Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, May-June 2009, pages 5-6

Letters to the Editor

A Pyrrhic Victory?

ON ITS FACE, Ambassador Chas Freeman’s withdrawal as chairman of the National Intelligence Council looks like another famous triumph for the Israel-First Lobby. Let us hope that it proves to be a Pyrrhic victory, one which does not discourage and intimidate those Americans who put American interests ahead of Israeli desires (or would if they thought they could do so and survive) but, rather, stimulates and mobilizes them to intensify their efforts to liberate their country from foreign domination.

This is, of course, only a hope. It is very, very far from being a likelihood.

John V. Whitbeck, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Ambassador Freeman already can chalk up at least one victory: the appearance of the phrase “Israel Lobby” on the front page of the March 12 editions of both The New York Times and The Washington Post. The two newspapers have made a career of pretending that no such animal exists—when in fact the Times was a willing accomplice in the build-up to the war on Iraq, and the Post can barely bring itself to utter the title of Mearsheimer and Walt’s The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (available, of course, from the AETBook Club), while its reporters cavort with former AIPAC honchos facing trial on charges of espionage for Israel. See p. 10 for more views on l’affaire Freeman.

Pro-Israel PAC Contributions

Could you please tell me what sources you use to compile your list of 2008 pro-Israel contributions to members of Congress? Also, how do you know your info gives a complete picture of ALL contributions to Congress people that may be recommended by AIPAC? I think it would be very helpful for activists such as myself to have a better understanding (and see it on your Web site) as to know exactly how you pick and choose from the FEC files what is and is not an AIPAC-driven contribution, and how you define pro-Israel (e.g. is it pro-Likud policy or perhaps from an Israeli health support group, etc.). That would make your Report more usable when, for example, as I am now doing, I try to engage in discussion with the organized American Jewish community, and explain why AIPAC does not represent the majority of Jewish Americans but does have a huge power out of proportion to and different from the opinions of American Jews.

Second, since AIPAC itself does not make contributions but rather contacts other groups or individuals who do, it would be interesting to understand how this works—the results might show far greater financial contributions than you list. I think what I’m requesting is probably of interest to other activists as well, so that a full answer to this on your Web site would be very worthwhile.

Norman Robbins, via e-mail

All political action committees (PACs) must file reports with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The figures that appear in the Washington Report come from those PAC reports (see the final totals for 2008 beginning on p. 32). The first hint that a given PAC may be trying to fly under the radar is that it lists itself as “unaffiliated”—as compared, for example, to a Teamsters or NRA PAC. Since the vast majority of pro-Israel PACs have innocuous names (e.g., National PAC, the largest, or Americans United in Support of Democracy), calls were made to inquire about the purpose of the PAC. Some refused to answer the question, further arousing suspicions. The final clue is the fact that, regardless of their name or location (e.g., Delaware Valley PAC) pro-Israel PACs give to virtually the identical candidates. After reading the first few FEC reports, the names on the remaining ones are strikingly predictable.

The newest PAC to join our roster is JStreet PAC—which describes itself as “pro-Israel, pro-peace.” On another PACwe disagree with the Center for Responsive Politics, which, on its excellent Web site, <www.opensecrets.org>, lists Berman for Congress as a leadership PAC. Since the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee has described himself as a Zionist before he was a Democrat, we continue to consider his a pro-Israel PAC.

Because we do not include individual contributions in our compilation, it’s indeed true that our totals understate the extent of those sums. In our April 2008 issue, Laurence A. Toenjes calculated that 3,000 contributors to pro-Israel PACs gave an additional $5 million to individual candidates.

With regard to your final point, we couldn’t agree more! That’s why the publisher and executive editor of this magazine were among the seven individuals (including the late Under Secretary of State George W. Ball) to file a complaint with the FEC asking that it classify AIPAC as a political action committee (instead of as a membership organization, which AIPAC claims to be). As a PAC, AIPAC would be required to file FEC reports listing its income and expenditures. In 1997 the case went to the Supreme Court, which sent it back to the FEC for further consideration. “Akins vs. FEC” has languished for more than a decade—until now, when things seem to be heating up again, with a status hearing scheduled for May. Stay tuned!

