Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts

Monday, April 23, 2007

Is Mainstream Corporate Media subverting the AIPAC Spy Trial?

4/21/2007 Opinion Essay

Graymail and Freedom of the Press

by Grant F. Smith

The Associated Press reported a major victory for defendants in the AIPAC espionage trial on April 17th, 2007. "Prosecutors suffered a setback yesterday in their case against two former pro-Israel lobbyists accused of violating the 1917 Espionage Act when a federal judge rejected the government's proposal for conducting much of the trial in secret." The presiding judge, T. S. Ellis III underscored the gravity of the situation. "If the prosecution decline[s] to submit any substitutions [for classified evidence] that you would ever make public, then maybe ... I have to decide whether to dismiss the indictment, if that's the case."

As various elements of the Israel lobby trumpet the ruling as a victory for free speech, it is useful to review not only the involvement of mainstream corporate media in trafficking classified information in the AIPAC espionage case, but also their past record on secret evidence in other high profile criminal cases.

Mainstream media's formal legal foray into the AIPAC case was triggered by a government motion. On February 16, 2007 federal prosecutors filed a "Classified Intelligence Procedures Act" (CIPA) motion with the contents sealed from public view. CIPA is an established process under which courts operate when classified information is expected to be used at trial. In response, defendants Rosen and Weissman filed a sealed motion to strike the CIPA requests and the government's motion to close the trial.

On March 13, 2007 attorney Jay Ward Brown filed a motion to intervene (PDF) and argue against the DOJ prosecutors' proposal to "limit public access to classified portions of the trial proceedings." Brown filed the motion on behalf of elite media clients including the Newspaper Guild, Communications Workers of America, Radio-Television News Directors Association, Reuters America LLC, Society of Professional Journalists, Time, Inc., The Washington Post, Hearst Corp., Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, ABC, Inc., American Society of Newspaper Editors, The Associated Press, Dow Jones & Company, Inc., and the Newspaper Association of America, Inc. The collective pressure and threat brought to bear on Judge T.S. Ellis was implicit in the motion: Any attempt to introduce classified evidence or protect sources and methods with closed proceedings would be widely reported on as Soviet era secrecy in a kangaroo court.

Titled an "Emergency Motion for Leave to Intervene", the filing sought to keep the trial completely open, ostensibly in the interest of press coverage. The motion also subtly expresses mainstream media preconceptions about the trial, stating in the filing the case is worth coverage because of the "unusual factual circumstances that gave rise to their (Rosen and Weissman) indictment" and that the case involves an "unprecedented application of the Espionage Act". The court docket (PDF) reveals this is only the latest skirmish in a legal battle that has been raging for well over a year and a half, though the trial is scheduled to begin on June 4, 2007.

On the surface this seems to be a triumph of a free press over government secrecy. However, the involvement of the elite media in the AIPAC espionage trial goes far beyond the motion or what they routinely report. A few of the same corporate news outlets filing the motion were willingly used by Weissman and Rosen to disseminate classified information to further AIPAC's policy objectives. On July 21, 2004, Weissman and Rosen called Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler to pass information that they said was from "an American intelligence source". That source is now known to be Col. Lawrence Franklin, a DoD employee sentenced to 12 years in prison. The Israel lobbyists were hoping to influence US policy on Iran. In 2003 Rosen relayed classified information to Reuters correspondent Carol Giacomo and Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs about the contents of confidential drafts of a US presidential directive advocating a more aggressive US posture toward Iran. Dobbs included the classified information in a story two weeks later.

Another AIPAC motion to intervene filer, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, clarified the mainstream corporate media's collective desire to continue serving as a willing conduit for selectively released classified information, According to Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, "Journalists who cover national security and defense receive classified information all the time, It's virtually routine. If that were the standard for bringing an espionage case, we'd be locking up a lot of people in this town and there would be fewer sources of information."

Notwithstanding the press's apparent willingness to be used to further AIPAC or any other lobbies' policy objectives by selective disclosure of classified information, secrecy in trials raises questions. Does the elite media's own reporting record reveal a consistent industrywide commitment calling for disclosure of secret evidence in all high profile criminal trials? It does not.

