Hillary on Truth Serum

"Clinton told (AIPAC) that provocative Israeli land policies in areas claimed by the Palestinians are not in Israel's long-term interests."
Associated Press, March 23, 2010

During the heyday of the Soviet Union, KGB agents would close-in on an enemy of the regime on a busy street and use an umbrella point (or the like) to inject poison into the victim. Imagine for a moment that an equally unscrupulous person today could obtain a powerful truth serum and inject it into an important public figure, making it impossible for the victim to lie for hours. For example, if this had been done to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just before her AIPAC speech, would the speech have been any different?

I surmise that the speech would have more like this: (edited to preserve the Glazerbeam's G-rating)

" I am supposed to say that I'm so pleased to be here today, but the truth is that I would rather be undergoing a colonoscopy with a rusty roto-rooter right now. That is because you all hate what the President, Vice President and I have been saying these past few days about Israeli plans to build Jewish housing in East Jerusalem.

Now you know and I know that the more Jews live in an area, the less likely that area is to wind-up in a Palestinian state. So, the more solidly- Jewish a neighborhood in any part of Jerusalem is, the more absurd it becomes to pretend that Israel will ever cede it to Arab rule. Now, some say that President Obama is deeply concerned about building homes for Jews in East Jerusalem; the fact is that he doesn't give a rat's (rectum) if the Israelis put up a (expletive deleted)ing Trump Tower there, and neither do I!

The reason that we are blowing a (expletive deleted)ing ton of political capital on this (urine)ant issue is that while Israeli interests are measured in meters, America's interests are measured in continents. We are fighting Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the like in three Muslim countries right now: Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Without Muslim support, we can't win. And all Muslims hate Israel, more or less. Osama bin Laden and other jihadists never miss a chance to link the United States with Israel, and they are smart to do that! If we go along with every (expletive deleted)ing thing that Israel does, we play into that. That is why George W Bush was so ineffective in the Muslim world, and why Barack Obama had to give that speech in Cairo to show that he would be more attuned to Muslim and Arab interests.

So, we have to show the world that there is daylight between the US and Israel, especially on Jerusalem, a real flashpoint for devout Muslims. We have to do it out loud and in public to have any impact. Of course, we know that the Israeli government won't like it, but what are they going to do: give back the $3 billion?

If the President really wanted to make Israel knuckle-under, he would recall our ambassador from Tel Aviv. If that didn't get Netanyahu's attention, he would suspend military co-operation. And if that didn't work, he could impound the whole (expletive-deleted)ing three billion! And that probably would work!
J Street would be ecstatic! So, why doesn't he do it? He knows that Bill got impeached for (expletive deleted)ing just one Jew, and he ain't going to find out what the pay-back would be for doing that to a whole (expletive deleted)ing country of 'em!

So, Barack and I are caught between (urinating)-off the Jews of America and (urinating)-off the whole Muslim world. That's why we talk tough to Israel, but don't really do anything to make Israel listen. Even so, we know we are killing Democrats in New York; a Republican will probably take my old senate seat, and Democratic congressmen in Jewish areas are likely to go down in flames too. If it costs his own re-election bid in 2012, tough (manure)!

So why antagonize the Israel Lobby? Because Barack puts the geopolitical interests of the United States of America above the domestic political interests of the Democratic Party! Yes, its (expletive deleted)ing patriotism! The next edition of Profiles in Courage will have a chapter on Barack Obama!

I hope you appreciate being told the truth for a change, but if you don"t , you can kiss my (donkey)! Happy Passover, anyway.

Amnesty for AIPAC Aides

On Friday, May 1, the US Justice Department announced that it would drop all charges against former American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) lobbyists Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman. (1) In August of 2005, Rosen and Weissman had been indicted for "communicating national defense information to people not entitled to receive it," in violation of the Espionage Act of 1917, 18 USC 793 (2). Former Defense Department analyst Lawrence Franklin was also indicted in the case; he was also charged with one count of passing classified information to an Israeli official.

Franklin, a former attache at the US Embassy in Israel, was one of the officials responsible for American defense policy regarding Iran. He provided a classified presidential directive and other documents about Iran policy to the AIPAC staffers, who then passed them on to Israel. Franklin negotiated a guilty plea in October, 2005, and was sentenced the following January to 12 years in prison and a fine of $10,000 by US Judge T S Ellis III. AIPAC fired Rosen and Weissman, but denied the organization was responsible for their alleged activities.

