’re somehow agents of Russian influence. Completely bogus stuff. And Facebook has partnered with the Israeli government to shut down Palestinian

film, actually got a job, an internship, at The Israel Project, which is pretty amazing. But The Israel Project, the film reveals, was running a major effort, a major covert influence campaign on Facebook. This is really remarkable. What they did is set up pages or communities on Facebook. Some of them have hundreds of thousands, half a million or more followers. I don’t know if we have the ability to project from the Internet, I should have thought of this—but one of them puts up really cute pictures of kittens and doughnuts. It’s one of the actual Israel Project doughnuts, it’s actually pink. It actually looks toxic. It looks like it would kill you if you ate it, because no food is naturally that shade of hot pink. But it actually describes itself as—on the “About” section of the Facebook community, it’s called Cup of Jane. It describes itself as sugar and spice and everything nice. What it tries to do is to establish progressive credibility by posting not just pictures of kittens and doughnuts, but also photos and quotations from such black female icons as Maya Angelou and Ida B. Wells. There are also posts about the groundbreaking environmentalist Rachel Carson, and even about Emma Gonzalez, who, along with her classmates, launched a national campaign for gun legislation after surviving the Parkland school massacre in Florida. But woven into this stream of progressive-flavored fluff are attacks on actual progressive movements, and pro-Israel propaganda. For example, a posting in October 2016 attempted to por20

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:24 PM Page 21

Ali Abunimah: What Does a Censored Undercover News Investigation Reveal About the Israel Lobby in America?

media pages. Facebook partnered with the Atlantic Council— the NATO think tank here in Washington funded by the U.S. government, by the European Union, by the United Arab Emirates, by Saudi Arabia—partnered with them to supposedly identify pages that should be taken down. And they took down lots of pages that were perfectly legitimate, including, as I mentioned, pages of journalists and media organizations. But Facebook’s reply to us about this extensive covert Israeli-influence campaign on their platform, or pro-Israel influence campaign on their platform, was, “this violates none of our rules.” And those pages are still operating. There’s a lot more in this film in reference to the Benjamins, let’s say. It shows, it reveals—again, some of this is known, but it is different to actually see people talking about how it’s done—fund-raisers for political candidates where hundreds of thousands of dollars can be raised in a single night without anything being put on paper. You have one of the people involved in this fund-raising say, we don’t even send out invitations. There’s nothing. But at these fund-raisers, people just hand over their credits cards and the organizers run it up for the maximum $2,700, or whatever it is. In a single night, they can raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for a political candidate who agrees to toe the Israel lobby’s line. What’s significant in the film—I’m not an expert on campaign finance law, but the film indicates that these practices are, if not outright illegal, certainly come very close to skirting the campaign finance laws. And we need to have a conversation about that, because it is very much about the Benjamins. Let me conclude with a couple of comments about the Israel lobby in general. I again commend this film [“The Lobby”] to you, and I would like to see everyone watch it. It’s great viewing, not just watching it, but sharing it and telling people about it. How can you find it? Just go on Google and search, “Watch the film the Israel lobby didn’t want you to see,” and it will come up, because that’s the headline that we ran it under. “Watch the film the Israel lobby didn’t want you to see,” and you can see it. I think the bigger picture is that—you know, we heard this morning from the extremely informative and learned presentation of Professor Hixson that this lobby is very powerful, and you’re going to hear that again throughout the day, and it is very powerful. But there is a subtle message that we should also not ignore, which is that this lobby is losing its power—because the Israel lobby, its power, operates best in the dark. And already, what we’re having, even with the completely unfounded attacks on Rep. Ilhan Omar, is something the Israel lobby never wants, which is a public discussion about it. [Applause] In the film, Jonathan Schanzer, the vice president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, makes an admission. He says, “Personally, I think that anti-Semitism as a smear is not what it used to be.” I completely share Professor Hixson’s statement that we must stand against anti-Semitism, as any other form of racism. Anti-Jewish bigotry of any kind has no

place in a movement for Palestinian human rights. [Applause] That’s the message that we, as advocates for Palestinian liberation, must always be in the forefront of saying. But, of course, there is a cynical campaign to weaponize false accusations of anti-Semitism to smear and silence people. This has been done with, sadly, a great deal of success in the UK, where, for the past three or four years, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has been the target of bogus claims that the party under his leadership is facing endemic institutional anti-Semitism. It’s a lie. It’s an outright lie. There have been a very few number of marginal cases which have rightly been condemned, but there’s no evidence that the party is institutionally anti-Semitic. But the warning I want to give here is that this template is now being imported from the UK directly to the U.S. and to the Democratic Party. Again, it’s not a sign, necessarily, of the strength of this lobby, but a sign of its weakness, in the sense that if the Democratic Party was all solidly pro-Israel as perhaps it used to be, you wouldn’t need to smear people as anti-Semites. It’s because of the growing support for Palestinian rights, the growing disgust of the party establishments’ complicity with Israel—Nancy Pelosi led the smears against Ilhan Omar, and Nancy Pelosi will be at AIPAC in the coming days, and proudly so. It’s because the base is rejecting this message from the leadership that we must all march in lockstep with Israel that this debate is happening. So I end with the words of Eric Gallagher, one of The Israel Project officials featured in the film, who himself used to work for AIPAC. He says, “The foundation that AIPAC sat on is rotting. There used to be actual widespread public support for Israel in the United States. So I don’t think that AIPAC is going to remain as influential as it is.” That’s a very optimistic note for us to end on, coming straight from a former AIPAC official. Thank you.

Questions & Answers

Janet McMahon: Thank you very much, Ali. We have some questions here that I’ll read to you. The first one is— and I have a corollary too, so I’m going to indulge myself with that—will “The Lobby” U.S. be available on DVD? Which I know you may not be able to control. But I’m also thinking, will it be shown on campuses, where so many students are being attacked by the Canary Mission and are so scared about their future because of that? I mean, doesn’t that seem like a great combination? Ali Abunimah: That is a great question. Well, the first thing to say is, we obtained a leaked copy of this film. Several people asked me, “Then explain how you got it.” I hate to disappoint you but, no, I’m not going to explain how we got it. The important thing is we did get it, and we released May 2019

21

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:24 PM Page 22

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

tunnel to do anything from Gaza other than to attack legitimate military targets. That was stated explicitly in the U.N.’s Independent Commission of Inquiry Report on the 2014 Gaza War, but you wouldn’t know that from watching CNN. So that’s an example of the collusion that’s featured in the film. Janet McMahon: Another question is, how do you explain how we have missed the potential political gain brought by these documentaries, how the tide has been overturned? Where and when did we fail, both in the UK and in the U.S.? Ali Abunimah: I don’t know what more we could do. We’re in an atmosphere where establishment media, establishment politicians don’t want to talk about this, and we know why. Look at what happened to Ilhan Omar. The weight of the lobby is such that people are afraid to do it. More and more people are talking and that’s a good thing. I think things are changing, as I mentioned. I mentioned this before but, to me, it’s really striking. Leave aside the explosive content of this film, just the mere fact that this film was suppressed under pressure from the same lobby on the government of Qatar. That by itself is a major story. Imagine if this film had been about supposed Russian interference and the Russian government had put pressure on a major international network to suppress the documentary. Rachel Maddow would be shouting from the rooftops. CNN’s Jake Tapper would be shouting from the rooftops. It would be front page news on The New York Times and The Washington Post. Instead, total silence. Another part of the story that’s incredible that’s not in the film, but is very much in the reporting the Electronic Intifada did around it, is that Israel lobby effort and Qatar’s effort to court the Israel lobby, which included hiring lobbyists here in Washington at $50,000 a month and that lobbyist then bringing a parade of some of the most extreme right pro-Israel figures from the U.S. to Qatar, some of them meeting with the emir. For example, Alan Dershowitz and Morton Klein, the head of the Zionist Organization of America. And Qatar even gave donations of hundreds of thousands of dollars to Zionist organizations, including the Zionist Organization of America. I mean, it’s incredible. No one is talking about that, but nobody can deny it, because it’s all in the official disclosure documents that the lobbying firm had to do, where the money came from and who it went to. It came from Qatar and it went to the Zionist Organization of America. Those relationships have to be investigated. The only thing I’ll say is we, the Electronic Intifada—a little publication, we have a staff of eight—we were able to do this because we’re independent, because we’re funded by our

it. But we don’t claim—we don’t have any copyright over it. In fact, in releasing this film, arguably we took a risk, because we didn’t know what the reaction of Al Jazeera would be, because this is their film. Of course, I believe that there was a strong public interest in releasing this film, and a strong journalistic defense in doing so, but I can’t tell you to show it or not show it. We’ve made it available, and people are free to do as they wish with it, if they want to burn it on DVDs or show it on college campuses. I think it needs to be seen, but that’s not something that we have the permission to say you can do it or don’t do it. But I do believe that there is a public interest in seeing this film and in sharing this film. The only reaction we’ve seen from Al Jazeera is that they issued a statement saying that, oh, we’re very disappointed that it’s come out. But we’ve seen no other action from them so far. Janet McMahon: Another question is, can you expand on the relationship of collusion between the mainstream press and the lobby? I don’t know if it was in the Al Jazeera video, but it’s my impression that The Israel Project works with foreign bureaus of newspapers in Israel. Ali Abunimah: Yes, that is something that the film shows— how The Israel Project shapes coverage. Again, the main media organizations, whether it’s the AP or CNN or others, they have their bureaus in Tel Aviv. They don’t have bureaus in Gaza, or even the West Bank, for the most part. So, they rely very much on Israeli organizations, or even the Israeli government, to provide them access. In the film, The Israel Project claims that it got the AP to actually change headlines to be more in accord with its message. And it also profiles a CNN report on supposed terror tunnels from Gaza that The Israel Project claimed complete credit for shaping. You actually see the CNN report and how it’s just putting out completely bogus Israel lobby talking points and Israeli propaganda. The so-called terror tunnels from Gaza, they presented this as if Palestinians are digging tunnels from Gaza to come up in Israeli kindergartens and Israeli bedrooms. This is a total lie. There is no case ever where Palestinians have used a 22

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:24 PM Page 23

Ali Abunimah: What Does a Censored Undercover News Investigation Reveal About the Israel Lobby in America?

readers. That’s not a pitch, but feel free to donate: <elec tronicIntifada.net>, there’s a button there, “Donate Now.” But that’s critical. That’s critical. The fact that we’re independent, we do not fear the pressure of the lobby. No one is going to fire us for doing this job, because this is our job and it’s what people support us to do. [Applause] Janet McMahon: Another question, Ali: Is any pro-Israel group registered as a foreign agent, to your knowledge? Ali Abunimah: I’m not the expert on that. I think Grant Smith is the expert on that. I don’t know if he can ... Janet McMahon: I think there had been attempts to register AIPAC in its early days. Ali Abunimah: AIPAC is definitely not registered. I don’t think any of the groups. I know, we checked. The Foundation for Defense and Democracies is not registered. The Israel on Campus Coalition is not registered. We checked when we were doing the reporting, and we could not find any evidence that those groups were registered. I think there is at least one we found that had registered, but its name escapes me now. It’s a relatively small player. But that’s a question perhaps Grant can answer when he’s back up here. Janet McMahon: So a final question about the film. Now that the documentary is out, was there anything in it concerning or invoking foreign agency in dual loyalty? If not, is that deliberate, do you think? Ali Abunimah: The film does not use the term dual loyalty. That’s sort of a trigger term that I don’t like to use, because I have heard people use it in a way that to me suggests kind of a racist or anti-Semitic tone. So I don’t like to use that term dual loyalty in that sense. The film has nothing anti-Semitic in it. It is strict reporting. It doesn’t accuse people of dual loyalty. It simply reports what they’re doing and nobody has disputed the reporting. Of course, Morton Klein and the Zionist Organization of America claimed that the film was anti-Semitic. We can be descriptive and accurate that these groups profiled in the film are working with the Israeli government to implement the Israeli government’s agenda of shutting down support for Palestinian rights by spying on, smearing, and sabotaging American citizens. To me, there’s no dual loyalty there. It seems to me that the primary or only loyalty is to the agenda of Israel. It’s also important to state and note and to be very clear about this, that there is no—“The [Israel] Lobby,” this film, focuses on several organizations because those were the ones that journalists were able to get into. But the Israel lobby is much bigger than the organizations that are profiled in that film. And, of course, the largest base of the Israel lobby in the United States, and increasingly so, is not Jewish Americans. It is the Christian Zionist component. That is the mass base of the Israel lobby today in the United States. Of course, we know that there is a very disturbing relationship there, in the sense that a large part of that pro-Israel Christian Evangelical base, that support for Israel is based on antiSemitic theology.

Janet McMahon: I think we’re out of time. Ali Abunimah: We still have three minutes! I mean, only if you want to take another question. No, no, only if there’s another question. If there is one, we’ll take it. Janet McMahon: I have a question here about anti-Semitism: Given the trajectory of the lobby’s development over the years and the misuse and abuse of anti-Semitism, what do you see as the greatest fear of real anti-Semitism in America going forward? Ali Abunimah: That’s a great question. There is real antiSemitism in America and there is real anti-Semitism in Europe, and this anti-Semitism is coming from the right. It’s coming from white nationalists. It’s coming from neo-Nazis. It’s coming from the type of ideology that drove the shooter in the Quebec City mosque and in the Christchurch mosque. It’s coming from the same ideology that is driving xenophobia and Islamophobia in Europe. Notably, most of the governments that condemned the Christchurch shooting didn’t mention Islamophobia, because they would be naming themselves. Because so much of the Islamophobia that was in the New Zealand shooter’s manifesto could have been talking points from practically any major political party in the West today, I’m sorry to say it. I think that Professor Hixson also underlined that in his comments. The total normalization of references to Islamic extremism and tarring two billion people in the world as linked to terrorism. But whereas this real rise and real disturbing trend of lethal anti-Semitism is clearly visible, its ally is Israel. Let’s be clear about that. Who is allied with the anti-Semitic governments of Hungary, of Poland, of anti-Semitic racist Islamophobic movements like the Freedom Party in Austria that is half of the coalition government there? The Alternative for Deutschland Party? You’ll find that all of these far-right parties have close ties to Israel, and particularly to Binyamin Netanyahu. You’ll remember Viktor Orban, the prime minister of Hungary, praised Miklos Horthy—the wartime collaborationist leader who sent half a million Hungarian Jews to their deaths in Hitler’s camps. After the Israeli Foreign Ministry condemned the Hungarian prime minister for praising Horthy, Netanyahu personally overruled the Foreign Ministry and ordered them to withdraw that statement because Viktor Orban and the anti-Semitic government of Hungary are his friends. That’s the service Israel provides in the world today. It’s a whitewashing and laundry service for anti-Semites and racists of all kinds if you’re the Freedom Party in Austria and founded by former Nazis. If you come to Israel and go light a candle at Yad Vashem and say, oh, how much you love Israel, then the Israeli prime minister is prepared to give you a certificate of good conduct. So Israel is a force today of antiSemitism, white supremacy and extremism that is destabilizing the world. Thank you. Janet McMahon: Thank you so much, Ali Abunimah. So now we’re going to have our morning break in the Ideas Fair, and Ali will be signing his books in there. We thank him very much for being here again this year. ■ May 2019

23

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 3:36 PM Page 24

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

Ideas Fair Introduction

24

we will also have Ali Abunimah, he will be doing a book signing in the Holeman Lounge, and also Walter Hixson will be doing his book signing as well. We’re also very excited to have the Ideas Fair because it stands for community activism and it’s our chance to take a look at what is going on and how we can engage every day with the issues we’re discussing. And most importantly, I’m excited to announce that this year we have student activists attending the conference and being at the Ideas Fair, so please stop by all of the organizations. And on the back of your program, you’ll find an Ideas Fair passport, where if you go around to all of the tables at the Ideas Fair and get them to sign off on your passport you can get a free extra beverage ticket. (Brief applause) I hear some cheers from that. This is a real chance to connect with organizations that are doing really great things. Thank you. ■

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

Conor Kelley: Hello, good morning. My name is Conor Kelley and I am the outreach coordinator for the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. We’re excited to introduce the Ideas Fair, which is a new component to the conference this year. And essentially, we came up with this when I met with Grant and Delinda. They said, we have a lot of panels and we have a lot of people who are passionate about what’s going on, but we don’t have the chance to have facetime interactions with other people. We don’t get a chance to talk about the organizations that are making relevant change right now. So this year, [see list], there’s a number of organizations who are going to be at our Ideas Fair. They will be manning tables. This wall panel here is going to open, and you’ll be able to go right in here and to the Holeman Lounge, and you’ll be able to talk to each of them. And in addition to that,

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:44 PM Page 25

IDEAS FAIR

IDEASâ&#x20AC;&#x2C6;FAIRâ&#x20AC;&#x2C6;Participants American Muslims for Palestine Americans for Middle East Understanding Arab America Consortium News Defense for Children International Eyewitness Palestine Institute for Palestine Studies-USA Jerusalem Fund Just World Educational Middle East Books & More Mondoweiss Museum of the Palestinian People Playgrounds for Palestine Students for Justice in Palestine United Palestinian Appeal Virginia Coalition for Human Rights May 2019

25

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:25 PM Page 26

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

U.S. Foreign Aid and the Israeli Nuclear Weapons Program Grant F. Smith

26

Antiwar.com. It’s published by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. And we think that this research that we’ve been performing has potential to reduce a lot of the enormous waste and misdirected efforts and huge opportunity costs that we’ve been paying as a nation. So today, I’d like to talk about the Israeli nuclear weapons program. It’s a topic that is of interest because, back in the 1960s, as Professor Hixson mentioned this morning, the United States correctly opposed the Israelis going nuclear. Nevertheless, the U.S. effort to make non-proliferation a key policy goal was undermined—I call it supplanted. So we’re going to go through a few details about that, because everybody in this room, everybody watching this in one way or another, has paid a price as U.S. obligations under treaty and our own Arms Export Control Act have been systematically undermined for 50 years. And so, what we need to understand is that the root cause of this undermining leads directly to the Israel lobby. They want you to pay. They want you to continue paying. But they would prefer that you do not know what is going on, so it can continue indefinitely. I’m going to basically base a lot of the points I’m making on three concurrent lawsuits that are happening right now in DC District Court. One of them is about obtaining the entire black budget from U.S. foreign aid to Israel which is very large, but never disclosed. The other is to expose a new gag order that came out in 2012 which bans all U.S. federal workers and contractors from discussing the Israeli nuclear weapons program. Finally, a newly unearthed part of nuclear ambiguity policy, which are secret letters signed by presidents promising, in effect, to violate NPT and our arms export control regime.

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

Grant F. Smith: I haven’t had a chance to introduce the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, co-organizer of this conference. We’re an organization that began doing Middle East policy research in 2002. As part of that research, we did keep running into the Israel lobby and its multiple policies and programs. So the Institute for Research has three core programs, many of which focus on the lobby. The first one of those programs is Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] requests. The Freedom of Information Act is in a period right now where any real bona fide effort is going to require a lawsuit to complete. We have multiple lawsuits going on at any single time, but the purpose of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits is really to ferret out information that the government has kept secret about Middle East policymaking that Americans should know. So our second major program, as Delinda mentioned at the top of the hour, is our effort to do public opinion polling that asks, in many cases, questions that the mainstream pollsters, whether Gallup or Pew or Rasmussen, do not ask about U.S. Middle East policy. There’s a huge wide range of questions that they will never ask about U.S. foreign aid, about what they think about Middle East nuclear proliferation. So what we’ve done with our polling is—using the Google surveys platform, which is a representative polling process that costs money—attempt to ask questions and track Gallup, in particular, which has, even within the polling world, many polls about the Middle East that are extreme outliers with even other pollsters like Pew Research, but certainly with our polling. Finally, we put together research reports and the data we’ve gathered through FOIA and polling results and other sources to publish policy research. It often appears online at

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:25 PM Page 27

Grant F. Smith: U.S. Foreign Aid and the Israeli Nuclear Weapons Program

Professor Hixson already mentioned this this morning: This era in the 1960s, at the end of it, where the policy goals of the entire U.S. policymaking community for the Israeli nuclear weapons program were to compel Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to uphold U.S. obligations under that treaty, withhold the sale of nuclear delivery-capable Phantom jets from Israel that they wanted to buy, and compel the Israelis to dismantle their Dimona nuclear weapons facility. Their consensus, as stated in a memo compiled by National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, was to avert a disaster in terms of the peace process. They felt that nuclear weapons would â&#x20AC;&#x153;sharply reduce the chances for

any peace settlement in the futureâ&#x20AC;?â&#x20AC;&#x201D;and, boy, were they ever right. Israeli policy goals were to buy those nuclear-capable jet fighters, to maintain their Dimona facility, and to get the United States to enter into an Israeli-contrived policy of forever being ambiguous about whether they did or did not have a nuclear weapons program. And so, these two policy objectives were fundamentally opposed, and the United States decision factors really rotated around the Nixon assessment of the Israel lobbyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to mount pressure upon them. Henry Kissinger noted that if they made public the fact that they were going to base sales of these jets on the nuclear program, that an enormous pressure would be mounted on them by the lobby. Previous presidents, as Professor Hixson had alluded to, had already collapsed under this very same pressure, that they couldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t pressure the Israelis without immediately having U.S.-based groups come to them and say, â&#x20AC;&#x153;you canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t do this.â&#x20AC;? So, there was another consideration within the policy compilation which they all considered. This is something most Americans donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know about, but there was concern because they knew that the Israelis had in fact stolen weapons-grade ura-

(Advertisement)

PALESTINNE: OUR CHIILDREN, OUR DUTY!

::: .,1'(586$ 25*

.,1'(586$ &$5,1* )25 &+,/'5(1 ,1 3$/(67,1( )25 OVER 16 YEARS

3 2 %R[ 'DOODV 7; 7ROO )UHH WHO KIDS IN NEED OF DEVELOPMENTT, EDUCATION AND RELIEF

.LQGHU86$ LV D F QRQ IRU SURĂ&#x20AC;W RUJDQL]DWLRQ <RXU GRQDWLRQ LV WD[ GHGXFWLEOH

May 2019

27

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:25 PM Page 28

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

nium from the United States beginning in about 1965 from a plant in Apollo, Pennsylvania. As Kissinger said, this is one program on which the Israelis have persistently deceived us, and may even have stolen from us. Subsequent document releases from the CIA and FBI leave no doubt about that. But what happened ultimately was that, with all these policy considerations out on the table, the Nixon administration nevertheless adopted an Israeli policy of nuclear ambiguity and sold the jets in a meeting with Golda Meir on Sept. 26, 1969. Ever since, United States presidents have, while in office, mostly abided by a policy of never confirming, denying, or talking about the Israeli nuclear weapons programs, just as most Israeli prime ministers do not. But there were two senators who were not satisfied, and made some trouble for the CIA and the National Security Council. These were Sens. Stuart Symington and John Glenn. Although in numerous meetings with the Central Intelligence Agency they couldn’t compel any action on their part, or on the part of the NSC or anybody else, to do anything about the diversion, they did pass an amendment to the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act, which is now part of the Arms Export Control Act, which provides conditions that the U.S. has to follow if it ever wants to transfer foreign aid to a nuclear weapon state that has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nevertheless, the United States has never followed its own law. So, from our standpoint as Freedom of Information Act users, we hit a wall every time we move to attempt to make the Central Intelligence Agency, the State Department or any other agency release information about the Israeli nuclear weapons program. The CIA has released things before: in 1974, they released a special national security estimate which leaves no doubt that they know the Israelis have nuclear weapons. The Department of Defense, after fighting us in court for half a year, released a very lengthy 1987 analysis of the Israeli nuclear development program, which included hydrogen bomb developments, which included using U.S. resources provided under Atoms for Peace for making nuclear weapons designs. So, the U.S. government can fight these things, but they’re [faced] with 50 years of history, 50 years of slip-ups and releasing information. There’s plenty of compelling evidence that we’ve been able to use to convince judges that, at this point, the only possible reason that they’re still maintaining a lot of this information under classification is that they don’t want anybody to come after them and challenge them on the laws and the treaty that they’re breaking. 28

So, nuclear ambiguity has been around for so long that it requires heavy maintenance in this day and age to maintain. New Yorker reporter Adam Entous wrote a stunning piece in June of 2018 in which he talked about a series of letters that the Israelis have been making presidents sign since Bill Clinton in 1993 until Donald Trump more recently, in which they promise in a letter, a secret letter, that they will not compel the Israelis to sign the NPT. They will not talk about Israel’s nuclear weapons in public. And, of course, the National Archives and Records Administration will and is fighting not to even confirm the existence of these letters. But it is clear that they are part of ambiguity maintenance. This ambiguity maintenance has even taken another form, in which the Obama administration, after being very positive in talking about nuclear non-proliferation, in talking about a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East, finally buckled to pressure and not only signed the letter, but also passed a new classification guideline which says, essentially, that any government employee, any government contractor, that even so much as references information about the Israeli nuclear weapons program from the public domain will be fired, prosecuted, lose their security clearance or possibly much worse. And this has already happened to one Department of Energy employee by the name of James Doyle, who used to work at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. James Doyle made the mistake of writing a single article called, “Why eliminate nuclear weapons?” in a magazine called Survival, the February/March edition from 2013. James Doyle wrote the following: “Nuclear weapons did not deter Egypt and Syria from attacking Israel in 1973, Argentina from attacking the British in the Falklands War or Iraq from attacking Israel in the 1991 Gulf War.” Clear reference to Israel’s nukes not being a great conventional deterrent, but a congressional staffer noticed that he had written this. That representative’s office contacted the Department of Energy, hugely dependent on Congress’ good graces for funding. They looked at the article, which they had already reviewed for classified information. Then they retroactively classified it, raided Doyle’s home, fired him, pulled his security clearances—and that’s how it works. So, if we look at some of the costs of nuclear ambiguity policy, one way to do that is to look at all of the foreign aid that’s been given since Symington and Glenn first managed to pass their restrictions of foreign aid to non-NPT states. If you look at the aid figures—which are never given in inflation-adjusted

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:25 PM Page 29

Grant F. Smith: U.S. Foreign Aid and the Israeli Nuclear Weapons Program

terms—that foreign aid since 1949 has now surpassed $260.9 billion—and again, this does not include any of the black budget aid, which we still haven’t been able to release. That’s far more than the United States spent rebuilding Europe under the Marshall Plan. It’s far more aid than given to any other foreign country. It’s interesting, then, to take a data cut of that aid and see that 85 percent of that foreign aid has been given to Israel since the Symington and Glenn amendments became law in 1976. So by law, none of that almost quarter-billion dollars should have been allowed absent some Arms Export Control Act compliance and absent some Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty compliance. If you look at how much aid has been given since President Clinton, President George W. Bush, President Obama, President Trump, acquiesced to signing new pledges to Israel to promise to ignore their weapons, to promise to ignore the NPT and U.S. law, the amount is $99.9 billion. Let’s round it up to a hundred. Israel’s demands have another component. This, again, goes back to the concerns expressed in the report about adopting nuclear ambiguity in the first place. That is, the cleanup of the toxic waste site left by the plant that Henry Kissinger referred to. The Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation [NUMEC] was, as the CIA once said, an Israeli operation from the beginning. Yet because the NUMEC diversion information gathered by the CIA, gathered by the FBI, gathered by other parties, has never fully been released, the cleanup cost and the blame for this toxic waste left by this underfunded plant have been shifted on to other parties. The FBI has documents indicating that they know that underfunding and shoddy treatment of protocols on waste handling contributed to the toxic pollution in Apollo, Pennsylvania, because they had wiretaps on the plant owners talking about the results of the toxic spill in which they were sending unprotected workers to go make cleanups—but the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is estimating this $500 million toxic cleanup will have to be paid by U.S. taxpayers. So, I think the story of nuclear ambiguity, the cost that it transfers to U.S. taxpayers, the pretty much illegitimate discussion that comes around nuclear non-proliferation in policy-making circles, can be traced back to this particular nuclear ambiguity policy. But what’s interesting about it is that it’s not unique. If you look at other policies, you can see a cycle at work: supplant, silence, and exploit. Supplanting: devise an original or supplant a policy of the United States that benefits the United States with one that

broadly benefits Israel is the supplantation stage. Silence: figure out a way to gag or prevent stakeholders or government employees, officials, contractors, from effectively communicating about the supplanted interest. And then exploit: compel the U.S. taxpayers, voters, businesses, others, to provide resources for Israel and the lobby rather than the common good. So, this is taking place and has taken place in other arenas. Ali Abunimah mentioned that there was an organization back in the 1960s called the American Zionist Council which was, in fact, ordered to register as an Israeli foreign agent because it received funding from Israel to start up and conduct public relations. But that same organization— along with pressure on the Justice Department— managed to supplant the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act and their desire to have open information on the money coming in and the policies being enacted, and silenced the Justice Department through pure internal pressure into not even releasing the registration that was finally compelled in 1962. The Justice Department held on to it until 2010. But there’s a clear set of documents that shows that AIPAC was originally ordered, when it was operating as an unincorporated organization inside the AZC, to comply with the FARA order and it never did. The Justice Department never did anything about it, and they won’t even talk about it. So that exploitation is that foreign agent activities immediately resumed for the Israeli government when AIPAC incorporated itself in 1963, just six weeks after that order. AZC’s gone, AIPAC’s been with us ever since. The First Amendment—and this is something that we’ll be talking about more this afternoon, supplanting and conditioning the First Amendment where it pertains to people wanting to boycott Israel over its human rights issues. The silence part of the cycle is free speech activities, seeking peaceful change through nonviolent protests. People are now being asked to sign waivers and pledges that they will not engage in that speech activity. The exploitation basically is that if you don’t sign as a government employee or contractor in many states, now, a pledge saying that you won’t boycott Israel, then all those revenues and opportunities are going to go to others more willing to prioritize Israel’s policy objectives. This has happened in weapons smuggling. Telogy is a recent example of Tektronix oscilloscopes being shipped to Israel for their nuclear weapons program. They were able to simply get a slap on the wrist for an export violation. But it’s May 2019

29

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:25 PM Page 30

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

Some members of Congress are obviously demonstrating that they’d like to see more popular action. Most importantly, the institutionalization of groups who know something about what’s been going on and are willing to take some action is my biggest hope. My biggest hope is seeing some of the groups, particularly that come to this conference year after year, and hearing about their work attacking the silence, which is the weakest point of the cycle and the one that we have the best chance of prevailing against as organizations, activists, and people willing to take more of a leadership role in confronting these abuses. Thank you.

been going on since the very first Neutrality Act violations in the 1940s, where there was a major Israeli weapon smuggling ring in the United State. Some people called it the Haganah smuggling ring, others call it other things, but it was able to move a large number of conventional weapons out of this country to Israel with almost no criminal prosecutions. What I’m hoping our friends from the Virginia Coalition for Human Rights will talk about this afternoon is another case of supplant, silence, and exploit called the replacing textbook histories in the K-12 education system with what’s essentially the Israeli government line on territory, settlements and other things, in order to spread a line of government propaganda, basically through the textbooks. So I’m not going into that. But I can express some hope in the sense that Americans are increasingly, if you ask them the right question, increasingly interested in seeing more proper regulation and governance in questions like this. A poll we conducted in August of 2018 asked Americans whether—given the fact that Arms Export Control Act laws that govern foreign aid to countries with nuclear weapons programs that haven’t signed the NPT, and the fact that Israel has not signed the NPT—should those laws be enforced, 54.8 percent said yes. So this is material, raw material. Someone just asked me before this, how do we contact these people? Well, that’s the work at hand, but raw material for building more representative rule of law governance in this country. People are clearly out there who are willing to and eager to see some of these things enforced. So signs of hope are certainly that Americans are becoming better informed about some of the things the lobby has been doing. Hopefully, they can grasp, if they have the spectacles of supplant, silence, and exploit, they might be able to see something going on in their states or community. Courts are beginning to play a slightly more aggressive and productive role in allowing people to question these things using our legal system, and Martin McMahon and Saqib Ali will talk about that. 30

Questions & Answers

Dale Sprusansky: Thank you very much. We have a couple of minutes for questions here. So if you have any questions out there, please feel free to give them to someone collecting them so they can send them up to me. We have a couple of questions on the relationship between South Africa—apartheid South Africa—and Israel, and so the question is: What was the collaboration between Israel and apartheid South Africa to develop nuclear weapons? Grant Smith: Right, so someone noticed I skipped a couple of slides in this presentation. What the 1974 CIA special report talking about Israel’s nuclear weapons most feared was collaboration with South Africa and Taiwan. The Israelis did in fact sign a contract with [South African Prime Minister] P.W. Botha to sell them nuclear-tipped missiles, Jericho missiles. Sasha Polakow-Suransky wrote an entire book about that after he obtained the documents from the post-apartheid government. Most people who are doing credible work on nuclear non-proliferation believe that the so-called Vela flash in the Indian Ocean in 1979 was an Israeli nuclear test with South Africa. So, yes, we can do an entire day-long conference, and I hope someday we can, about the Israeli nuclear weapons program and just how much information there is out there about it. But the U.S. ignores, it will not accept officially, that the Vela flash was an Israeli nuclear test. They don’t accept the authenticity of the South African government document release that there was an attempted sale of turnkey weapons systems to the apartheid regime. So just another example of your government at work under a supplanted polContinued on page 68 icy of nuclear ambiguity.

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:25 PM Page 31

James north: how The New York Times rigs news on israel-Palestine

How The New York Times Rigs News on Israel-Palestine James North

Photo hindy Mokhiber

Dale Sprusansky: Right now, I’d like to invite James North up to the stage here to discuss a very important topic: the media, the mainstream media—which, even though its readership numbers may be declining a little bit, are still very influential. We all know that journalists, like everyone else, have some biases and they manifest themselves one way or another. But the question is, are there more than sort of inadvertent biases in the media? Is there some sort of a systematic attempt in newsrooms to not divulge the truth of what is happening in Israel, Palestine and the Middle East? That’s the question James North is here to discuss today, using The New York Times as a case study. James North is an independent writer based in New York City who has been reporting from Africa, Latin America and Asia for 44 years. Many of you probably recognize him from his current gig as a contributing editor at Mondoweiss. Over the years, he has written for The Nation, In These Times and many other publications. He’s also the author of the book Freedom Rising, which provided a first-hand look at apartheid South Africa. He will discuss how The New York Times rigs news on Israel-Palestine. James North. James North: Please forgive me, I’m going to be shuffling papers around up here. I’m very careful to document what I say, and I’ve got the documentation here. I’m here because I contribute to Mondoweiss. Phil Weiss and I went to college together a long time ago and we maintained our friendship. We found, among other things, that we shared a view of Israel-Palestine over the years. And so when Phil decided to start working on this issue through Mondoweiss, I believe

it’s 12 years ago now, I decided to help him to some extent. Phil is a person of extraordinary energy. It’s just phenomenal how much he’s able to write and stay abreast of this. After a few years, he was joined by Adam Horo witz—they co-manage the site—another person with tremendous energy. The site has grown, Mondoweiss has grown, and we maintain correspondents in Palestine, in Israel. So, it’s comprehensive coverage. If you’re not already visiting Mondoweiss, I would encourage you to do so. Let me just start by saying that although I’ve spent most of my career contributing to the alternative media, I am not prejudiced against foreign correspondents for the bigger papers automatically. I have had friends who are excellent correspondents at The New York Times and elsewhere. It’s not as though I have anything against them. For instance, to just give one recent example, The Times’ correspondent in Egypt, who covered the uprising there in 2011 and onward, David Kirkpatrick, did what I regard as excellent coverage and an excellent book called Into the Hands of the Soldiers, which includes, interestingly enough, some information about how the U.S. desire to coddle up to Israel affected our policy toward Egypt. So I’m not automatically opposed to foreign correspondents for mainstream papers. The Times is maybe in some ways even more vital than ever. I mean, most of us in this room are familiar with alternative media, starting with the Washington Report, Mondoweiss, Electronic Intifada—but we had to be aware that these outlets existed before we would go to them. We didn’t simply stumble across them online. May 2019

31

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:25 PM Page 32

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

Certainly, the Internet has made our work in communicatscious, but I’m just going to give you [some examples of] ing the truth about Israel-Palestine much easier to do, but good old-fashioned Orientalism, centuries old. it’s not made it—your average person taking a train down OK, this example is from a news analysis that appeared a from, say, Westchester into New York is going to be opening couple of years ago. First I’ll quote a paragraph here from their copy of The New York Times every day, and the news Steven Erlanger, who’s a veteran reporter. And then I’ll tell that they’re going to be reading is what’s in that paper. you what I think is going on here. Here’s the paragraph: “UnThey’re not necessarily going to come to our sites yet, allike Fatah, Hamas claims the whole of the British Mandate though alternative sites are growing. of Palestine as land granted by Allah, which cannot be Basically, what’s also important is other media have ceded. In other words, Israel is illegitimate and its occupants closed their foreign bureaus. I mean, up until 10 years ago, should ‘go home.’ The most any senior Hamas official ever The LA Times had someone there, The Chicago Tribune, offered was a hudna, a cease-fire, which the Prophet The Boston Globe. These were alternate—I mean, their Muhammad offered enemies to restore his strength.” coverage wasn’t necessarily outstanding, but there were difNow this is a classic Orientalist gem. Let’s start with not ferent voices here. Now what happens here is The Times is translating “Allah” to “God.” I mean, this is very commonly the main place that covers Israel-Palestine. If you don’t go done, and not just by The Times. Just imagine if every time to alternate sites, that’s what you’re going to have to rely on. you read a story from France where God was mentioned, if The Times is vital, again, because people are not totally it said Dieu, or every time a Spanish person in your newspaaware of these alternate media. per would talk about God, it would put in Dios. I mean, this is So what I’ve done over the past 10 years is, I’ve come up why some Americans actually believe that Muslims believe with various ways in which The Times is able to rig its coverin a different God than non-Muslims. This is part of the reaage. I’m not saying there’s son for it. But it gets better. (Advertisement) a conspiracy here, I honOK, for instance, you estly don’t think there’s a would never—another tool conspiracy—but there’s a that I use to analyze someway of doing business at times is to try and re-write The Times in which they the sentence as though Istry and minimize Israel’s rael were the subject rather culpability on what goes on than Palestinians. So for and try and maximize instance, will you ever read Palestinians’. I don’t even in The New York Times a think, half the time, they’re sentence that says this: even aware of this. So “Jews, who have settled in what I’m going to do is, if I the West Bank, claim the have time, I’m going to go whole of the British Manthrough some of the ways date of Palestine as land in which we have discovgranted by Yahweh, which ered that this policy actucannot be ceded.” You’re ally works. None of this not going to read that in would be a surprise to The New York Times, but many of you, but maybe it’s the precise equivalent, the systematic nature and it’s also accurate, to might impact you. what I just read here. First, there’s nothing betAnd then the sentence ter than a little good oldabout the cease-fire—now fashioned Orientalism, trythat’s a little more cunning. ing to treat Muslims and In this case, the sentence Arabs as though they’re a about the cease-fire reRead R ea d different sort of human veals even more Orientalist being who operate under thinking. There are plenty News N ews & opinion o pin io n yyou an ttrust o u ccan rust different assumptions and of instances in world history are motivated in different of cease-fires, including in Palestine, United aabout bo ut P alestin e, Israel Israel & the the U n ited States States ways. The Times still relies the recent Middle East, but on this to some extent. the reporter is compelled to MONDOWEISS M O N D O W EI S S . N NET ET E - SUBSCRIBE SU BSCRI BE FOLLOW F O LLO W Again, I think this is uncongo back to the Prophet

MON DOWEI SS

32

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 3:13 PM Page 33

James North: How The New York Times Rigs News on Israel-Palestine

Muhammad in the seventh century for his example. This is Orientalism 101. The implication is that Muslims and Arabs have an unchangeable essence, a core way of being, which is revealed in their ancient texts and in their history. Our reporter’s sly insinuation is obvious. Nearly 1,300 years ago, the first Muslim, the Prophet Muhammad, offered his enemies a truce to restore his strength. Therefore, Hamas, who are also Muslims, are duplicitous by their very nature and you cannot trust them. Just like Muhammad, once their strength is restored, they will stab you in the back. So this is all unstated, and yet this is the implication here. I will have more examples. OK, this example is one that will come as no surprise to most of you: Use slanted language—but the point I’m making here is that it happens so often that people stop noticing. One of our bêtes noires at Mondoweiss is settlements, the expression “settlements.” By any stretch of the definition, these are colonies. These are people going into an area that was conquered militarily in the West Bank and putting people there who are not originally from that area. I’m not an international lawyer, but they are colonies. But we are so accustomed to hearing them called settlements that even people like us don’t reflect on this as much as we should. What we try to do sometimes at Mondoweiss is write settlements/colonies, or use both words interchangeably. I’ll give you an example from history how this could be done. In the north of Ireland, Protestants tend to call the second largest city there Londonderry, and Catholics call it Derry. When the BBC was faced with this problem of not showing bias back in the ’70s, what they decided to do was they alternated. The first reference in the BBC report would be Londonderry, and the next reference would be Derry, and the next reference would be Londonderry. Why can’t we at least minimally start to do this? I’m not singling out The Times. Everybody does this with settlements. Now, one area in which The Times is a little more egregious is my second point, which is the business about the West Bank is “disputed” rather than “occupied.” Most media outlets, other media outlets do say occupied, although occasionally they’re even backing away from that, too. So the idea is “disputed”—Israel disputes this. Meanwhile, 100 other countries believe that is an occupied territory. I don’t think any international lawyer worth their salt denies this. But this is the kind of language that has become embedded in our thinking and our speaking. You know, Orwell’s whole point about political language is that if you use certain languages it prevents you from thinking in a different way. I think here’s an example of that.