What About Chuck?

Although Charles Schumer (D-NY) is an AIPAC supporter, he doesn’t appear to be on the list of recipients of AIPAC money. Is this an inadvertent omission?

It would really be very helpful to know how many Democrats vs. Republicans receive AIPAC contributions and the total dollar amount each party receives, which you perhaps might want to include under “Total number of Recipients.” It’s too cumbersome to do oneself but it would be quite revealing.

Patricia A. Highland, via e-mail

Pro-Israel PACs typically contribute to senators when they are up for election every six years. Senator Schumer will be running for re-election next year, so we’re confident he’ll be adding to his current total of $57,635. And we’ve taken your suggestion to break down contributions by party—see p. 37.

Knowledge Is Power

Human rights organizations and the U.N. have issued reports describing Palestinian women denied passage to a hospital giving birth at checkpoints in the West Bank. While the reports are not consistent as to numbers it is possible that since the year 2000 as many as a dozen newborn infants have died in their mother’s arms as a result of this brutality.

If true, the American people should be made aware of how their tax money is being used. 

Henry Clifford, Wainscott, NY

That’s precisely what AIPAC and its minions are trying to prevent—which is why it’s so important that Americans who object to this use of their tax dollars voice their objections not only to their elected representatives, but to their neighbors and fellow voters as well.

Eligible to Become Israelis

As a longtime admirer of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, I wonder if you could assist a research project of mine. Do you know the identities of any members of the 111th U.S. Congress who hold dual American-Israeli citizenship? If so, who are they? If not, please direct me to others who may have that information. Thanks.

Werner Lange, Ph.D., Edinboro University of PA

We frequently are asked this question, but have no data on which to base an answer. As our congressional correspondent Shirl McArthur noted in his Jan./Feb. 2009 column, there currently are 31 Jewish representatives and 13 Jewish senators. All are eligible to become Israeli citizens. The fact that she never will be allowed to join this club does not seem to deter Cuban-American Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), however, who continues to do her utmost to put Israel’s interests ahead of this country’s.

Take on 9/11!

You NEED to take on 9/11!—at least acknowledge that it is a problem. It deals with Middle East affairs. Your magazine deals with Middle East affairs, but avoids 9/11 as if the administration spin on it is gospel, gospel, gospel.

No significant established magazine has taken on 9/11 except to reinforce the government’s official interpretation of it. I am sure you could greatly increase circulation if you began to acknowledge the problems about it in a rational way. Many serious and well-established politicians worldwide have questioned the official interpretation. Why were Israelis here to film the event? Why were the “Five Dancing Israelis” on 9/11 caught and questioned, held and let go?

James Smart, Keene NH

We have indeed covered the “five dancing Israelis” celebrating on a New Jersey rooftop as they watched the Twin Towers burn (see, for example, Richard Curtiss’ “Israeli Trainees and Mossad Agents Swept Up in 9/11 Net” in the May 2002 Washington Report, p. 49, and his Jan./Feb. 2002 article, “Did Israel Have Advance Warning of 9/11 Attacks?” p. 14). We’ve hesitated however, to divert the focus of this magazine to theories of who actually was behind the attacks. We hope you’ll be pleased by the fact that the AETBook Club is now offering David Griffin’s two-volume The New Pearl Harbor—and at a special discount (see p. 75).

A Chemical Irritation

As a chemist I am continually irritated by the frequent inability of the media to spell phosphorus, and the Washington Report is as guilty as the others. In Mohammed Omer’s story in the April 2009 issue the word appears several times and is misspelled as often as not. Your copy editors should be more careful with this word. (The word phosphorous does exist, but as an adjective referring to certain compounds of phosphorus such as phosphorous acid, and it is pronounced with the stress on the second syllable.)

I hope this is helpful.

Your appreciative subscriber,

Stewart Brown, via e-mail

To our chagrin, you are absolutely correct that Omer’s article on p. 14 of the April Washington Report contains both spellings of the word: we not only were inaccurate, but—almost worse—inconsistent! We in turn are most appreciative of your time and interest in bringing this to our attention, as we count on our readers for our continuing education.