As a government employee with a high security clearance, Lawrence Franklin clearly betrayed the trust placed in him, and deserved his punishment. Former Navy civilian analyst Jonathan Pollard had been sentenced to life in prison in 1987 for transmitting even more damaging information to Israel. (3)

However, the two AIPAC staffers were the first people not employed by the US Government ever charged with this particular violation of the Espionage Act of 1917. (1) This unprecedented prosecution apparently opened the way for bringing similar charges against reporters who receive and use classified information they obtain from government employees . Sometimes this type of information is the only way to corroborate claims of corruption or subversion in government. Although no reporters were ever charged during the remaining three years of the Bush Administration, the prosecution of Rosen and Weissman may have had a chilling effect on the willingness of reporters to deal with classified information.

Judge Ellis made two pre-trial rulings that resulted in dropping the charges:
1. The defense could introduce the secrets themselves at the trial.
2. To obtain a conviction, the prosecutors would have to show that the defendants knew that disclosing this information would harm the United States.

Once the first of these rulings was upheld by the US Court of Appeals, the Government was placed into a "Catch 22" situation: if disclosing the secrets would harm US interests, the nation would be harmed by the Government in bringing the case to trial. ( Since the trial would receive massive publicity, the harm done by the Government would be even greater than that done by the defendants, who merely disclosed it to a friendly nation, which did not make it public. ) But if disclosing the info would not harm US interests, the second ruling meant that the defendants had done nothing wrong, and should be acquitted!

A similar conundrum occurred during the 1896 trial of French Army Captain Alfred Dreyfus, who was accused of passing military secrets to the German Army. But in that case. the judge ruled that the "borderaux" of secrets need not even be provided to the defense, let alone made public. The rest is history: Dreyfus was convicted and spent years on Devil's Island before finally being exonerated.

Fortunately for Rosen and Weissman, Judge Ellis was more fair than the one Dreyfus faced a century before. We may never know just what information Lawrence Franklin gave them, although it clearly concerned American policy toward Iran under President George W Bush. I would like to know what the Israelis found out, but I doubt that they will tell me.

AIPAC continues its highly-effective work of influencing US policy in a pro-Israel direction, although without the services of Mssrs. Rosen and Weissman.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Jerry Marion in the Washington Post, May 2, 2009.

(2) Wikipedia "Lawrence Franklin Espionage Scandal."

(3) See the Glazerbeam of Dec. 24, 2008, entitled "Parole for Pollard?"

Christians for Israel

"The US must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan...which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation and ... the Second Coming of Christ."
Rev. James Hagee, addressing Christians United for Israel (CUFI) (1)

Do you share Rev. Hagee's apocalyptic vision? If not, would you still work with him to foster the US-Israel special relationship?

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) featured him as a guest speaker at a Washington conference. Senator Joe Lieberman and Israeli Ambassador Sallai Meridor (among other notables) are scheduled to appear at Hagee's CUFI Washington-Israel Summit next month.

On the other hand, Leonard Fein, founder of Moment Magazine, referred to Hagee's "A Night to Stand for Israel" as a "noxious melodrama", which Jews should repudiate. (1) Indeed, quite a few Jews picketed this event in Madison,Wisconsin, on June 18, 2007. Who is right? Who is wrong?

By the term "Christian Right" I do not mean simply devout Christians, but those who have sought to use the power of government to promote Christian beliefs and practices, such as teacher-led prayer, Bible study, and Christmas carols in the public schools. They have looked upon Jews primarily as targets for proselytization efforts.

However, since the 1967 Six Day War there has been a subtle re-alignment of political forces in the United States relative to Israel. While many liberals have embraced the cause of the Palestinians, conservatives have come to admire Israel for standing up first to Soviet allies (such as Egypt and Syria) and more recently to Islamic terrorism. (2) Today I would estimate that the majority of the most fervent advocates for Israel in America today are evangelical Christians, not Jews.

Many Jews today, including notably Mr Fein, are uncomfortable in an alliance with people like Mr Hagee. (3) While I sympathize with this discomfort, I believe those who support a strong US-Israel relationship should continue to work together, even when sharply divided on religion and other issues.

In any democracy, various groups of people often support a common cause for totally different reasons. For example, feminists may back a bill demanding long mandatory prison terms for rapists because rapists hurt women, while hard-line conservatives may back the same bill because they want all violent criminals treated harshly. By the same token, I hope that Jews and Muslims will work together to thwart any measure that would give Christian beliefs or practices any form of state preference, even while they battle over Middle East policy.

Co-operation can have its pitfalls. For example, several Zionist groups have proposed to speak for Israel in churches; if this is permitted, should Christians then be allowed to speak for Christ in synagogues? I hope not! CUFI has made many donations to Jewish Federations; should Jews be expected to contribute to Christian causes? It would be contrary to halacha (Torah-law) to contribute to any church or mission.