“

OK, here’s one of my favorites, too: Conceal Israeli extremists. Settler colonists and others like Israeli Col. Ofer Winter. I learned about Ofer Winter from Max Blumenthal’s excellent book, The 51 Day War, which is about the Israeli assault on Gaza in 2014. Winter, the top quote there [referring to a slide] is from Max. This colonel, who’s well-known in Israel, Ofer Winter is a household name there, he basically said that God had intervened to protect his soldiers and him when they were attacking Gaza. Godly intervention. “We were protected by clouds, clouds of divine honor,” Winter claimed. “We—all the warriors were suddenly covered by a heavy fog, which came to us throughout the attack,” preventing them from being shot and enabling them to carry out what I’m sure were massacres for the most part. Here’s my point: This is Colonel Winter. Any reporter who’s beyond their first year of journalism school knows that Colonel Winter is the type of person you want to shoot over and interview and do a profile of him. I mean, this is the kind of guy. He’s hysterical. He’s a lunatic. He’s representative of a portion of—and people will read the article. You have a chance to get on the front page if you do a profile of Ofer Winter. But you won’t find him in The New York Times. I’m not, again, saying there’s a conspiracy. I don’t think that they sit together and sort of say, well, let’s cover up people like this. Another example is the settler leaders in the West Bank, the colonist leaders in the West Bank. These people are often whitewashed or not reported on. I mean, Phil Weiss and I, the comments section at Mondoweiss occasionally gets comments from these settler colonists. They want their point of view put across. So we actually, some years ago, we got in communication with one of them and he published his manifesto, which was hair-raising. I mean, it really showed they really want to kick every Palestinian out of the West Bank. That’s what they want, OK? It was hair-raising. So we wrote back to him and said, look, we would like to air your views. We would like to show people what you actually think. Can we reprint your whole manifesto? He said, sure. He was happy to have that, because that’s what he genuinely believes. So off it went and we formed a little bit of a journalistic collaboration with them in a way. But the fact is that you don’t see The New York Times reporters heading out to the West Bank to talk to these people, and yet they’re part of the landscape of Israeli life. I mean, it’s no secret. So again, for like the 10th time, I’m saying this is not a conspiracy, but I think these types of Israeli individuals make Times reporters uneasy, so they don’t want to report on them.

One of our bêtes noires at Mondoweiss is the expression “settlements.”

“

May 2019

33

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:25 PM Page 34

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

OK, here’s another example: Quote Palestinians as little as possible. First, ignore Palestinians who live within Israel’s 1967 borders, even though they are 20 percent of the population. This is a really offensive thing that The Times does. I mean, here’s a fifth of the population, and you will rarely see them quoted in any articles. The implication is that all Israelis are Jews—except occasionally, when the Druze start to have some protests, you might hear a little bit about them. But the implication is that, yes, basically, Israel is a Jewish state populated by all Jews. And imagine my surprise, even somebody relatively knowledgeable like I am, when the distinguished Palestinian-Israeli leader Ayman Odeh came to the United States a few years ago and went around. Some of you may have seen him giving various talks. He was a very impressive man, totally nonviolent. The first place he went in the United States was to see the Dr. Martin Luther King’s home area, the church in Atlanta. Here’s a guy who will, again, be in the Israeli Knesset, I believe, who politically represents a good fifth of the population, yet he’s only rarely quoted in The New York Times. You’re never going to see him. And the second point is: Interview Palestinians in the “disputed West Bank or Gaza” only when it’s absolutely necessary. There are examples of that. There was a big piece on settlements that was done back in 2015. You know, I do a lot of counting in my job: How many paragraphs down is the real news? How many people from this side are quoted? How many people from that side? I’ll just share with you a little bit about this. This [referring to a slide] was a front-page article, ran off the front page, on “settlements” in the West Bank, and it didn’t quote a single Palestinian, not one. The article included maps. These are where the settlements are. This is this. Quotations from 11 different people, ranging from Binyamin Netanyahu down to a Jewish employee at a settlement—but not one Palestinian was asked for his reaction, not a single one. The only time Palestinians were even mentioned in this long article was one sentence that said a Palestinian man grazed a few cows and sheep on a grassy hillside and scores of teenagers in white Islamic headscarves walked home from school. But our reporters, those two reporters, didn’t stop to ask them any questions. So I went on to say this short description is a masterpiece of Orientalist haiku. 34

The Palestinians are only backward shepherds, nameless backward shepherds, and young women in headscarves, contrasted with a nearby “boom town” (their quote) Israeli settlement. So, you know, they’re erased from it. And then there was another element to this story. In this particular article, back during Netanyahu’s first term as prime minister, he “irked Washington” in 1997 by adding 300 homes in Efrat, which is one of the settlements. Netanyahu probably did more than irk the Palestinians who lost their land, but we won’t learn it from this article. Our reporters did find that the settlements might cause human problems in the future. They warn that “a peace agreement might eventually pose the challenge of someday uprooting Israelis who are now raising a second and third generation in contested areas.” But somehow the two Times reporters could not find any Palestinians who were being uprooted today. The next example: Regularly publish slanted pro-Israel articles. That’s not worded properly. I think what I should have said was something along the lines of, regularly publish articles that are PR for Israel. [Image at left] Here’s an example of one: This is a front-page propaganda article about how Israel is doing desalinization, fighting drought, how successful it is. And then—as I said, part of my job involves counting. So it wasn’t until the 23rd paragraph that Palestinians were even mentioned. Now, all of you will be aware of water use by Israeli settler colonists, the aquifers are drying out. This is an issue, but you have to dig down into the 23rd paragraph to learn. And then here was the sentence that dealt with that: “Struggles between Israel and its Arab neighbors over water rights in the Jordan River Basin contributed to tensions leading to the 1967 Middle East war.” But meanwhile, here’s this big picture on how well Israel is doing. I haven’t in years seen an article in The Times praising Israel for inventing the cherry tomato. But at some stage, that may actually end up happening as well. I will say this: The current Times bureau chief there, he does not seem to do these kind of articles. His predecessor was doing that more. Okay, here’s another one: Pay little attention to Israeli human rights organizations like B’Tselem or Breaking the Silence, and then ignore Palestinian human right groups like Adalah. OK, here’s an Israeli group—I mean, B’Tselem has both Palestinian Israelis, and Jewish Israelis working for them. I did some more counting, and it turned out that only

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:25 PM Page 35

James North: How The New York Times Rigs News on Israel-Palestine

rarely was this group mentioned. Now, you would think the conflict have been locked in competing mutually negating these would be one of the first groups of people you would narratives.” The implicit question—who knows which side is go to. For instance, the Great March of Return a year ago, right?—this is post-modernism gone lethal, a view favored by B’Tselem was putting right on their website, B’Tselem was Western liberals who sense something is terribly wrong, but asking Israeli soldiers to not fire at civilians. They were who are too cowardly to criticize Israel. Sometimes, one side pleading with them, don’t fire. And they were out there moniof a dueling narrative is fundamentally true, and the other is a toring what was actually going on. But no, there was no covpack of lies, which I think is true in this case. But if you set it erage of it in The Times—none. up that way, you can evade what’s really happening. Let’s see. Let me continue. Maybe I can finish up with this one. Here’s another one: Take dictation from Israel, especially Oh, here’s another one example, I’m sure that many of the Israeli military. Dwell on Israeli casualties and minimize you noticed this during the Great March of Return: Use the Palestinian dead and wounded. This is a big one. Let’s see if passive voice. Nobody does anything to anybody. Four I get into it here. [Referring to a slide] Halbfinger is listening Palestinians died in clashes. “Clashes” is another great to the Israeli military’s current mouthpiece, Lt. Col. Jonathan vague word. If I run out in the audience and smash four peoConricus. Before that, they had this guy, Peter Lerner, who ple in the head and they try and fight back a little bit, that we got into a debate with on Mondoweiss. What they should could be described as a clash. But clearly that is—although do is ignore us, but occasionally, they start to intervene and technically and, in a limited sense, accurate—it’s not what debate. We go back and forth, and that’s good, because we actually happened. So that’s a good one. Instead of saying, can show that they’re listening. “Israeli snipers killed four Palestinians.” Now there’s nothing So Conricus—so listen, this was probably less than a year wrong with that sentence, Israeli snipers killed four... ago. Here’s what [Halbfinger] says, seven paragraphs in a Then if you want to get into the Israeli justification—we row, pam-pam-pam-pam: “Conricus asserted the Gazans were feared they were going to...—print that, that’s OK, but not planting or hurling explosives, flying flaming kites into Israel, just four Palestinians died in clashes. trying to slip armed fighters to wreak havoc, launching an (Advertisement) Let’s see: Distort the timeline. This we armed attack, firing numerous shots at saw a lot of, particularly during the Israeli soldiers”—that was a lie, by the Great March of Return. The lead—the way—“all of which amounted to unprecefirst sentence in journalism is called the dented levels of violence against Israel.” lead—was a violent act by Gazans. OK, stenographer Halbfinger—he’s Gazans launched missiles. Gazans did just writing what the Israeli official this. Gazans did that. Bury the Israeli visays—writes that Israel responded with olent provocation several paragraphs gunfire and tear gas, and Israeli jets down in the story. So you would go struck five targets in the Hamas military down like six or seven paragraphs, and training facility. This is Orwellian. Lt. then you would read that Israeli comCol. Conricus makes up or grossly exmandos had raided into the southern aggerates Gazan actions, and Halbfinpart of Gaza and killed three people, ger then calls Israel’s vicious attacks a and that the missiles were a response to response to things that never hapthat. So if you distort the timeline, you pened. And then here’s the final paracould make it seem like the Gazans, the graph, this is the key in this whole thing Gifted Palestinian stu udents Palestinians, are the aggressors. This is here: He also says, “One Israeli soldier a very common tactic that’s used. was wounded by shrapnel from what can reach their potentiaal with OK, here’s another example—I’m not was believed to be an explosive deyour generous donatioon. going to have time to get into this too vice.” Go down a little bit—this is me, (T Tax ax Exemption is Applied foor) much, but a new distortion technique not him [referring to a slide], pointing which has emerged in the last year or out that at that stage, at nearly seven two, several years, influenced by postweeks of the Great March protest, IsAFBU modernism: Dueling narratives. The Israel had killed already 107 Palestinians raelis say this, the Palestinians say that. and injured another 13,000, and this American Friends of Birzeit University niversity Who knows? The reader has to judge. was going to be the first injury to any IsHere’s an example of it. There’s raeli of any kind whatsoever! [David] Halbfinger [pictured in a slide], OK, I’m not going to probably have Thank you in advaance for he’s the current bureau chief. So you time, I’ll just mention this quickly. The ki d ibb i can see his quote right toward the top in Times and Ahed Tamimi, you all know italics: “For generations, both sides of Ahed Tamimi as this brave young

A erican FFrie American Am riends nds of Birzeit Birzeit Unive Uniiveerrs rsity ity

May 2019

35

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:25 PM Page 36

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

Palestinian woman who actually was in prison—what, six, nine months, whatever it was—for defending—OK. Yes, it was longer even than that. The Times had a problem with [their coverage of] her, because their magazine had included an article by Ben Ehrenreich which was later part of his book The Way to the Spring, in which he actually went and stayed with the Tamimi family. He interviewed her, her father, her mother. He showed this courageous, nonviolent family of resistance. So that was already in there. Then when she became even more famous, The Times had to contradict its own coverage. I’m not going to have time to go into this, but, I listed, oh, I listed 10 different ways in which the article was distorted, including not including photographs of her. There were viral photographs of her at the time, and none of them ran with The Times story. OK, quickly, in fairness, Times reporters do face an enormous amount of pressure from what we at Mondoweiss call hasbara central, which as you know is the Israeli propaganda apparatus. We don’t think it’s literally one central office, although there is a central office that does a lot of this stuff. But the fact is that, even now, even with the kind of protest that we do, the pressure that these reporters get from groups in the United States like CAMERA which reportedly monitors [the press], and from within Israel itself denying American reporters the right to interview certain people if they don’t follow the rules and report in the way that they like. They still get more pressure from the other side than they do from our side. Well, my response to that is, too bad. If you don’t like pressure, you shouldn’t have become a reporter. Reporters are 36

the type of people who sit in the back of a class, wait for the teacher and, the minute that teacher’s done talking, stick up their hand and start attacking them with questions. That’s how you can find who’s going to be a good reporter. If you don’t want to do that, then don’t get into it. But the fact is that this is what does happen. Let me give you an example here. Here’s our friend Halbfinger [referring to a slide]. This is a tweet during the Great March of Return, where a proIsrael guy up there, Shaun Murray, says, why haven’t you mentioned that a kite—here, again, over 100 Palestinians have been shot dead already and another thousands have been wounded, but he’s objecting to why has the Jerusalem bureau chief failed to mention the kite with an explosive device attached to it? And then Halbfinger immediately, stupidly, writes back and says, “Thanks for letting me know. That should have been in the piece hours ago. It will be soon.” Now, I write to Halbfinger sometimes. I write to him sometimes on Twitter. I tweet as @jamesnorth7. I respond to him. He didn’t get back to me that quickly, I can tell you—but anyway. Let me continue here [with two book recommendations]. Larry Derfner is a former—I would guess he would still call himself a liberal Zionist, but I don’t really think he is anymore. His memoir here, No Country for Jewish Liberals, does include some explanations of how the press works in Israel. Larry is an American who moved to Israel and, in his 50s, basically turned against the system. Most people change when they’re younger. It takes a lot of courage. So I recommend his book. And I also recommend this other book, which didn’t get a lot of attention in the United States. Now I hope there are no Dutch speakers here, because I’m not going to pronounce the author’s last name properly, but he’s Joris Luyendijk. Well, he’s a terrific reporter who came out with this book, I believe in 2010, 2011, somewhere in there. The first half is about his being a foreign correspondent in Egypt, which is interesting—but the second half is about Israel and how he covered Israel and the pressures that are on foreign reporters from the Israelis. I recommended it highly. It’s still available online. [See slide above] OK, we have found some signs of hope at The New York Times. Here’s the article that many of you would have seen, about the [Palestinian] paramedic who was killed, in which The Times actually did an investigation.

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:25 PM Page 37

James North: How The New York Times Rigs News on Israel-Palestine

Even though it took them until about the fourth or fifth paraDale Sprusansky: Thank you very much. We’re running graph, they pointed out that this woman, when she was up against lunch here, but please answer one question, just killed, that may have actually been a war crime that she was because two people have asked it. shot by an Israeli sniper. James North: Sure. I apologize for rattling on too long. Now, we found this article inconceivable. This came out Dale Sprusansky: These two people are curious how or if the last day of 2018. We found that The Times wouldn’t the coverage in The Times has changed since A.G. have even done this article as recently as six months or a Sulzberger took over as publisher. year before that. And one example is, there was a young James North: Well, as I said, there was that sign or that Palestinian woman who was shot dead at a checkpoint near article that appeared right at the end of last year. Whether Hebron, Hashil Al-Hamidun, who was shot dead like three that’s connected to the new publisher or not, I really don’t years ago. Mondoweiss, we were able to find her family. know. I used to have a source who worked in the editorial They were able to talk to the press about what had hapdepartment, which is entirely separate, OK? I mean, they pened. New York Times didn’t bother to go find her. So this say hello to each other, but they don’t call. And he said that is a step in the right direction. it was understood back then that you had to be very careful What can we do? Let me just close with this. First of all, if you proposed editorials about Israel-Palestine. It was The Times does usually not allow comments on its news arknown that it could be a problem for your career. Now, as far ticles, particularly from Israel-Palestine. So if you want to as the news section, you know Phil and I have been trying to comment, no chance. However, they often allow comments see if anyone from The Times wants to speak to us off the on their editorials. Now, I haven’t gotten into the editorial polrecord or behind the scenes. So far, we haven’t been able icy here, because I confined myself strictly to news. I to. But as to whether it comes from the publisher, I really haven’t gotten in—but they do allow comments. I encourage wouldn’t know. people to go in and comment, because you may be surDale Sprusansky: I thought it was just worthwhile to prised at the level of understanding and criticism that there share this comment from someone: Despite all the evidence is growing in the American public about what’s really going that you just presented, many avid supporters of Israel still on in Israel-Palestine. I mean, we’re heartened by it and surregularly claim that the mainstream media is biased against prised by it. So if you’re a Times subscriber, you can sign up Israel. You hear it all the time. So I thought that was just and comment. They do tend to run a lot of these comments. worth throwing out there. The second point is to visit Twitter and social media, chalAnyway, so right now, we’re going to break for lunch. If lenge and comment there. This is particularly common among anyone’s in need of divine mercy right now, we have a Friyoung people. Everybody sees it now. It’s not just me talking day prayer at 12:45 in the Winners’ Room. And make sure to you in this room. I go online later, and people come and you’re here promptly at 1:15 for Susan Abulhawa’s keynote read down through the various tweets, and so on and so address, which you’re not going to want to miss. Thank you. forth. First of all, the reporters are subject to—they’re a little And the Ideas Fair will be open as well. ■ uneasy. I think deep down they know that (Advertisement) they’re not doing an excellent job. They’re uneasy, but more importantly is that the audience sees this. There’s a challenge. It’s not just running in a newspaper with no response to it. The final point is that, obviously, to continue the type of solidarity work that probably all of you are involved in, because the best guarantee of increased coverage—I mean, it sounds like putting the cart before the horse—but the best guarantee is that the public demands better coverage. If the public knows what it’s missing, or at least senses what it’s missing, and demands more of it, A Project of then the newspaper, The Times, is going Middle East Children’s Alliance to have to respond. I think that’s it. So I hope I didn’t go on too long, and I appreciate you listening. Thank you. May 2019

37

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:25 PM Page 38

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

Keynote: Israel: More Than Apartheid Susan Abulhawa

38

olive oil from Palestine. You’ll find her bottles and books in the Ideas Fair. Abulhawa is often invited to international poetry or literary festivals. Audiences in every country in the world can listen to her voice—except in her own homeland. In November 2018, Israeli authorities barred her entry into Tel Aviv’s BenGurion Airport and prevented her from participating in panel discussions at a literature festival in Ramallah and Jerusalem. She was detained for 32 hours, many of them spent in an Israeli jail cell, as she appealed their decision. An Israeli court upheld her deportation. Please welcome a powerful voice for Palestine. Susan Abulhawa: Thank you. Thank you so much for that generous introduction. It’s really great to be back at the Washington Report. This is an institution that was one of the main sources, or first sources, we had for independent media, and it’s an honor to be the keynote. I want in this talk to try and examine the nature of Israel in the world. To do that, I’m going to try and present a survey of Israel from multiple angles that are going to seem disparate and unrelated. They include democracy, nature, global weapons, friendship and archaeology. Most of us in this room understand the colonial and apartheid underpinnings of Israel, which manifest in the unrelenting daily horrors and indignities for Palestinians. On the other hand, some folks see Israel as a benevolent place trying to exist with Palestinians. But I would like to look beyond this kind of contained binary framework relative only to Palestinians, because Israel is so much more. Every country in the world, of course, has good and bad elements, but I do think it’s possible to pinpoint a kind of general imprint for societies—the way they exist in the world and also, more importantly, how they impact the rest of the world. To do this, I found that national spending data are

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

PHOTO HINDY MOKHIBER

Delinda Hanley: I hope you’ll find your seats. You are in for a real treat now. I’m going to introduce our keynote speaker. Susan Abulhawa is a highly regarded Palestinian author who has written internationally acclaimed bestsellers. In fact, when we announced that she would give this keynote address, Philip Farah—I know you’re here—said his wife’s reading group agreed Abulhawa’s book is the best they’d ever read. He said, “I really put her up there with Charles Dickens.” Her debut novel, Mornings in Jenin, was translated into 28 languages. Her second novel, The Blue Between Sky and Water, has likewise been translated into 26 languages. Abulhawa’s first poetry collection, My Voice Sought the Wind, was published by Just World Books. All those books are for sale at the Middle East Books and More booth and on our website. Her third novel will be published soon, in 2019. She’s the daughter of refugees from the 1967 Six-Day War, when her family’s land was seized and Israel captured what remained of Palestine, including Jerusalem. She was born in Kuwait and raised between there and Jerusalem, then in the Carolinas, where she completed high school, university and graduate school, majoring in neuroscience. She enjoyed a successful career in biomedical science before becoming a full-time writer. I first heard her poetry years ago, at an ADC [AmericanArab Anti-Discrimination Committee] convention. As a child who also grew up here and there, always searching for my own homeland, I listened to her poetry and wept. She currently lives in Pennsylvania with her daughter, their cats and dogs. In 2001, Susan founded Playgrounds for Palestine, a children’s organization dedicated to upholding the right to play for Palestinian children. To help raise funds to build more playgrounds, she has launched AIDA, a private label

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:25 PM Page 39

KEYNOTE: Susan Abulhawa: Israel: More Than Apartheid

useful. When we look at Israeli spending, we find that it is second only to Saudi Arabia—that other bastion of human rights—in arms spending per capita in the world, exceeding the United States military spending per capita, as well as exceeding U.S. military spending as a percent of GDP. I’m going to talk about what all of this means in real life, but first, I want to touch on the prevailing perception of Israel, which has been cultivated through sustained multitiered, multi-pronged public relations campaigns that present Israel as an unfairly maligned modern democracy, one that is advanced, socially enlightened and endlessly innovative, from such absurd claims as having invented falafel to the equally absurd claim of being less than one year away from curing cancer. It’s actually a real thing. What is promulgated through popular international media is typically not merely an exaggeration of reality, or even just spin, but it’s often precisely the opposite of reality. A case in point is this article in Scientific American, a respected magazine that translates scientific information for lay persons. The article touted Israel’s desalination plants as “unprecedented ingenuity in the region,” using language that comports with the old proposition that Israel is a miracle that made the desert bloom. The reality could not be further from that. Two implicit lies in the title and subtitle alone: First, Arab nations in the Gulf have been using desalination technology for the past 50 years. But more important is the little known fact that Ramallah’s annual rainfall actually exceeds London’s annual rainfall. And Jerusalem’s rainfall is nearly on par with London’s—plus it’s way sunnier. The point is that Palestine isn’t and never was dry, desert or barren. This is the cover of a detailed book [Pollution in the Promised Land] of all the ways that Israel has profoundly and detrimentally altered the natural biomes, landscape, hydraulic potential and ecological balance of Palestine. It is a monumentally depressing read. I don’t have time to go into the terrible details but, keeping with the example at hand, I’m briefly going to touch on water. The article described Israel as a “galvanized civilization that created water from nothingness, where a few miles away water disappeared and civilizations crumbled.” In fact, in its first years of establishment, Israel began water diversion projects and overpumping from rivers and tributaries to serve Zionist settlements with unsustainable European standards, which were utterly in conflict with the local terrain and which set the stage for a multitude of environmental disasters all across Palestine.

One example, among many, of Israel’s destruction of Palestine’s natural water systems is the Al-Auja River, which Israel renamed as the Yarkon. It was a vigorous coastal river described in an 1891 travel guide as “a roaring river that zigzags until falling into the sea. Its power turns mills and small fish can be caught in it.” In a mere decade of Israeli management of Palestine’s water, this life-giving river was reduced to a trickle of sewage, its water siphoned and replaced with the toxic sludge of industrial and domestic pollutants—which, in 1997, ate through the lungs and vital organs of athletes competing in the Maccabiah Games when a bridge fell, and they fell into the river. One of Israel’s first water projects when it conquered the rest of Palestine was to divert as much water as possible from the Jordan River once it gained access. This spurred Syria and Jordan to follow suit, to preserve their own share of regional waters. Decades later, water levels are so low that the Jordan River can no longer replenish the Dead Sea. The declining water levels, coupled with Israel’s evaporation ponds to extract minerals and other industrial activities, have created an environmental disaster never before seen in Palestine. It has become cliché to say that the Dead Sea is dying. In the 1950s, Israel drained Palestine’s Hula wetlands, a regional biodiversity treasure, in order to establish Jewish settlements. Hundreds of such colonial projects have greatly denigrated the rich biological and geographical diversity that once thrived in that terrain where three continents meet. Some of the fish and birds that were destroyed by this project were found nowhere else in the world, and have since gone extinct. This is to say nothing of the way that the land has been scarred and disfigured. Hilltops decapitated for rapacious settlements, millions of imported fast-growing trees planted to conceal destroyed Palestinian villages—only for these non-native trees to be rejected by the land in massive forest fires, leaving a scorched earth on hundreds of thousands of acres. And it is to say nothing of the systematic ways in which Israel uproots olive trees and other fruit-bearing trees that sustain Palestinian families. There are countless such examples and systematic ways in which Israel has devastated nature, sometimes in ways that cannot be undone. Although Israel’s role as a destroyer of Palestinian society overshadows their environmental record, Israel should nonetheless be counted among the world’s polluters, decimators of trees, and spoilers of nature. I want to turn now to Israeli innovations and exports. Because Israel leads the world in several niche death, surveilMay 2019

39

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:25 PM Page 40

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

lance and suppression technologies and tactics. It is well known, and admitted by Israeli weapons manufacturers, that they test their weapons on Palestinians, and Gaza is their biggest laboratory. According to Darryl Li of the University of Chicago, Gaza is a, “space where Israel tests and refines various techniques of management, continuously experimenting in search of an optimal balance between maximum control over territory and minimum responsibility for its nonJewish population.” I told you earlier that Israel is right there with Saudi Arabia leading the world in military spending per capita. Other countries like the United States, Russia and China aren’t far behind. But where an extraordinary difference emerges is with military exports. Studies and international databases will show that Israel is anywhere from the fourth to the eighth largest exporter of arms, and this depends on the year and the currency examined. I should point out, however, that these data are likely gross underestimations, because Israel doesn’t actually report its arms deals—many of which occur through covert deals via independent arms hustlers, often retired Israeli military generals. Given that Israel is listed among exporters of arms with far bigger populations and far bigger economies, I looked for data to show exports per capita, and I came up mostly empty-handed, to my surprise. I’m sure that data must be out there somewhere, but I couldn’t find it. So I put on my old sci-

HopeHasWings

entist and statistician hat and did the calculations myself. I used two databases. The first was of the top arms exporters in U.S. dollars for years 2010 to 2018 from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, or SIPRI, which compiles data on arms transfers and conflicts around the world. Then, using Excel functions, I matched those data up with a world population database for corresponding years from the World Bank. Then, using simple arithmetic functions, I calculated and graphed arms sales normalized to the size of the population to determine arms exports per capita for all the countries in the SIPRI database. What I found is that Israel leads the entire world in arms exports, often by a huge margin, every single year between 2010 and 2018, with the exception of 2011, in which Sweden, strangely, was neck and neck with them. Again, these data do not include the vast covert arms transfers, military training and surveillance technology. One of Israel’s biggest military hardware niches is drones. Over 60 percent of global drone exports come from Israel. The United States is in second place, with just less than 24 percent. The attractiveness of Israeli arms is that they boast of being combat tested. A case in point is Israel’s Hermes 900, which was still in the testing phase when it was used against civilians in Gaza in 2014. A mere three weeks after that onslaught in Gaza that murdered 2,200 people and maimed tens of thousands more, Israel held a drone trade show called “Israel Unmanned Sys-

(Advertisement)

$350 provides a beehive, equipment and training for a Palestinian farmer $100 trains a new beekeeper $35 purchases a share of a beehive

The POLLINATOR PROJECT has already placed 80 beehives with Palestinian farmers. Honeybees are the most efficient, organic method of pollination. Higher pollination means higher production and a more secure livelihood.

www.landofcanaanfoundation.org

info@landofcanaanfoundation.org The Land of Canaan Foundation 19215 SE 34th Street • #106-122 • Camas, WA 98607 40

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:25 PM Page 41

KEYNOTE: Susan Abulhawa: Israel: More Than Apartheid

PHOTO HINDY MOKHIBER

tems 2014,” in which that Hermes 900 was all the rage for its so-called performance in Gaza. In that assault in 2014, Israel used drones to kill at least 840 people. In the current assault on Gaza protesters, Israel is using a series of new drones called the Cyclone riot control drone system. It’s being used to spray aerosol and gas substances from the sky. They appear to be used for the first time against the Great March of Return. The company that makes the Cyclone claims on their website to be a leading supplier for police in the United States, and they boast that their product claims are based on practical field experience. This is what it looks like: [Video clip showing the drone firing on civilians in Gaza.] So what happens after these death and suppression technologies are developed and tested on the bodies, psyches and spirits of Palestinians? Throughout its short history, Israel has been one of the most dependable suppliers of weapons to pariah regimes, especially in situations where weapon embargoes were put in place due to severe human rights abuses. The ones I’m going to show you were revealed due to leaks, revelations, or specific investigations, especially those by two Israeli human rights activists—Eitay Mack and Yair Oron. In South Sudan’s civil war, Israel continued to supply the South Sudanese regime with weapons, despite an ongoing civil war that had left half a million people dead and four million displaced in the past five years. Israel’s arms sales to South Sudan continued despite a U.N. report that documented extensive and grave human rights violations, including the drafting of child soldiers, burning of villages, systematic rape, indiscriminate killing, pillaging and destruction of infrastructure. And they continue to supply weapons to them, despite a U.S. arms embargo, followed by a U.N. arms embargo, against South Sudan. In fact, just a few months ago, the former head of the Israeli army’s operation was sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department as an agent who sold over $150 million worth of weapons under the cover of an agricultural company that was supposed to

be building affordable housing in South Sudan. In the Bosnian massacres, Israel sold weapons to Serbian forces during the Bosnian war in the early ’90s, long after the U.N. embargo was declared in ’91. In ’92, when Slobodan Milosevic was the president of Serbia—he was described at that time as the new Hitler of Europe, I think most of us in this room are old enough to remember him—at that time Israel opened an embassy in Serbia, and simultaneously Serbian forces were creating concentration camps and committing massacres against Bosnian Muslims that led to the murder of an estimated 250,000 people. Eitay Mack, who I mentioned earlier, gathered evidence that Israelis in the highest offices were involved in both arming and training Serbian forces. Mack and Oron then petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court with concrete evidence of this, including the diary of Ratko Mladic, who’s on trial at the ICC for war crimes. They had his diary, in which he catalogued all the training and weapons that were transferred to them. Israel’s high court rejected the petition, arguing that declassifying documents exposing Israel’s role in the Bosnian genocide would harm Israeli interests. Adding insult to injury, Israel is now engaged in revising the history of this genocide. So Israel supplied weapons to Serbia while it was known that they were committing genocide and while there was a U.N. arms embargo in place, and Israel’s high court covered it all up. In Myanmar, we know that Israel continued to transfer weapons to the Burmese army long after they were accused of committing war crimes, including murder, rape, torture and the burning of villages that left thousands dead and at least 700,000 displaced from the Rohingya minority. Israel was selling arms to Myanmar well after the European Union and the United States imposed an arms embargo on the country. Mack and Oron petitioned the Israeli high court to stop these weapons sales, but the ruling was kept classified. But we know that Israel continued to supply armored land and water vehicles and artillery to the Burmese military. So, once again, Israel supplied arms to Myanmar while it was May 2019

41

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:25 PM Page 42

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

known that they were committing ethnic cleansing and while there was a U.N. embargo in place, and Israel’s high court helped to cover it up and enable it. In Rwanda, going back again to the 1990s, to another horrific genocide, an estimated one million men, women and children were massacred in Rwanda in the space of 100 days. It is said to be the fastest pace of genocide in human history. Israel provided the rifles, ammunition and grenades that made it all possible. Eitay Mack, again in petitioning the Israel high court to declassify the arms transfers, quoted the Israeli arms dealer who in Rwanda said, “I’m actually a doctor,” expressing pride for supplying those weapons because, he said, he helped the victims die quickly. Israel’s high court ruled that the details of those arms deals will remain a secret, again claiming that it would harm Israeli interests to reveal the extent of those arms transfers. So again, Israel supplied Rwanda with weapons while it was known that a genocide was taking place and while a U.N. arms embargo was in place, and Israel’s high court helped to cover it up. Adding insult to injury again, Israel later backed a move at the U.N. by Rwanda to rewrite history of this particular genocide as a larger quid pro quo, with Paul Kagame, president of Rwanda, to take in asylum seekers deported from Israel. Now, going even further back to apartheid South Africa, this is the cover of an explosive book [The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa] when it was published in 2010 by Sasha Polakow-Suransky, detailing the never before known extent of cooperation between Israel and the apartheid government of South Africa. Israel was South Africa’s closest ally, its most important arms supplier, and eventually its only friend in a world that could no longer look the other way from the crimes of apartheid. The coordination between the two countries was unprecedented. Their respective intelligence chiefs held regular meetings, sharing information in training and surveillance. They gave unfettered access to each other’s military tactics, missions and intelligence. The relationship was actually deeper than mere trade and coordination. Israel had a spiritual and moral affinity for the apartheid government in South Africa which was articulated in the 1980s by Israeli Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan, who said, referring to blacks in South Africa, that they “want to gain control over the white minority just like the Arabs here want to gain control over us, and we too, like the white minority in South Africa, must act to prevent them from taking over us.” 42

