I find Mondoweiss a challenge to read and to simultaneously keep my equanimity. The website challenges my assumptions about the moral superiority of the Jews and of the Jewish state.<\/p>\n
I can’t think of any Middle Eastern country I would rather live in than Israel. I can’t think of any people I would rather belong to than Jews. I can’t think of any life I’d rather live than the Orthodox Jewish one. <\/p>\n
Still, it’s good to read challenges like this one:<\/p>\n
Link<\/a>:<\/p>\n The other day, I asked a longtime Democratic Party insider who is working on the Russia-gate investigation which country interfered more in U.S. politics, Russia or Israel. Without a moment\u2019s hesitation, he replied, \u201cIsrael, of course.\u201d<\/p>\n Which underscores my concern about the hysteria raging across Official Washington about \u201cRussian meddling\u201d in the 2016 presidential campaign: There is no proportionality applied to the question of foreign interference in U.S. politics. If there were, we would have a far more substantive investigation of Israel-gate.<\/p>\n The problem is that if anyone mentions the truth about Israel\u2019s clout, the person is immediately smeared as \u201canti-Semitic\u201d and targeted by Israel\u2019s extraordinarily sophisticated lobby and its many media\/political allies for vilification and marginalization.<\/p>\n So, the open secret of Israeli influence is studiously ignored, even as presidential candidates prostrate themselves before the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both appeared before AIPAC in 2016, with Clinton promising to take the U.S.-Israeli relationship \u201cto the next level\u201d \u2013 whatever that meant \u2013 and Trump vowing not to \u201cpander\u201d and then pandering like crazy.<\/p>\n Congress is no different. It has given Israel\u2019s controversial Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a record-tying three invitations to address joint sessions of Congress (matching the number of times British Prime Minister Winston Churchill appeared). We then witnessed the Republicans and Democrats competing to see how often their members could bounce up and down and who could cheer Netanyahu the loudest, even when the Israeli prime minister was instructing the Congress to follow his position on Iran rather than President Obama\u2019s.<\/p>\n Israeli officials and AIPAC also coordinate their strategies to maximize political influence, which is derived in large part by who gets the lobby\u2019s largesse and who doesn\u2019t. On the rare occasion when members of Congress step out of line \u2013 and take a stand that offends Israeli leaders \u2013 they can expect a well-funded opponent in their next race, a tactic that dates back decades.<\/p>\n Well-respected members, such as Rep. Paul Findley and Sen. Charles Percy (both Republicans from Illinois), were early victims of the Israeli lobby\u2019s wrath when they opened channels of communication with the Palestine Liberation Organization in the cause of seeking peace. Findley was targeted and defeated in 1982; Percy in 1984.<\/p>\n Findley recounted his experience in a 1985 book, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel\u2019s Lobby, in which Findley called the lobby \u201cthe 700-pound gorilla in Washington.\u201d The book was harshly criticized in a New York Times review by Adam Clymer, who called it \u201can angry, one-sided book that seems often to be little more than a stringing together of stray incidents.\u201d<\/p>\n Enforced Silence<\/p>\n Since then, there have been fewer and fewer members of Congress or other American politicians who have dared to speak out, judging that \u2013 when it comes to the Israeli lobby \u2013 discretion is the better part of valor. Today, many U.S. pols grovel before the Israeli government seeking a sign of favor from Prime Minister Netanyahu, almost like Medieval kings courting the blessings of the Pope at the Vatican.<\/p>\n During the 2008 campaign, then-Sen. Barack Obama, whom Netanyahu viewed with suspicion, traveled to Israel to demonstrate sympathy for Israelis within rocket-range of Gaza while steering clear of showing much empathy for the Palestinians.<\/p>\n In 2012, Republican nominee Mitt Romney tried to exploit the tense Obama-Netanyahu relationship by stopping in Israel to win a tacit endorsement from Netanyahu. The 2016 campaign was no exception with both Clinton and Trump stressing their love of Israel in their appearances before AIPAC.<\/p>\n Money, of course, has become the lifeblood of American politics \u2013 and American supporters of Israel have been particularly strategic in how they have exploited that reality.<\/p>\n One of Israel\u2019s most devoted advocates, casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, has poured millions of dollars in \u201cdark money\u201d into political candidates and groups that support Israel\u2019s interests. Adelson, who has advocated dropping a nuclear bomb inside Iran to coerce its government, is a Trump favorite having donated a record $5 million to Trump\u2019s inaugural celebration.<\/p>\n Of course, many Israel-connected political donations are much smaller but no less influential. A quarter century ago, I was told how an aide to a Democratic foreign policy chairman, who faced a surprisingly tough race after redistricting, turned to the head of AIPAC for help and, almost overnight, donations were pouring in from all over the country. The chairman was most thankful.<\/p>\n The October Surprise Mystery<\/p>\n Israel\u2019s involvement in U.S. politics also can be covert. For instance, the evidence is now overwhelming that the Israeli government of right-wing Prime Minister Menachem Begin played a key role in helping Ronald Reagan\u2019s campaign in 1980 strike a deal with Iran to frustrate President Jimmy Carter\u2019s efforts to free 52 American hostages before Election Day.