In other words, we should accept support for Israel wherever we can get it, even from the Christian Right, but offer nothing in return. If that arrangement is good enough for Rev. Hagee and his colleagues, it is good enough for me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Quoted in the Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle, May 30, 2008, page 4.

(2) See "Dead End on J Street", the May 16, 2008, Glazerbeam.

(3) Rev. Hagee does not advocate trying to convert Jews because (a) they already have a covenant with God, which is still valid and (b) they cannot be converted. However, he holds that "in the end of times, someone's going to have to make a major theological readjustment, I think it will be them (the Jews)......" The "end of times" refers to after the "Second Coming."
(Thanks to Jim Beer for this quotation.)

Dead End on J Street

"We support dialogue with a broad range of countries and actors, including Iran, over confrontation...."
J Street Statement of Principles, Point 6

J Street is a new Jewish-American lobby dedicated to influencing American policy in the Middle East in the direction of a negotiated, two-state solution to the Arab-Israel conflict. The name of the group is a variation of the term "K Street" which refers to a Washington street known for a plethora of lobbying firms. I presume that the "J" refers to "Jewish", which would make the name an Anglicized form of the German "Judengasse", but the group's website (jstreet.org) does not say so.

Several of the points in the group's Statement of Principles are widely held within the Jewish and Zionist communities: Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people with the right to defend itself (Point 2) and a comprehensive regional peace (Point 4). However, J Street distances itself from mainline pro-Israel organizations such as AIPAC (1) and ZOA (2) with points such as that quoted above and a resolve to "oppose alliances with the religious right or any radical religious ideologues..."

Who are the "actors" with whom J Street seeks dialogue in the Point 6 quotation? Executive Director Jeremy Ben-Ami wants a US dialogue with Hamas, according to a quotation in the May 29, 2008, New Republic (3). If this represents the J Street position, the group is at odds not only with the government of Israel, but also with those of the United States and the European Union.

In an essay in The Forward (4), Ben-Ami wrote that "An immediate negotiated end to the conflict is an existential necessity." In most negotiations, the party who needs an immediate agreement is the one who must make the most generous concessions. Does this concern Mr Ben-Ami?

The raison d'etre for J Street is alignment of most American Jews with liberalism, while conservatives have been the most reliable allies of Israel, both in the United States and Europe.

Prior to World War II, the left side of the American political spectrum, led by President Franklin D Roosevelt, was the faction more supportive of a military build-up against Fascism, while the American right favored a more conciliatory posture. Many conservatives in the pre-war period considered Nazi Germany a valuable bulwark against the Soviet Union and communism, and opposed US alignment with England, France, and Russia. Ambassador Joseph Kennedy even predicted that "England would go down swinging." Pearl Harbor changed all that, and for the next four years left and right were both ardent supporters of the war effort.

The bi-partisan foreign policy of opposition to the expansion of communist power collapsed about twenty years after the end of World War II as a consequence of the War in Vietnam. With communism, rather than fascism, as the enemy, the American Left became aligned with the forces of pacifism, while the Right became more militant. When Israel became the dominant power in Gaza and the West Bank in 1967, the Left (both in the US and elsewhere) took up the cause of the Palestinians. Meanwhile, many US conservatives (such as Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, but not Patrick Buchanan, George H W Bush or James Baker) became more enamoured of Israel.

American Jews have been "whipsawed" by these developments, being attracted to liberal politicians for their domestic policies and conservatives for their support for Israel. AIPAC finessed this tension by avoiding taking positions on domestic issues or expressing any party preferences, while wooing all who might be inclined to back the US-Israel relationship.

The alliance between pro-Israel conservatives (especially the religious Right) and Jews became too much for the founders of J Street. Actually, their policy of pressuring Israel into making concessions to the Palestinians differs only in rhetoric from that of President George W Bush, whom they despise. Even the call for dialogue with Iran has been accepted by the Bush Administration, although the Islamic Republic recently cancelled further talks.

The J Street support for talks with Hamas, however, is doomed since the latter has no intention of making peace with Israel. Nothing J Street can say or do can change that fact. Even Barack Obama, the darling of the liberals today, rejects talking to Hamas.

J Street, along with Americans for Peace Now and other peace activists, will be a factor in American politics for the foreseeable future, but unless the Palestinians and Iranians change their tune, it will be overwhelmed by the established Israel Lobby.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
(2) Zionist Organization of America.
(3) Street Cred, by James Kirchik, page 14.
(4) April 15, 2008