In 1976, just two months after Israel rolled out the red carpet for the South African president, schoolchildren in Soweto took to the streets to demonstrate against an imposed racist curriculum. The white South African police mowed them down with weapons that had been supplied by Israel. What shocked the world further from this book was to finally learn that Israel had offered to provide the apartheid government with nuclear arms as far back as 1975. Israel tried to prevent the declassification of the post-apartheid government documents but they were unsuccessful, and it became clear that Israel did indeed lead to the nuclear armament of the apartheid regime, which luckily disarmed voluntarily following the fall of apartheid. One more thing that’s worth noting here. In 2007, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned that his country could one day “face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, and as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished.” There are so many more examples of such violent Israeli subterfuge in the world. I’m going to quickly rattle through a few of these examples without going into detail for the sake of time, but just know that every one of these instances—and this is not a complete list of sub rosa arms sales—occurred to bolster repressive brutal regimes at different times and as well as training of mercenaries to facilitate corporate plunder. Israel continued supplying arms to the former repressive white colonial regime in Rhodesia, or modern day Zimbabwe, after U.N. sanctions were imposed in 1967. Israel armed and supported Portugal against national liberation movements in the former colonies of Mozambique, Angola and Guinea Bissau. Israel funded and trained the military oppression of anticolonial uprisings and/or dictatorships in Ivory Coast, Central African Republic, Benin, Togo, Cameroon, Senegal, Uganda, Nigeria and Somalia. Israel armed all sides of the Angola civil war at different times over 40 years. They used this colonial tactic in other places to fuel and arm wars to divide and reconquer Africa. Israel armed and trained elite units in Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of the Congo, bolstering the brutal rule of Mobutu Sese Seko following the assassination of pan-Africanist Patrice Lumumba. They sold arms to Sri Lanka to suppress the Tamils. Israel provided nearly all arms sold to the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua that terrorized its people for over 12 years. Following the democratic election of the Sandinistas, Israel funneled arms to the brutal Nicaraguan Contras and was embroiled in what became known as the Iran-Contra af-

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:25 PM Page 43

KEYNOTE: Susan Abulhawa: Israel: More Than Apartheid

fair. They likewise sold arms to Guatemalan death squads, a robot packed with explosives to kill the suspect. It was a as well as death squads in El Salvador and Honduras; to kind of robot suicide bomber, if you will. It was apparently Chile during Pinochetâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s horrific dictatorship; to Rafael Trujillo the first known time that police dispatched a robot to kill a during his dictatorship of the Dominican Republic; to the tersuspect on U.S. soil, rather than attempting apprehension or rorist Argentinian junta in the 1970s. In many of these negotiating surrender. As it turned out, that police chief had places, Israel also sold surveillance technology to monitor been on a 10-day so-called anti-terrorism training in Israel. phones and track political activists. They did the same thing Lastly, on this pointâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;and this is something that Ali in the Philippines during the Ferdinand Marcos era, and in Abunimah touched on earlierâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;is the recent revelation that Indonesia under the repressive Suharto. Theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re also now Israeli intelligence companies have been spying on U.S. citisupplying weapons to the accused war criminal leader of the zens, not to mention the role that these Israeli intelligence Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte. companies have had in tampering with the U.S. presidential In Cameroon, Israeli generals provide training and arms to election in 2016, as the Mueller investigation has revealed. protect dictator Paul Biya, who has been crushing political Now I want to move on to friendships and alliances. Dedissidentsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;disappearing, assassinating and torturing acspite claiming to be the guardians and protectors of Jews tivists. Theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re doing the same thing in the oil-rich Equatorial everywhere, Israel actually has courted some of the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Guinea, colluding with Obiang Nguema and ExxonMobil to most notorious anti-Semites, as long as they support Israelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s suppress political dissent and facilitate the siphoning of that occupation and buy their arms. John Vorster, the apartheid nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s resources to enrich its rulers, and U.S. and Israeli South African prime minister that I mentioned earlier, was a corporations, while its people languish in abject poverty. Nazi sympathizer who was imprisoned by the British for his Israel also provides countries and ties to the gray shirts fascist militia. In (Advertisement) corporations with wares and training for 1976, Yitzhak Rabin heaped praise on (TQO CYCTF YKPPKPI CWVJQT domestic policing and suppression of him and gave him the red carpet wel,CUQP /CMCPUK VJG WPHNKPEJKPI come when he visited Israel. dissent. In places like Brazil, Israel UVQT[ QH CP #OGTKECP #TCDĆˇ U plays a huge role in the domestic surIsrael has cozied up and is supportNKHG KP NKODQ veillance, prisons, militarized borders, ing ultranationalist, ultra-right, anti-miinternal policing and suppression. In the nority, racist homophobe Jair Bolsonaro United States, there is widespread in Brazil, who said, â&#x20AC;&#x153;refugees are the training of U.S. police departments. The scum of the earth.â&#x20AC;? He told a female export of Israelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s brutal tactics to the colleague she was too ugly to rape. He United States has been so alarming threatened to destroy or imprison his that Jewish Voice for Peace launched a political opponents. He spoke favorably dedicated campaign called Deadly Exof torture. He lamented that the Brazilchange to fight against it and bring ian cavalry was not as efficient as awareness. Americans who exterminated the IndiOver 200 police and security agenans. He said that heâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d rather see his cies across the United States have son die in a car crash than hear he was gone on training junkets to Israel. I think gay. these are just the ones that are funded Israel has also developed ties and has by one domestic Zionist agency, where been arming and training neo-Nazis in theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re both brainwashed about Israel Ukraine. Israel likewise opened its doors and instructed in ruthless military tac#OGTKECĆˇ U INQDCN CODKVKQPU to anti-Semitic Prime Minister of Hungary tics. The impact of this cooperation beViktor Orban, who praised his countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s CTG TGFWEGF VQ QPG HCVJGT tween U.S. domestic police departJKU FCWIJVGT CPF VJG VYQ OGP World War II-era leadership that ments and the Israeli occupation milipresided over the mass murder of Jews, YJQ UGGM VQ TGWPKVG VJGO tary came to light after the Ferguson and he employed terrible age-old antiuprising, in which robocop police Semitic tropes to demonize George Ćš#P GZVGPFGF OGFKVCVKQP QP showed up in military gear to suppress Soros. In December, Netanyahu even HTKGPFUJKR CPF HKFGNKV[ COKF met with him to negotiate the opening of unarmed peaceful protesters. It turned VJG 7PKVGF 5VCVGU IQXGTPOGPVĆˇ U a revisionist Holocaust museum in Buout that the Ferguson Police DepartQPIQKPI YCT QP VGTTQTKUO Ćş ment had gone on one of these training dapest which basically exonerates HunĆľ/C T M %J OK G N C W V J Q T Q H junkets in Israel. garyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role in Europeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Holocaust. &GCT .C[N C 9GN EQOG V Q 2CN GUV K PG Also of note is the incident of police Netanyahu signed a joint declaration shooting in 2016 in Dallas, Texas, in with the right-wing Polish Prime Minis#XCKNCDNG QPNKPG KP DQQMUVQTGU which Police Chief David Brown sent in ter Mateusz Morawiecki, which likewise May 2019

43

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:25 PM Page 44

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

wipes clean Poland’s record in Europe’s Holocaust and rewrote history to state that the Poles were actually helping Jews escape Nazis. Of course, there is this card-carrying anti-Semite [Donald Trump] that Israel loves and embraces. Netanyahu went so far as to make excuses for Hitler, claiming in 2015 that Hitler wasn’t the monster we all thought he was. Rather, that it was a Palestinian leader, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who convinced him to actually kill European Jews. Luckily, Netanyahu crossed the line with that one, and European leaders and historians rose together to give him a foul card. The last bit I want to touch on briefly has to do with the way that Israel’s rewriting of history is robbing the world of archaeological treasures and important history that belongs not only to Palestinians but to all of humanity, because Palestine is an extraordinarily special place. While it already has an indigenous population that formed there over millennia, Palestine holds a history that belongs to all people of monotheistic faiths. Since its inception, Israel has worked tirelessly to erase the footprints of the many civilizations, religions and peoples who existed in that land before, during and after Jewish presence in the land. The existence of so many churches and mosques are particular irritants to Israel. It has worked in earnest to destroy, desecrate or control them from the beginning of their control over the land. Immediately after the Nakba, Israel began a campaign of destroying the Palestinian villages it had just depopulated, including tearing down mosques and churches, some of which were centuries old and of great religious and historic significance, like the Sheikh Eid Mosque in Jerusalem that was built by one of Saladin’s sons. In places where new Jewish inhabitants took over Palestinian towns, non-Jewish places of worship have been turned into nightclubs, animal pens, restaurants, brothels and the like. Other mosques were made inaccessible or declared closed military zones, leaving them derelict. When the Islamic Movement once helped a group of internal refugees from the former village of Sarafand restore their mosque in 2000, it was bulldozed overnight in still unexplained circumstances. Increasingly, Jewish militias are vandalizing and burning churches and mosques, without any consequence to the perpetrators. In 2010 a U.S. State Department report stated that “non-Jewish holy sites in Israel do not enjoy legal protection because the government does not recognize them as officially holy sites.” After Jewish settlers torched a mosque in 2012, a former military chief of staff admitted in a radio interview that there was no interest in catching the culprits. He said, “If we wanted, we could catch them, and when we want to, we will.” Part and parcel of Israel’s erasure of history, they have also targeted non-Jewish cemeteries. The ancient Muslim cemetery of Ma’man Allah, which includes graveyards of prominent Muslim scholars, generals and companions of the Prophet Muhammad—peace be upon him—was destroyed to build a museum by the California-based Wiesenthal Cen44

ter. In 2008, over 100 skeletons were unearthed and tossed aside during excavations for the construction work. Throughout Palestine, in places where Israel has developed Jewish cities, Muslim and Christian cemeteries were simply dug up and built over. For example, Tel Aviv University, which was built over the Palestinian village of Sheikh Muwanis, desecrated a graveyard and built a dormitory over it. Lastly, I want to briefly touch on the ways that Israel has weaponized archaeology. On the pretense of digging for history, it has confiscated and demolished whole Palestinian neighborhoods. Silwan in East Jerusalem is the best known example of this, where Israel has confiscated at least six dunams of land belonging to one family, the Siam family, and they’ve evicted over 6,000 Palestinians. The purpose of the dig was never about archaeology, because we know that they’re planning to build a so-called Jewish national park in the area, a kind of Jewish Disneyland, as it’s being referred to. We also know that the Israel Antiquities Authority has destroyed several ancient archeological sites and antiquities as

a result of this dig, including a cemetery dating back to the Abbasid Caliphate and relics dating back to the Canaanite era in the second millennium BC. It is not for the love of archeology or history. In fact, Israel routinely destroys ancient cities unearthed by archeologists so long as they have nothing to do with Jewish history. The first thing they did when they conquered Palestine, the rest of Palestine, in 1967 was to demolish the entire Moroccan neighborhood [in the Old City of Jerusalem] that was over 800 years old, displacing hundreds of Palestinians. Israel has engaged in such massive destruction of antiquities consistently and systematically. Another example [referring to a slide] is a recent find of a 1,200-year-old mixed village of well-off Muslims and Christians who lived together. Archaeologists got a chance to take photos and record some of the relics, but the site is set to be bulldozed for development. Again, these are all just surface surveys of hidden realities. The depredations of Israel are much more vast, deeper and far-reaching. But my hope is that what I have presented here

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:26 PM Page 45

KEYNOTE QUESTIONS & ANSWERS: Susan Abulhawa: Israel: More Than Apartheid

today will expand the view from Israel as an apartheid nation suppressing the indigenous Palestinian population to a deeper understanding of Israel as a global force of violence, plunder, paranoia, surveillance, greed, war, suppression, ecological destruction, erasure of history, the forceful transfer of wealth from the weak to the powerful, and the entrenchment of supremacist ideologies that set human hierarchies in caste. No matter how many gay pride marches they hold or how many Eurovisions they host, no matter how good their national orchestra makes you feel when they tour the world, or how Palestinian citizens are given a symbolic vote, no matter how much greenwashing, pinkwashing or whitewashing hasbara there is in mainstream media, the way that Israel exists in the world is ultimately antithetical to life and to liberty—not just for Palestinians, but for all people who struggle against tyranny, oppression, white supremacy and ecological destruction. The situation is dire and desperate for our families in Palestine. The grim reality of our compatriots’ daily lives and

the dimming of our future in our homeland is portended by Israel’s push now to ban the athan [call to prayer] over Jerusalem for the first time since the dawn of Islam. Israel is moving forcefully against Al-Aqsa, perhaps the final frontier in Palestine. But I do not want to end on such a hopeless note—because, despite everything, there is so much to celebrate, so much to encourage our continued struggle, and much to inspire hope. In fact, I believe that Israel’s current escalation of their ongoing ethnic cleansing is in many ways a desperate, though counter-productive, response to the growing international repudiation of them, including by young Jews whose moral compass is not guided by Zionism. The conversation is changing here and around the world. Palestine is the single issue splitting leftist movements and parties globally. The Democratic Party here in the U.S., the Women’s March, the Labour Party in the UK—increasingly, we are not alone. Points of intersection with liberation movements around the world are being filled with reciprocal

solidarity. More importantly, our people on the frontlines have not given up, and they continue every day to fight and insist on life. In the bigger picture afforded by historical examples, Palestine actually follows time-tested trajectories of liberation. Difficult and bloody as these paths always are, I believe that, ultimately, restoration to our homeland, to liberty and dignity is our only collective destiny. Thank you. [Standing Ovation] ■

Questions & Answers

Delinda Hanley: We have a lot of questions. What role has Israel played in the war in Syria? Susan Abulhawa: Actually, there’s more than one U.N. report detailing Israeli arms transfers to the so-called rebels, who are a hodgepodge of a multitude of folks. Most of them aren’t even Syrian. They do include militias from al-Qaeda. We also know that these anti-Assad fighters have been getting medical treatment in Israel in addition to the arms. So they’ve definitely been bolstering and supporting the civil war from day one, I think. Delinda Hanley: What is the relationship between ISIS and Israel in the destruction of antiquities? Susan Abulhawa: Well, they both destroy antiquities. I mean I don’t think they’re colluding, necessarily, in the destruction of antiquities, but they’re both anti-culture. [ISIS bulldozed the ancient Assyrian gateway lion sculpture in Raqqa, Syria, and blew up the Temple of Bel in Palmyra, Syria], and Israel has been systematically erasing the presence of many civilizations, especially an Islamic presence in the land. Delinda Hanley: Isn’t an Israeli company involved in building our wall [at the U.S.-Mexico border] and using Israeli materials? Susan Abulhawa: I have read that, actually. I think a simple Google search will show that there are several Israeli companies—and Donald Trump has publicly praised Israel’s wall. I know that they did put in bids, so I don’t know if they are involved in actually building it. I also read that they are possibly involved in the surveillance and providing some of the surveillance equipment for the wall. Delinda Hanley: Any idea what percentage of police in the USA shooting blacks were trained by Israel here or there? Susan Abulhawa: That’s a good question. It’s actually one that I’ve been trying to get information on, especially in our city, in Philadelphia. But I’m not the expert on that. I think the most reliable place at this point is the Jewish Voice for Peace Deadly Exchange program that I mentioned earlier. They have been sending or filing FOIA applications in many

Continued on page 70

May 2019

45

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:26 PM Page 46

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

PANEL: Fighting Against Illegal Settlements And for Free Speech The Legal Battle for Justice Against Israeli Settlers and Their American Financiers Martin F. McMahon

46

He filed a lawsuit initially dismissed by the District Court here in DC. But it was overturned by the Court of Appeals here in DC. And that lawsuit seeks $1 trillion in damages from those who enabled the settlements and the settlers to commit war crimes, including genocide, ethnic cleansing and denationalization. The court reasoned that, based on the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide has a legal, rather than a political, definition. All of the other counts [in the lawsuit] were dismissed as being political, not legal. So that means the case is going back to District Court and there will be litigation on whether Israeli settlers are committing genocide, which is a huge breakthrough. So it’s a pleasure to welcome Martin McMahon, who will describe for us the legal battle for justice against Israeli settlers and their American backers. Please join me in welcoming him. PHOTO HINDY MOKHIBER

Janet McMahon: Following Susan’s brilliant presentation of how American tax dollars are being used, and also amplifying, really, on her optimistic conclusions, we’ll now be hearing from fellow Americans who are fighting the influence of the Israel lobby in this country—and winning. Our first panel looks at cases that have been filed in U.S. federal court, one here in Washington, DC, and the other in neighboring Maryland. I might begin by noting that, while I am not related to our first panelist, I do know how to spell and pronounce his last name. One cannot take it for granted in this country, as I can personally attest! Martin F. McMahon is a graduate of Fordham University Law School in New York, and an experienced litigator who has tried cases all over the country. He spent a number of years with the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, where he oversaw significant litigation matters in the Southern District of New York and in the Second Circuit. He has had private practice experience as well, having been with Cravath, Swaine & Moore and with Proskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn. He established his own law firm many years ago, and he’s dedicated to advancing the interest of the proverbial underdog—in this case Palestinians, whom the world has largely forgotten about and deem irrelevant. In fact, a decade ago, one of his Middle East clients implored him to do something to “help the Palestinians,” and he has been doing that.

Martin McMahon: Thank you very much for your kind applause. And I must applaud Susan, wherever she is, for those great remarks. One time Elvis Presley was asked “what act do you not want to follow,” and he said, “Roy Orbison.” Susan is an act you should not have to follow. But I’ll try to do my best to entertain you and educate you somewhat about the legal stuff. The one caveat—and forgive me, I’m too tired to stand up—the opinions I express today are

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:26 PM Page 47

Martin F. McMahon: The Legal Battle for Justice Against Israeli Settlers and Their American Financiers

my opinions. They are not the opinions of the entity that sponsored this fantastic event. Are there any AIPAC folks out there, or retired Mossad agents, who can stand up and identify themselves? I once made that crack at a convention— I asked, would the FBI agents who had been monitoring my phones please stand up and identify themselves? Anyway, it probably won’t come as a surprise to you in the room if you know what I’ve been doing with respect to controversial lawsuits. I have experienced slashed car tires, insults, death threats, bar complaints and other efforts to scare me off. Thank God I’m still here to give a speech or two and again. Let me get to the lawsuit, which some of you may know nothing about. It’s a pretty famous lawsuit, by the way. This is the first time—first time ever—that the political question doctrine has not barred a complaint by Palestinians. It is a landmark case, OK? We lost in round one— it’s like a heavyweight fight, at the District Court level. But we won in the Court of Appeals, round two. Now we’re going into round three, and I think I should educate you about—well, OK, Mr. McMahon, the case is in the Court of Appeals, what happens now and where are we going? OK? If you can understand this, the defendants, represented by 30 of the best law firms in America, are understandably pissed off that they lost at the Court of Appeals. Hallelujah! But, anyway, they want to file more motions to dismiss, which we’ll eventually get to. But what will happen in the Court of Appeals, after some skirmishing legal nonsense, the case will eventually get down to District Court, where justice is dispensed and you have juries—hopefully, we’ll get down there someday—and then discovery. A scheduling order will be entered by the judge who threw my case out, Judge [Tanya] Chutkan. She will enter a scheduling order, and that will say you can start discovery, you can start doing this or that. One of the things I want is defendant [Sheldon] Adelson’s last five years of tax returns. In my next lawsuit, I’m suing Trump, and I want five years of him, too. Anyway, what Adelson has been doing in taking tax writeoffs—by the way, every April 15 he takes tax deductions—You know why? He bought Kalashnikovs and body armor for these violent settlers in the OPT [occupied Palestinian territories]. He writes that off as a tax deduction. He has given $50 million to an illegal settlement named Ariel. Just like our Ambassador [to Israel] Mr. [David] Friedman—by the way, he owns a settlement called

“

Beit El—every year, based on 990 tax forms, he sends them $2 million so that they have machine guns so they can maim and murder Palestinians. By the way, guess where the Netanyahu family happens to live? Beit El, of all things. So we’re going to go after the purveyors of hate—arms traffickers like Adelson and other people—and we’re going after 501(c)(3)s. You probably know about 501(c)(3)s not because of my lawsuit, but because of the big school tuition case. The whole thing that allowed that program to go forward was that they set up phony 501(c)(3)s. I could—rich parents—send in $400,000 and get a tax write off, and my son gets into Harvard. So 501(c)(3)s here in America—I don’t think you understand this—send two billion—with a “b”—every year to finance Israeli settlements and the Israeli army. Now that seems to violate 18 U.S. Code § 1956, money laundering. It also violates 18 U.S. Code § 960: you can’t fund a foreign militia unit. But no one in the government wants to do anything about that. I wonder why that is. And it’s because of AIPAC, and because of senators who AIPAC owns. Probably a lot of you know that if you want to get a piece of legislation on the floor, and I’ve been on Capitol Hill, the way to do it is to get to know and suck up to Sen. [Mitch] McConnell. Of course, he doesn’t like certain things, like gun control legislation, so if it doesn’t come to the floor, no one votes on it. So I don’t know whether there’s any hope for us in Congress. In any case, that lawsuit is going to be a start. I think we will finally identify who the folks are who are funding hate in the OPT. Now, I mentioned hatred because two things have occurred, and my daughter was very concerned about this. Fifty Muslim brothers and sisters were murdered in New Zealand, right? By some nut job. The other reason I want to discuss hatred is, we unfortunately have a president who has the racial sensitivity of a doorknob. Perhaps I’m insulting doorknobs. Why do settlers hate Palestinians so much? A lot of reasons are identified on this fantastic book, Witness in Palestine: A Jewish American Woman in the Occupied Territories. For example, I think it was page 15, some soldier has a Glock pistol on a kid’s head, a Palestinian kid. And he says, “You know, you didn’t do anything wrong. The reason I’m doing this, and the reason I want you dead, is you’re a Palestinian.” So it’s stuff like that. And you hear these comments from Netanyahu and his boys—Palestinians are carcinogen agents, they are not human beings, they’re savages, they’re

So we’re going to go after the purveyors of hate—arms traffickers like Adelson and other people— and we’re going after 501(c)(3)s.

“

May 2019

47

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:26 PM Page 48

PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

beasts, the kids, snakes. That’s evidence of a genocidal intent, by the way. In summer we’re going to put together our next lawsuit as well. Now I would like to address some of the young people in this audience. If you saw what went on in Charlottesville in 2016 or ’17, that was a re-enactment of Kristallnacht. Kristallnacht occurred in one of my favorite German cities, München, in 1933. Those brown shirts were out there carrying torches just like the a——es in Charlottesville. They weren’t screaming, “the Jews won’t replace us,” but they were demanding eradication of the Jewish race. One of Trump’s prototypes, named Adolf Hitler, accommodated them. I want you to know about Charlottesville in that it wasn’t an accident. And the good people there that Trump refers to? Nonsense. They’re Nazis. The second lesson I have for young people—I’m old and I’m on my way out—I’m sort of like chopped liver—President Trump’s daily spewing forth of hatred is nothing new. I worked with the Kennedy family. I have fond memories of Bobby and his speechwriters. I have an autographed picture of JFK in my house. Bobby said many years ago, “more and more Americans are turning to violence.” “Violence is going to destroy our great country,” he warned. “Americans are becoming increasingly tolerant of violence, which is not something we should encourage.” When the White House tries to teach people to hate one another, the possibility for violent confrontation increases. See Charlottesville as exhibit number 1. Hatred is not something that you grew up with. You’re not born with a DNA entry on hatred. It’s taught. I’m going to give you some remarks, 48

and you can judge from that why it’s being taught to young settlers, and why we have so much violence in the OPT. I don’t know if you know who Shin Bet is. It’s the Israeli intelligence folks. Their officials have now confirmed what I thought was always true. Settlers have actually prepared— based upon experience, from IDF soldiers—they now have a “how to do it” manual. In other words, if you want to burn down a Palestinian home, this is the way to do it. Arson for Dummies. So it’s hard to believe, but literally it’s not a hypothetical exercise. You know why? The Dawabsheh family, 20 months ago—a husband, a mother and father, 18-month-old infant—burned down. Incinerated. So it’s not an idle exercise. It’s just going to happen more and more. And these young settlers are taught hate. There’s a rabbi in Hebron, his name is Melamed. Another rabbi, Elor, in Hebron. You know what they tell these kids? Biblical scriptures allow you to murder Palestinians, you know? So what did they do? They go out and murder Palestinians. And not only that, one of those kooky rabbis, Ariel I think his name is, he said 10,000 Arab lives are not worth a single fingernail of an Israeli soldier. Can you imagine that? It sounds like genocide to me. Yonatan Shapira is a guy I want to get to know. He’s a senior Israeli air force pilot. He believed—he stopped dropping cluster bombs in Gaza because it was a war crime. He wrote the pilots’ letter, and it’s wonderful. “This is a war crime, the ongoing slaughter of innocent people.” The quote is taken from a dedicated fantastic journalist, Robert Hirschfield, a Pulitzer Prize winner. General Daniel Halutz rebuked him—this is wonderful—“don’t you know that Jewish actions must be evaluated from the perspective of Jew-

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:26 PM Page 49

Saqib Ali: Why I’m Suing Maryland to Protect My Constitutional Right to Boycott Israel

Why I’m Suing Maryland to Protect My Constitutional Right to Boycott Israel Saqib Ali

PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

ish superiority to the Arab, moral and otherwise?” How about ethnic cleansing? Further evidence of this superiority mentality is a statement made by Chaim Weizmann. He headed up the Western Europe Zionist movement, and he was corresponding with British diplomat Lord Balfour. He recommended making Palestine as Jewish as England is English. One disgusting racist remark: “Arabs, you see, are Oriental—therefore, less human and valuable than Europeans and Zionists. They’re treacherous, unregenerate. Most of all, they do not deserve to own a country, even if their Palestinian numerical advantage seems otherwise to entitle them to that.” Lord Balfour knew what he was doing when he gave Palestine to Israel. Israel’s first president, [David] Ben-Gurion, was even more candid: “We must expel all Arabs and take their places when we have military forces at our disposal.” Mr. Weizmann pointed out to a Soviet ambassador, if half a million Arabs could be transferred out of Palestine, two million Jews can be put in their place. And that would be the first installment. Now these settlers, you’ve got to understand, are evil. Somebody I know—I’ve got to interview someday—Mr. Shulman, he’s a Jew and he helps out Palestinians who have been threatened. He goes into their villages and everything. These crazy settlers attacked him. They beat him up twice. They said, what the hell are you doing here? He said, I’m a Jew and that’s why I’m here, this is not right. Janet McMahon: If I can interrupt just a second before we get to our next speaker. When I was reading the Court of Appeals opinion, they mentioned that your case is not suing Israeli soldiers but civilian settlers. That was one reason it was allowed to proceed. So I think that’s a very interesting legal distinction. Martin McMahon: Yeah. Kudos for a careful attorney. We survived with the support of Court of Appeals. Janet McMahon: So I think I’m going to have to introduce our next speaker on the panel, if that’s OK. Martin McMahon: Sure. Janet McMahon: And thank you very much. Martin McMahon: Can I give one last conclusion? Janet McMahon: Yes, absolutely. Martin McMahon: I wanted to say that when racial hatred rears its ugly head, young people in the audience, crush that. Crush that emphatically with demonstrations and denunciations, and make sure people know what it’s all about. The lesson is when they came for the refugees who had illegally entered my country, I didn’t do anything. When they came for the Jews, I wasn’t wearing a yellow star. When they came for the communists, I was not concerned because I’m not a Bolshevik. However, when they came for me, there was no one left to protect me. Thanks for your time and attention. See you later at the table or the cocktail hour. Let me now turn this over to Saqib Ali, somebody who had the nerve to actually file a lawsuit in Maryland. ■

Janet McMahon: Now, as I mentioned, both of these lawsuits were filed in U.S. federal court. But this next one that we’re going to hear about is about constitutional rights and Americans’ constitutional rights. Saqib Ali served as a Democratic member of the Maryland House of Delegates from Jan. 10, 2007 to Jan. 12, 2011. He was the first—but, I’m happy to say, not the only—Muslim member of that body. There has been one more since he was serving. After leaving the legislature, Saqib co-founded Freedom2Boycott in Maryland, an organization of Palestinian solidarity activists dedicated to preserving their constitutional right to boycott Israel and Israeli settlements. The group mobilized support against and ultimately helped defeat the passage of anti-BDS legislation in the Maryland House from 2014 to 2017. After those measures failed to pass the House, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan issued an executive order denying state government contracts to businesses that refuse to sign pledges not to boycott Israel. This past January, Saqib, a professional software engineer, sued Governor Hogan and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh over the anti-boycott executive order. Similar measures have been implemented in 25 other states and overturned by the courts in Arizona and Kansas. May 2019

49

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:26 PM Page 50

PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

Please join me in welcoming Saqib Ali, who will explain, “Why I’m suing Maryland to protect my constitutional right to boycott Israel.”

Saqib Ali: Thank you very much. Greetings, everybody. My name is Saqib Ali. I’m very honored to be here and thankful that you are attending. This is my first time at one of these conferences and it’s great. I’m really delighted to see the turnout and the great speakers. I would like to say that I haven’t ever heard that the Israeli military has distributed manuals for arsoning people. I have never heard that before, and that was quite a surprise to me. I’m not sure if it’s true. By way of introduction—Janet did a great job—but my name is Saqib Ali. I’m a 44-year-old Pakistani American. I live in Gaithersburg, Maryland, which is about half an hour from here. I’ve been a political activist in the Democratic Party, my local Democratic Party, for a long time. I’m sort of a progressive liberal, we’re a dime a dozen. I’ve been involved in many causes, local causes about protecting roadways and school funding and lots of good stuff like that. Back in 2006, I actually ran for the state legislature, and I won a seat in the Maryland House of Delegates. I served there for four years. After four years I ran for election for the state Senate. I lost a very close election, so that’s why I’m no longer in the legislature. Since leaving the legislature, I found my voice as a Palestinian solidarity activist. I found that there is a lot of—not all, but there is a definite faction in my Democratic Party that was pushing anti-Palestinian measures. Now, when I was in 50

the statehouse, when I was a legislator, the conversation about Palestine rarely came up. Because we were a state legislature, we didn’t deal with foreign policy, mostly. Now occasionally, it does come up, but when I was there it didn’t come up, so it wasn’t a big part of my activism. But what happened is in 2014, the BDS movement started gaining traction and gaining followers and headlines. This organization called the American Studies Association, a rather small organization of university professors studying Native American history and U.S. history—they passed a resolution. They decided to issue a resolution to boycott Israel and the Israeli-controlled settlements. I felt it was rather obscure, a little bit obscure. I hadn’t heard of this organization before that, but I was glad that they did it, but I didn’t think it was really an earth-shattering event. But apparently some people did, and were very offended by this. This gentleman whose name is Benjamin Kramer—he was a Maryland state delegate like me, I served with him. Now he’s a state senator—he was very offended and outraged by the American Studies Association, and he introduced a bill in the Maryland legislature, I think it was in 2014, saying that the UMUC [University of Maryland University College], which is a major university in Maryland, a state-funded university, should be shut down, defunded, because they have five professors who are members of this organization, ASA. So I thought that was outrageous and ridiculously draconian. Just completely disproportionate, and mindless, and crazy, frankly. But I was very alarmed that it was going to pass. So I got together a bunch of like-minded people who I

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 3:16 PM Page 51

Saqib Ali: Why I’m Suing Maryland to Protect My Constitutional Right to Boycott Israel

knew, and got them over to my house. We had a meeting, and we decided that we were going to fight this in the legislature. We would go to Annapolis and we’d testify against it. We would educate the legislators of why this is such a bad idea. And we would use it as an opportunity to try and put the occupation on trial, and force them to grapple with the occupation of Palestine, and the settlements, and all the other human rights abuses that come along with that. So what we did, in 2014 we went to Annapolis—dozens of us, some of the people I see here in the audience today. We went to Annapolis. We testified against this bill. We told them how terrible it was. And we got a quite receptive audience, particularly AfricanAmerican legislators, who are a large faction of the Maryland Democratic Party. They sided with us quite decisively, and the bill was defeated. We were surprised, but thrilled that it happened. That was in 2014. It came back again in 2015, slightly different, in 2016 and in 2017. And every year we’d go there. We’d testify against it. We’d analyze why it was different. But the main thing was that the first bill was to defund that university. But what it morphed into was the kind of bills you see now all around the country which say, “if you want to do business with the state government, if you’re a contractor and you want to do business, you have to sign a pledge saying that you will not boycott Israel or—this is critical—Israeli-controlled territories.” What does that mean? Of course it means the settlements, and of course they are trying to blur any distinction between Israel and the settlements and say that they are one. So it’s very offensive— and, of course, flies in the face of U.S. policy and international law. So this bill in 2017, most recently, said that anybody who boycotts Israel cannot do business with the state of Maryland, and the pension fund should divest from any companies that are engaged in such a boycott. Luckily, we killed that bill in 2017 also. That was in April 2017. Unfortunately, what happened was, in October of 2017 our governor decided to pass this same legislation as an executive order. Since he couldn’t get it through the legislature, what he did, he did an end run. He said, “I’m going to issue this executive order mandating that all state employees follow this rule.” It essentially does a similar thing.

“

Although we blocked it in the statehouse, our Republican governor, his name is Larry Hogan—I circled him right there [referring to a slide]—you can see this is the ceremony where he is signing the piece of paper saying that this is the order. There’s another gentleman here who’s standing by. His name is Reuven Azar. He’s the deputy head mission of the Israeli Embassy who’s standing right there and you can see. So when people are trying to tell you, well, this is just really about nondiscrimination, right? This has nothing to do with the Israeli Embassy, the Israelis are not pushing this—I think it’s quite preposterous, right? The Israeli Embassy sent their attaché to this event, they stood around, the governor said he was doing it for Israel. We weren’t born yesterday. We know what’s going on, obviously. We’re not going to buy their attempts to spin otherwise when their laws and executive orders get in trouble. So what does this mean now that it’s been in place? It’s been in place for almost a year-and-a-half. What it means is that there are lots of contracts on the state government’s website. I just screenshot part of one so you can kind of see for yourself [see the slide on the previous page]. On the left side is the first page of this contract. You can see that there is a juvenile detention center in Maryland, and they need dental services. So they needed dentists to come out and take care of these kids’ teeth who they’ve put in jail, or who are incarcerated for crimes. On the left side, you will see in this contract the paragraph and what the dentist must sign, must promise that they are not boycotting Israel or any Israeli-controlled territories. It’s one thing when people tell you this. But when you see it right there in black and white, it’s quite startling. And there are hundreds and hundreds of contracts like this that have nothing whatsoever to do with Israel—like we need somebody to install a carpet in the bus terminal, we need somebody to provide us sanders for the roads, we need someone to power-wash our facilities, we need somebody to provide food trays at the hospital. All the businessmen who provide these things have to sign these silly, ridiculous contracts. It’s outrageous. At the bottom, you can see, you can’t not sign this thing, right? You have to affirm under penalty of perjury that you swear to the aforementioned clause. What happens, of course, if you sign something under the penalty of perjury

You have to sign this form to apply for any contract, whether you get it or not. So anyone, even to apply, you have to sign this contract.