<\/p>\n Begin despised Carter for the Camp David Accords that forced Israel to give back the Sinai to Egypt. Begin also believed that Carter was too sympathetic to the Palestinians and \u2013 if he won a second term \u2013 would conspire with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to impose a two-state solution on Israel.<\/p>\n Begin\u2019s contempt for Carter was not even a secret. In a 1991 book, The Last Option, senior Israeli intelligence and foreign policy official David Kimche explained Begin\u2019s motive for dreading Carter\u2019s reelection. Kimche said Israeli officials had gotten wind of \u201ccollusion\u201d between Carter and Sadat \u201cto force Israel to abandon her refusal to withdraw from territories occupied in 1967, including Jerusalem, and to agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state.\u201d<\/p>\n Kimche continued, \u201cThis plan prepared behind Israel\u2019s back and without her knowledge must rank as a unique attempt in United States\u2019s diplomatic history of short-changing a friend and ally by deceit and manipulation.\u201d<\/p>\n But Begin recognized that the scheme required Carter winning a second term in 1980 when, Kimche wrote, \u201che would be free to compel Israel to accept a settlement of the Palestinian problem on his and Egyptian terms, without having to fear the backlash of the American Jewish lobby.\u201d<\/p>\n In a 1992 memoir, Profits of War, former Israeli intelligence officer Ari Ben-Menashe also noted that Begin and other Likud leaders held Carter in contempt.<\/p>\n \u201cBegin loathed Carter for the peace agreement forced upon him at Camp David,\u201d Ben-Menashe wrote. \u201cAs Begin saw it, the agreement took away Sinai from Israel, did not create a comprehensive peace, and left the Palestinian issue hanging on Israel\u2019s back.\u201d<\/p>\n So, in order to buy time for Israel to \u201cchange the facts on the ground\u201d by moving Jewish settlers into the West Bank, Begin felt Carter\u2019s reelection had to be prevented. A different president also presumably would give Israel a freer hand to deal with problems on its northern border with Lebanon.<\/p>\n Ben-Menashe was among a couple of dozen government officials and intelligence operatives who described how Reagan\u2019s campaign, mostly through future CIA Director William Casey and past CIA Director George H.W. Bush, struck a deal in 1980 with senior Iranians who got promises of arms via Israel in exchange for keeping the hostages through the election and thus humiliating Carter. (The hostages were finally released on Jan. 20, 1981, after Reagan was sworn in as President.)<\/p>\n Discrediting History<\/p>\n Though the evidence of the so-called October Surprise deal is far stronger than the current case for believing that Russia colluded with the Trump campaign, Official Washington and the mainstream U.S. media have refused to accept it, deeming it a \u201cconspiracy theory.\u201d<\/p>\n One of the reasons for the hostility directed against the 1980 case was the link to Israel, which did not want its hand in manipulating the election of a U.S. president to become an accepted part of American history. So, for instance, the Israeli government went to great lengths to discredit Ben-Menashe after he began to speak with reporters and to give testimony to the U.S. Congress.<\/p>\n When I was a Newsweek correspondent and first interviewed Ben-Menashe in 1990, the Israeli government initially insisted that he was an impostor, that he had no connection to Israeli intelligence.<\/p>\n However, when I obtained documentary evidence of Ben-Menashe\u2019s work for a military intelligence unit, the Israelis admitted that they had lied but then insisted that he was just a low-level translator, a claim that was further contradicted by other documents showing that he had traveled widely around the world on missions to obtain weapons for the Israel-to-Iran arms pipeline.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, the Israeli government along with sympathetic American reporters and members of the U.S. Congress managed to shut down any serious investigation into the 1980 operation, which was, in effect, the prequel to Reagan\u2019s Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal of 1984-86. Thus, U.S. history was miswritten. [For more details, see Robert Parry\u2019s America\u2019s Stolen Narrative; Secrecy & Privilege; and Trick or Treason.]<\/p>\n Looking back over the history of U.S.-Israeli relations, it is clear that Israel exercised significant influence over U.S. presidents since its founding in 1948, but the rise of Israel\u2019s right-wing Likud Party in the 1970s \u2013 led by former Jewish terrorists Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir \u2013 marked a time when Israel shed any inhibitions about interfering directly in U.S. politics.<\/p>\n Much as Begin and Shamir engaged in terror attacks on British officials and Palestinian civilians during Israel\u2019s founding era, the Likudniks who held power in 1980 believed that the Zionist cause trumped normal restraints on their actions. In other words, the ends justified the means.<\/p>\n In the 1980s, Israel also mounted spying operations aimed at the U.S. government, including those of intelligence analyst Jonathan Pollard, who fed highly sensitive documents to Israel and \u2013 after being caught and spending almost three decades in prison \u2013 was paroled and welcomed as a hero inside Israel.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I find Mondoweiss a challenge to read and to simultaneously keep my equanimity. The website challenges my assumptions about the moral superiority of the Jews and of the Jewish state. I can’t think of any Middle Eastern country I would … Continue reading