“

May 2019

51

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:26 PM Page 52

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

which is false? So I boycott Israel and I cannot sign this. If I sign this, I risk going to jail. Let me remind you, every state does their anti-BDS law slightly differently. In Maryland, they did it such that you have to sign this form to apply for any contract, whether you get it or not. So anyone, even to apply, you have to sign this contract. As atrocious as that sounds, that was the Achilles heel of the governor’s executive order, because this gave me standing to sue, OK? Because in many other states, once you get the contract that you have applied for, then they make you sign this form. But in Maryland, they thought they were being clever, and they said, “anybody who applies—even to apply—you have to sign this form.” So, what happened was, in December of last year I got a call from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, also known as CAIR, which is an excellent civil rights organization. Free speech advocates, absolutely wonderful people, and I owe them a great, great debt of gratitude. Their lawyer called me and said—well, what happened was, I wanted to apply for a contract and CAIR has provided me pro bono representation to do so. So as I wanted to apply for one of these contracts and I was restricted—let me step back one second, sorry. I’m a software engineer by profession. I’ve been doing professional software engineering for more than 20 years. I have a long breadth of experience and knowledge about this particular field, and I decided that I wanted to apply for a contract in the state of Maryland. I legitimately want to do business with the state Maryland, and I want to fulfill some of their software needs. So I sought to apply for one of these contracts and, of course, the first thing I noticed was one of these clauses. I decided that I would sue, and CAIR provided me pro bono representation to do so. On Jan 9 of this year, we filed a lawsuit in federal court, and [pointing to a slide] you see the CAIR staff standing next to me suing the governor of Maryland, Larry Hogan, saying that he violated my civil rights. There are three software contracts that I am seeking to get, I want to get. I can help the state of Maryland and I can make some money while doing so. But the governor is conditioning that on me giving up my First Amendment free speech rights. Boycotting Israel is clearly, clearly First Amendment protected speech, and I should not have to give up my speech to conduct business with the state of Maryland. So I filed the lawsuit on Jan. 9 suing Governor Hogan, saying that he’s violating my civil rights. I should be able to apply for these contracts. And because I have not been able to apply for these contracts, I have suffered financial and career damage. So that’s where we are. We filed the lawsuit on Jan. 9. Earlier this month the governor responded with something called a motion to dismiss, saying that, “no, no, no, this person can’t sue because he doesn’t have standing and because he never really applied.” So CAIR’s lawyers will be responding very soon, and we think that we have good arguments. I’m restricted in what I 52

can say without jeopardizing the case, that’s why I’m trying to be extra careful here. So that’s where we are at. But we think that this case will succeed, and we think the issues are very clear cut. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware said that political boycotts are afforded the highest level of protected speech under the First Amendment. The governor is arguing that political boycotts are not protected free speech. That’s part of the nub. So based on the case history, and based on the Supreme Court’s rulings, we think we have a strong case. We’d love to see similar cases appear in every one of the other states. So that’s about it. I appreciate your attention and applause. Thank you very much. Martin McMahon: Good job. ■

Questions & Answers

Janet McMahon: OK. So we have a few questions for our panelists. This is for you, Saqib. Arizona SB 1167 was approved on Wednesday by the legislators. It was revised from the previous anti-BDS bill to only apply to companies with more than 10 employees. Do you think this will hold up in court? I know you’re not a lawyer. Saqib Ali: I’m not a lawyer and I’m not involved in defending that case, of course, but I think it may hold up, what they have done. What happens is these bills are unconstitutional. People sue saying that they’re unconstitutional. What the legislators do, they say, “oh, OK, it doesn’t really apply to you.” That’s basically what they do. They try to carve out people who are impacted by these bills, and have lost their jobs, to say it doesn’t really affect you. So what is the point exactly of these laws if anytime somebody is impacted by them the legislator runs away and says, “no, no, no, no, we didn’t mean you.” Well, who do you mean then? Who do you mean? I’ll tell you who they mean. They want to silence people, and they think nobody is going to bother to challenge it, and simply by having the laws on the books they can silence and stigmatize Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. So that’s their real plan and what they hope to do. And, of course, they hope to comingle and blur any distinction between Israel and the settlements, right? They like to say, you’re boycotting Israel even if you boycott Hebron, or Ariel, or Efrat. Janet McMahon: A couple of questions for Martin. Do you think the settlers should be legally deemed combatants rather than civilians? Martin McMahon: Well, having served in the U.S. Army in a MASH unit, I guess I’m qualified to answer that. There is a rogue element in the settler population, but make no bones about it: this is settlement militia that’s funded by our rich Jewish donors and Christian evangelicals. There are 20 or 30 members in this militia unit. When they go out and maim

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:26 PM Page 53

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS: Fighting Against Illegal Settlements and for Free Speech

and murder Palestinians, I think they fit the definition. And they have done a lot of nasty things. I don’t have the time to go into all of it, but I think they’re combatants. They’re armed. They go after Palestinians who are armed with pitchforks in their olive groves. I think they’re combatants. Does that answer the question? Janet McMahon: Can you also explain a little more who the plaintiffs and the defendants are in this case? Martin McMahon: I was remiss. We have Palestinians. We have Palestinian Americans. Janet McMahon: As plaintiffs. Martin McMahon: As plaintiffs. It may come as a surprise to you. These Palestinians want the State Department to reclaim their property. We have folks who had lost $3-4 million of real estate stolen by settlers, confirmed in an Israeli government report—forged deeds, by the way. So the Palestinians are in the lawsuit and Al-Tamimi is the lead plaintiff. He’s been arrested 12 times, tortured 10 times, lost a brother-inlaw and a sister because of settlers who murdered them. His crime? Every Saturday he shows up in protest of settlement encroachment. The other Palestinians are folks that have lost their homes, lost their children, lost their siblings, lost their olive groves and everything else. Janet McMahon: And the defendants are Americans like Sheldon Adelson. Martin McMahon: Well, yeah. Defendants are rich people and also 501(c)(3)s. I believe if you got rid of the $2 billion money laundering scheme that occurs every year, you’d put a dent in the ability of these settlers to expand settlements. Maim and murder their Palestinian neighbors, arm themselves with Kalashnikovs. That’s where the money comes from. So we’re going after the people who promote arms trafficking. You can’t, I can’t, believe it—that America, a country I love—and I think we have to educate the people in the hinterland about this—there are people who are spending a million dollars promoting violence in the OPT in contradiction of President Bush’s executive order and President Clinton’s order. And they take tax write-offs because the settlers are out to purchase Kalashnikovs. So we’re going after those people as defendants. Janet McMahon: OK. This is not a question for Martin, but it’s a statement: “My Palestinian family was harassed for 10 years by our neighbor. We came to you for advice. We followed your advice and we won the case in the court. The harassment included smearing our cars with Swastikas over and over by our Jewish neighbor. Any thoughts? Thank you, Mr. McMahon. God bless you.” Martin McMahon: Unfortunately, we get too many requests to help. I’m a small law firm. I must have contributed $120,000 to this case so far, my own money, with law clerks and associates. I’m glad this client felt that he got satisfied. I think you all know in this room, there’s an unequal distribution of wealth in America, which is imperiling our democracy and will kill us over time. That allows rich people to gain ac-

cess to top law firm talent. Look at the 30 law firms I’m battling. So I think we have to do something about that issue. I try to make myself affordable in some fixed-fee arrangement to bring on lawsuits that I think are viable. As a Jewish psychiatrist friend said to me one day, “Martin, you can’t aircondition the world.” He said, “Remember what we say in New York: you’re pissing on my head and you’re telling me it’s raining out.” So I try to do the best I can with limited resources. There are a tremendous number of great lawyers out there. But, gee, lawyers come up to me everyday and say, why do you represent those people, those Muslims? You have banks. I said, I don’t know, I’m Irish. Does that answer the question? Janet McMahon: It sure does. So this last question I think will lead into Conor Kelley, who will tell us about what’s happening in our final Ideas Fair. What can people and groups do to help you win the lawsuit against Sheldon Adelson and the settlers? Who can we talk to? And Conor, you can tell us where we can talk to him after the break. Martin McMahon: I’m sorry. That’s for me? Janet McMahon: Yes. Martin McMahon: What is it? Janet McMahon: My point is that you’ll be around during the afternoon break and you can talk to people who want to find out how they can help you in this case. Martin McMahon: OK. I mean, at $395 an hour, do I get to bill? Janet McMahon: Absolutely. Absolutely. OK, come on. Martin McMahon: No, I’ll be available. I’m extra available, and feel free to send us an e-mail, especially young people out there. We need young people to go after the purveyors of hate in America. I’m dedicating my time to go after those purveyors of hate, including Trump. Trump is going to be sued for a billion dollars in my next lawsuit. To send Adelson a message, I’m also naming his lovely wife, Miriel [sic], who happens to be an IDF veteran. Audience member: Miriam. Martin McMahon: Miriam. I’m sorry. Comments from the peanut gallery. But the lawsuit is all about denationalization of the Palestinian people, dehumanization of the Palestinian people, and the establishment of an apartheid regime in the occupied territories. Janet McMahon: OK. Conor Kelley: Thank you, Martin. Martin McMahon: There are a lot of bad people. Janet McMahon: Yeah. Martin McMahon: I’m way over my time. Conor Kelley: You still have one last chance to talk to Martin and others at our Ideas Fair in our last afternoon break coming up here, and a chance to still visit everyone on your passport to get a free beverage ticket. So please take a chance to stop by all the great organizations who can make some real change, and give some agency to things we’ve been talking about today. ■ May 2019

53

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:26 PM Page 54

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

What Lessons Can Activists Take Away from The Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act? Brad Parker

54

for Palestinian children’s rights. He will discuss lessons activists can take away from the Promoting Human Rights Act that McCollum introduced. Thank you.

Brad Parker: Thank you, Dale. It’s a pleasure to be here. I’m happy to see folks with smiles. It feels like there is still some energy here, so I’ll try to move quickly through the next 20 minutes or so and keep it snappy, so we can get to some questions. First, just to explain the organization that I work for, Defense for Children International-Palestine is a local Palestinian child rights organization. It was founded in 1991 specifically to provide legal aid to Palestinian children charged in the Israeli military courts. So everything that I’ll talk about around military detention comes from that experience of having lawyers defend Palestinian children in the military courts. We do court visits and represent kids. We do prison visits. We collect affidavits, questionnaires, information on the ill-treatment that they face. So, our entire work is grounded in that legal aid experience. Over the past few decades, many people generally deemed engagement with lawmakers in the U.S. around Palestinian rights issues as futile. Even recently, many people have avoided it. Many people in this room probably avoid it. I won’t ask for a show of hands, but I assume that, if you have engaged with sort of direct outreach to your members

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

PHOTO PHIL PORTLOCK

Dale Sprusansky: All right, good afternoon everyone. Thanks for sticking with us through a long day. We’re going to get started here with another important topic of discussion, and that is legislative efforts to help Palestinians, especially innocent Palestinian children—which you’d think would not be a controversial task, but it is. In 2017, Rep. Betty McCollum of Minnesota introduced the “Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act” in the House of Representatives. This piece of legislation would have prevented U.S. funds from being used to support the detention, interrogation or ill-treatment of Palestinian children by the Israeli military—which, of course, receives at least $3.8 billion a year in U.S. aid. Thirty members of Congress co-sponsored this bill, and there’s no questioning the urgency of this legislation. According to Defense for Children International-Palestine, Israel prosecutes roughly 700 Palestinian children a year in its military courts, and 75 percent of those children report experiencing some form of abuse. So here to elaborate on this is Brad Parker. He’s a senior adviser on Palestine advocacy at Defense for Children International, one of the organizations that endorsed Representative McCollum’s bill. He specializes in issues of juvenile justice and grave violations against children during armed conflict, and leads his organization’s legal advocacy efforts

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:26 PM Page 55

Brad Parker: What Lessons Can Activists Take Away From the Promoting Human Rights Act

of Congress, it’s been a bit of a stressful experience at times. For the same reason, Defense for Children International-Palestine and other local Palestinian human rights organizations also did not prioritize engagement with lawmakers in the U.S. We focused a lot of efforts in different European countries—through the EU, U.N. human rights mechanisms—but never really brought something clear, direct and proactive to American policy makers. There’s been a lot of necessary effort that’s been put into public education campaigns in the U.S.—speaking tours, BDS efforts—which all have helped build and expand a broad U.S.based movement demanding equality, freedom and justice for Palestinians. In this context, DCI-Palestine was sort of wondering what our role could be if we had a permanent presence in the U.S. So really, starting as early as 2009, following an Israeli military offensive on Gaza in December 2008 into January 2009, Operation Cast Lead, we saw openings in the U.S. Increasing use of social media allowed Palestinians to share their human experience of occupation, of military offensives; Students for Justice in Palestine organizing and developing networks among college campuses—all started to create more space where a local Palestinian organization like DCI-Palestine could come and have a contribution with our evidence base that we use. We looked at the landscape of what was happening in the U.S., and we wanted to try to figure out how we could have the most impact. We didn’t want to be redundant, we wanted to complement the efforts that were happening. We have a focus and a mandate to specifically monitor rights violations against children, and we saw that as a really clear issue to bring to Americans, where congressional advocacy and working with policy makers can be quite contentious. So, our goal was to complement efforts that were already happening, and that’s sort of where we arrived at a congressional advocacy campaign. We wanted to create something that would leverage the ongoing work toward political action and political change. So in 2014, a handful of individuals, organized by the American Friends Service Committee and Defense for Children International-Palestine, came together in Chicago with the intention of building an evidence-based, rights-based congressional advocacy campaign. We wanted to demonstrate not only that it wasn’t futile to engage with members of Con-

“

gress on Palestinian rights, but that it was entirely necessary if we want to build the political power to force the change that was needed. So from these initial discussions, our No Way to Treat a Child campaign was born. We launched in 2015. The goal was to engage members of Congress on a narrowly tailored and compelling child rights issue like widespread and systematic ill-treatment of Palestinian children arrested by Israeli forces and prosecuted in military courts. In the first three years, the campaign has mobilized an extensive network of people across the U.S. through this strategic congressional advocacy. As Dale had mentioned, in November 2017 we celebrated an historic moment when Rep. Betty McCollum introduced H.R. 4391. My task here is to share lessons that activists and others can take away from this legislation. To do that, I want to sort of tell you how we did it. The first kind of piece is, our success is entirely built around evidence-based, rights-based advocacy. So what is that? When meeting with policy and decision makers around the world, including members of Congress and their staff, I utilize the human rights documentation that we collect from children and families and our lawyers, the documentation that they bring. That’s the basis for our discussions. We use international humanitarian law, international human rights law, universal rights protections that apply to any person, combined with the evidence that we bring. That human rights law, that humanitarian law, is the guide. It’s not about final status issues or a legacy of Oslo. It’s not the traditional policy decisions that go into discussions around Israel-Palestine. We want the policymakers to put those issues to the side. Issues of borders, territory, Jerusalem, security, Israel as a Jewish state—all of these are essentially irrelevant to a rights-based approach. So what is a rights-based approach? Generally, it’s an approach that utilizes international human rights law as a framework to advance and operationalize the promotion and protection of universal human rights for all persons. Socalled final status issues are the context and reference point that many following the Israel and Palestine portfolio bring to the table. And, yes, resolution of these issues would have ramifications for individual Palestinian rights. However, the real main point is that if you’re trying to advance Palestinian human rights by highlighting the human impact of Israeli occupation, then the main point is that real-

In the end it’s about human rights, equality, justice, freedom and human dignity.

“

May 2019

55

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:26 PM Page 56

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

ization of human rights is not contingent on the resolution of these final status issues. So we use international law, we use the evidence that we collect to really proactively shape the conversation that we have with these policymakers in a way that doesn’t necessarily contradict their policy positions. So, pragmatically, human rights-based approach provides a framework to concretely articulate the human rights denials and violations inherent in Israeli military occupation. It provides a framework to examine systemic inequality, discrimination, oppression and other issues that are deeply rooted in Israeli military occupation of Palestinians. It allows us to use a framework to lay out rights and wrongs that, relatedly, lets us advocate and identify specific policies and paths forward. And really, what we’re trying to have come across through this evidence-based, rights-based advocacy is that, at the heart of it, Palestinians are entitled to universal human rights regardless of whether a policy or decision emphatically supports a two-state solution or not. We want to remove that as an obstacle, because in the end it’s about human rights, equality, justice, freedom and human dignity. So in that, our goal is to empower members of Congress to adopt this rights-based discourse so that they can acknowledge the Palestinians are, for example, entitled to basic and fundamental rights like equality, civil and political rights, freedom from torture, ill-treatment. It’s meant to free them up and empower them to speak out on things that are happening, without being hemmed in by any of the constraints of Washington when it comes to policy that’s traditionally been the norm for Israel-Palestine. So, connecting this rights-based discourse to specific human experience is kind of where we’ve been successful. How many people—show of hands—know the name Tariq Abu Khdeir? A Palestinian-American teen beaten in Jerusalem, the video went viral in summer of 2014. In one of our first congressional—actually, when we launched the campaign in June 2015—Tariq and his mother were part of the congressional briefing that we organized in Washington. So connecting the rights-based discourse, the evidence, with the human experience is the thing that’s been compelling in our work. Others sort of along the way, including 56

Ahed Tamimi, who’s kind of the most recent high-profile detention of a child, and then Fawzi al-Junaidi, [see left] in this photo that went viral.The DCI-Palestine attorney, my colleague Farah Bayadsi, represented him in the military courts. These are the stories that we try to bring to these policy makers. So, Lesson 1: Integrate as best you can a rightsbased discourse into your efforts, and center those efforts around these compelling human stories. Because in the end, I think connecting—whether it’s child rights issues or other issues—if you can show the human impact of policies, of occupation, it’s a much more visceral, dynamic, real message that you’re bringing to these policy makers. So that’s the strategy and thinking behind the campaign and the way that we created it. To actually build the campaign and to use this congressional advocacy and engagement to mobilize people, we had to create vehicles to do so. We wanted to create vehicles that facilitate an engagement, discussion with lawmakers, and allow that relationship-building that’s so key to doing political work to create political change. From using congressional briefings that allowed us to create a presence on Capitol Hill, we organized Dear Colleague letters, right? Members of Congress signing on to letters and statements and sending them to—in our case, the first Dear Colleague letter we did was sent to Secretary of State John Kerry, at the time. We went into that June 2015 launch in DC hoping to get one member of Congress to sign on to that letter. We ended up with 19. And that was sort of the starting point. We went from there. That letter was initiated by Rep. Betty McCollum. It highlighted the ill treatment of Palestinian child prisoners in the Israeli military detention system, and essentially urged the State Department to elevate the human rights of Palestinian child detainees to a priority status within bilateral discussions between the State Department and Israeli authorities. At the time, it felt sort of groundbreaking, and I think it was. We shocked ourselves a bit, but it also sort of confirmed the things that we knew or thought to be true. If we could have narrow or compelling issues and put them to policy makers, we could have a positive response. So we took that letter, and we used it to mobilize people throughout the U.S. Through the end of 2015 into early 2016, we sort of used that letter just to show and say, you know, this isn’t futile. We can do this. A lot of the people in that first meeting in Chicago in 2014, when I said we wanted to focus on Congress, there were some laughs. Some people got up and walked out. But after we had that first Dear Colleague letter, those people are back in the room and said, “we had no idea that this could be possible right now.” So, that was the hope we were trying to create and build on, and to use to sort of further things. In 2016, we needed another vehicle. We did another Dear Colleague letter. That time it was sent to President Obama,

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:26 PM Page 57

Brad Parker: What Lessons Can Activists Take Away From the Promoting Human Rights Act

also led again by Rep. Betty McCollum. The letter called for the creation of a special envoy for Palestinian youth in the Department of State to follow, monitor and report on what at the time was a deteriorating situation across the West Bank for not only Palestinian children, but Palestinians generally. That work essentially created the landscape where legislation became possible. Looking at the 2016 election, we knew we were going to have to probably change tactics and try to get a bit bolder. Then once the Trump administration came in, we sort of had to throw our plans out and force ourselves to be even more creative. We knew we needed something longer term. These Dear Colleague letters, they sort of last for about three weeks, four weeks, maybe a couple of months. Then you get the signers and they get sent. They’re sort of quick reactions, or they can be sort of proactive statements on something, but we really needed that long term organizing vehicle to push things forward—and that came in H.R. 4391. So we worked with Betty McCollum’s staff to draft and eventually introduce the bill. That’s been, sort of over the past 15 months or so, what we’ve used to mobilize people throughout the U.S. So if you’re not familiar with the bill, it’s no longer a live bill. We will be working to reintroduce a version, hopefully in the coming weeks. But H.R. 4391 sought to ensure U.S. taxpayer funds will not be used to support grave violations of human rights against Palestinian children detained by Israeli forces. The way that the bill works is that it required the secretary of state to certify that no funds from the foreign military financing package that Israel receives from the U.S. are used to support certain prohibited practices in the bill. Those prohibited practices are torture, ill-treatment, denying access to counsel, administrative detention or detention without charge, solitary confinement for interrogation purposes. These are things that, universally, are violations not just of human rights law, but international humanitarian law—the Geneva Conventions, they violate provisions in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. If you’re a Palestinian child arrested, detained, and charged with throwing stones, for example, in the military courts, you have the right not to be tortured. It doesn’t matter the gravity of the offense. Whatever you’re alleged to

“

have done, you have that absolute prohibition against torture. And that’s the thing that we really want to hone in on because, on one level, it makes things very clear, right? If you support this legislation, you’re standing up against the torture of children. If you don’t support this legislation, you’re essentially condoning these policies and practices that have been documented for decades as being widespread, systematic and institutionalized within the Israeli military detention system. That starts the polarized issue. It’s where we want to create our campaign and move things forward, because we know that not everybody in Congress is going to jump on the bill and support the things that we’re saying from a policy perspective. But we want something that, if they’re going to say no to it, there’s a cost. Or there’s something that we can use to take back in district and mobilize people around that ridiculous thing that they used to justify that treatment. That’s sort of where the work for advocates and activists comes in. My lesson two would be that we need sustained and regular engagement with lawmakers and their staff, both in Washington and locally in district. That’s really what facilitates the political work that’s necessary. We need to create space. They need to know that you’ll be talking to them. You’ll be in their office. And if something happens, you’re going to be there. That’s really what the campaign is meant to do. We know we don’t have the political power yet to really force that change. It’s growing. There’s a lot of movement happening. But we really do need the political work to be done side-byside with other efforts to force that change that we need. Just as a show of hands, how many people contacted their member of Congress this week? OK, so not many. How many people contacted their member of Congress this month? OK, better. How many people have a specific contact in the local district office or DC office where they know the name, they know the phone number, they know the email? OK, not bad. How many people think we can do better? How many people think we need to do better? I think that’s really the core of it, right? How many people emailed this conference to their staff, their representative? OK. How many people flagged this conference for staffers in DC? All right. We can all do that. That’s sort of the sustained—

If you support this legislation, you’re standing up against the torture of children. If you don’t...you’re essentially condoning these policies and practices.

“

May 2019

57

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:26 PM Page 58

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

Audience member: How do we do it? Brad Parker: You take the email that Dale sends. You take the email for the congressional office. You’re their constituents, they have to listen to you—they don’t have to agree with you, they have to listen to you. You forward that email from Dale and say, I would like somebody in this office to attend and report back. This is how we create that sustained engagement, that’s how we develop the relationships. Show that there’s space to discuss Palestinian rights issues, and that’s how we do the political work to force the change that we need. So, sustain engagements, build relationships—that’s all at the core of the campaign that we’ve created, and why it’s successful. Anything you can do to create vehicles. So with the campaign, the vehicle we created was Dear Colleague letters, congressional briefings, legislation. And now, the goal and task for all of you is to figure how to create vehicles locally. If you have a film screening, invite the local folks from the district office to the event. It doesn’t matter if they come or not, let them know about it. Use that to create that space to have that engagement with the things that you’re already doing. The last lesson that really has allowed us to do what we’ve done is having advocates speaking from personal experience on the ground. I’ve been to the West Bank. I’ve seen children who have been detained. I’ve been to Hebron. I’ve seen children going to school walking through military checkpoints. Use that personal experience as part of your engagement with policymakers. So if you haven’t gone, go. Eyewitness Palestine has a table at the Ideas Fair. You can talk to them about a June trip. And there’s many different delegations that go to the region each year. So I’ll stop there and look forward to questions. ■

Questions & Answers

Dale Sprusansky: Thank you very much. I guess we’ll begin here: Most of the people, I think, who signed onto the bill were more to the left side of the Democratic Party, of those 30 members that signed McCollum’s bill. What was the engagement like with other—I’ll start with Democrats— other Democrats? So I’m thinking the Ted Deutches and the Eliot Engels, who are pro-Israel but otherwise very liberal. What was the reaction in your engagement with them? Brad Parker: A hard no would be the way that I’d probably put it most diplomatically. I think, obviously, we know that we work on congressional advocacy related to Palestinian rights. It’s not going to be well received by the majority of even Democratic progressive members. So the challenge is really working with constituents in those districts where 58

they’re putting questions at town halls to the Eliot Engels, the Jerry Nadlers—folks that do support a non-rights-respecting policy related to Palestinians—and use that sort of polarized nature of, you know, you either support torture or you’re against torture, there’s sort of no in between. And use that to force conversations. Even if they’re not in agreement, there’s still utility in educating the constituents in that district around the issues that are happening on the ground, but also that their so-called progressive member of Congress is creating this pretty extreme exception for Israeli forces, at least on this issue. And that’s really, I think, for what we’re trying to do in the moment we’re in, is the valuable piece, because it’s really about in some ways exploiting the congressional advocacy and the direct engagement to just build a bigger movement of people demanding rights and justice for Palestinians. Dale Sprusansky: I assume there’s a similar hard no from Republicans who were engaged— [cross-talking] Brad Parker: For Republicans, yes. I mean, there’s been outreach, and this is where some of our partners, faithbased partners particularly, have been instrumental. So some of the different churches that we partner with, different mainline Protestant denominations, have been doing a lot of outreach to Republican offices, making the case for why this bill is necessary—and why this bill, also, is situated within existing U.S. law—as a means to facilitate conversations there, with the understanding that it’s probably very unlikely that we have a Republican member of Congress join as a co-sponsor. Dale Sprusansky: And someone wants to know if there was, while you were doing this effort on the Hill, any pushback, I guess from AIPAC or any other pro-Israel group. Were they making their views known on this? Brad Parker: Yeah. Right. We know the context in which we work. AIPAC, J Street—you know, everybody works with members of Congress on their particular issues. So if you look, you can find online, probably, different AIPAC talking points around the bill, around the military detention. When I talk about empowering members of Congress to sort of hold their ground, this is where having it be focused on something like an absolute prohibition of torture really is the thing that allows them to do that. So, what are you going to say to justify the torture of a child? In some ways, let’s let AIPAC try to do that, because it just reaffirms everything that we’re saying about a rights-based approach to human rights for Palestinians, but also foreign policy generally. So in some ways, the pushback that we’ve had from AIPAC, at least with the more progressive offices and Democratic offices, really just reaffirms everything that we’re saying. So in some ways, they’re one of our stronger allies on the issue. Dale Sprusansky: Someone would like to know if you think a campaign similar to No Way To Treat a Child could be used to fight against the collective punishment of people Continued on page 68 living in Gaza.

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:26 PM Page 59

Paul Noursi: What is the Virginia Coalition for Human Rights (VCHR)?

PANEL: The Virginia Coalition for Human Rights (VCHR) What Is the VCHR? Paul Noursi

Paul Noursi: Thank you very much, Grant. Thanks, everyone, for being here, and thanks to the organizers for such a great event again this year. Today I’m going to talk a little bit about the Virginia Coalition for Human Rights and who we are and some of the activities we’ve participated in over the past couple of years.

The first thing I want to talk about as a background to the VCHR efforts, I would like to share a very inspirational quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was an activist against Nazism in World War II and ultimately paid for that with the ultimate price of his life. The quote is: “We are not to simply bandage the wounds of victims beneath the wheels of injustice. We are to drive a spoke into the wheel itself.” I believe that for positive investment to work, it should also be paired with direct action such as divestment, boycotts and sanctions to have a real effect. And yeah, BDS is putting the spoke in the wheels. The Virginia Coalition for Human Rights is a broad coalition of about 17 organizations right now representing, really, probably over 10,000 Virginians, if you count all of our member groups. It includes a wide variety of organizations, including Jewish Voice for Peace, American Muslims for Palestine, the Palestinian Christian Alliance for Peace, and other faith-based and secular peace and justice organizations. And we’re always interested in getting more people and organizations involved. So if you’re interested, please let us know, or come to our table [at the Ideas Fair], or check our website, <vchr.org>. Here’s a list [referring to a slide] of our member groups. I don’t know if you can read all those, but those are also listed on our website. We first started in 2016. We came together on an ad hoc basis when two anti-BDS motions were introduced in the Virginia General Assembly. HB 1282 would have punished people and organizations who support BDS for Palestinian PHOTO PHIL PORTLOCK

Grant Smith: The Virginia Coalition for Human Rights is the topic of our final panel. It’s an extremely effective organization. I’m not going to say anything about it other than introduce each speaker in turn and take your questions. Our first speaker from VCHR is Paul Noursi. He’s been active with the Virginia Coalition for Human Rights since its founding in 2016. He’s also active in several organizations working for peace and justice in the Middle East, including the Palestinian Christian Alliance for Peace, New Dominion PAC, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the Arab American Democratic Caucus of Virginia. He was also a Barack Obama delegate to the Virginia State Convention in 2008, a Bernie Sanders delegate to the Virginia State Convention in 2016, and has served in various “Get out the vote” and Democratic campaigns. Noursi has lived and traveled extensively in the Middle East, including Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon. He has a BS in civil engineering and MS in engineering management, and is a licensed and practicing civil engineer with wide-ranging experience in land development public works in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, DC. Please welcome Paul Noursi.

May 2019

59

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:26 PM Page 60

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

human rights. House Joint Resolution HJ 177 was a resolution that basically just condemned and insulted the BDS movement. Many of us, including myself, were shocked at this sudden blitz attack on free speech rights of Virginians, and we quickly formed an ad hoc coalition which eventually became the Virginia Coalition for Human Rights. HB 1282 was a pretty typical anti-BDS bill. It would’ve required “state public bodies to include in every contract of more than $10,000 a provision stating that, during the performance of the contract, the contractor agrees to not engage in the boycotting of Israel and will not contract or subcontract with any person or firm or corporation that engages in the boycotting of Israel.” And it would’ve been applicable to all subcontractors and vendors. In other words, it was basically a loyalty oath wherein anyone or any corporation that wanted to do business with the state of Virginia would have to give up their constitutional rights for free speech. We found that very offensive and unconstitutional, and we worked hard with the little time we had to organize against it. Once opposition to HB 1282 became evident, including our work—and the ACLU spoke out against it as well—the sponsors made amendments to it to try to claim that, OK, now it’s a better bill, it doesn’t really affect your rights. But what it would’ve still done was to create a blacklist of people and organizations who were suspected of supporting BDS, so we still opposed it. We organized, we pulled together the various groups who are interested in opposing it. We spoke out on social media. We attended meetings and hearings in the General Assembly. We also had an online letter-writing campaign with the help of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights, and we also used our personal contacts with some of the General Assembly members. Even after it was amended to a blacklist, we continued to oppose it. Finally our voices were heard, and it ultimately died in committee. I think that was a victory. HJ 177 was a resolution, not a bill—in other words, it wasn’t a law. It was just a statement. But nevertheless, it had some false claims, and vilified people who support Palestinian human rights. It ignored the fact that engaging in BDS to advance human rights is a time-honored tactic for people to seek justice. Unfortunately, many members of the General Assembly viewed that as a compromise between Israel affinity groups and free speech defenders and human rights activists, and they ended up voting for it and passing it. So you win some, you lose some. But I think we won the better one, which is the bill, which would’ve been a really egregious law if it was passed. 60

So in 2016, I think we overall prevented a law from happening. They came back in 2017 and tried again. This time they came with a bill called HB 2261, which would’ve amended the Virginia Human Rights Act to redefine anti-Semitism as including “any discourse that demonizes or delegitimizes the policies and actions of the Israeli government.” Yeah. And that’s what they’re trying to do in a lot of places, including Congress now. It also would’ve required the governing boards of public universities to issue policies prohibiting discrimination as defined in the amended Human Rights Act. We felt that this had to be opposed for many reasons, including, one, it would single out one religious discrimination, anti-Semitism, over all others. It would have used an overly broad definition of anti-Semitism, and it would’ve stifled free speech by equating legitimate political opposition to Israel’s policies and actions with anti-Semitism, and that was just wrong. In 2017 we had a little bit of an easier time because we had already organized. In 2016 we were scrambling, really, to pull ourselves together. In 2017 we had the structure in place. With advanced organization, we were able to organize a lobby day where we had about 21 members of our coalition go down to Richmond to the General Assembly. We had meetings with the offices of 37 delegates and senators, including many members of the House and Senate Rules Committees, which were vetting the bill. Our efforts again paid off: HB 2261 died in committee. In 2018, they came back again with more legislation. In 2018 what they came up with were three bills that would give more power and independence to a part of the Virginia government which is called the Virginia Israel Advisory Board—a very unusual board. Jim will talk about that a little more. By the way, under the first bill in 2016, that board would’ve been the one to create the blacklist that they wanted to create. It didn’t happen, but that was what they tried to do. So it was very suspicious that they wanted to give that board more independence and more power all of a sudden. And they also had a couple of bills just giving verbal accolades to Israel. All this while Israel happens to be one of the worst human rights offenders in the world, and also happens to be pushing legislation to suppress the free speech of Americans. So we opposed HB 1297 to give more power to the VIAB, because we were concerned that the VIAB would use its expanded power to further an unsanctioned political mission of supporting Israeli interests over the best interest of Virginia citizens. Again, we organized. We wrote letters. We made personal contacts with state senators and delegates. We

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:26 PM Page 61

James Metz: Why VCHR is Taking on the Virginia Israel Advisory Board

again had a “Lobby Day” where we met with the offices of about 40 members of the House and Senate Rules Committees, which were vetting the bills. In this case, in 2018, there was actually a debate between the House and the Senate, because they had introduced three bills to basically achieve the same thing but in different ways. We tried to weigh in, and we showed up at the meetings of the Rules Committee, where it was being considered. In the end, there was a compromise bill which reorganized the VIAB under the General Assembly instead of the executive branch, instead of under the governor, which gives them a little more power, but it’s probably better than the full power and independence that they would’ve had under the original bill. We also opposed the bills that were trying to just give accolades to the state of Israel, but those passed. But, again, these are just resolutions. They are detrimental because they kind of create this mindset that in a lot of cases includes a lot of misinformation. But that’s generally what we’ve been doing.

We’ve also worked a little bit on Capitol Hill. We supported Betty McCollum’s bill on a Lobby Day on Capitol Hill. In general, I’d just end up quoting Einstein’s call to action. This is attributed to Albert Einstein: “The world is a dangerous place to live not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.” To me, that’s a call to action. This means being active. Not just bandaging the wounds, but taking direct action to prevent injustice and human rights abuses from happening in the first place. Human rights abuses should not be rewarded. They should be punished. The best peaceful nonviolent punishment option in the case of Israel-Palestine right now is boycotts, divestments and sanctions. So BDS, yeah, it worked to peacefully end apartheid in South Africa, and we believe it can work to end apartheid and human rights abuses in Israel-Palestine. But we need to work on defending rights of free speech in order to achieve that on the grassroots local level. That’s all I have. Thanks. ■

Why VCHR Is Taking on the Virginia Israel Advisory Board James Metz

James Metz: Thank you, Grant. Thank you, everybody, for being here today. I’m going to follow up from where Paul left off. He mentioned some legislative campaigns that we had at the General Assembly. During those campaigns we

encountered a state agency called the Virginia Israel Advisory Board. We felt that this was an unusual organization to be a state agency, and we have tried different strategies to try and contain them, if not disqualify them. We have appeared before budget hearings to suggest that they be defunded. We did appear before committee hearings to ask that they be restrained and have greater supervision. Well, this summer we’re going to launch a new strategy. We’re going to talk to our General Assembly to ask them to pass a resolution to conduct what’s called a JLARC study of the Virginia Israel Advisory Board. JLARC stands for Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission. It is comprised of some members from the House of Delegates and the state Senate. There’s a professional staff of some 25 business analysts. It takes a resolution passed by PHOTO PHIL PORTLOCK

Grant Smith: James Metz retired after a career in information technology, working in both the public and private sectors. In 2013, inspired by a community discussion of Sandy Tolan’s book, The Lemon Tree, Metz and his wife, Suzanne Hallberg, joined with another couple to co-found Richmonders for Peace in IsraelPalestine. In 2016, RPIP joined forces with Freedom2Boycott-Virginia, now known as VCHR, to lobby against and defeat anti-BDS legislation that was introduced in the Virginia General Assembly. Metz and Hallberg live in Richmond, Virginia. So please welcome James Metz.

May 2019

61

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:26 PM Page 62

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

both chambers of the General Assembly to initiate this. If there is some overriding concern with a state agency, as we have, we’re hoping that they will pass this resolution. So what I would like to do today is, I’m going to pretend you are the Virginia General Assembly and I’m going to try and make the case that we need to pass this resolution to conduct this study. Before I go into that, however, I do need to do a little background. In 1996, an up-and-coming young Republican in the Virginia House of Delegates introduced a bill that created the Virginia Israel Advisory Board. You may have heard of this individual: his name is Eric Cantor. The original intent of the Virginia Israel Advisory Board was to advise the governor on ways to improve the economic and cultural links between Israel and the Commonwealth of Virginia, and also to represent a conduit for people in the Jewish community who had interests that they felt the governor should be aware of. It was so successful that they used that charter to create the Asian Advisory Board and then the Latino Advisory Board. Well, since its creation, the Virginia Israel Advisory Board has really gone beyond its charter. It has taken on, for instance, responsibilities for economic development, getting Israeli companies together with Virginia companies or Virginia governments or Virginia universities to create enterprises that create jobs and contribute to the tax revenue for the Commonwealth. We’re concerned about the fact that they are operating totally independent from the supervisory agency that has responsibility for economic development. The Virginia Economic Development Partnership is supposed to do the planning, and the coordination, and the evaluation of economic initiatives. However, the Virginia Israel Advisory Board is out here doing its own thing. We think that the fact that there is no oversight and coordination would be one reason to launch a JLARC study.

I’m going to ask a Sesame Street quiz question: Which one of these is not like the others [above]? If you answered the state agency and the state seal on the left, you’re right. That’s the Virginia Israel Advisory Board and its seal. It has customized the Commonwealth of Virginia’s seal for its own purposes. On the right-hand side is the official seal of the 62

Commonwealth of Virginia, and listed there are the three state agencies that I mentioned earlier. We feel that the iconography on that state seal on the left and the banner in front, which declares its independence from the Office of the Governor—where all other economic initiatives are managed—indicate a chauvinism and an entitlement that are not hallmarks of a state agency. We think that they represent a de facto representation of the political interests of the state of Israel, and we think it needs to end. An example, really, of this intrusion of Israel’s interests into the state business of the Commonwealth is in the final version of HB 1282. The Virginia Israel Advisory Board was named as the state agency to keep tabs on companies doing business with the Commonwealth and record any of those that were involved in BDS activities—then make an assessment as to, well, what would the impact be on bringing jobs and businesses into the Commonwealth if that were allowed to continue? We think that’s not an appropriate role for a state agency. Well, I’ve kind of told you what, by statute, the purpose of the Virginia Israel Advisory Board is supposed to be. But if you go onto the website, <viab.org>, you will see how the Virginia Israel Advisory Board represents its mission. It sees itself as providing this bridge between Israeli companies [and] entities here in the Commonwealth, and offering to create opportunities for the Israeli companies, thereby making what they call Virginia, a “beta” state: a gateway to the United States, and the Commonwealth of Virginia in particular—especially our defense industries, our homeland security, the Pentagon, and so forth. We can definitely see that their interests are somewhat different than, perhaps, other people in the Commonwealth. Here’s something that they advertised in their annual reports for 2018: Where there are roadblocks, the VIAB will create opportunities to get around those roadblocks. The memorandum of understanding, which governs the military aid agreement that the United States has with Israel over the next decade, includes a provision for phasing out what’s called the offshore procurement provision. Well, this means that Israeli companies and the defense industry are going to be receiving less and less U.S. dollars for their products as it shifts back to the United States. Well, the VIAB offers help in setting up U.S. affiliates so that that phaseout of the OSP can be circumvented. If not against the letter of the law, it’s certainly against the spirit of the law. Finally, a look at the management of the Virginia Israel Advisory Board I think is instructive. Mel Chaskin has been with the Virginia Israel Advisory Board, the chairman, since its beginning. He is a government contractor in Northern Virginia specializing in defense. Our newest member of the management team is Dov Hoch. You can see [referring to a slide] that he has an impressive resume, and I want to draw your attention to his involvement in setting up and managing American Israeli Chambers of Commerce. If you ask

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:26 PM Page 63

Kathy Drinkard: how the VChR is Preventing israel aﬃnity organizations From Politicizing K-12 textbooks

Well, I ask you, has the Virginia Coalition for Human Rights justified a JLARC study of the Virginia Israel Advisory Board? I hope that we demonstrated that there is a conflict of interest being named in bills and resolutions that represent the interests of Israel and not the Commonwealth, exploiting their status within the state government to create workarounds of various trade restrictions. I hope we’ve demonstrated that the body at least needs more coordination and oversight. It’s completely independent. And, finally, I think that there is some question, that needs to be looked into further, as to whether or not it’s contributing to the economy of the Commonwealth. Thank you. ■

How the VCHR Is Preventing Israel Affinity Organizations From Politicizing K-12 Textbooks Kathy Drinkard

Photo Phil Pasquini

me, that’s how they perceive the Virginia Israel Advisory Board. It is a Chamber of Commerce inside state government, financed by taxpayer money and even housed in state buildings. Well, as members of the General Assembly, you may be willing to turn a blind eye to some of these issues about conflict of interest and supervision—or the lack of it. But if it’s good for the Virginia economy, perhaps you will overlook those weaknesses. VIAB produces an annual report. It’s the only measure of accountability that’s expected of them. They report only two measures: how many jobs that are contributed by these entities that they create. For instance, Sabra Hummus: well, they created 100 jobs this past year. Or the Oran Safety Glass Company: they contributed 50 jobs this year. That’s their measure of contribution to the Virginia economy. Well, is there a way of corroborating these claims? We went to look at the balance of trade between the Commonwealth of Virginia and Israel. What you’ll see there on the top line [slide above] is the imports from Israel to the Commonwealth of Virginia over the past 10 years. It has more than doubled over that period of time. The bottom line in red shows exports from the Commonwealth of Virginia to Israel—and that line has been relatively flat. The space in between is America’s trade deficit with Israel over the past 10 years. It’s certainly not definitive, but I think it’s enough to call into question the Virginia Israel Advisory Board contributing to the economy of Virginia. Well, what are your constituents saying about the Virginia Israel Advisory Board? We posed that question in a survey, a Google survey, that we conducted in the fall of 2018, where we asked the Virginia respondents, do you agree to the following statement: Should Virginia taxpayers not continue to subsidize Israeli businesses when in fact the latest trade deficit with Israel approached $500 million? Well, a significant plurality of the respondents—there were some 2,110 respondents—38.1 percent said, yeah, they agreed that Virginia taxpayers should not continue to subsidize the VIAB.

Grant Smith: Next up is Kathy Drinkard. She’s a retired teacher and elementary school counselor. She’s long been concerned about the suffering in the Palestinian territories, and has been involved with her church on the issue for more than a decade. She’s traveled to the region four times, most recently Fall 2018, a trip she helped plan. During her second trip, she spent 10 days in Nablus visiting an Anglican conMay 2019

63

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:26 PM Page 64

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

gregation which is in partnership with her church. Her third trip was to participate in the seminar “Faith in the Face of Empire,” sponsored by Rev. Mitri Raheb and Bright Stars of Bethlehem. She’s currently chair of the Ministry for Middle East Peace and Justice at Grace Presbyterian Church in Springfield, VA. Kathy Drinkard has assisted Jean Trabulsi and the VCHR on the issue of inaccurate history in Virginia history and social studies textbooks K-12. She’s attended this conference—I don’t think this is a coincidence—she’s attended this conference for the past three years. Please welcome Kathy Drinkard.

Kathy Drinkard: Thank you, Grant. And thank you, everybody, for being here all the way to the end. I am going to talk a little bit about what we’ve been doing to try to ensure some accuracy in the history textbooks of the state of Virginia. The questions that I’m going to try to address this afternoon are, how we learned about the textbook changes and who’s making them, what the impact of the changes is, and how our coalition is responding. You can learn more about our textbook campaign at that website [www.vchr.org]. We believe in accuracy and documentation as part of a good education, and so we were concerned to learn about an organization that was proposing edits to Virginia textbooks, some of which gave an inaccurate picture of the conflict. In the Spring of last year, our group was alerted to proposed edits for 3rd through 12th grade history and social studies textbooks by a posting of a webcast on the Israel Lobby archive webpage hosted by IRmep. You can see a screen capture of the webcast [see image above], featuring Aliza Craimer Elias, director of the Institute for Curriculum Services (ICS), a non-profit based in San Francisco. The host, David Bernstein, is president and CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. ICS describes its mission as an effort to improve the quality of K-12 education on Jews, Judaism and Israel in the United States by developing standards, curricula, and training teachers around the country. ICS, among other things, provides online seminars and 64

writes curricula. It has an online library and a teacher toolkit, which includes a new booklet this year on Teaching the Arab-Israeli Conflict & Peace Process. In the podcast, Craimer Elias describes working behind the scenes with textbook publishers, and claims that ICS has already made more than 11,000 edits to textbooks used in all 50 states. She says that many of the major textbook publishers come to them to work with them on manuscript development, adding that about 85 percent of the proposed edits end up getting accepted. The ICS review of Virginia textbooks was requested by three Israel affinity organizations in Virginia: the Jewish Community Federation of Richmond, the United Jewish Federation of Tidewater, and the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington. Here you see [on the slide] a cover letter addressed to the Department of Education that accompanied the proposed edits. These organizations endorsed the edits and requested that they be adopted. They also indicated that they were going to forward the changes to the textbook companies. These edits were submitted during a 30-day public comment period that’s built into every Virginia textbook review process that’s held every seven years. ICS works similarly with Jewish community relations councils across the country to introduce changes during textbook adoption processes. ICS has recommended changes that range from the correction of capitalization and punctuation, to modifications in the way that Judaism is presented, to alterations in the portrayal of the Israel-Palestine conflict. With regard to the conflict, the ICS edits address several themes. They qualify claims of Islam as expressing Muslim religious belief, while they maintain that those of Judaism represent God’s covenant. They sanitize textbook language. Settlements become communities. The wall becomes a security fence—kind of similarly to what James North was talking about earlier today. They emphasize Arab culpability for all crisis initiation, and never Israeli culpability. They discourage students from conducting open Internet research. They relabeled maps to indicate Israeli possession of territory as settled when the rest of the world, including the U.S., disagrees. And they delete all references to Palestinian and occupied territories. This is an example of one ICS edit found in a high school textbook called World History, published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. This example comes from a cause-and-effect chart. The original language said, “ongoing conflict over Israeli occupied territories.” The proposed change says, “ongoing conflict over Israeli control of West Bank and Gaza.” The rationale given for the change is that the term “occupied territories” is politicized and inappropriate for a public school text. The proposed change eliminates the reference to the occupied territories. In our view, it introduces in students’

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:26 PM Page 65

Kathy Drinkard: How the VCHR Is Preventing Israel Aﬃnity Organizations From Politicizing K-12 Textbooks

minds the idea that there is a legitimate dispute over who should control these areas, sidestepping the consensus of most of the world that Israel’s control and presence in the West Bank violates international law. We believe that many of the recently proposed changes would degrade the accuracy of Virginia’s textbooks. We think they distort history, conflict with the findings of international law, and depict a partisan view. They diminish the validity of the views and concerns of Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians, while promoting the legitimacy of Israeli actions and positions. We suspect that many of the previously proposed edits have already been adopted, causing some of the problematic material that we find in the current textbooks. We think such changes fail to comply with Virginia’s standards of learning, and prevent students from obtaining the information they need to wrestle with the difficult issues of our day. So what has VCHR been doing to try to push back against this? We’ve done several things since last year to work for a more accurate representation of the Israel-Palestine conflict. In May of 2018 the coalition created this fact sheet [showing slides]. And this is one part of it. This is the top of it. It identifies many of the edits’ themes, gives an example for each theme, and explains why the edit is problematic. For example, the first theme listed in the first column of the chart addresses edits that reference Palestine only as mandatory Palestine or Palestinians, not as a state or a designation of an identifiable territory. In the second column is listed the type of change requested, and the rationale. The edit says, “change Israel and Palestine to Israel and Palestinians because there is no state of Palestine and never has been one.” In the third column, we provide the reasons the change is inaccurate. Here we say, “since 1150 BCE words like Philistine and Palestina have been used to reference the region, and currently 70 percent of U.N. members recognize the state of Palestine.” This is the rest of the fact sheet [referring to a slide]. We sent it to Virginiabased professors who are Middle East experts, and asked for their support in our campaign. Sixteen of them agreed to help. With these signatories, we then drafted a letter that requested the rejection of the ICS edits. We sent it to the textbook publishers, to officials in the state executive branch, including the governor and the secretary of education,

and to members of Virginia’s General Assembly, including members of the education committees. In addition, in May last year, we sent out a press release about our findings to many media outlets, both statewide and further beyond. The next month, some of our members appeared in a podcast about our work titled, “Israel lobby seeks to erase occupation from Virginia school books.” It can be viewed on the Electronic Intifada website. Last summer, our group testified before the Virginia Board of Education about textbook inaccuracy and the lack of transparency in the review process. Our members spoke about being required to file a Freedom of Information Act request just to find out the names of the history textbook review committee members. Once we got those names, we did our own research. We learned that most were K-12 teachers, several were professors who taught in university education departments—but not one had any expertise on the Middle East. In January of this year, our group testified at the Virginia General Assembly’s public budget hearings in Roanoke and Richmond. We asked that the budgeted purchase of $140 million in textbooks for the 2019-’20 school year be made contingent upon an official legislative study, a JLARC study like the one that Jim mentioned just a few minutes ago. The purpose of that study is to assess the textbook accuracy and the effectiveness and transparency of the review process. Soon afterward, we lobbied 24 state senators and delegates in Richmond and asked for a similar study. As this was all unfolding, we were also trying to gain access to the textbooks themselves. When we did, the number of problems that we saw persuaded us that we needed to address them directly with our own textbook review committee. Since the fall of 2018, our committee has reviewed six history textbooks. With access to digital copies of the books, our reviewers were able to read the relevant material. When they found a section of problematic text, they entered it into a graphic organizer like the one that you can see here [referring to a slide]. The book text, shown in the top box of the graphic, says: “Israel built a security fence separating it from the West Bank. The barrier protects Israeli citizens from Palestinian terrorists and suicide bombers.” Our reviewer then rewrote the text to make it more accurate. In the second box “security fence” was changed to “separation wall,” then with the explanation that the wall has been declared illegal by the May 2019

65

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:26 PM Page 66

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

International Court of Justice because it limits Palestinian movement and illegally seizes Palestinian land. The last box provides the rationale for the change and cites the source for the information presented. It explains that 85 percent of the barrier has been built on Palestinian land and cites B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights organization, as the information source. In January of this year, we sent these comments. So we have pages and pages of comments and rewriting that were specific to different textbooks, and in January we sent those to the Department of Education and to the publishers of the textbooks. We are slowly beginning to receive some responses from those. A few people have responded, but certainly not everyone. What will ultimately result from the initial response of, “okay, thank you for sending us this information” is still kind of uncertain. To sum up, there’s a number of things we’ve learned. One of them is, textbook companies are vulnerable. Textbooks are written and reviewed by generalists, not experts. We need to pay attention to the fact that, because they’re generalists, we have to pay attention to what they say and what they’re teaching our kids. The adoption process in Virginia is not very transparent. The other thing to keep in mind is that the work of the ICS is ongoing nationwide. And while it may make some needed corrections in certain areas, the work also presents a one-sided picture in other aspects, and dismisses the real experience of Palestinians, Muslims and Arabs. We’ve also realized that in addition to working to change the textbooks, we need to give school systems supplementary materials that provide a more complete rendering of the subject. We also have found—interestingly, and maybe not surprisingly—that bias and inaccuracy in textbooks are not limited to the Israel-Palestine conflict, but can be found in information taught in a variety of history and science subjects, including civil rights and climate change. So that is where we are at this point, and our work will continue. I think one of the things that I would love for people to take away from this is that, if you live in another state and can begin to look at textbooks from your point, the more these publishers hear from people about their unhappiness with what the books say, the more likely that we are to get some changes. Thank you. ■

Questions & Answers

Grant Smith: The first question I believe was directed to you, Kathy, so you don’t get a break. It says—I think you alluded to this, maybe—how many states in America are making changes like these in their textbooks? And because you’ve been so public about this as a group, have any of them contacted you for advice? 66

Paul Noursi: We did hear from a group in Texas that was experiencing very similar, and maybe even worse, edits that were being proposed. Actually, in Texas they are trying to create a requirement that to graduate from high school, you had to be able to explain something really egregious, like, you have to explain why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the fault of the Arabs, basically. Something like that, it was really crazy. But they did organize. They spoke at the State Board of Education. Actually, I think they created an organization called the Texas Coalition for Human Rights. That was the last I heard. But, yes, it is happening all over, and we do need to be active in all states. Grant Smith: How were you advised that these bills and referendums were coming to the floor of the Virginia legislature? James Metz: Well, I can take that. There is a computer program that runs on the database for the legislature. You can plug into this program various keywords. If any bill contains those keywords, it will send you an e-mail. And so we can keep tabs of what’s going on in the General Assembly. Grant Smith: I think this question was kind of in jest: Can you describe the level of effort it takes, and the type of work you have to do, to make these outcomes? Is it more than an angry tweet at 3 a.m.? Paul Noursi: Well, yes, it’s definitely a lot more effort than that. It takes a lot of organizing. When we’ve prepared, for example, to go to Richmond to lobby, we’ve had lots of conference calls where we’ve kind of organized our talking points. You have to set up meetings with all the offices. There’s a lot of work that goes with it. Then it also helps to show up at town hall meetings and other venues other than just the General Assembly. So there’s a lot. James Metz: Telephone conferences. Paul Noursi: Yes. And we have a lot of telephone conference calls. Because we’re all over the state, so we can’t meet in person, but we have conference calls to organize. Grant Smith: One question. You maybe don’t want to answer this one: Is there any initiative that’s coming up where you’re going to form any other type of program, that might be proactive as opposed to reactive? James Metz: Well, that’s a good question. I wonder if we have a good answer. Paul Noursi: I do think both what we’re doing on VIAB and the textbooks is somewhat proactive. So this year, in 2019, we didn’t have an anti-BDS bill that we have to go and lobby against. James Metz: That’s true. Paul Noursi: What we are doing is lobbying for better review of the textbooks and for an audit of the Virginia Israel Advisory Board. Grant Smith: It’s a tough crowd. I mean, they’re not happy with anything. Does anyone have any other question cards that they want to pass forward for VCHR? OK. Well, we’d like to have a round of applause for VCHR.

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:26 PM Page 67

CLOSING REMARKS

Grant Smith: We’re going to make some closing comments. Delinda Hanley: In response to a question from the audience on what can we do, you’ve heard what we can do all day. I hope we all go out and do it. One group, the American Muslims for Palestine, is having their legislative training session and Palestine Advocacy Day, April 5-8. You can find that information out in the Ideas Fair, in the conference program, and in their ad in the Washington Report. That’s a good way to get on the Hill and say what you need to say. At 12 noon Sunday, at the White House, al-Awda is going to meet, and then walk to the AIPAC conference to protest. We hope you enjoyed our new format this year. I think we’ve energized and inspired each other. We couldn’t do this without engagement from this community. Please support the Washington Report by subscribing, getting it at your neighborhood bookstore, or reading it online at <wrmea.org>. Thank you.

PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

Closing Remarks

dle, and that is very inspiring once you begin to see the results. So I would just encourage everyone who went to the event, the Ideas Fair, to really think about joining and supporting those organizations. Finally, I think I can say this again, and it’s still true: the single most important component of this conference is the reception. I just think a thousand ships have been launched from that reception. It’s the single most productive thing that we do. Maybe it’s the only thing we should do next year. But I invite you to once again participate as long as you can, and as long as you can stand in our reception. If you did fill your entire passport, go get another ticket at the reception table. Thank you very much. ■

Grant Smith: I would like to close by thanking the many financial contributors who continue to make this event happy and happen—really happy in about five minutes—make this event happen every year by donating small and large amounts, but always realizing that you can’t do something for six years in a row and get increasingly interesting perspectives without enough financial resources. So we really applaud everyone whose help makes this happen. Secondly, I think we’ve tried more than any previous conference to respond to your input. Some of that input comes over the transom via e-mails and phone calls. A lot of it comes from the post-conference survey that you’re going to receive, asking you what you would want to see at next year’s conference. I could tell you the major reason groups like VCHR and people like Brad have come this year is because people want to know what to do. And so we have a lot of experts out there, but they’re wanting to take some actions. Palestinian Medical Relief Society, a grassroots communityAnd, of course, this group [VCHR] shows that it based Palestinian health organization, founded in 1979 by Palestinian doctors, needs your support today. really isn’t at all about social media engagement as much as it’s about joining the group in your Visit our Website <www.pmrs.ps> to see our work in action. state. Compiling the meeting minutes; going to the Mail your U.S. Tax-Deductible check to our American Foundation: Saturday meetings; doing the research; filing of

VFOIA, whatever that is, to get information that you’re being denied—none of these things are particularly fun. From what I’ve heard, it’s a long, hard slog. But that is what actually moves the nee-

Friends of UPMRC, Inc PO Box 450554 • Atlanta, GA 31145 For more information call: (404) 441-2702 or e-mail: fabuakel@gmail.com May 2019

67

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:26 PM Page 68

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS: U.S. Foreign Aid and the Israeli Nuclear Weapons Program Continued from Page 30

Dale Sprusansky: Very good. Another question here: What can you say about President Carter’s divulgence of Israel’s nuclear weapons in 2008 and the aftermath? Grant Smith: Yeah, I can say something about that. A judge won’t accept that. A judge will say, well, Carter wasn’t in office, so that’s not really an authoritative official statement. We’re sorry, IRmep, nice try, but we’re not going to release information based on the premise that it’s already official that presidents have acknowledged a nuclear weapons program. Is Sam Husseini in the audience? Well, Sam Husseini is a reporter for the Institute for Public Accuracy who has done videos of major political figures in power—Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney—all running away from him and his camera crew when asked “Excuse me, sir, does Israel have nuclear weapons?” You would not believe the circumlocutions that you see these people go through when Sam Husseini traps them with his camera. So it doesn’t matter, unfortunately. Dale Sprusansky: We have someone wondering what leverage does Israel use to compel U.S. presidents to sign the letters that you discussed? Grant Smith: Right. According to the story, these nuclear ambiguity maintenance letters come at the worst possible moment. For President Trump, it was as he was facing the ouster of a general and dealing with all sorts of startup con-

flicts, and suddenly Dan Meridor of the [Israeli] Embassy shows up with a letter, saying, well, you have to sign this, Mr. President, because every other president three times before you signed them and you have to do it. You have to give us this guarantee that you will not be as spontaneous with us as you are in a lot of things. So he signed it. Apparently, they were angered by it within the administration. They felt undue pressure. They felt like this was out of line. But they signed it. Dale Sprusansky: I think we have time for one more question here. Can you touch on Shimon Peres’ role in the nuclear armament of Israel and the Israeli-French relationship? Grant Smith: Absolutely. Father of the Israeli nuclear program—and there’s going to be a lot more history written when sort of the full set of classified documents come out about his role in making that come about. But as you say, Dale, we’re moving to something far more important, which is going to be James North who’s going to be speaking about The New York Times. So I would like to say thank you very much, and don’t forget once again to get your extra beverage ticket at the front desk with a full Ideas Fair passport. Thank you. Dale Sprusansky: Thank you, Grant. I think we can never devote enough time to your research. That’s why you should buy his books. ■

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS: What Lessons Can Activists Take Away? Continued from Page 58

Brad Parker: I think the challenge is that we have to think creatively and figure out how we can do it. My short answer is yes, right? You find the way. I think the thing that we’ve tried to do is show that we don’t have to always be reactionary. We don’t always have to be on the defensive. We can be proactive. We can create our own vehicles and shift the burden from ourselves to policy makers, to lawmakers, and say, you know, where do you stand on this? That’s the political work we need to do, and for sure there’s a way to do it around Gaza. We also work on documenting violations against children in Gaza and the unlawful killing and the intentional use of lethal force as part of the Gaza March of Return protest. This is all something that we’re trying to figure out, what we can do around congressional advocacy. So, a very timely question, and I think it can be done. We just have to think creatively how to do it. Dale Sprusansky: One final question. Someone wants to know if you’ve seen any difference in the approach on the ground with the Israeli military and children ever since this campaign has started. Brad Parker: No. I think that’s the constant. Ill-treatment is widespread, systematic and institutionalized. Rather than address the violations that are ongoing, the physical violence that children face, the work is put into criticizing the 68

messenger, so whether it’s DCI-Palestine or Israeli human rights organizations, civil society space within Israel and within the occupied Palestinian territory is shrinking dramatically. Human rights organizations there are under attack in many ways. Extreme amounts of energy and effort are put into chilling speech, silencing folks, rather than just implementing rights-respecting policies. It’s obvious, I think, why policies aren’t reforms. The goal isn’t that the military courts, for example, are holding children accountable for specific wrongdoing. The goal of the military courts and the military law is to work to control the Palestinian population. If you arrest 700 to even a thousand 15-year-old adolescent boys from their homes in the middle of the night and ill-treat three out of four of them, their fathers can’t save them. Their mothers can’t save them. Their community can’t save them. You’re stripping down everything that those children have as protections in their community. And that fragmentation of families, fragmentation of communities—that’s the goal. Military courts targeting children for arrest, it’s really about controlling the Palestinian population. It’s not about specific wrongdoing. Dale Sprusansky: Very good. And with that, thank you, Brad. ■

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:26 PM Page 69

Georgetown University Qatar: Center for International and Regional Studies Advertisement

New Book ks s fr ro om CIR RS S Sites itttes ees off Plur Pl aalis ism: sm:: Communit ni y Polit ittics in n the M Middle dd E Eaast

Inside nside side the Arab A ab State te Meh M hran h an n Kamrava mraava mr va ((O Oxffo ford Universityy Press/ Pres Pre H sst, 2018), Hurs 20 , $29.95 201

Fiirat O Oruccc, eed. (Oxf Oxford rd d Un Univeersit e tyy Press P s/ Hu Hur urst,, 2019), $34 $ .95

Troubledd Waters: T Wa W Insecurity nsecuri se ur in the t Persian rsi Gulff

Envir viron on nmen ent nttal all P Poolliticss iin thhhe Mid iddlee East Ea t

Mehran Ka Mehr Meh K Kam m vva mrav

(Oxford rd d Univ Univers ni siity P Presss// Hurssst, 201 H 20018), $334.955

H r y Ver Har Verho hoeven, ed.

(Cornell ne U Univveersittty Pres ree s, 20188), 8), $29.95 $229.95

Jo ou urn rna a Special al ec l Is Issu ues e Family F a amily in i thee Arabian rrabian a abian P Peninsula eeninsula ni a

The ““R Th “Resour Reessource Curs R C sse” iin th the Midd M ddle dle East E

Elizzabet eeth W Wanuc aanucha an h & Zah ahra B Ba Babar bar a , guessst eds. d ds.

M hran Mehr n Kamr amraavaa,, g eest ed gue d d.

CIRS Special pecciaal Issue of Hawwa: Ha w : Jour ww Jo nall off Women W omen men en off the he Middle M e East Mid stt aand the Isl Islamic I Wor o ldd 166, nos. no . 11–3 (2018) nos 2018)

CIRS Speci C p iaal Issue s oof JJourrnall of of Araabiaan Sttudiess 8. S1 S (2018) ( 18 18))

About Ab out C CIR IR RS S Estab stab tablissh hed iin 2005 05, 5, the Center nter nte forr Int I ternatioonal and a Regio Re Reg o onaaal Stud tud ud dies (CIRS) C at Ge Georgetow g own wn U Univerrsity s in Qatar Qa r iis a prrremier Qat mie research sea e h ins nstitut nsti ute te devot voted oted too tthe acad adem dem micc sstud dyy of rreg regional all aand internationa rn n aal issssu ues through h dialoggue g and exchangee oof id deas,, rreseaarch a and a scholarship, ol hip, an nd eng engagemen en nt wit ith th sch hollars, opinion hola o ion io on makers, kers practi ker p tiit iiti ti ers tioners rs, and acttiviists.

Rese ear ar arch ch & Pu Publ lis shin ng Opp pportu t n niti tie es To con T on ntribute ib b to t the the bo b body odyy of knowledge n no dgee on issues ues relat latted to o the Gulf ul region, reegiion, i , and the broader ader ade Middle East st, t, CIRS C S engage ng ges es in i original oriigginal inal n research re h initiatives. itiatives tiativ s. Visit the V hee w website bsi s tto o submit ssub bmit b mit papers er ers for possible publica p blication icatio on, or to dow download do wnl nload nlo d free f academic demi emic articles. arti es. s

cirs ggeorg cirs.g georget get ettoown.edu wn edu

May 2019

69

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:26 PM Page 70

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

KEYNOTE QUESTIONS & ANSWERS: Susan Abulhawa: Israel: More Than Apartheid Continued from Page 45

cities. Actually, it’s a bit stunning how many people, how many police departments—it’s not just police departments, it’s also places like university security—all these major universities have been sending their security departments to Israel, which is really scary, because campus is where a lot of activism takes place. Delinda Hanley: You could pronounce these villages better than I. Susan Abulhawa: [Reads question] “In ’67 Israelis uprooted about 10,000 and demolished three villages—Imwas, Yalo and Bayt Nuba. Bayt Nuba became a settler colony

named Mevo Horon. The other two became a park called Canada Park. Do you have any info on these villages?” I don’t. I’m sorry. Delinda Hanley: Can you talk about Israeli agribusiness and destruction of Palestinian heritage—agricultural heritage? Susan Abulhawa: Actually, this is very relevant to the first bit that I talked about, regarding the destruction of Palestine’s water system. Israel, in its early propaganda campaigns, was sort of trying to create the “New Jew,” who was going to be an agrarian person farming the land and so forth. It was very much built into the Zionist ideology of tilling the land and so forth. They siphoned an extraordinary amount of water to sort of have this appearance of agricultural success, even though agriculture was a very tiny portion of their GDP. So there is the environmental destruction aspect of it. The other part is that the Israeli agricultural sector employs its laborers from Palestinians, Palestinian farmers whose land has been confiscated, and so they’re forced to become day laborers—very low-wage day laborers. And they also employ children. There were reports last year of child labor and a lot of illnesses happening to children from the pesticides that are used. Then the other end of that is the toxic waste from Israel, not just from the agricultural sector, but from all sectors, industrial sectors and domestic usage. Waste gets dumped into Palestinian towns. Because Israel’s environmental standards don’t apply to the ’67 territories, all these inPlaygrounds for Palestine is a project to build playgrounds for our children. dustries take their toxic waste and dump it in It is a minimal recognition of their right to childhood and creative expression. Palestinian towns. They give desperate peoIt is an act of love. ple who are living in poverty a few shekels and end up completely decimating the area Playgrounds for Palestine (PfP) is a registered 501(c)3 non-proﬁt organization, and causing a lot of illnesses among local inestablished in 2001. We’re an all-volunteer organization (no paid staﬀ) that habitants. raises money throughout the year to construct playgrounds and fund programs Settlements also dump their untreated for children in Palestine. sewage into Palestinian towns. This is a huge problem. It’s destroying the water table, too. Selling Organic, Fair Trade Palestinian olive oil is PfP’s It’s all tied together. Israel is trying in so many principle source of fundraising. is year, PfP launched AIDA, a private label olive oil from Palestinian farmers. ways to uproot Palestinians, and making their Please come by and taste it at our table. towns into garbage dumps is just one of a multitude of ways. And the agricultural busiWe hope you’ll love it and make it a staple in your pantry. ness is part and parcel of that. Delinda Hanley: Does AIPAC place interns For more information or to make a donation visit: in congressional offices? Is there a way to get https://playgroundsforpalestine.org • P.O. Box 559 • Yardley, PA 19067 Arab-American interns into the offices? Susan Abulhawa: I don’t have specific

70

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 1:26 PM Page 71

PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

KEYNOTE QUESTIONS & ANSWERS: Susan Abulhawa: Israel: More Than Apartheid

data on that. But common sense would tell me that, yeah, I think they probably do. And I’m sure that there are ArabAmerican interns. I mean, there has to be, there are interns from all walks of life in all districts. Delinda Hanley: Can you tell us how you started Playgrounds for Palestine, and what made you do it? Susan Abulhawa: Thank you for asking that, whoever asked that question. So about 19 years ago, my daughter was a toddler, and playgrounds were a huge part of our lives. I went back to Palestine after about an 18-year absence, and the lack of playgrounds was hugely visible to me because it was such a big part of our lives, as I said. When I came back I decided that we needed to build playgrounds. As I often do with a lot of things in my life, I don’t really think, I just—I’m not a planner, and I just sort of jump into things headlong. Usually it results in disaster, but this time it turned out to be a wonderful project. We got our first play-

ground donated. With the help of ANERA, we got the playground into Palestine and we built it. And then a lot of my amazing and wonderful friends joined the board. We are an all-volunteer group of mostly women, with the exception of one man. We’re all volunteers. This is a labor of love for us. We raise money throughout the year. Whatever we have, we use it to build playgrounds. We also support summer camps and educational programs, skate camps and other sorts of recreational activities. Also, if you guys haven’t seen the olive oil—I need to plug this, or our board is going to kill me. We’re selling olive oil. We finally have our own private-label olive oil. It’s called AIDA—which is the feminine form of “return,” by the way. The olive oil is delicious. It’s organic, fair trade, and all the proceeds go to the playgrounds project. Delinda Hanley: Thank you very much. Susan Abulhawa: Thank you. Thanks for having me. ■ May 2019

71

0519paccharts__72-79.qxp_Special Report 4/25/19 11:24 AM Page 72

Election Watch

Shocker: No Pro-Israel PAC Benjamins to Omar, Tlaib or Ocasio-Cortez

A

By Janet McMahon

s has been previOP EN AND AREER ECIPIENTS OF ously pointed out (see, for example, RO SRAEL UNDS May 2017 Washington ReCompiled by Hugh Galford port, p. 84), pro-Israel PACs, or political action committees, HOUSE: CURRENT RACES SENATE: CURRENT RACES are no longer the brash campaign contributors of yore— Roskam, Peter (R-IL) $67,352 Cruz, Rafael E. (R-TX) $91,205 Riggleman, Denver L., III (R-VA) 41,700 Menendez, Robert (D-NJ) 78,887 having discovered that the reCurbelo, Carlos (R-FL) 39,694 Manchin, Joe, III (D-WV) 69,900 quirement that all their activiDeutch, Theodore E. (D-FL) 37,700 Casey, Robert P., Jr. (D-PA) 64,500 ties be reported to the FEC Engel, Eliot L. (D-NY) 36,000 Fischer, Debra S. (R-NE) 53,700 makes those activities a little Schneider, Bradley S. (D-IL) 33,250 Sinema, Kyrsten (D-AZ) 51,000 Zeldin, Lee M. (R-NY) 30,572 Cardin, Benjamin L. (D-MD) 39,700 too public for comfort. In this Gottheimer, Josh (D-NJ) 26,000 Nelson, Bill (D-FL) 37,250 era of dark money and masLipinski, Daniel W. (D-IL) 25,950 Wicker, Roger F. (R-MS) 32,400 sive bundling of individual Epstein, Lena Rose (R-MI) 25,510 Tester, R. Jon (D-MT) 32,000 contributions, these PACs are House: Career Senate: Career now described as being the “tip of the iceberg” of pro-IsEngel, Eliot L. (D-NY) $440,418 McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) $597,392 rael campaign contributions. Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R-FL) 348,740 Durbin, Richard J. (D-IL) 403,421 Still, information can be Hoyer, Steny (D-MD) 320,025 Wyden, Ronald L. (D-OR) 366,962 Lowey, Nita M. (D-NY) 262,123 Menendez, Robert (D-NJ) 294,205 gleaned from these FEC reRoyce, Edward R. (R-CA) 155,857 Murray, Patty (D-WA) 225,523 ports, on which the following Deutch, Theodore E. (D-FL) 154,750 Nelson, Bill (D-FL) 222,621 chart is based. It’s instructive Pelosi, Nancy (D-CA) 149,150 Shelby, Richard C. (R-AL) 201,825 to note, for example, when Levin, Sander M. (D-MI) 136,827 Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI) 196,206 Hastings, Alcee L. (D-FL) 134,250 Grassley, Charles E. (R-IA) 193,523 the lobby uncharacteristically Sherman, Brad (D-CA) 126,630 Cardin, Benjamin L. (D-MD) 188,395 favors a challenger over an incumbent, such as when incumbent Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Democrat, rerious charges of anti-Semitism flew: Virginia’s Republican ceived $9,700 in pro-Israel PAC contributions versus $23,178 Party chairman called her “the inspiration for neo-Nazis, white to her victorious Republican challenger, Joshua D. Hawley. supremacists and racists.” It didn’t matter that Cockburn met At other times—and more frequently lately, it seems—the Isfor two hours with 40 Jewish Virginians at the home of a rael lobby spends its Benjamins in vain. The top pro-Israel Charlottesville rabbi, who, according to The Washington Post, PAC recipient among House candidates was Rep. Peter “said Cockburn clearly supports Israel as a Jewish state and Roskam (R-IL), who received a whopping $67,352 to his opwould have no problem voting for aid” to Israel. No deviation ponent, and new member of Congress, Sean Casten’s $7,000. from the pro-Israel line is permitted, however, and Cockburn Apparently money was not enough to overcome the charges lost the race. of corruption faced by the pro-Israel incumbent, who argued A Campaign Contribution Ratio of 83:1 that supporters of BDS “actually want Israel destroyed.” Only two Arab-American PACs made contributions in the 2018 And who was runner-up to Roskam among House candielection, the AA Democratic Action Fund and Arab American dates? The answer lies not in who he was, but who he wasPolitical Action Committee, for a total of $20,700—less than a n’t. Denver L. Riggleman, III was running against Leslie third of what Roskam alone received, and more than $3 milCockburn for the open seat in Virginia’s 5th congressional lion less than pro-Israel PAC contributions last year. Since district—and Cockburn was co-author with her husband, An1978, pro-Israel PACs have given 83 times the reported camdrew, of the 1992 book Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story paign contributions as have Arab-American and American of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship. Needless to say, spuMuslim PACs. It’s no accident that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East reflects that imbalance, especially in “the best Janet McMahon is managing editor of the Washington Report on Congress money can buy.” Middle East Affairs. 72

T

T

2018 P -I

WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

C R PAC F

MAY 2019

0519paccharts__72-79.qxp_Special Report 4/25/19 11:24 AM Page 73

PRO-ISRAEL PAC CONTRIBUTIONS TO 2018 CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES State Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas California

Office District S S S H H H H H H S S S S H H H H H H H H S H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H

1 2 3 5 6 7

1 2 2 3 8 8 9 4 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 10 11 13 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 21 23 24 25 25 26 27 27 28 29 30 31 33 33 36 37

Candidate Strange, Luther J., III† Jones, Doug† Moore, Roy† Byrne, Bradley R. Roby, Martha Rogers, Michael D. Brooks, Mo Palmer, Gary Sewell, Terri A. Flake, Jeff* McSally, Martha*# Sinema, Kyrsten*# Ward, Kelli* O’Halleran, Tom Kirkpatrick, Ann Marquez Peterson, Lea Grijalva, Raul M. Franks, Trent Lesko, Debbie Stanton, Greg Westerman, Bruce E. Feinstein, Dianne* Huffman, Jared Garamendi, John Morse, Jessica Thompson, Mike Bera, Amerish Cook, Paul McNerney, Gerald M. Denham, Jeff Harder, Josh DeSaulnier, Mark Lee, Barbara Speier, Jackie Swalwell, Eric M. Costa, Jim Heng, Elizabeth Khanna, Ro Eshoo, Anna G. Lofgren, Zoe Valadao, David McCarthy, Kevin Carbajal, Salud O. Knight, Steve Hill, Katherine Lauren Brownley, Julia Chu, Judy Cardenas, Beatrice I. Schiff, Adam Cardenas, Tony Sherman, Brad Aguilar, Pete Waxman, Henry A. Lieu, Ted Ruiz, Raul Bass, Karen

Party

Status

R D R R R R R R D R R D R D D R D R R D R D D D D D D R D R D D D D D D R D D D R R D R D D D R D D D D D D D D

P I N I I I I I I N O O P I O O I N I O I I I I C I I I I I C I I I I I C I I I I I I I C I I C I I I I N I I I

2017-18 Contributions 17,500 2,500 1,000 2,500 2,000 2,000 1,500 2,500 2,000 10,000 11,500 51,000 500 0 4,000 500 5,000 2,000 500 2,000 0 7,000 5,000 5,000 1,500 5,000 1,050 2,500 3,500 3,000 1,000 5,000 100 5,500 2,500 2,500 2,000 0 4,000 2,500 500 0 0 4,500 5,350 1,667 1,000 5,000 17,000 3,000 4,000 350 3,248 0 2,000 0

Committees Career (at Time of Election) 17,500 2,500 1,000 7,500 9,500 36,825 4,000 6,000 9,500 33,250 18,500 66,000 500 0 50,294 500 22,550 12,100 500 2,000 0 164,342 16,500 25,500 1,500 19,500 24,160 7,500 37,100 13,000 1,000 10,010 11,400 16,500 32,500 31,500 2,000 13,750 16,760 15,250 500 32,500 1,660 7,000 5,350 25,237 5,500 5,000 119,917 16,600 126,630 13,685 87,395 16,100 21,550 9,060

HS AS A AS, HS AS, FR B W, I FR AS, HS AS

B A (D), I AS W FR AS, FR C

A (FO), B AS, I I AS, B C A Maj. Leader AS, B AS W I C FR A FR C FR

KEY: The Career Total column represents the total amount of pro-Israel PAC money received from Jan. 1, 2009 through Dec. 31, 2018. S=Senate, H=House of Representatives. Party affiliation: D=Democrat, R=Republican, Ref=Reform, DFL=Democratic Farmer Labor, Ind=Independent, Lib=Libertarian, WFP=Working Families Party. Status: C=Challenger, I=Incumbent, N=Not Running, O=Open Seat (no incumbent), P=Defeated in primary election. *=Senate election year, #=House member running for Senate seat, †=Special Election. Committees (at time of election): A=Appropriations (D=Defense subcommittee, FO=Foreign Operations subcommittee, HS=Homeland Security, NS=National Security subcommittee), AS=Armed Services, B=Budget, C=Commerce, FR=Foreign Relations (NE=Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs subcommittee), HS=Homeland Security, I=Intelligence, IR=International Relations, NS=National Security, W=Ways and Means. – indicates money returned by candidate, 0 that all money received was returned.

MAY 2019

WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

73

0519paccharts__72-79.qxp_Special Report 4/25/19 11:25 AM Page 74

State California

Colorado

Connecticut Delaware Florida

Georgia

74

Office District H H H H H H H H H H H H H S H H H H H H S H S H S S S H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H

38 39 39 39 41 45 45 47 48 49 51 52 53 1 2 5 6 6 7 5 At-L.

1 3 6 6 6 7 7 8 9 10 12 13 15 17 17 18 18 20 21 22 23 23 25 26 26 27 27 27 1 2 4 5 6 6 6 8 10 11 12

Candidate Sanchez, Linda Royce, Edward R. Kim, Young Cisneros, Gilbert Takano, Mark Walters, Mimi Porter, Katherine Lowenthal, Alan Rouda, Harley E., Jr. Levin, Michael T. (Mike) Vargas, Juan Carlos Peters, Scott Davis, Susan A. Bennet, Michael F. DeGette, Diana L. Polis, Jared Lamborn, Douglas Coffman, Mike Crow, Jason Perlmutter, Edwin G. Murphy, Christopher S.* Esty, Elizabeth Carper, Thomas R.* Blunt Rochester, Lisa Nelson, Bill* Scott, Rick* Rubio, Marco Gaetz, Matt Yoho, Theodore S. (Ted) DeSantis, Ronald D. Waltz, Michael Soderberg, Nancy Murphy, Stephanie Miller, Mike Posey, Bill Soto, Darren Demings, Valdez (Val) Bilirakis, Gus M. Crist, Charlie J. Spano, Vincent R. (Ross) Steube, W. Greg Gonzalez, Julio Mast, Brian Baer, Lauren Hastings, Alcee L. Frankel, Lois J. Deutch, Theodore E. Wasserman Schultz, Debbie Kaufman, Joseph (Joe) Diaz-Balart, Mario Curbelo, Carlos Mucarsel-Powell, Debbie Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana Salazar, Maria Elvira Shalala, Donna Carter, Buddy Bishop, Sanford D. Johnson, Henry C. (Hank) Lewis, John R. Handel, Karen Christineâ&#x20AC; McBath, Lucia Kay Ossoff, T. Jonathan Scott, James A. (Austin) Hice, Jody Loudermilk, Barry Allen, Richard W.

Party

Status

D R R D D R D D D D D D D D D D R R D D D D D D D R R R R R R D D R R D D R D R R R R D D D D D R R R D R R D R D D D R D D R R R R

I N O O I I C I C O I I I I I N I I C I I N I I I C I I I N O O I C I I I I I O O P I C I I I I C I I C N O O I I I I I C N I I I I

WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

2017-18 Contributions 5,500 24,950 10,013 100 500 14,083 7,500 3,500 6,500 4,500 5,000 2,500 3,000 1,500 2,000 0 18,500 500 3,000 2,500 20,875 2,000 10,000 7,000 37,250 24,662 1,000 5,000 5,000 8,500 2,000 8,000 1,000 3,500 25,500 1,500 1,000 6,500 1,000 6,000 2,500 11,500 4,000 14,200 17,500 37,700 2,500 2,000 7,000 39,694 4,000 9,000 15,500 10,000 5,000 6,000 3,250 6,500 2,000 1,491 10,000 500 500

Committees Career (at Time of Election) 40,450 155,857 10,013 100 9,180 14,083 7,500 24,700 6,500 4,500 20,100 16,250 24,173 55,930 12,510 1,000 40,500 8,250 3,000 15,724 35,875 4,560 70,400 7,000 222,621 24,662 55,100 500 15,500 8,500 8,500 2,000 11,000 1,000 8,500 37,500 4,500 52,816 6,500 1,000 6,000 2,500 23,500 4,000 134,250 50,300 154,750 90,800 3,000 82,750 80,694 4,000 348,740 15,500 10,000 12,510 56,200 84,500 6,500 2,000 1,491 10,000 500 500

W FR

AS C AS AS A (FO), FR (NE) HS AS, C A (FO), FR (NE), I AS, B FR FR (NE) AS

HS C

FR (NE) FR (NE) FR (NE) A A (FO) W FR (NE), I C A W

AS AS MAY 2019

0519paccharts__72-79.qxp_Special Report 4/25/19 11:25 AM Page 75

State

Office District

Hawaii

S S Illinois S S H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H Indiana S S S S H H H H H H H Iowa H H H H H H H Kansas S H H Kentucky S H H Louisiana H H H H H H Maine S S H H H Maryland S H H H Massachusetts S H H H MAY 2019

2 3 4 4 5 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 13 14 16 17 18

2 3 4 6 7 8 9 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 2 3 3 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 2 5 7 8 1 2 3

Candidate Hirono, Mazie K.* Schatz, Brian Durbin, Richard J. Duckworth, L. Tammy Kelly, Robin Lipinski, Daniel W. Gutierrez, Luis V. Flores, Sol Quigley, Mike Roskam, Peter Casten, Sean Davis, Danny K. Krishnamoorthi, S. Raja Schakowsky, Janice D. Schneider, Bradley S. Foster, G. William (Bill) Bost, Michael Kelly, Brendan Londrigan, Betsy Dirksen Hultgren, Randy Kinzinger, Adam Bustos, Cheri LaHood, Darin McKay Donnelly, Joseph S.* Braun, Mike* Messer, Luke*# Rokita, Todd*# Walorski, Jackie Banks, James E. Baird, James R. Pence, Gregory J. Carson, Andre Bucshon, Larry D. Hollingsworth, Trey Blum, Rodney Finkenauer, Abby Loebsack, David W. Young, David Axne, Cindy L. Wadle King, Steve Scholten, James D. Moran, Jerry Davis, Paul T. Yoder, Kevin McConnell, Mitch Yarmuth, John A. Barr, Garland (Andy) Scalise, Steve Richmond, Cedric L. Higgins, Clay Johnson, James M. (Mike) Abraham, Ralph L., Jr. Graves, Garret King, Angus S., Jr.* Collins, Susan M. Pingree, Chellie M. Poliquin, Bruce L. Golden, Jared Cardin, Benjamin L.* Hoyer, Steny Cummings, Elijah E. Raskin, Jamie Warren, Elizabeth* Neal, Richard E. McGovern, James P. Tsongas, Niki

Party

Status

D D D D D D D D D R D D D D D D R D D R R D R D R R R R R R R D R R R D D R D R D R D R R D R R D R R R R Ind R D R D D D D D D D D D

I I I I I I N P I I C I I I I I I C C I I I I I C P P I I O O I I I I C I I C I C I O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C I I I I I I I N

2017-18 Contributions 7,500 2,250 100 7,500 25,950 1,000 2,200 5,250 67,352 7,000 7,500 4,750 5,475 33,250 1,400 8,700 3,500 2,000 4,950 2,500 9,000 7,500 18,700 14,651 15,000 3,500 3,500 3,500 5,000 3,500 3,500 3,500 6,000 1,500 9,000 2,000 500 3,000 1,500 2,000 9,000 15,000 6,000 11,000 5,000 7,500 3,250 5,500 2,500 7,700 29,673 5,000 3,000 3,500 3,000 39,700 16,000 4,182 5,000 2,500 5,000 4,650 -

WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

Committees Career (at Time of Election) 19,000 40,270 403,421 59,104 13,450 48,550 42,561 2,200 24,650 116,884 7,000 29,010 5,250 45,620 90,950 30,450 12,700 3,500 2,000 15,900 24,500 26,860 9,950 48,700 14,651 28,700 3,500 3,500 3,500 13,110 6,000 3,500 10,000 6,000 9,000 14,000 2,000 500 3,000 32,200 2,000 12,000 597,392 31,020 16,500 53,000 16,000 3,250 5,500 8,500 15,700 41,273 153,900 18,676 6,000 3,000 188,395 320,025 33,192. 8,550 10,000 26,750 22,725 14,000

AS A (D), C A (D, FO) C FR

A, I W W B, C FR (NE)

C, FR (NE) W AS B W AS I C

C A (HS)

A (D, FO), C A (HS) A (D, FO) B C HS HS

AS, B, I A (D), I A FR (NE) Min. Whip AS W AS 75

0519paccharts__72-79.qxp_Special Report 4/25/19 11:25 AM Page 76

State

Office District

Massachusetts H H H H Michigan S H H H H H H H H H H H H H Minnesota S S S H H H H H H H H H Mississippi S S S Missouri S S H H Montana S S H H Nebraska S S H H Nevada S S S H H H H H New HampshireH H New Jersey S S S H H H H H H H H 76

4 5 6 7 1 2 5 7 8 8 9 11 11 12 13 13 14

1 2 3 4 5 5 8 8 8

1 7 At-L. At-L. 2 2

3 3 4 4 4 1 2

1 3 3 4 5 6 7 7

Candidate Kennedy, Joseph P., III Clark, Katherine Moulton, Seth Capuano, Michael E. Stabenow, Debbie* Bergman, John “Jack” Huizenga, William P. Kildee, Daniel T. Driskell, Gretchen Bishop, Mike Slotkin, Elissa Levin, Andy Epstein, Lena Rose Stevens, Haley Dingell, Debbie Conyers, John, Jr. Jones, Brenda† Lawrence, Brenda Lulenar Klobuchar, Amy J.* Smith, Tina* Housley, Karin*† Feehan, Daniel Craig, Angela Dawn Paulsen, Erik McCollum, Betty Ellison, Keith M. Anderson Kelliher, Margaret Nolan, Richard M. Stauber, Peter A. Radinovich, Joseph Wicker, Roger F.* Hyde-Smith, Cindy*† Espy, Michael*† McCaskill, Claire* Hawley, Joshua D.* Clay, William L., Jr. (Lacy) Long, Billy Tester, R. Jon* Rosendale, Matt* Williams, Kathleen Quist, Robert E. Fischer, Debra S.* Raybould, Jane* Bacon, Donald J. Eastman, Kara Heller, Dean* Rosen, Jacky*# Masto, Catherine Cortez Tarkanian, Danny Lee, Susie Kihuen, Ruben Horsford, Steven A. Hardy, Cresent Shea-Porter, Carol Kuster, Ann McLane Menendez, Robert* Hugin, Robert* Booker, Cory A. Norcross, Donald W. MacArthur, Thomas Kim, Andy Smith, Christopher H. Gottheimer, Josh Pallone, Frank, Jr. Lance, Leonard Malinowski, Tom

Party D D D D D R R D D R D D R D D D D D DFL DFL R D D R DFL DFL D DFL R DFL R R D D R D R D R D D R D R D R D D R D D D R D D D R D D R D R D D R D

Status I I I I I I I I C I C O O O I N O I I I C O C I I N P N O O I I C I C I I I C O N I C I C I C N O O N O O N I I C I I I C I I I I C

WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

2017-18 Contributions 500 5,000 6,000 24,600 4,000 1,000 10,000 4,250 6,000 25,510 3,000 5,500 2,000 5,000 5,500 30,000 13,500 5,000 4,000 4,000 20,305 5,000 2,500 13,200 100 2,500 1,000 32,400 11,500 5,000 9,700 23,178 5,000 4,200 32,000 6,500 1,000 0.00 53,700 1,000 5,500 1,000 31,339 20,000 500 2,500 4,000 1,000 4,000 2,500 2,417 78,887 5,000 1,000 500 10,133 7,000 5,000 26,000 4,500 19,471 2,000

Committees Career (at Time of Election) 6,600 4,615 7,850 20,010 196,206 2,500 1,000 38,675 2,500 22,750 4,250 6,000 25,510 3,000 10,510 17,010 5,000 10,500 112,335 13,500 5,000 4,000 13,000 40,805 22,750 13,610 13,200 17,768 2,500 1,000 98,800 11,500 5,000 81,535 23,178 32,010 21,700 75,224 6,500 1,000. 73,200 1,000 8,000 1,000 54,339 35,500 45,605 8,500 4,000 7,473 6,000 5,000 25,019 15,877 294,205 5,000 38,327 13,000 17,133 7,000 82,750 29,500 113,550 30,471 2,000

C A AS, B B B

W

C

C

W A (D)

AS, C A AS, HS C A (D, HS), C

AS, C AS, HS C AS C

AS FR (NE) FR (NE) AS FR C C MAY 2019

0519paccharts__72-79.qxp_Special Report 4/25/19 11:25 AM Page 77

State New Jersey

Office District

H H H New Mexico S H H H H New York S H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H North Carolina H H H H H H H H H H H North Dakota S S Ohio S S S H H H H H H H H H H H Oklahoma S H Oregon S H H H Pennsylvania S S S H H MAY 2019

10 11 12 1 2 2 3 1 3 4 5 6 7 9 11 11 12 14 15 16 17 19 19 20 22 25 1 2 4 9 9 9 10 11 12 13 13

1 1 4 6 7 7 9 11 14 15 16 5 1 3 4

1 2

Candidate Payne, Donald M., Jr. Sherrill, Rebecca M. (Mikie) Coleman, Bonnie Watson Heinrich, Martin* Haaland, Debra Herrell, Stella Yvette Torres Small, Xochitl Lujan, Ben R. Gillibrand, Kirsten E.* Zeldin, Lee M. Suozzi, Thomas Rice, Kathleen Meeks, Gregory W. Meng, Grace Velazquez, Nydia M. Clarke, Yvette Donovan, Dan Rose, Max Maloney, Carolyn B. Crowley, Joseph Serrano, Jose E. Engel, Eliot L. Lowey, Nita M. Faso, John J. Delgado, Antonio Tonko, Paul David Tenney, Claudia Slaughter, Louise Butterfield, George K. Holding, George E. Price, David E. Pittenger, Robert M. Harris, Mark E. McCready, Daniel McHenry, Patrick Meadows, Mark R. Adams, Alma Shealey Budd, Theodore P. Manning, Kathy Heitkamp, Heidi* Cramer, Kevin*# Brown, Sherrod* Renacci, James B.*# Mandel, Joshua A.* Chabot, Steve Pureval, Aftab Jordan, James D. “Jim” Johnson, Bill Gibbs, Robert Harbaugh, Kenneth Kaptur, Marcy Fudge, Marcia Joyce, David P. Stivers, Steve Gonzalez, Anthony E. Inhofe, James M. Russell, Steven D. Merkley, Jeffrey A. Bonamici, Suzanne Blumenauer, Earl DeFazio, Peter A. Casey, Robert P., Jr.* Barletta, Lou*# Bartos, Jeffrey A.* Fitzpatrick, Brian Boyle, Brendan F.

Party

Status

D D D D D R D D D R D D D D D D R D D D D D D R D D R D D R D R R D R R D R D D R D R R R D R R R D D D R R R R R D D D D D R R R D

I O I I O O O I I I I I I I I I I C I P I I I I C I I N I I I P O O I I I I C I C I C N I C I I I C I I I I O I I I I I I I C N I I

2017-18 Contributions 5,000 6,500 500 20,282 2,250 2,000 1,000 5,500 2,500 30,572 2,000 1,000 12,675 6,750 2,000 2,500 2,000 2,500 1,000 36,000 15,000 4,000 2,000 4,500 5,000 3,010 5,000 9,000 4,000 2,500 2,000 2,000 5,500 6,500 500 5,250 4,000 15,529 19,924 16,560 5,000 13,150 4,000 1,000 1,000 750 5,000 1,000 5,000 5,000 2,500 4,000 2,500 3,000 5,000 1,075 5,000 11,350 6,100 64,500 500 2,500 17,000 17,000

WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

Committees Career (at Time of Election) 46,250 6,500 23,535 55,537 2,250 2,000 1,000 17,500 84,950 67,572 7,000 5,500 3,000 22,100 8,250 5,510 2,500 2,000 43,470 110,457 9,250 440,418 262,123 24,700 2,000 18,500 5,500 73,240 12,000 16,500 75,327 2,500 2,000 2,000 56,200 14,500 3,510 5,250 4,000 24,529 19,924 116,065 6,500 27,150 50,170 1,000 1,500 1,750 10,000 1,000 12,300 17,200 17,000 14,000 2,500 140,800 5,000 40,725 20,760 28,860 27,710 143,400 500 2,500 19,500 34,500

HS HS HS

C AS FR (NE) HS FR A (FO) C FR, HS W A C, FR A (FO) B C C W A (FO, HS)

FR (NE)

HS

FR (ME) B, C A (D) A AS, C AS A (FO), B, FR W HS FR (NE) B, FR (NE) 77

0519paccharts__72-79.qxp_Special Report 4/25/19 11:25 AM Page 78

State Pennsylvania

Office District

H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H Rhode Island S H H South Carolina S H H H H Tennessee S S S H H Texas S S S H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H Utah S H H Vermont S H Virginia S S S H H H H H H H H 78

3 4 5 5 6 6 7 8 8 10 11 17 17 18 18 1 2 2 3 5 6

8 9

1 2 7 7 9 10 12 13 20 21 23 23 27 28 29 30 32 32 35 3 4 At-L.

2 2 4 5 5 6 7 7

Candidate Evans, Dwight Dean, Madeleine Scanlon, Mary Gay† Muroff, Daniel Costello, Ryan A. Houlahan, Chrissy Wild, Susan Fitzpatrick, Michael G. Cartwright, Matt Perry, Scott Smucker, Lloyd Rothfus, Keith Lamb, Conor Doyle, Michael Saccone, Rick† Whitehouse, Sheldon, II* Cicilline, David N. Langevin, James R. Graham, Lindsey O. Wilson, Joe Duncan, Jeffrey D. Connelly, Chad† Clyburn, James E. Corker, Robert P., Jr.* Blackburn, Marsha*# Bredesen, Philip* Kustoff, David Cohen, Stephen I. Cruz, Rafael E. (Ted)* O’Rourke, Robert (Beto)*# Cornyn, John Gohmert, Louis B., Jr. Crenshaw, Daniel Culberson, John Fletcher, Elizabeth Green, Alexander McCaul, Michael Granger, Kay Hegar, Mary Jennings (MJ) Castro, Joaquin Roy, Chip Hurd, William Jones, Gina Ortiz Cloud, Michael Cuellar, Henry R. Green, Raymond E. (Gene) Johnson, Eddie Bernice Sessions, Pete Allred, Colin Doggett, Lloyd Hatch, Orrin G.* Herrod, Christopher N.† Love, Mia Sanders, Bernard (Bernie)* Welch, Peter Kaine, Timothy M.* Cantor, Eric* Warner, Mark R. Taylor, Scott W. Luria, Elaine McEachin, Aston D. Riggleman, Denver L., III Garrett, Thomas A., Jr. Dunbar, Cynthia Spanberger, Abigail Brat, David A.

Party

Status

D D D D R D D R D R R R D D R D D D R R R R D R R D R D R D R R R R D D R R D D R R D R D D D R D D R R R Ind D D R D R D D R R R D R

I O O N N O O N I I I I I I O I I I I I I P I N O O I I I C I I O I C I I I C I O I C I I N I I C I N P I I I I N I I C I O N P C I

WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

2017-18 Contributions 3,000 2,000 2,000 1,600 3,000 2,000 2,500 1,000 1,500 17,567 0 1,000 5,000 25,200 1,000 7,500 1,000 21,500 750 2,500 4,000 2,500 25,550 12,500 6,000 5,000 91,205 25,410 2,000 1,000 2,500 13,000 2,000 4,000 5,000 2,500 2,000 5,000 1,000 9,500 4,000 500 2,000 5,000 4,500 5,000 4,000 4,000 5,000 3,500 21,000 5,000 5,000 13,570 2,000 10,000 10,500 3,000 5,000 41,700 750 3,000 6,000 1,000

Committees Career (at Time of Election) 3,000 2,000 2,000 1,600 9,000 3,000 2,000 27,500 10,510 3,500 19,067 10,510 5,000 140,700 39,500 58,000 121,000 26,750 17,750 2,500 39,610 38,000 27,550 12,500 11,000 40,510 109,705 26,410 91,580 5,000 2,500 25,500 2,000 13,000 18,000 51,000 2,000 5,000 1,000 16,000 4,000 500 5,500 21,800 17,500 14,750 4,000 17,310 80,200 3,500 27,000 5,000 21,500 34,271 239,605 75,500 10,500 3,000 5,000 41,700 750 3,000 6,000 1,000

C

A FR, HS

C B FR (ME) AS, HS A (D, FO), B AS, FR C B, FR (NE) B, C

AS, C I A (HS) FR, HS A (D, FO) FR, I HS, I A (D HS) C

W

B C AS, B, FR (NE) B, I A (HS)

FR, HS B MAY 2019

0519paccharts__72-79.qxp_Special Report 4/25/19 11:25 AM Page 79

State Virginia

Washington

West Virginia Wisconsin

Wyoming

Office District H H H H S S H H H H H H H H S S H S S H H H H H H H H H S

8 10 10 11 1 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 1 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8

Candidate Beyer, Donald S., Jr. Comstock, Barbara Wexton, Jennifer Connolly, Gerald E. Cantwell, Maria* Murray, Patty DelBene, Suzan Long, Carolyn N. McMorris Rodgers, Cathy Kilmer, Derek Jayapal, Pramila Rossi, Dino Smith, D. Adam Heck, Dennis (Denny) Manchin, Joe, III* Morrisey, Patrick* Mooney, Alexander X. Baldwin, Tammy* Vukmir, Leah* Ryan, Paul D. Steil, Bryan G. Pocan, Mark Kind, Ronald J. Moore, Gwendolynne S. Grothman, Glenn S. Kohl, Dan Duffy, Sean Gallagher, Michael J. Barrasso, John A.*

Party

Status

D R D D D D D D R D D R D D D R R D R R R D D D R D R R R

I I C I I I I C I I I O I I I C I I C N O I I I I C I I I

2017-2018 Total PAC Contributions: Total PAC Contributions (1978-2018): Total No. of Recipients (1978-2018):

2017-18 Contributions

Committees Career (at Time of Election)

500 8,524 3,000 3,000 5,000 2,000 8,000 2,500 10,000 5,000 69,900 6,082 6,000 17,530 2,000 2,000 9,000 4,000 4,500 21,500 15,350 5,000 10,200 14,500

9,610 13,524 3,000 34,510 16,344 225,523 12,010 2,000 39,350 14,000 12,500 54,925 8,500 106,400 6,072 20,250 46,660 2,000 50,450 9,000 16,500 11,000 9,500 21,500 15,350 20,500 12,200 41,991

FR (NE) C A (D, HS), B B, W C A B AS I A (HS), I A (D, HS), C

A W B AS, HS FR

$ 3,053,171 $63,147,803 2,653

PRO-ARAB AMERICAN AND AMERICAN MUSLIM PAC CONTRIBUTIONS TO 2017-2018 CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES State California Florida Michigan

Minnesota Ohio

Office District H H H H H H H H H

39 50 13 27 11 12 13 4 9

Candidate Jammal, Samir Campa-Najjar, Ammar Crist, Charlie J. Shalala, Donna Saad, Fayrouz Dingell, John D. Tlaib, Rashida â&#x20AC; McCollum, Betty Kaptur, Marcy

Party D D D D D D D DFL D

Status

2017-2018 Contributions

Career

Committees

P C I O P N O I I

1,500 3,500 1,000 2,000 7,200 1,000 2,500 1,000 1,000

1,500 3,500 1,000 2,000 7,200 18,450 2,500 4,000 7,750

A (D) A (D)

2017-2018 Total PAC Contributions: Total PAC Contributions (1978-2018): Total No. of Recipients (1978-2018):

MAY 2019

$ 20,700 $754,370 300

WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS

79

2019OVMay_r1.qxp_2019 May Other Voices Supplement 4/25/19 11:14 AM Page OV-1

OTHER VOICES F R O M T H E M I D D L E E A S T C L I P B OA R D Compiled by Janet McMahon

Israel’s New Wretched Republic

sense of impermanence. It takes pride in this country’s rule of law and Supreme Court, but it has two separate sets of laws based on nationality; it’s Jewish and democratic, but with a built-

BY GIDEON LEVY

VOL. 22 ISSUE 3—MAY 2019

O

n Tuesday, the Second Republic of Israel was born. It will be different from its predecessor. The First Republic chalked up impressive achievements, accompanied by lies and deceptions. The Second Republic will dispense with any pretense. The new Israel will no longer use disguises. When the ninth Israeli prime minister puts together his fifth government, Israel will look different. With victory at hand and growing confidence, Binyamin Netanyahu will be able to declare the advent of the Second Republic, formed in his image. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. No one will be able to claim again that this man hasn’t left his mark on the country and region. The Second Republic will no longer hide anything taking place in its backyard or try to pretty itself up. It will look exactly like it is. The First Republic was characterized by a mixture of reality and deception: the only democracy in the Middle East, but, at first, one with a military government in Arab areas, then one with a military dictatorship in the occupied territories. It says it’s the darling of the free world, but it’s also the last colonial regime in the world. It says it’s an esteemed member of the family of nations, but it breaks almost every international law, and it doesn’t annex occupied land so that it can create a false OV-1 M AY 2019

in contradiction, an unbridgeable one. All that is over. The next government will be a continuation of the previous one, but stronger, more ultra-nationalist and racist, less legitimate and demo-

A

TABLE OF CONTENTS Israel’s New Wretched Republic, Gideon Levy, Haaretz OV-1 Binyamin Netanyahu’s Re-Election Underlines Israel’s Apartheid Reality, Saree Makdisi, Los Angeles Times OV-2 With Netanyahu Victory, It’s Time We Admit: Israel Has Become a Dictatorship, Bradley Burston, Haaretz OV-3 Netanyahu Courts Trouble to Retain Political Power, Paul R. Pillar, http://nationalinterest.org OV-4 Why I’m Glad Netanyahu Won, Dr. James J. Zogby, www.www.aaiusa.org

OV-5

Great March of Return Is Palestinians’ Cry for Justice, Ramzy Baroud, www.ramzybaroud.net OV-6 How the Left Also Dehumanizes Palestinians in Gaza, Susan Abulhawa, www.aljazeera.com OV-7 It’s Time to Hold the Israeli Football Association to Account, Mahmoud Sarsak, www.aljazeera.com OV-9 Airbnb Officially Reverses Decision to Pull out of Israeli Settlements, Jonathan Ofir, http://mondoweiss.net OV-10

SUPPLEMENT TO THE

WASHINGTON R EPORT

ON

Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib Show Muslim Women Don’t Need Saving, Sahar Aziz, www.aljazeera.com OV-10 Do Members of Congress Take Too Many Private Trips to Israel With AIPAC?, Grant F. Smith, www.antiwar.com OV-12 Republicans, Democrats Snipe Over “Anti-Semitism” at AIPAC Conference, Kelly Kennedy, The Arab Weekly OV-13 Why Designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Terrorists Would Paint a Big Red Target on U.S. Troops in Iraq, Juan Cole, www.juancole.com OV-14 The Path to War With Iran Is Paved With Sanctions, Joseph Cirincione and Mary Kaszynski, http://lobelog.com OV-15 Waiting for the Second Algerian Revolution, Eric S. Margolis, http://ericmargolis.com OV-16 Algeria, Sudan on the Road to Arab Statehood, Sovereignty And Citizenship, Rami G. Khouri, Agence Global OV-17 Two Rays of Hope in PostElection Turkey, Yavuz Baydar, The Arab Weekly OV-18

M IDDLE E AST A FFAIRS

O THER V OICES

2019OVMay_r1.qxp_2019 May Other Voices Supplement 4/25/19 11:14 AM Page OV-2

cratic. And, it must be admitted, it will be a better reflection of reality. On Tuesday, voters said a resounding yes to this Israel. The choice wasn’t as hard as it may have seemed: a choice between a government of generals, which would have continued the masquerade to the applause of the world and enlightened Israelis, or another Netanyahu government shaping Israel in its image, without pretense or apologies. Things will look different. The fire that began flickering during the previous government will spread. The courts, the media, human rights groups and the Arab community will quickly feel it firsthand. Some op-eds in this paper will no longer be approved for publication, by law. It will be forbidden, for example, to criticize Israeli soldiers. Anyone against? It will be forbidden to support a boycott of Israel. Ben-Gurion Airport will be even more closed to critics of the regime. Nonprofit groups will be outlawed. Arabs will be excluded even more than they are now, on the road to realizing the vision of a Jewish state with Jewish-only legislators. The representation of Arabs in the Knesset might already mirror their representation at the Israel Electric Corporation. And of course, there’s the annexation waiting around the corner. That’s how it is when you face Likud; the only choice is to lose your path. That’s how it is when the election is only about Netanyahu, for or against. That’s how it is when the two major parties compete in their racist statements against Arabs. If there’s one place Benny Gantz has to go immediately, it’s to a town near his home, Kafr Qasem, to bow his head and beg the forgiveness of this country’s Arab citizens, whose representatives he has insulted. Gantz lost his chance to win in part because he distanced himself from this community and humiliated them as if they were lepers, just as Netanyahu did. The revenge of the Arab voters is the punishment we all got. Maybe it’s not punishment. Maybe the truth is preferable. Let the world see O THER V OICES

A

SUPPLEMENT TO THE

and judge. Let liberal Israelis see and judge, deciding if it’s possible to continue living complacently and in denial. Let them see in Europe and in Ramat Hasharon, in the Democratic Party and in Ramat Aviv, as it all continues. Maybe the annexation of Area C in the West Bank without giving citizenship to its Arab residents, the legislation of more nation-state laws, the closing of nonprofit groups and the censorship of cultural institutions will achieve what all the years of denial haven’t. Maybe this will finally awaken the opposition that so few have desired over so many years. Somehow, Haaretz carried no obituary after the election. But the day before, a sweet illusion died. Maybe it’s for the best.

This column was first published in Haaretz, April 11, 2019. Copyright © Haaretz Daily Newspaper Ltd. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Binyamin Netanyahu’s Re-Election Underlines Israel’s Apartheid Reality BY SAREE MAKDISI

T

he results of Israel’s elections reveal a stark reality: Not only will Binyamin Netanyahu almost inevitably form a coalition government even further to the right than the one he already heads, but the country’s Jewish electorate has given its resounding endorsement to the policies for which he stands. Netanyahu ran a manifestly racist electoral campaign, reaching out to embrace politicians who openly espouse the desire to expel Palestinians from the state and promising to annex parts of the West Bank, dealing probably a final blow to the moribund two-state solution. What Israeli

WASHINGTON R EPORT

ON

M IDDLE E AST A FFAIRS

voters want, clearly, is precisely what is on offer: more dispossession of Palestinians, more home demolitions, more indiscriminate bombing campaigns, more shooting of protesters, more settlements, more restrictions on Gaza and on Palestinian life in general, and deeper and deeper inequality between Jews and non-Jews in Israel and in the territories over which it rules. The bloc led by Benny Gantz hardly offered much of a difference. Gantz’s own electoral campaign prominently featured a series of videos called “Only the Strong Survive,” which gloated over how many Palestinians the former army chief of staff had killed and how proud he was to have bombed parts of Gaza “back to the Stone Age.” One video limply offered, “It’s not shameful to be striving for peace.” In the end, Gantz’s tough-guy claims were clearly not enough to convince Israeli voters to depart from a wily politician they knew for a fact—because he’s been doing it for so long—would continue to subjugate the Palestinians. The takeaway from Israel’s election is simple: The two-state solution is dead. The voters reaffirmed the de facto or de jure realities Palestinians have long faced. Last year, Israel legally enshrined a Jewish nation-state law that formalized the superior status of Jews over non-Jews, officially relegating Arabic—the language spoken by the 20 percent of the state’s citizens who are Palestinian—to a secondary status, elided Palestinians’ ongoing presence in and claim to their ancestral land, directed the government to “encourage and promote” Jewish settlement and thereby further segregation, and declared that the right to self-determination in the state is reserved for Jews alone. Netanyahu himself announced on Instagram in March that Israel is “the nation state not of all its citizens but only of the Jewish people.” International law has a word to describe a state that discriminates along racial lines like this: apartheid. Two sets of numbers indicate how institutionalized this apartheid is. First, M AY 2019 OV-2

2019OVMay_r1.qxp_2019 May Other Voices Supplement 4/25/19 11:14 AM Page OV-3

although Israel exerts control over territory (including the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza) inhabited by around 13 million people, only 5.8 million—80 percent of them Jews, according to Israel’s Central Election Committee—are eligible voters. When you add to these shameful figures the millions of registered Palestinian refugees living outside Israel and the occupied territories, in enforced exile solely because Israel refuses to allow them to return home, the reality becomes even more stark: Israel’s elections, far from being legitimately democratic, are in fact a manifestation of minority rule. Millions of disenfranchised Palestinians have no say over the structures and patterns of their everyday lives. They are subject to whatever Jewish Israeli voters think they deserve, which is essentially further dehumanization. But if the Palestinians had the right to vote, what would they vote for? They may not have elections, but opinion polls consistently show that when asked which Palestinian leader they trust the most, the overwhelming winner (48 percent in the most recent poll conducted by the reputable Jerusalem Media and Communications Centre) is “none of the above.” And when asked which party they support, the answer is consistently neither Fatah, which controls the Palestinian Authority (28 percent), nor Hamas (10 percent), but “don’t trust anyone” (41 percent). A solid majority prefer negotiations to armed struggle and an increasing number want a single state, shared with Jews. (Only 0.4 percent want an Islamic state to replace Jewish state of Israel.) The takeaway from Israel’s election is simple: The two-state solution is dead. What remains is a single racist state whose beneficiaries are satisfied with their government and whose victims are deeply unhappy and desperate for something new: a transition from an apartheid state to a genuinely democratic one in which Palestinians are treated as equal citizens with Israeli Jews, not disenfranchised brutes. OV-3 M AY 2019

A

Saree Makdisi is a professor of English at UCLA. This op-ed was first published in the Los Angeles Times, April 10, 2019. Copyright © 2019. Reprinted with permission.

With Netanyahu Victory, It’s Time We Admit: Israel Has Become a Dictatorship BY BRADLEY BURSTON

I

f Binyamin Netanyahu manages to bribe his way to a ramshackle, immunity-from-prosecution coalition after his borderline showing in Tuesday’s election, we will all know one thing for sure: Israel has become a dictatorship. You need look no further than his Election Day obscenities of voter fraud and voter suppression. First to come to light was the operation in which Netanyahu’s Likud planted 1,200 hidden cameras in polling stations in Arab areas of Israel. Only in Arab areas. A Netanyahu classic. A totalitarian stroke of genius: Win Number 1: Soon after the polls open, the cameras are easily discovered, leading to national news bulletins, and focusing attention on the Likud’s role, thus burnishing Netanyahu’s standing among Arab-hating extreme right voters. Win Number 2: The revelations of the hidden cameras deter Israeli Arabs from coming to the polling stations, further depressing an already low voter turnout and placing Arab parties in danger of elimination from the Knesset. Win Number 3: Analysts note that a low Arab turnout could mathematically help far-right parties clear the vote minimum, entering the Knesset and thus helping form a new Netanyahu government. Win Number 4: Netanyahu publicly—and with a straight face—defends the use of the hidden cameras as a

SUPPLEMENT TO THE

WASHINGTON R EPORT

ON

means of ensuring a “kosher” election process. This breathes new life into news reports, further deterring Arab voters. But why stop there? In polling stations in Rishon Letzion, widely seen as a stronghold for Benny Gantz’s Kahol Lavan party, far and away Netanyahu’s chief rival, voters planning on voting for Gantz were shocked to find that all of the ballot slips bearing the Kahol Lavan symbol were missing from the polling booths and unavailable to voters. In other areas, Kahol Lavan ballot slips in the polling booths had been written on in writing small enough to be undetected by unsuspecting voters, but clear enough to be grounds for disqualifying the slips. But it was the election itself that provided the surest proof that Israel under his leadership has transitioned to dictatorship—the emergence of the equation under which Netanyahu hopes to trade annexation of West Bank settlements in exchange for immunity from prosecution. The list is endless, from exploiting the return of a fallen soldier’s remains for political advantage to hosting the Brazilian president—who stated, after a visit to Jerusalem’s Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial, that Nazism was a leftist movement. In the main, the campaign was marked by a monopolization and manipulation of media. Under the pressure of Netanyahu’s charges of bias and with the past knowledge that the prime minister could bring further harm to careers and media outlets, the media pushed back only meekly against a cascade of lies directed at Gantz. Not only were the full resources of Sheldon Adelson pressed to the max— the pre-election Friday edition of the billionaire’s Israel Hayom newspaper featured no fewer than 25 adoring photographs of the prime minister—but Netanyahu was everywhere, all the time, radio and television, wall to wall. At every turn, Netanyahu transgressed the rulings and regulations of the government elections oversight board and received not so much as a single slap on the wrist.

M IDDLE E AST A FFAIRS

O THER V OICES

2019OVMay_r1.qxp_2019 May Other Voices Supplement 4/25/19 11:14 AM Page OV-4

As the campaign regressed into the realm of the scarcely believable, Netanyahu defended unilateral decisions regarding what is arguably Israel’s most important single strategic weapon, its submarine fleet—decisions which circumvented and often contradicted his most senior defense officials. It became clearer and clearer as the campaign ground on that anyone who opposed him and his Likud, anyone who questioned his policies, had earned the worst four-letter expletive in the Hebrew language: “Smol,” Left, and thus sub-Israeli, enemies of the people and of the state. The subtext was clear: Netanyahu himself had become the state. On and on, the tools of the dictator became Netanyahu’s weapons of choice: In particular the diametric lie, that is, accusing the opposition of what the Likud did as a matter of course—for example, falsely accusing his opponents of branding him a traitor. Polls showed that large numbers of Israelis believed the Likud campaign’s lies and bogus accusations, among them the charge that Gantz’s wife was a radical leftist, that Gantz—who had served as Netanyahu’s army chief of staff—had attended a memorial ceremony for a Hamas terrorist, that Gantz was a sex offender, deviant, a mental patient and a traitor, ready and willing to help Israeli Arab politicians exterminate Israel. Perhaps most telling, though, was the prime minister’s performance on his most congenial of home turfs: The slavishly pro-Netanyahu television talk show anchored by Sharon Gal and Ran Rahav. Question: How many terms would you like? “As many as I want, and as many as I can serve,” Netanyahu replied, adding, half in jest, half not: “If I can, another 20 times. Twenty-five times.” Only once did Netanyahu seem stumped. It was when Rahav asked him what he replied to critics who said that Israel’s democracy was in danger, first and foremost because of attacks by Netanyahu and his allies on the Supreme O THER V OICES

A

SUPPLEMENT TO THE

Court and other basic institutions of governance. After a pause, Netanyahu’s answer was this: “I—uh—think that the danger is far greater danger if Gantz and Lapid will be in charge—and it’s Gantz and Lapid. Lapid is supposed to be prime minister. Maybe they’ll drop him at the last minute, as a trick. But Lapid is the one running things. Lapid will be prime minister here. Will Lapid stand up to Iran? Will Lapid sit beside Putin? Or opposite Trump? It’s a joke,” Netanyahu said, seeming, for a moment, to channel his friend Donald Trump. “But democracy?” he said at last. “It’s safe.”

This article was first published in Haaretz, April 10, 2019. Copyright © Haaretz Daily Newspaper Ltd. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Netanyahu Courts Trouble to Retain Political Power BY PAUL R. PILLAR

T

he direct, and still extreme, descendant of a U.S.-listed foreign terrorist organization is in position to become part of the next ruling coalition of Israel, and it has been put in that position at the urging of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. The organization is Otzma Yehudit, which translates as Jewish Power or Jewish Strength. It is the current political vehicle for unreconstructed followers of the late Meir Kahane, the radical Brooklyn-born rabbi and ultra-nationalist. Netanyahu, facing a challenge for the prime minister’s job in coming elections from former army chief Benny Gantz, has urged two other far-right parties to form a joint list with Otzma Yehudit for elections in April, lest none of the three parties reaches the 3.25 percent of the vote required to win seats in the Knesset. In his appeal this week to

WASHINGTON R EPORT

ON

M IDDLE E AST A FFAIRS

the party leaders, Netanyahu said, “If you don’t unite, you won’t pass the electoral threshold, the right-wing bloc will lose and Gantz will form a left-wing government with the support of the Arab parties.” The following day, Otzma Yehudit reached agreement with one of the other two parties, Jewish Home, on a joint list of candidates. Meir Kahane repeatedly demonstrated his penchant for violent extremism when he still resided in the United States. In 1971, he received a five-year suspended sentence for a bomb-making plot. He later was sentenced to a year in prison for violating the terms of his probation by smuggling arms from Israel and trying to instigate a bombing of the Iraqi Embassy. After relocating to Israel, Kahane founded Kach, a party that competed unsuccessfully in several elections before finally winning a single Knesset seat in 1984. Kahane and his followers meanwhile continued their violent activities, and Kahane was arrested multiple times. After an Egyptian-born gunman assassinated Kahane in New York in 1990, Kach split, with the offshoot group calling itself Kahane Chai (Kahane Lives). Both parties have been outlawed in Israel since the mid-1990s on the grounds that they are racist, and Kahane Chai is the group that still can be found on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations. The Kahane-associated parties were extreme even for Israeli politics 25 years ago, but the continued rightward drift of those politics has permitted a rebirth of the Kahanists. Otzma Yehudit exemplifies the sort of reincarnation of outlawed parties under a different name that has occurred elsewhere, such as with Islamist parties in Turkey. Otzma Yehudit embodies Kahane’s ideas and professes a fondness for his methods. The party calls for the annexation of the West Bank, undiluted Israeli rule over all the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River, and the expulsion of “enemies of Israel” to Arab countries. When the party’s current leader, Michael Ben-Ari, was invited to disavow Kahane’s racist ideolM AY 2019 OV-4

2019OVMay_r1.qxp_2019 May Other Voices Supplement 4/25/19 11:14 AM Page OV-5

ogy, he scoffed at the idea of doing so and said that Kahane was his rabbi and his teacher. Ben-Ari has argued for the removal of most Arabs from Israel. During the Israeli military attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2012, he said, “There are no innocents in Gaza, don’t let any diplomats who want to look good in the world endanger your lives—mow them down!” Another party leader and former aide to Kahane, Baruch Marzel, has organized parties to celebrate Baruch Goldstein, who in 1994 killed 29 Palestinians praying at Hebron’s Tomb of the Patriarchs. Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro has warned that any Kahanists who get elected to the Knesset might not be able to visit the United States because their precursor organization is on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations. Anyone who boosts the political fortunes of the Kahanists might also violate the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act by providing material support to a terrorist organization. Netanyahu’s effort to boost rightwing parties over the electoral threshold and thereby help form a majority in the Knesset is, of course, all about the prime minister trying to hang on to power. But the effort also says something about the current political spectrum in Israel. What might have been isolated and dismissed as a fringe 25 years ago no longer is. There certainly are critical voices in Israel disparaging the idea of Netanyahu getting into bed with Otzma Yehudit, but the prime minister is a smart politician. He evidently has calculated that whatever he loses from such criticism is more than offset by the prospect of a few extra Knesset seats that could become part of a governing coalition that will be at least as far to the extreme right as his current coalition is.

Paul R. Pillar, non-resident senior fellow at the Center for Security Studies of Georgetown University and an associate fellow of the Geneva Center for Security Policy, retired in 2005 from a 28-year career in the U.S. intelligence community. This blog was first posted on <http:// OV-5 M AY 2019

A

nationalinterest.org>, Feb. 26, 2019. Copyright © 2019 Center for the National Interest. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Why I’m Glad Netanyahu Won BY DR. JAMES J. ZOGBY

I

’m glad Binyamin Netanyahu won re-election. Since I realize that saying this won’t sit well with many folks, let me explain: As the election developed, it became clear that Benny Gantz, the leader of the opposition “Blue and White” coalition, for a number of reasons, had come to be seen as the darling of the liberal set—especially here in the U.S. Some, for example, were justifiably upset by Netanyahu’s gross corruption or unnerved by his authoritarian actions designed to intimidate the press, silence non-governmental organizations, and strip the courts of their power. Others were optimistic that should Gantz win, Israel’s image would improve in the U.S. and there would be the possibility of a “reset” in the U.S.Israel relationship. One publication described a Gantz victory as creating “a fresh slate and an opportunity to re-energize support for Israel.” Driving this support for Gantz was the concern of liberal Democrats who have been troubled by recent polls showing a significant erosion of support for Israel among core Democratic constituents—especially millennial and minority voters—including American Jewish millennials. This growing alienation from Israel has in part been due to both Netanyahu’s repressive policies and his close relationship with Donald Trump. There could be no doubt that Trump had been excessive in his support for his Israeli partner: canceling the Iran Deal; moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem; the “gift” of the Golan Heights; cutting all U.S. aid to the Palestinians; and remaining silent in the face of settlement expansion and Netanyahu’s declared intent to apply Israeli sovereignty to West Bank settlements. This virtual

SUPPLEMENT TO THE

WASHINGTON R EPORT

ON

Trump/Netanyahu marriage most certainly had a role to play in the embrace of Gantz by many liberals. Because American liberals have embraced the mantra of a “two-state solution” and see Netanyahu’s aggressive settlement construction and his pledge to “annex” the settlements as obstacles to that goal, they also fretted that a Netanyahu victory might spell the end of their idea of two states—one “Jewish and democratic” and one for the Palestinians. At the same time, American Jews had an additional frustration with Netanyahu as a result of his accommodation of the illiberal policies of Israel’s ultra-Orthodox religious community on issues of marriage, conversion and women’s rights. It was in this context that Gantz became the “great hope.” I, however, never believed that he was. In the first place, on the issue that mattered most to the future of peace— the treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories—there was little that separated Netanyahu from Gantz. In fact, Gantz’ opening campaign advertisement featured Gaza in rubble (Gantz had been in charge of the most brutal and devastating of the Gaza wars), boasting that he had reduced parts of Gaza “back to the Stone Age.” And right before the election, an American Jewish publication reported on a Gantz speech laying out his “seven pillars” for peace with the Palestinians: “he said his priority was to ensure a Zionist ‘end state’—Jewish and Democratic—and not a binational state, while keeping the Jordan Valley, a united Jerusalem, and modifying the 1967 lines...I don’t want to rule the Palestinians.” In addition to these goals, he added keeping the settlements and maintaining security control west of the Jordan River. In other words, Gantz might have been a “fresh face,” but, on the central issue of dealing with Palestinians and the occupied territories, he was no different than the prime minister he was seeking to replace. In addition to the positions he espoused, I felt that it was important to

M IDDLE E AST A FFAIRS

O THER V OICES

2019OVMay_r1.qxp_2019 May Other Voices Supplement 4/25/19 11:14 AM Page OV-6

look at the composition of the governing coalition Gantz would have assembled had he emerged victorious. While the press routinely referred to Gantz as the “center-left” candidate, in reality, only a small fraction of his potential partners could be seen as “left.” In fact, most of his eventual partners were quite comfortable with Gantz’s “seven pillars.” And because Israeli politics have moved so far to the right, even if he had won the opportunity to form a government, Gantz never could have assembled a coalition of 61 Knesset members without adding the parties representing the Palestinian citizens of Israel—something that, early on, Gantz had said he would never do. This avoidance of Arabs was in response to the negative anti-Arab campaign waged by Netanyahu. Recognizing that Gantz couldn’t have formed a government without Arab support or acquiescence, Netanyahu advanced the slogan that the voters’ choice was “Bibi (Netanyahu’s nickname) or Tibi” (referring to Ahmed Tibi, the leader of one of the Arab parties). Instead of pushing back against this patently racist Arabbaiting, Gantz made a pledge not to consult with the Arab parties in the Knesset or include them in his government. With Netanyahu back for his fifth term as prime minister, liberals must now face reality. They can no longer see Israel as a romanticized “idea” of a progressive state governed by liberal values. Rather it has demonstrated that it is an illiberal ethno-nationalist society that has applied an apartheid-like repressive system to enable their continued rule over a captive Palestinian people. Liberals may continue to say that they oppose settlements and seek a two-state solution. But here, too, they will now have to confront reality. The settlement expansion that occurred on their watch, and which they took no concrete steps to curtail, has made a two-state solution impossible to implement. And, they must now admit that Netanyahu, who for years they tolerated and even feted, has in reality “played them like a fiddle.” This won’t come easily. O THER V OICES

A

SUPPLEMENT TO THE

It was interesting to watch how a few leading liberal pundits and Democratic elected officials reacted during and after this election. When it appeared that Gantz might win, they felt that it was safe to denounce Netanyahu and even call him a racist; now with Netanyahu emerging as the victor, they have flipped on a dime, congratulating him on his victory and pledging to work with him to implement the two-state solution—some illusions do die hard. But with Netanyahu expected to continue his extremist anti-Palestinian, antipeace, anti-rule of law and pro-Trump agendas, the debate about Israel here in the U.S. will intensify. Because the base of the Democratic Party has awakened to the realities of the occupation and is deeply offended by everything both Netanyahu and Trump stand for, several developments can be expected. The rift between the base of the Democratic Party and its elected officials will continue to grow. This will take the form of candidates for higher office increasingly being called to account for their failure to challenge Israeli behaviors. The debate within the American Jewish community will also intensify, with liberal Jews forced to re-examine their views of Israel and their support for the policies of that state. As a result of these developments, the Democratic Party is moving toward becoming the anti-Netanyahu, anti-settlements, antiannexation party—with an increasing number of Democrats even voicing support for cutting aid to Israel and advocating for the rights of citizens to support the BDS movement. We are on the threshold of a major change in how Israel will play out in American politics. I’m afraid that it has come too late to save the two states that were envisioned by the long dead Oslo accords. But it is a good thing that we will now finally be able to have an honest debate about the dreadful situation created by American complicity in enabling Israel’s continued oppression of Palestinians. This debate might have been aborted for a time had Gantz won. The occupation and settlements would have continued—but liberals would WASHINGTON R EPORT

ON

M IDDLE E AST A FFAIRS

have been less inclined to challenge him. With Netanyahu back, the debate will be energized. It might be late in the game, but better late than never.

Dr. James J. Zogby is president of the Arab American Institute. This article was first posted on <www.aaiusa.org>, April 20, 2019. Copyright © 2009 - 2019 Arab American Institute. Reprinted with permission.

Great March of Return Is Palestinians’ Cry For Justice BY RAMZY BAROUD

T

he aims of the Great March of Return protests, which began in Gaza on March 30 last year, are to put an end to the suffocating Israeli siege and implement the right of return for Palestinian refugees who were expelled from their homes and towns in historic Palestine 70 years ago. But there is much more to the protests than a few demands, especially bearing in mind the high human cost associated with them. According to Gaza’s Ministry of Health, more than 250 people have been killed and 6,500 wounded, including children, medics and journalists. Aside from the disproportionately covered “flaming kites” and youths symbolically cutting through the metal fences that have caged them for many years, the marches have been largely nonviolent. Despite this, Israel has killed and maimed protesters with impunity. A U.N. human rights commission of inquiry found last month that Israel may have committed war crimes, resulting in the deaths of 189 Palestinians, within the period March 30 to Dec. 31. The inquiry found “reasonable grounds to believe that Israeli snipers shot at children, medics and journalists, even though they were clearly recognizable as such,” the investigators concluded. M AY 2019 OV-6

2019OVMay_r1.qxp_2019 May Other Voices Supplement 4/25/19 11:14 AM Page OV-7

Many in the media, however, still do not understand what the Great March of Return really means for Palestinians. A cynically titled report in The Washington Post attempted to offer an answer. The article, “Gazans have paid in blood for a year of protests. Now many wonder what it was for,” selectively quoted wounded Palestinians who, supposedly, feel that their sacrifices were in vain. Aside from providing the Israeli military with a platform to blame Hamas for the year-long march, the long report ended with these two quotes: The March of Return “achieved nothing,” according to one injured Palestinian. And “the only thing I can find is that it made people pay attention,” said another. If The Washington Post paid attention, it would have realized that the mood among Palestinians is neither cynical nor despairing. The Post should have wondered: If the march had “achieved nothing,” then why are Gazans still protesting, and why has the popular and inclusive nature of the march not been compromised? Sabreen Al-Najjar, the mother of young Palestinian medic Razan, who was fatally shot by the Israeli army while trying to help wounded protesters, wrote in the Independent last week: “The right of return is more than a political position, more than a principle: Wrapped up in it, and reflected in literature and art and music, is the essence of what it means to be Palestinian. It is in our blood.” Indeed, what is the Great March of Return but a people attempting to reclaim their role, and be recognized and heard in the struggle for the liberation of Palestine? What is largely missing from the discussion on Gaza is the collective psychology behind this kind of mobilization, and why it is essential for hundreds of thousands of besieged people to rediscover their power and understand their true position, not as hapless victims, but as agents of change in their society. The narrow reading, or the misrepresentation, of the Great March of Return OV-7 M AY 2019

A

speaks volumes about the overall underestimation of the role of the Palestinian people in their struggle for freedom, justice and national liberation. The story of Palestine is the story of the Palestinian people, for they are the victims of oppression and the main channel of resistance, starting with the Nakba—the creation of Israel on the ruins of Palestinian towns and villages in 1948. Had Palestinians not resisted, their story would have concluded then, and they would have disappeared. Those who admonish Palestinian resistance or, like the Post, fail to understand the underlying value of popular movement and sacrifices, have little understanding of the psychological ramifications of resistance—the sense of collective empowerment and hope that spreads among the people. In his introduction to Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth, Jean-Paul Sartre describes resistance, as was passionately vindicated by Fanon, as a process through which “a man is recreating himself.” For 70 years, Palestinians have embarked on that journey of recreation of the self. They have resisted, and their resistance in all of its forms has molded a sense of collective unity, despite the numerous divisions that were erected among the people. The Great March of Return is the latest manifestation of the ongoing Palestinian resistance. It is obvious that elitist interpretations of Palestine have failed—Oslo proved a worthless exercise in empty clichés, aimed at sustaining American political dominance in Palestine as well as in the rest of the Middle East. The signing of the Oslo I Accord in 1993 shattered the relative cohesiveness of the Palestinian discourse, thus weakening and dividing the Palestinian people. In the Israeli Zionist narrative, Palestinians are depicted as drifting lunatics, an inconvenience that hinders the path of progress: A description that regularly defined the relationship between every Western colonial power and the colonized, resisting natives. Within some Israeli political and academic circles, Palestinians merely “existed” to be “cleansed,” to make room

SUPPLEMENT TO THE

WASHINGTON R EPORT

ON

for a different, more deserving people. From the Zionist perspective, the “existence” of the natives is meant to be temporary. “We must expel Arabs and take their place,” wrote Israel’s founding father, David Ben-Gurion. Assigning the roles of being dislocated, disinherited and nomadic to the Palestinian people, without consideration for the ethical and political implications of such a perception, has erroneously presented Palestinians as a docile and submissive collective. Hence, it is imperative that we develop a clearer understanding of the layered meanings behind the Great March of Return. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza did not risk life and limb over the last year simply because they required urgent medicine and food supplies. They did so because they understand their centrality in their struggle. Their protests are a collective statement, a cry for justice, an ultimate reclamation of their narrative as a people—still standing, still powerful and still hopeful after 70 years of Nakba, 50 years of military occupation and 12 years of unrelenting siege.

Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of Palestine Chronicle. His latest book is The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story (available from Middle East Books and More). This article was first posted on <www.ramzybaroud.net>, April 3, 2019. © Copyright 2010-2019 Ramzy Baroud.net. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

How the Left Also Dehumanizes Palestinians in Gaza BY SUSAN ABULHAWA

A

long the political spectrum, from the far left to extreme right, and spanning racial and ethnic lines, nearly everyone who has something to say about protesters in Gaza seems to fail the task of recogniz-

M IDDLE E AST A FFAIRS

O THER V OICES

2019OVMay_r1.qxp_2019 May Other Voices Supplement 4/25/19 11:14 AM Page OV-8

ing Palestinian humanity. If it’s coming from the right, the narrative is of terrorists, rockets and Hamas, a legitimate Palestinian resistance fully cemented as the Boogieman in the Western imagination. From the left, the stories are the stuff of legends, portraying unfathomable Palestinian heroism, courage and “sumud,” an Arabic word romanticized in English to convey epic Palestinian steadfastness. At both ends of the spectrum, defenseless Palestinians are larger than life, unlike other humans, either superhumanly posing a threat to highly armed soldiers several football fields away, or displaying supernatural courage and fearlessness before near-certain death. The latter narrative, which manages to sentimentalize unspeakable misery, is so enticing that even Palestinians have taken up this framing.

NOTHING TO LOSE Just days ago, I watched a video of a young man who was shot in the legs. He limps along, falls and gets up, only to be shot again. The scene repeats over five or six bullets before the man cannot get up again and others come to evacuate him. The headline and comments extolled the “brave young man” who continued to stand up to his oppressor despite being hit multiple times in his legs. As a Palestinian mother, I saw something else in that man, young enough to be my son. Maybe he was utterly divested of hope and robbed of the will to live a life encased in the barbaric, malicious, and creative savagery of Israel’s siege on Gaza. A young man who has probably known little more than fear, despair, want, and impotence to do anything. Maybe a young man with nothing to lose, someone already bled of his rightful life, attempting a single moment of dignity in defiance, knowing, and maybe hoping, it would be his last. And maybe this is what the soldier saw, and chose instead to add the trauma of amputated limbs to a tortured man feebly raising a small rock with no will or energy to even throw it. Maybe his motivation was nationalO THER V OICES

A

SUPPLEMENT TO THE

ism. Maybe it was the hope of securing money for his family following his martyrdom or injury. Maybe he thought his death would give his people an inch toward liberty. Maybe it was the only thing left for him to do. We cannot know what is in the hearts of those who put their bodies between bullets and despair. But we can be sure that their motivations are painfully human. There is nothing godlike to see or fetishize.

REDUCTIVE ANALYSES There is no doubting the courage required to stand up to hateful, murderous Israelis, but narratives that imbue Palestinians with mythical bravery are harmful. They propose an otherworldly ability to withstand what no human should be forced to withstand, and they obscure the very human and very dark reality of life in Gaza, which has led to rates of suicide never before seen in Palestinian society. Individuals in Gaza have different reasons for joining the Great March of Return, but the prevailing analyses are reductive, often coupling epic Palestinian bravery with nonviolent resistance, because Western imaginary cannot abide armed resistance, no matter how enduring or merciless the violence inflicted on them. The kind of heroism that is connected with guns is the exclusive purview of Western soldiers. The only moral resistance available for the oppressed in the Western psyche is exclusively nonviolent. This means that the case for Palestinian liberty and dignity collapses the minute we fly an incendiary kite or fire a rocket toward a state that has been eviscerating Palestinian society and Palestinian bodies for decades. We see the same phenomenon around reactions in the United States when Black Americans rise up and do not perfectly conform to “peaceful” and “nonviolent” protest, despite the centuries of denigration and marginalization they have endured. It does not help that even some Palestinians reinforce this notion by dismissing Hamas or downplaying any form of armed resistance as outliers in an otherwise ideal and tidy protest of a WASHINGTON R EPORT

ON

M IDDLE E AST A FFAIRS

preternaturally strong and valiant oppressed people.

GAZA IS A DEATH CAMP But the truth must be said, and the truth is abysmally ugly and bleak. There is nothing for the world to romanticize in Gaza. Nothing to idealize. Gaza is a death camp. Death and suppression technology is “the Jewish Nation’s” single greatest export and Gaza is the human laboratory where Israeli arms manufacturers fine-tune their wares on the bodies, psyches and spirits of Palestinians. It is a wretched existence that spares none of the two million prisoners in that concentration camp. Israel has turned Gaza, once a great city at the intersection of trade across three continents, into a black hole of dreams. Gaza is hope’s coffin, an incinerator of human potential and extinguisher of promise. People can barely breathe in Gaza. They cannot work, cannot leave, cannot study, cannot build, cannot heal. By all accounts, the tiny Strip is unlivable, literally unfit to sustain life. Nearly 100 percent of the water is undrinkable. Youth unemployment is so high that it makes more sense to measure employment, which stands at a pathetic 30 percent. Approximately 80 percent of the population lives below the poverty line. Most residents get just a few hours of electricity every day. The sewage system has collapsed. The healthcare system has been stretched to its breaking point and hospitals are closing for lack of vital supplies and fuel, which Israel often prevents Palestinians from buying or even receiving from donors. This ineffable misery is intentional. Israel designed and made it. And the world allows it to persist.

DISCOURSE OF “SUMUD” When our lives, resistance and struggle are framed in mythical terms, not only does it obscure our humanity, but it diminishes the depravity of Israel’s control over millions of Palestinian lives. The discourse of sumud set us up for failure at every turn. On one hand, it supposes that Palestinians can endure anything. On the other hand, it suffuses the unutM AY 2019 OV-8

2019OVMay_r1.qxp_2019 May Other Voices Supplement 4/25/19 11:14 AM Page OV-9

tered assumption that Palestinians deserve to be free because we are good, brave, nonviolent and steadfast. But the truth is that we are nothing more, or less, than human. We are collectively neither monsters nor heroes, and even the worst of us are entitled to live free of foreign occupation. It must be said again and again that our struggle against our tormentors is legitimate in every form, whether nonviolent or violent. It must be said again and again that however we fight, our resistance is always self-defense. It must be said again and again that our right to life and dignity is not predicated on measures of our collective goodness, bravery or steadfastness. Ultimately, the left must stop fabulizing Palestinians and instead look squarely into the gruesomeness of the despair and anguish of Gaza, which I suspect most of us cannot even imagine.

Susan Abulhawa is a Palestinian writer and the author of the international bestselling novel Mornings in Jenin (available from Middle East Books and More). She is also the founder of Playgrounds for Palestine, an NGO for children. This article was first posted on <www.aljazeera.com>, April 12, 2019. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance. Copyright © 2019 Al Jazeera Media Network. Reprinted with permission.

It’s Time to Hold The Israeli Football Association To Account BY MAHMOUD SARSAK

T

en years ago, I was a professional football player and a member of the Palestinian national football team at the peak of my career. But on July 22, 2009, Israeli soldiers arrested me while crossing from Gaza to the West Bank to play a match. Israel not only robbed me of my career and my passion, but also my freedom.

OV-9 M AY 2019

A

The Israeli authorities accused me of being a “terrorist”—a claim which remained completely unsubstantiated and unproven right up to the day I was released—three years later. During the final stages of my wrongful imprisonment, I spent three months on hunger strike. Throughout my ordeal, I received many messages of support from athletes across the world who called for my immediate release. When you are stripped of your rights, unlawfully imprisoned and banned from seeing your family and friends, global solidarity like the kind that I received during those dark days is incredibly important. But the need for solidarity with Palestinian football players, and the Palestinian people as a whole, did not end when I walked out of Israeli prison. In fact, that solidarity is needed now more than ever. I was not the first and will not be the last Palestinian football player who has been the subject of Israeli repression. Just over a year ago on March 30, 2018, the career of promising young Palestinian football player Muhammad Khalil Obeid was destroyed in a flash when he was shot in both knees by Israeli snipers while he was peacefully protesting as part of the Great March of Return. And in January this year, a number of Palestinian football players were injured when Israeli forces fired tear gas into the stadium they were playing in—for absolutely no reason. When you live under military occupation, the oppressive regime infects every aspect of your life—from sport to education, from your culture to your home. Endless restrictions on freedom of movement, access to resources and fundamental civil liberties make engaging in sport a constant struggle for Palestinians—these violations of rights are totally incompatible with the principle of sport being accessible to all. Today marks the U.N. International Day of Sport for Development and Peace. It is a great opportunity to reflect on how sport can be used as a vehicle for positive change in the world around us and how Israel, instead of doing so, is using sport to perpetuate its

SUPPLEMENT TO THE

WASHINGTON R EPORT

ON

crimes against the Palestinian people. The Israeli Football Association (IFA) includes football clubs based in illegal Israeli settlements, training and playing matches on stolen Palestinian land. Israeli settlements are illegal land grabs that form an integral part of Israel’s occupation infrastructure pushing indigenous Palestinian families off of their land, robbing Palestinians of natural resources and denying them their right of movement. Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are considered war crimes under international law. In this sense, the IFA is clearly in breach of FIFA rules, which prohibit a member association holding competitions on the territory of another without permission. A comprehensive report by Human Rights Watch said that by allowing the IFA to hold matches on stolen Palestinian land, FIFA is enabling business activity that supports the illegal settlements more broadly and, in doing so, is in violation of its own human rights commitments. Over the past few years there have been growing calls for FIFA to take action and suspend IFA’s membership until Israel complies with international law, but this demand has consistently been ignored. Meanwhile, IFA has refused to take measures to end its complicity in war crimes, despite being repeatedly condemned by U.N. advisers, dozens of elected officials, public figures and civil society and human rights groups. It is, therefore, imperative that all individuals and organizations who believe in freedom, justice and equality hold the IFA to account for its actions, and refuse to work with its representatives until it ends its complicity in crimes against the Palestinian people. In particular, IFA’s main sponsor, German sportswear manufacturer Puma, needs to take action. Just last summer, Adidas announced it was ending its sponsorship of IFA following a sustained campaign by activists and athletes across the world. Over 200 Palestinian sports clubs have already called on Puma to end its support for Israel’s military occupation by terminating its sponsorship

M IDDLE E AST A FFAIRS

O THER V OICES

2019OVMay_r1.qxp_2019 May Other Voices Supplement 4/25/19 11:14 AM Page OV-10

deal with the IFA, and we must continue to lobby the German company until it decides to fully abide by its stated commitment to human rights. As someone who has experienced first-hand the devastating impact Israel’s regime has on access to sport, I urge all organizations who work with Puma to call for an end to its sponsorship of the IFA and, if it does not answer these calls, to cease all partnerships with Puma until it does. I also urge all those who believe in freedom, justice and equality for all to join the growing global campaign to get Puma to stand on the right side of the history by ending its complicity in human rights violations against the Palestinians. Though Israel robbed me of my career and my freedom, they will not rob me, or any other Palestinian, of our determination to attain the rights and freedoms that we are owed.

Mahmoud Sarsak is a Palestinian soccer player who has played for the Palestinian national team. This article was first posted on <www.aljazeera.com>, April 6, 2019. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance. Copyright © 2019 Al Jazeera Media Network. Reprinted with permission.

Airbnb Officially Reverses Decision To Pull out of Israeli Settlements BY JONATHAN OFIR

I

f you wanted a statement on a controversial issue regarding Israel obscured by events, the date you would choose for it is the day of Israeli elections. Everyone is now gazing at the apparent results, which indicate a major win for Netanyahu’s Likud. Who will notice the fact that Airbnb just officially declared that it will continue doing business in illegal Israeli settlements, in reversal of its announced decision from November to

O THER V OICES

A

SUPPLEMENT TO THE

pull out of these settlements in the occupied West Bank? Airbnb has made maddening rhetorical somersaults in order to both have its settlement cake and eat it too. First it announced its decision to pull out, pre-empting a Human Rights Watch report on this dirty business (the report also cited Booking.com, which pleaded the 5th). Then Airbnb seemed to reverse its decision following meetings with Israeli government officials, calling the issue “complex and emotional,” offering contradictory statements that were neither here nor there. Meanwhile, in January, an Amnesty International report about this business pattern came out, emphasizing the brokers’ complicity in war crimes, also bringing into focus other companies such as TripAdvisor and Expedia. After the announced decision to pull out in November, Israeli lawyers filed a class action suit against Airbnb. And yesterday [April 9], Airbnb caved in to these pressures: “Airbnb will not move forward with implementing the removal of listings in the West Bank from the platform,” the company said in a news release, as reported by Al Jazeera. The company said the agreement settled all legal actions brought by hosts and potential hosts who went to court. Airbnb is now trying to whitewash its crime by charity. Stating that it “will take no profits from this activity in the region,” the company claims that profit generated from its listings in the West Bank will be donated to nonprofit groups dedicated to humanitarian aid in various parts of the world. But this is really like Pilate ritually washing his hands. Arvind Ganesan of Human Rights Watch: Donating profits from unlawful settlement listings, as they’ve promised to do, does nothing to remedy the “human suffering” they have acknowledged that their activities cause. By continuing to do business in settlements, they remain complicit in the abuses settlements trigger. Airbnb has had its chance. It initially attempted to avert bad PR by declaring its “good intention” to pull out of (some) settlements, but then didn’t folWASHINGTON R EPORT

ON

M IDDLE E AST A FFAIRS

low through. It caved into political and, let us not forget, economic pressure, and decided that it was not worth the trouble. Throughout the process since the initial declaration, it has been demonstrating weakness and cowardice, manifested in weak and contradictory statements, until it now officially declared that it will not realize its intention. And it did this on the day where it would be least noticed, as everyone is looking at the Israeli elections. Airbnb, with all its earlier declared good intentions, will remain knowingly complicit in war crimes, and this process leaves it as a symbol of surrender to Israeli criminality. If Airbnb was not a major target for popular boycott, this chain of events now places it front and center as such. No charity actions will whitewash this crime. (Hat/tip to Nasser Butt)

Jonathan Ofir is an Israeli musician, conductor and blogger/writer based in Denmark. This article was first posted on <http://mondo weiss.net>, April 10, 2019. Copyright © 2019 Mondoweiss. Reprinted with permission.

Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib Show Muslim Women Don’t Need Saving BY SAHAR AZIZ

T

he image of a Muslim woman conjures up stereotypes of meek, subjugated women in need of saving. The arrival of Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib to the American political scene, however, has exposed the fallacy of these gender stereotypes. Their brash, fearless and irreverent responses to the heightened scrutiny of their every word show how these two Muslim women are poking American patriarchy in the eye. M AY 2019 OV-10

2019OVMay_r1.qxp_2019 May Other Voices Supplement 4/25/19 11:14 AM Page OV-11

Not only are Omar and Tlaib shattering the image of the powerless Muslim woman in distress, but they are breaking taboos that have long suppressed all women in the United States. Tlaib curses like a sailor while in the same breath declaring her intent to impeach a notoriously misogynistic U.S. president. Omar unabashedly questions powerful white male elites like Elliot Abrams at Foreign Relations Committee hearings. And both women are unafraid to defend the human rights of Palestinians, the most vilified people in U.S. media, contrary to the advice of their senior colleagues. As a result, our predominantly white patriarchal political elite are having a meltdown. Refusing to be instrumentalized by superficial notions of diversity that exoticize and infantilize minority women, Tlaib and Omar vocally challenge the power structure. A case in point is Tlaib’s reference to President Donald Trump as a m********* at a bar after her confirmation. Her words triggered tens of media stories despite more pressing issues like a government shutdown. The disproportionate attention evinced the depth of our society’s infantilization of Muslim women. Male politicians curse and they are just engaging in “locker room talk.” But when women curse, they are dishonorable—a tripe framing used to silence women around the world. Indeed, President Trump reprimanded Tlaib by calling her comments disgraceful and lamenting, “she dishonored herself, and I think she dishonored her family using language like that…I thought it was highly disrespectful to the United States of America.” These patronizing words came from the same man who was caught on tape stating he grabbed women by their genitals and forcibly kissed them and who has called women fat, bimbos, and rated them on the size of their breasts. That Trump was still elected president notwithstanding such lewd behavior, not to mention his use of profanity on a regular basis, is further proof of misogynistic double standards OV-11 M AY 2019

A

infecting our political system. Another case in point is Ilhan Omar’s reference to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in a tweet. Along with Tlaib, Omar is a supporter of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign, which emulates the South African anti-apartheid movement in the use of nonviolent divestment as a political tactic to oppose the Israeli government’s violation of Palestinian civil and human rights. When Omar responded “AIPAC” to a question on Twitter about whom she “thinks is paying American politicians to be pro-Israel,” her tweet triggered a common anti-Muslim trope—the antiSemite. Alongside the oppressed Muslim woman, Islamophobia perpetuates a stereotype that Muslims are inherently violent and anti-Semitic. These Islamophobic stereotypes contribute to the erasure and delegitimization of Palestinian experiences from mainstream discussions in the U.S. about the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. They lead to the vilification of Arab and Muslim American academics on blacklists reminiscent of the McCarthyist era. Islamophobia also fed the attacks on both Omar and Tlaib during their campaigns and after the elections. At a campaign event in August 2018, for example, the two Muslim women were subjected to a diatribe by a conservative activist, calling the activists “jihadi” and accusing them of supporting “terrorists.” And when, after her election, Omar sought to remove the prohibition on headwear on the House floor, conservative pastor E.W. Jackson said: “The floor of Congress is now going to look like an Islamic republic. We are a JudeoChristian country. We are a nation rooted and grounded in Christianity and that’s that…Don’t try to change our country into some sort of Islamic republic or try to base our country on Sharia law.” While the anti-Semitic trope of a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world is real, both past and present, to analogize it to criticism of AIPAC is a red herring.

SUPPLEMENT TO THE

WASHINGTON R EPORT

ON

Like any other lobbying firm in Washington, AIPAC seeks to influence politicians on the Hill and in the White House pursuant to its motto “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby.” To its credit, AIPAC is one of the most successful lobbying groups alongside the National Rifle Association, Koch Industries, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. AIPAC boasts significant political influence arising from its over $3.5 million annual investment in lobbying. Indeed, AIPAC astutely leveraged the controversy over Omar’s tweet to ask its supporters to donate, declaring: “We are determined to continue our bipartisan efforts in support of the shared values that unite America and Israel.” The aspersions cast on Ilhan Omar’s character bring into sharp relief the ways in which allegations of antiSemitism are frequently used to silence Muslims with dissident views, and when these are coupled with misogyny, Muslim women become easy targets. Tropes of the “bad girl” are weaponized to police women’s speech and behavior. Men exploit arbitrary civility codes to chastise women and minorities who do not accommodate existing power structures. Any expression of anger, indignation or rebuke of the status quo is quickly reprimanded—hence the calls on Omar to resign, while dozens of white male Republican politicians peddle Islamophobia on a regular basis. To be sure, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib will continue to be caught in the crosshairs of Islamophobia and American misogyny. But like the millions of other confident, ambitious, smart Muslim women in the U.S., they are up to the task. And for those who cannot accept Omar and Tlaib’s presence on Capitol Hill, Omar has some advice: “You’re gonna have to just deal.”

Sahar Aziz is professor of law and Chancellor’s Social Justice Scholar at Rutgers Law School. This article was first posted on <www.aljazeera.com>, Feb. 26, 2019. The

M IDDLE E AST A FFAIRS

O THER V OICES

2019OVMay_r1.qxp_2019 May Other Voices Supplement 4/25/19 11:14 AM Page OV-12

views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance. Copyright © 2019 Al Jazeera Media Network. Reprinted with permission.

Do Members of Congress Take Too Many Private Trips to Israel With AIPAC? BY GRANT F. SMITH

O

ne of every three members of Congress boarding a jetliner on a privately funded all-expense-paid trip overseas has Israel as their final destination. Only one out of a hundred ever visits Palestinian territories as a final destination. Analysis of Gift Travel Filings made to the U.S. House of Representatives Office of the Clerk over the past halfdecade reveals Israel is far and away their top foreign destination. House of Representatives members made nearly 1,400 trips to Israel, while total subsidized visits to foreign countries other than Israel were 2,500. The vast majority of Israel trips are funded by the American Israel Education Foundation, which raises tax-exempt contributions from pro-Israel donors and Jewish federations. They typically last eight days and cost $10,000. AIEF is a corporation created in 1988 by the domestically registered lobbying group AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In 2009 66 percent of AIEF’s board was comprised of AIPAC directors. Since AIEF is merely a lobbying funding conduit with no employees, whenever members of Congress travel to Israel they are accompanied instead by staffers from AIPAC. In 2017 AIEF reported raising $60 million in revenue and expending $57 million. Another sole-purpose entity set up by AIPAC in 1984 is the Washington Institute for Near East PolO THER V OICES

A

SUPPLEMENT TO THE

icy, which works to portray policies favored by the Israeli government as being in the American interest. AIPAC differs from many other groups funding private trips because of its foundational foreign ties. AIPAC lobbying began in earnest in the 1950s by a former employee of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs—Isaiah Kenen—who received ongoing payments from Israel to set up public relations and lobbying in the U.S. Kenen was paid by the Israeli government to receive congressional delegations in Israel after major aid packages were passed into law. Late in 1962, the umbrella organization in which AIPAC served as the lobby division was ordered by the Justice Department to register as an Israeli foreign agent. Six weeks later AIPAC incorporated and filed for tax-exempt status as a religious charity. These historic facts never appear in mainstream reports about AIPAC. A typical AIEF itinerary consists of numerous briefings by Israeli government officials, trips to historical sites, and lavish restaurant visits and hotel stays. Absent from the itineraries are any briefings on Israel’s nuclear weapons triad or meaningful visits to Palestinian refugees. This leaves members of Congress with a highly distorted view of one of the world’s longest-running and most contentious issues, and inflated views of Israel’s military vulnerability. Disproportionate numbers of trips to Israel are one major reason Congress has given the country over $250 billion since 1948, more than was given Europe to rebuild under the Marshall Plan. Members reported privately sponsored visits to the Palestinian territories in only two of the past five years. In 2015, 30 members of Congress traveled under sponsorship of the American Global Institute; Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy. In 2016 10 members traveled under the same sponsor. Members of the House of Representatives also visit foreign countries on official, taxpayer-funded trips. ConWASHINGTON R EPORT

ON

M IDDLE E AST A FFAIRS

gressional records of official trips reveal that in 2018 members made approximately 250 trips, most lasting only a few days, with two countries visited per trip. Committee on Agriculture member trips focused on important buyer countries such as Canada and South Korea. House Armed Services Committee travel centered on Japan, South Korea and the Middle East. Members of the House Financial Services Committee visited mostly European nations. Members reported only 13 official trips to Israel and none to Palestinian territories in 2018. This should concern Americans. It means their representatives in Congress almost never have an opportunity to make unguided, adversarial, official assessments in Israel, much less Palestinian territories. However, members can no longer justify the minuscule number of trips to Palestinian territory as a constituent mandate. When asked, 41.2 percent of American adults recently polled said members making visits to Israel should also visit “territories where Palestinians expelled during Israel’s creation live.” Though not as statistically relevant as the overall poll results, demographic filtering reveals younger and older adults are generally more supportive of Palestinian territory visits. In the 18-24 category, 45.7 percent favored such visits, while in the 25-34 age group 46 percent were supportive of Congress members visiting Palestine. 55-64 year-olds and the 65+ category also had higher favorability to the idea. If private groups provided fact-finding trips to Palestinian territories at a rate commensurate with quantifiable public interest, members would have taken 567 such visits between 20142018. Whether meaningful numbers would be courageous enough to go on such trips—officially or privately funded—is an open question. Freshman Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib floated the idea of an official delegation visit to the West Bank, telling the Intercept, “They don’t show the side that I know is real, which is what’s hapM AY 2019 OV-12

2019OVMay_r1.qxp_2019 May Other Voices Supplement 4/25/19 11:14 AM Page OV-13

pening to my grandmother and what’s happening to my family there.” But such trips would likely shatter decades of Israel lobby myth-making and assiduous opinion molding among U.S. elected officials. This was the fear of Texas Republican Rep. Brian Babin, who argued such an official visit to the West Bank could “undo years of goodwill built by the foreign policy and Israeli-American communities.”

Grant F. Smith is executive director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep). This article was first posted on <www.antiwar.com>, March 1, 2019. Copyright 2019 Antiwar.com. Reprinted with permission.

Republicans, Democrats Snipe Over “AntiSemitism” at AIPAC Conference BY KELLY KENNEDY

W

ASHINGTON—Both Democrats and Republicans, speaking at a gathering of a major pro-Israel group, made clear that the United States would continue to stand behind Israel and push back against Iran, but also introduced new talking points for the 2020 presidential elections. Republican politicians, many of them evangelical Christians, aimed at Democrats, calling them anti-Semites for refusing to attend the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference in Washington. “Let me go on the record,” U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said March 25: “Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.” Pompeo blamed journalists, college professors and politicians for the “rise in anti-Semitism,” which he equated to support of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which OV-13 M AY 2019

A

demands Israel meet its “obligations under international law.” U.S. Vice President Mike Pence earlier claimed that Democrats had been “coopted by people who promote anti-Semitic rhetoric but U.S. Senator Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York and the longest-serving Jewish member of Congress, hit back as the AIPAC session ended. “Let me tell you, if you only care about anti-Semitism coming from your political opponents, you are not fully committed to fighting anti-Semitism,” he said. He lashed out against Muslim Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Democrat from Minnesota, who has made comments considered anti-Semitic, as well as U.S. President Donald Trump. “When someone names only prominent Jews as trying to buy or steal our elections, we must call it out,” Schumer said. “When someone says that being Jewish and supporting Israel means you are not loyal to America, we must call it out. When someone looks at a neo-Nazi rally and sees some ‘very fine people’ among its company, we must call it out.” The conference provided a platform for politicians to try to outdo each other in their support for Israel while insisting that the issue remain non-partisan. An expected address to the group by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was cancelled when Hamas fired a missile into Tel Aviv that hit the home of a family of seven. Netanyahu immediately returned to Israel and several speakers used the attack to call for unity behind Israel. Trump, with Netanyahu at his side March 25, signed an executive order recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights. “Allow me to bring greetings from a friend of mine,” Pence said to the thousands-strong AIPAC audience, adding that Trump is the greatest friend of Israel and that he would continue to support Israel in every way. Pence’s words ended speculation that

SUPPLEMENT TO THE

WASHINGTON R EPORT

ON

Trump’s feelings might have changed after reports that a lengthy special counsel investigation said it found no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. Investigators said there was “insufficient evidence” to conclude there was collusion. U.S. Attorney General William Barr wrote in a summary of the investigation that “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him” on accusations of obstruction of justice. Pence turned to the 2020 election, laying ground to continue accusing Democrats, including Jewish Americans, of anti-Semitism based on support of BDS or for promoting a twostate solution. Pence is an evangelical Christian. The Jewish Democratic Council of America denounced his comments, posting on social media: “As VP Pence falsely claims that Dem candidates are boycotting AIPAC, we want to remind him and [Trump] to stop politicizing Israel and treating Jews as political pawns.” Several Democrats running for president, including Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Sen. Kamala Harris of California, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, former Congressman Beto O’Rourke of Texas, Obama cabinet member Julian Castro, Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana, said they would skip AIPAC because of the push against a two-party solution for Israel and Palestine. “Anyone who aspires to the highest office in the land should not be afraid to stand with the strongest supporters of Israel in America,” Pence said. “It is wrong to boycott Israel and it is wrong to boycott AIPAC.” Trump, speaking March 22, said: “I don’t know what’s happened to them but they are totally anti-Israel. Frankly, I think they’re anti-Jewish.” The liberal U.S. policy group MoveOn.org advised presidential candidates to boycott the event.

M IDDLE E AST A FFAIRS

O THER V OICES

2019OVMay_r1.qxp_2019 May Other Voices Supplement 4/25/19 11:14 AM Page OV-14

“AIPAC is clearly a partisan lobbying group that has undermined diplomatic efforts,” said Iram Ali, campaign director for MoveOn’s political action committee, in a post on the group’s website. “It’s no secret that AIPAC has worked to hinder diplomatic efforts like the Iran deal, is undermining Palestinian self-determination and inviting figures actively involved in human rights violations to its stage.” Israeli Blue and White alliance candidate Gen. Benjamin Gantz also spoke of party differences at AIPAC. “Let me tell you, my friends, the divisive dialogue is tearing us and tearing our nation apart,” he said. “It may serve, I doubt it, but it may serve political purposes. But it is shredding the fabric that holds us together.” He called for unity within the country as it heads into elections April 9. “In Bergen-Belsen, no one asked who is Reform, who is Conservative, who is Orthodox or who is secular,” he said, referring to a Nazi concentration camp in Germany. “Before going into battle, I never checked to see who had kippah under their helmets. As a proud owner of the red beret worn by the liberator of the Kotel, I can tell you with confidence that the Western Wall is long enough to accommodate everyone, everyone.” Gantz attacked Netanyahu for allowing an anti-Arab extremist into the right-wing alliance: “There will be no radicals, from either side of the political map,” he said. “There will be no Kahanists running our country.” He praised the 1978 Middle East peace talks and said he hoped for peace. “I truly know that the children of Tehran and the children of Jerusalem are born free of hate,” he said. “I know the Iranian people are waiting for a new dawn, one I hope we all see in our lifetime.” He said his government would “extend our hand in peace and we will strive for peace with any honest and willing Arab leader.” Gantz praised Trump for recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights and for recognizing Jerusalem O THER V OICES

A

SUPPLEMENT TO THE

as the capital of Israel and said the Jordan Valley would always remain Israel’s “eastern security border.” “Let Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda and [the Islamic State] ISIS know: We’ve met before on the battlefield,” he said. “You know the result.” He praised Netanyahu for returning to Israel to tend the country after the rocket attack and said he would also return to Israel.

Kelly Kennedy is an Arab Weekly correspondent in Washington. This article was first published by The Arab Weekly, March 26, 2019. Copyright ©2019 The Arab Weekly. Distributed by Agence Global.

Why Designating The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Terrorists Would Paint a Big Red Target on U.S. Troops in Iraq BY JUAN COLE

T

he Trump administration is considering designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization. This is an old Joe Lieberman idea from 2007, and it is a very bad idea. It keeps being done rhetorically (2007, 2017), and then announced again out of amnesia. It is illogical, but it is also practically speaking a potential disaster if it were actually thoroughly implemented. The notion is illogical because the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) is a state actor, not a non-state actor. Terrorists are civilians who commit violence against other civilians to achieve some political goal. The IRGC is sort of like the U.S. National Guard. It isn’t the formal army, but it is an adjunct to it. If the U.S. has a problem with IRGC

WASHINGTON R EPORT

ON

M IDDLE E AST A FFAIRS

actions, it should accuse the Iranian government of war crimes. States commit war crimes. There are international laws and institutions for dealing with war crimes. But the practical side of the issue is that Iraqi Shi’i militias close to the IRGC are essentially the hosts and protectors of the some 5,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Iranian Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called Saturday for the Iraqi government to expel U.S. troops from Iraq as soon as possible, lest they become entrenched. Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi is on a state visit to Iran. Iran is proposing dozens of joint projects, despite the U.S. increasingly severe sanctions on Iran. When ISIL took over 60 percent of Iraqi territory in 2014, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani called for Iraqis to mobilize against the terrorist organization. Many Shi’i took this call to mean they should form militias, since the formal Iraqi army had collapsed. The Shi’i-led Iraqi government reached out to the IRGC for help with training and logistics, and the IRGC appears to have sent a small number of troops into Iraq. The IRGC planned out and helped execute the first major campaign against ISIL, at Tikrit. The U.S. initially declined to join in because it was an Iranian-led campaign, but in the end when the Iraqi forces got bogged down, the U.S. offered air support. IRGC offered strategic advice, but a lot of the heavy lifting was done by Shi’i militiamen who formed a strong bond to the IRGC. The formal Iraqi military is still small and weak, and the Shi’i militias are increasingly powerful, having formed civilian political parties, and having done well in elections. So security is provided to U.S. troops, essentially by the friends of the IRGC. The Trump administration is painting a big red X on the backs of those troops.

Juan Cole is the founder and chief editor of Informed Comment and the Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History at the University of Michigan. He is author of, among many other books, Muhammad: Prophet of Peace amid the M AY 2019 OV-14

2019OVMay_r1.qxp_2019 May Other Voices Supplement 4/25/19 11:14 AM Page OV-15

Clash of Empires. This article was first posted on <www.juancole.com>, April 7, 2019. Copyright © 2019 Informed Comment. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

The Path to War With Iran Is Paved With Sanctions BY JOSEPH CIRINCIONE AND MARY KASZYNSKI

T

he Trump administration is laying siege to Iran. Taking pages from the Iraq War playbook, senior officials paint a picture of a rogue, outlaw, terrorist regime bent on acquiring nuclear weapons and whose “malign activities” are the cause of all the chaos in the Middle East. They know what they are doing. They have done it before. They are building a case for war. The “maximum pressure” campaign by the White House, Treasury Department and State Department accelerated this week with the announcement that the United States would force China, India, Japan, South Korea and Turkey to cease all imports of Iranian oil or face severe U.S. sanctions. The goal is to cut to zero all of Iran’s oil exports, which account for some 40 percent of its national income. This strategy is unlikely to force the capitulation or collapse of the regime, but it very likely could lead to war. The United States has already reimposed all the nuclear-related sanctions lifted by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that successfully rolled back and effectively froze Iran’s nuclear program and put it under the most stringent inspections ever negotiated. The goals of the sanctions announced April 22, however, go way beyond nuclear issues. “We have made our demands very clear to the ayatollah and his cronies,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in remarks to the press Monday morning. OV-15 M AY 2019

A

“End your pursuit of nuclear weapons. Stop testing and proliferating ballistic missiles. Stop sponsoring and committing terrorism. Halt the arbitrary detention of U.S. citizens.” All are worthy policy goals. The first, of course, has been met. The National Intelligence Estimate on Iran concluded that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. There is no evidence that the program has restarted. Instead, in true Trumpian fashion, the administration simply asserts the counterfactual. It claims that the program has restarted, with slippery phrases about seeking weapons or references to long-ended activities. The media, overloaded with the Mueller report and a daily cascade of lies, does not challenge these claims.

THE ROLE OF BOLTON It is no accident that National Security Adviser John Bolton, the man who declared unequivocally in November 2002, “We are confident that Saddam Hussain has hidden weapons of mass destruction and production facilities in Iraq,” is now the chief strategist behind the drive toward war—with Mike Pompeo happily riding shotgun. Both are manipulating a distracted and largely uninformed president into a confrontation he may not actually want. Although Trump came into office promising to cancel the JCPOA painstakingly negotiated by the Obama administration and our allies, he was initially held in check by the united front of his military, intelligence and diplomatic advisers. Then, Trump ousted Rex Tillerson and replaced him with Mike Pompeo. He fired H.R. McMaster and appointed John Bolton. He accepted the resignation of Jim Mattis as secretary of defense and replaced him with a former Boeing executive more interested in contracts than policy. Bolton has had a clear field ever since. With minimal or no inter-agency discussion, Bolton quickly dispensed with the Iran accord, but he did not stop there. By Christmas 2018, Bolton had dismantled what remained of U.S.-Iran re-

SUPPLEMENT TO THE

WASHINGTON R EPORT

ON

lations. The United States reinstated all sanctions on Iran that were previously lifted by the Iran accord, and the State Department pulled out of the 1955 Treaty of Amity between the United States and Iran, which provided a “legal framework for bilateral relations.” As a result, Iran’s currency hit a historic low and the country witnessed waves of economic protests. Bolton used his national platform to publicly send bellicose warnings to the regime with statements like, “If you cross us, our allies, or our partners…there will indeed be hell to pay.”

THE TERRORISM “CONNECTION” The “maximum pressure” campaign escalated in 2019. When terrorists attacked the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)—an official branch of Iran’s military—killing 27 and wounding 13, the State Department offered no condolences. When widespread flooding devastated Iranian cities and infrastructure, claiming 60 lives in one week, the United States faulted the regime for the “mismanagement that has led to this disaster.” The campaign hit a crescendo on April 8, 2019—exactly one year to the day after Bolton’s appointment—with the unprecedented move of designating the IRGC a “Foreign Terrorist Organization.” It now appears alongside the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and Boko Haram on this list. That day Pompeo delivered a statement to the press and public in which the words “terror,” “terrorism” and “terrorist” appeared 21 times. This designation brings at least the IRGC and perhaps the entire nation within arm’s reach of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, legislation originally written to provide a legal basis for the invasion of Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11. The 2001 AUMF gives the president wide scope for the unilateral use of force against any parties or individuals associated with the 9/11 attacks, a point not lost on Pompeo. For over a year, the Trump administration, and Pompeo in particular, has

M IDDLE E AST A FFAIRS

O THER V OICES

2019OVMay_r1.qxp_2019 May Other Voices Supplement 4/25/19 11:14 AM Page OV-16

been exaggerating the connection between Iran and al-Qaeda to claim legal justification for military action against Iran under the 2001 AUMF. In 2017, the CIA released additional records from the bin Laden files, ostensibly “to enhance public understanding of al-Qaeda.” Wrote former CIA analyst Ned Price: But this release by Pompeo wasn’t about transparency. Pompeo is playing politics with intelligence, using these files in a ploy to bolster the case against Iran by reinvigorating the debate on its terrorist ties. While the politicization of intelligence is more than sufficient cause for concern, the fact that he appears to be returning to the Bush administration’s pre-Iraq war playbook underscores the danger. This effort reeks of former vice president Dick Cheney’s consistent false allegations of links between Saddam Hussain’s Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, a nexus the Bush administration debunked only after we had lost too much in blood and treasure. Bolton, Pompeo and their allies in and out of government continued to hype the Iran-al-Qaeda link. In May 2018, announcing the U.S. abrogation of the nuclear agreement, Trump made a point of saying that “Iran supports terrorist proxies and militias such as… al-Qaeda.” In a speech at the Heritage Foundation later that month, Pompeo said: “Today we ask the Iranian people: Is this what you want your country to be known for, for being a co-conspirator with Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda?” Experts have disparaged the administration’s claims, noting the longstanding hostility between Iran, a Shi’i-majority nation, and the radical Sunni group. A definitive New America study published in late 2018 found no evidence that Iran and al-Qaeda collaborated in carrying out terrorist attacks. That hasn’t stopped the administration from continuing the insinuations. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Pompeo went out of his way to construct explicit connections between al-Qaeda and the IRGC with multiple statements like: “there is no doubt there is a connection between the Islamic Republic O THER V OICES

A

SUPPLEMENT TO THE

of Iran and al-Qaeda. Period, full stop.”

INVOKING THE AUMF Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) zeroed in to the subtext of Pompeo’s repetitive al-QaedaIran connections. If the administration determines a valid link between alQaeda and the Iranian government, it may be able to declare war on Iran by using the 2001 AUMF, bypassing Congress entirely. So, Senator Paul pressed Pompeo on that point, asking him if he believes that the 2001 AUMF applies to Iran or Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Pompeo dodged the question: “I would prefer to leave that to the lawyers, Senator.” Neither Bolton nor Pompeo has yet provided a clear answer. The administration’s plan is clear: keep beating the twin drums of terrorism and nuclear threat. Bolton and Pompeo will use both to justify more sanctions and more provocations. They have a highly disciplined, coordinated messaging strategy. They establish the following false claim, as Bolton did this January in a conversation with Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel: “Despite getting out of the Iran nuclear deal, despite the sanctions, we have little doubt that Iran’s leadership is still strategically committed to achieving deliverable nuclear weapons.” The claims are then echoed, as this one was in a Twitter video a few weeks later. And again by U.S. Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook, in a New York Times op-ed, demanding that Iran “behave like a normal, peaceful nation: end the pursuit of nuclear weapons, stop testing ballistic missiles, stop sponsoring terrorist proxies.” And again this week by Pompeo, in announcing the oil sanctions, when he demanded that Iran “end [its] pursuit of nuclear weapons.” It does not matter that U.S. intelligence assessments—as well as Israeli intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency—confirm that Iran is complying with the JCPOA. Or that Saudi Arabia has likely funded al-Qaeda and other Sunni terrorist groups. Or that the U.S. invasion of Iraq is the principle cause of Middle East chaos today. Trump officials will cherry-pick WASHINGTON R EPORT

ON

M IDDLE E AST A FFAIRS

information, package it, and amplify it across a willing echo chamber—exactly as the Bush administration did in the lead up to the Iraq war. The real question is whether America will fall for it again.

Joseph Cirincione is the president and Mary Kaszynski is the deputy policy director of the Ploughshares Fund. This article was first posted on <http://lobelob.com>, April 23, 2019. Copyright © 2019 LobeLog. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Waiting for the Second Algerian Revolution BY ERIC S. MARGOLIS

A

lgeria has long been the forgotten nation of North Africa. But now, it is bursting into the news as the latest example of popular revolution in the woefully misgoverned Arab word. After seven weeks of mass street protests, Algeria’s ruler for the past two decades, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, finally faced the inevitable and resigned after a big shove from the army and the governing elite, known as “le pouvoir” (the power). Algeria is an important nation in spite of its recent semi-obscurity. At the center of North Africa, bordered by the Mediterranean and great Sahara Desert, Algeria has over 42 million people, with an important ethnic Berber minority in the mountains and uplands of the interior. Algeria is a major, world class producer of oil and gas, most of which is exported to Europe. In fact, 90 percent of government revenue comes from energy exports. I have a particular interest in Algeria because I nearly went there as a guerrilla fighter during its long, bloody war for independence from France (1954-1962). Algerian independence from brutal, exploitive French rule was then a noble cause that inspired many young men and women. Over one million people, mostly Algerians, died in the struggle. M AY 2019 OV-16

2019OVMay_r1.qxp_2019 May Other Voices Supplement 4/25/19 11:14 AM Page OV-17

Torture and murder were rampant. I led student demonstrations in Europe calling for free Algeria. As a result, I received my first death threats from La Main Rouge, a supposedly independent organization that murdered supporters of Algerian independence. Later, it was revealed to be a false flag branch of French foreign intelligence. After independence, the victorious FLN (National Liberation Front) leadership set about killing one another. The revolution devoured its own. So much for youthful idealism and hope. Post-war Algeria was run by the FLN hierarchy and military until gas and oil prices dropped in 1991 and the regime did not know what to do. It was decided to actually allow a free vote in local elections, one of the first in the Arab world. The moderate Islamic Salvation Front (FIS in French) won a landslide. The dictators, king and soldiers who ran the Arab world under U.S., British and French tutelage were horrified. The FIS was banned, its leaders jailed, and martial law imposed over Algeria. A national uprising erupted against military rule. The army fought back with extreme cruelty, using torture, beheadings and executions that far exceeded the cruelties inflicted by former colonial ruler France. Over 200,000 Algerians died in this butchery. Most FIS leaders were killed or murdered. But some escaped to Morocco, Libya and the Sahara to create a new militant fighting group, GIA, which still operates today in the Sahara, notably Mali, Cameroon, Chad and Togo. Leaders of the Islamic State took their cues from FIS/GIA. A young, bright, personable former army officer, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, was named foreign minister. He eventually became president because the regime’s bigwigs (le pouvoir) could not agree on who was to become leader. Bouteflika became the compromise candidate and occupied this role for 20 years—at least until he suffered a severe stroke that left him crippled and mute. He kept ruling from a wheelchair. Algerians, half of whom are under 30 OV-17 M AY 2019

A

years old, poured into the streets to demand democracy and free votes. Even army chief Ahmed Salah could not withstand these demands for a new Arab spring. The last one in 1991 turned into a disaster as reactionary forces in the Arab world and their U.S., French and British backers reimposed autocratic rule on the long-suffering Arab world. But Algeria might spark a new wave of revolution, notably in war-torn Libya, Tunisia and medieval Morocco. Egypt, a virtual U.S.-Saudi colonial dictatorship, would be threatened by a democratic Algeria. The Saharan region would seek real independence from foreign rule. As of now, we wait to see what will happen in Algiers. It would be good to see Algeria’s military step back and give up its unproductive role in politics. Algeria urgently needs to develop its civilian economy away from oil and gas. When they run out, Algeria will be forced to rely on agriculture and fishing. Most important, Algeria’s army must ensure a peaceful transition to civilian government and fair elections. This would be the real second Algerian revolution for which so many have died. As we used to chant long ago, “long live free Algeria.”

Eric S. Margolis is an award-winning, internationally syndicated columnist and the author of American Raj: Liberation or Domination? Resolving the Conflict Between the West and the Muslim World (available from AET’s Middle East Books and More). This article was first posted on <http:ericmargolis.com>, April 6, 2019. Copyright © Eric S. Margolis 2019. Reprinted with permission.

Algeria, Sudan on The Road to Arab Statehood, Sovereignty and Citizenship BY RAMI G. KHOURI

SUPPLEMENT TO THE

WASHINGTON R EPORT

ON

B

EIRUT—The nationwide street demonstrations that have now toppled two long-serving and aging dictators in Algeria and Sudan are particularly poignant, because they occur in two pedigree countries in the modern Arab struggles for freedom and dignity. Much instant commentary around the world will speak of the arrival of Arab Spring 2.0, following the 2010-11 popular rebellions that achieved mixed results in half a dozen Arab countries; it will also note the armed forces’ continued hold on power, or at least on transitional political mechanisms, hinting that Arab societies are doomed to be ruled by military officers. Such short-sighted and incomplete views of what is actually going on across most of the Arab region should be juxtaposed against the Algerian and Sudanese people’s reaffirmation of Arab citizens’ longstanding desire for a life of political dignity and socio-economic equity—and their willingness to risk their lives to achieve those rights. Algeria has long been appreciated across the Arab region for its epic struggle for independence from French colonialism over nearly two centuries, and its support for Arab nationalist and progressive movements since the 1960s. Its decades of military rule reflected similar trends in most Arab lands, while the brief democratic breakthrough of the 1992 elections that were won by local Islamists was quickly and viciously quashed by the armed forces who were supported by Western governments. Sudan is especially noteworthy because this will be the fourth time since its independence in 1955 that its citizens install a democratic system of government—the first three having been overthrown by military coups. Two other popular uprisings overturned military rulers and briefly restored democratic rule in1964 and 1985. So far from being sudden, isolated, and delayed revivals of the 2010-11 Arab Uprisings (or “Arab Spring”), Algeria and Sudan’s populist ejections of military rulers more accurately affirm a century-long quest for democracy and

M IDDLE E AST A FFAIRS

O THER V OICES

2019OVMay_r1.qxp_2019 May Other Voices Supplement 4/25/19 11:14 AM Page OV-18

human dignity that has defined Arab societies since their late 19th century stirrings for freedom from European or Ottoman rule. Algeria and Sudan today should remind us of how deep, wide and continuous has been the struggle for human rights and political decency across the Arab world, not how erratic or episodic it is. The historical reality is that every conceivable configuration of Arab citizens has struggled day and night, week after week, year after year, from century to century, to achieve the rights they expect as human beings, first, and as citizens of their states, second. They face prison, torture and death. They are ridiculed and humiliated, marginalized and exiled, beaten, bought and disappeared—but they persist because they know their own humanity is both invincible and universal. So they march, write, speak out, challenge, organize, mobilize, vote, go to court, and try every available means to break through the authoritarian chains that bind them to empty political systems, drowning in gutted economies, on the surface of ravaged natural environments, supported by cruel and uncaring Arab and foreign governments. Everybody beyond a handful of wealthy families and their guards in the power elites struggles in one way or another—sometimes silently, only in their hearts—in this legacy of Arab demands to achieve one’s humanity and rights: individuals, political and professional groups, women’s and student groups, lawyers, street artists, media figures, singers and dancers, local religious and cultural leaders, businessmen and women, high school and university students, local fruit and vegetable sellers, global high-tech magnates, mass movements anchored in religion, ethnicity or ideology, garbage collectors and school teachers. These and hundreds of other categories of citizens have always challenged their own disdainful authorities, foreign occupiers and invaders, and a global capitalist elite that works closely with ruling governments. These activist Arab men and women never stopped, even when the foreign O THER V OICES

A

SUPPLEMENT TO THE

television crews went home. They only occasionally laid low when death and imprisonment were no longer useful options to achieve their goals. But they always revived after brief interludes of rest, planning, re-grouping and restrategizing, when they sought the most effective and non-destructive way to remove their hollow regimes of old men with guns who routinely go to London, Paris, Washington, Moscow and other faraway capitals to secure praise and more guns. I feel this viscerally because for the past 50 years, I have personally experienced, reported on, analyzed and marveled at this legacy of modern Arab struggle for decency, democracy and dignity, and not just once every seven years when it rears its head and waves to the television crews who drop in from New York, London and Paris for a few days to marvel at the suddenly restive natives dressed in flowing robes who peacefully but relentlessly demand to live free, or not at all. The meaning of Algeria and Sudan in this long, uninterrupted legacy of human struggle that has toppled dictatorial rulers recently is in three main causes: citizens who no longer fear their military regimes but challenge them peacefully in the streets; economies that have been turned into wastelands by the regimes can no longer feed, employ or house the population, two-thirds of whom have become poor, vulnerable and desperate; and, the massive security systems the regimes created to protect themselves in the end refused to shoot and kill their own brothers and sisters. Most honest people in the Arab region understood in their bones that the 2010-11 uprisings were a milestone on a very long and hard road to the three goals that teased—but ultimately eluded—Arab people a century ago, when the modern Arab state system was formed: statehood, sovereignty and citizenship. Those three prizes, we learned finally, would not come from the generosity of colonial rulers or brutal indigenous autocrats, no matter how many troops they have or how WASHINGTON R EPORT

ON

M IDDLE E AST A FFAIRS

much money they spend. Statehood, sovereignty and citizenship emerge only from the persistent toil of honest citizens who respect each other, love their country, and dare to battle homegrown or foreign tyrants to live in freedom and dignity. Arabs have done this for many, many decades, and Algeria and Sudan are the latest examples of this ongoing legacy.

Rami G. Khouri is senior public policy fellow and professor of journalism at the American University of Beirut, and a non-resident senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School Middle East Initiative. He can be followed on Twitter @ramikhouri. This article was first distributed April 11, 2019. Copyright © 2019 Rami G. Khouri. Distributed by Agence Global. Reprinted with permission.

Two Rays of Hope In Post-Election Turkey BY YAVUZ BAYDAR

T

he state of local elections in Turkey can be summed up by the remarks of the observer delegation of the Council of Europe: “These elections are a chance for the full reinstatement of the principle of direct democratic mandate in Turkey.” The repetitious vote count has, as expected by realistic observers of the country, caused turbulence and severe anxiety. Uncertainty is the reason undue furor may lead to a misreading of what the results mean. Assertions such as “Turkish democracy is the winner in these momentous local elections” may prove to be jumping the gun. In an analysis for the Guardian, Sinan Ulgen, director of the Turkish think tank EDAM, falls into this trap by concluding: “Despite being saddled with big problems, Turkish democracy demonstrated its resilience and vibrancy and hinted at a future beyond populist and divisive politics.” The problem with such argumentaM AY 2019 OV-18

2019OVMay_r1.qxp_2019 May Other Voices Supplement 4/25/19 11:14 AM Page OV-19

tion stems from the terminology. There was not much Turkish “democracy” to speak of before the elections, and the uncertainty, which hints at a “hijack” of the Greater Istanbul Municipality by the alliance under the leadership of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, casts dark shadows over the term. If anything, one could speak of “continued resistance of the opposition voter bases” to a system in which fairness and transparency of the ballot-box process are non-existent. One can certainly not speak of “democracy” in an environment where the third largest party, the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party, is severely bruised by arrests, threats and harassment and with its leaders kept in prison. Neither can one have trust in accountability of a voting process in which the rule of law has collapsed: There is no credible autonomy of state institutions, including the Supreme Electoral Council, which manifests convulsions under extreme political pressure by the executive. It is, therefore, important to curb the enthusiasm and not mislead world opinion. It is true that opposition voters in Turkey showed that the elections on March 31 were a crucial threshold before Turkey fell prey to consolidated authoritarian rule. The 84 percent turnout was a healthy sign of a collective insight that the ballot box was the only leverage to pull the brakes for Erdogan and his likeminded supporters, nested in state apparatus and business. It is also true that the mainstream opposition bloc, consisting of secularist Republican People’s Party (CHP) and nationalist Iyi Party, gained control of municipalities that signify embrace of the two-thirds of the GDP. However, it is also true that Erdogan and his nationalist ally, Devlet Bahceli, won nearly 52 percent of the nationwide vote on mayoral races and in city councils. The ground on which Erdogan stands is not shattered but slightly shaken. Having displayed time and again a reOV-19 M AY 2019

A

markable skill for survival, Erdogan may throw enthusiastic analysts another curveball. How? The answer is simple: The Turkish president has the “system,” which has nothing to do with “Turkish democracy” as suggested. On the contrary, it was designed and implemented to serve his ambition for absolute power by the referendum on April 16, 2017. Erdogan won it with 51 percent of the vote then and, despite much deeper challenges on economy and foreign policy, he may claim that the pro-Erdogan bloc is shaken but still solid. Since there are no elections scheduled until 2023, he will not be in a hurry to exercise powers over the local administrations given to him. His real challenge will be within his party: He may choose to go with full force to reassert his authority. At the moment, we may sweep aside undue exuberance and suffice with say-

Subscribe to Other Voices Phone:

SUPPLEMENT TO THE

1-888881-5861 WASHINGTON R EPORT

ON

ing that the mainstream opposition bloc has helped to slightly open the gate to “democracy.” There is a little more light coming into the darkness caused by cruelty in the country. Let me finish by underlining two key factors, which offer strong opportunities for any future challenge to Erdogan’s power. One is the Kurdish vote. Without the tactical Kurdish voting, we would not see any loss at all for Erdogan’s alliance in Istanbul, Ankara, Adana, Mersin and the tourism hub of Antalya. Kurds have become the game-setters for the outcome of the elections, which means a change in the asymmetry of power balances on the local level. The second has to do with a rising star: Ekrem Imamoglu. Having emerged from “bottom up,” which is unusual in the vertically run Turkish politics, Imamoglu proves to be a tough nut to crack under the disguise of a soft-mannered man. His performance as a contester for Istanbul as the candidate of the opposition bloc reminds us strongly of the late Turkish President Turgut Ozal, who in the mid-1980s took Turkey out of military rule by embracing a large spectrum of political ideologies. If he remains persistent and resilient to the political intrigues his party— the CHP [Republican People’s Party]— is known for, Imamoglu is possibly the best outcome of Turkey’s local elections, symbolizing a chance for change in Turkey, albeit in slow motion. Imamoglu may save the country, which for years posed as the outcast from the ship of democracy.

Yavuz Baydar is a senior Turkish columnist and news analyst. A founding member of the Platform for Independent Journalism (P24) in Istanbul, he has been reporting on Turkey and monitoring media issues since 1980. A European Press Prize Laureate in 2014, he is also the winner of Germany’s ”Journalistenpreis” in 2018. This article was first published by The Arab Weekly, April 10, 2019. Copyright © 2019 The Arab Weekly. Distributed by Agence Global. Reprinted with permission.

M IDDLE E AST A FFAIRS

O THER V OICES

MAY2019v5.qxp_May-June 2019 Israel Conference issue 4/25/19 11:05 AM Page c3

This Ramadan, empower communitiess,, transfform livves es. Because of Y YOU, OU, Palestinians in Leba e non had the resources e they needed to sttart a communittyy garrden. d den.

Because of YOU, ffa amilies m in Jorrda dan rreeceivveed vouchers o to covver er an entirree mont month thâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;â&#x20AC;&#x2122;ss food supply lyy..

Because of YOU, YOU, fisherme fishermen en in Gaza can now keep the h harbor lit throughout the night--keeping an important source of prottein on the markett..

DONA ATE TE NOW upac p onnect.org g/ramada an Toll-fr Toll-fr ll f ee: 855-659-5007 ext. 202

cover4May2019.qxp_May 2019 Back Cover 4/25/19 12:38 PM Page c4

American Educational Trust Washington Report on Middle East Affairs P.O. Box 53062 Washington, DC 20009

May 2019

Vol. XXXVIII, No. 3

The Saar Falls in the Israeli-annexed Golan Heights, which Israel seized from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War. This photo, taken on March 26, 2019, illustrates one of the reasons Israel has deďŹ ed international law and hung onto the 460-squaremile plateau. Golan water feeds into the Jordan River and Sea of Galilee, both major sources of water for Israel. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu plans to name a new settlement in the occupied Golan after U.S. President Donald Trump in appreciation of his recognition of Israelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (illegal) claim of sovereignty there. JALAA MAREY/AFP/Getty Images

Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook

Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.