The New York Times chided the Iran Contra trial defense of Oliver North in an article titled "North's Lawyers Trying to Derail Prosecutor's Plan" published in 1989. Reporter Michael Wines reported, "The Federal judge in the Iran-contra case today rejected the bulk of Oliver L. North's demand to use 30,000 pages of secret documents as evidence in his defense, accusing Mr. North of making the request in a calculated effort to 'frustrate the prosecution.''' Another AIPAC espionage motion filer, Time Inc., also had a different take on classified evidence in an earlier era. Time reporter George J. Church wrote in a piece called Top-Secret Strategy that the North defense appeals for public access to classified information was despicable "graymail". Church elaborated that, "North's strategy, it seems, is to threaten to disclose embarrassing secrets if the Government will not drop the trial. In the bitter words of Robin Ross, chief aide to Attorney General Thornburgh, 'This great American hero is graymailing the Government. This is the guy who stood up in his Marine Corps uniform and all his medals, and now he is sticking it to the Government with an advantage (knowledge of secrets) he got through service to his country.'"

What about spies for foreign countries like Russia? According to the case docket of FBI spy for Russia Robert Hanssen, the mainstream corporate press did not at any time file urgent briefs, even though the bulk of the evidence trafficked by Hanssen to be used against him in court would have been highly classified.

In the rarified world of elite mainstream corporate media, if a defendant like Oliver North attempts to introduce classified information as evidence, it is "graymail." If defendants Weissman and Rosen attempt to similarly force the revelation of classified information, possibly "outing" sources and methods used to protect the US against Israeli espionage, well that's simply freedom of the press. This double standard is unfortunate.

The stakes in the AIPAC espionage case could not be higher. The AIPAC espionage case, if it comes to trial, could redefine the role of lobbies, the mainstream press and think tanks operating in Washington, DC. It is not yet clear whether average Americans approve of Washington's hidden world of selective third party disclosure and trafficking in classified information. It is also not known whether selectively disclosed and leveraged classified information fed to the "free press" has played a wider, unknown role in promoting misguided war, wasteful military spending, and perpetuating the influence of the Israel lobby. The Washington Post's own Walter Pincus, who has been rather sloppy in bringing facts about the case to his readership, now gloats that the prosecution now has only two weeks to find effective substitutes for reams of classified transcripts. We must ask whether, thanks to the legal intervention of the elite mainstream corporate media, we will ever obtain the answers to dire and burning questions of public interest.

Friday, April 20, 2007

Save Net Radio

The SaveNetRadio Coalition

The future of Internet radio is in immediate danger. The Copyright Royalty Board in Washington, DC has more than tripled the royalty rates for webcasters and left unchanged they will kill Internet radio. These exorbitant rates go into effect on May 15 (retroactive to Jan 1, 2006!). Without Congressional action the majority of webcasters will go bankrupt and silent on this date. We need your help. Please take a moment to send a letter to your member of Congress to keep Net radio from being silenced.

--MORE--

Monday, April 16, 2007

AMCHA files to join AIPAC case

This group and the defense are attempting blackmail. Under the pretense of free speech, the effort is to get the courtroom open so the defense can threaten to divulge state secrets, thereby hamstringing the prosecutors.

Another angle this slimy group is pursuing is the State is being anti-semetic. Putrid and disgusting, but typical of the Israel Lobby.

Related
Amcha: Secrecy May Turn Aipac Case Into Modern-Day Dreyfus Affair

---
JTA

A Jewish organization has for the first time formally joined in a motion friendly to the defense of two former AIPAC staffers facing classified information leak charges.

A Jewish organization has for the first time formally joined in a motion friendly to the defense of two former AIPAC staffers facing classified information leak charges.

AMCHA, headed by activist Rabbi Avi Weiss, filed a motion Wednesday to join a friend of the court brief by a number of large media groups seeking to keep the prosecution from concealing from the public evidence presented to the jury. Much of the evidence in the case against Steve Rosen, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's former foreign policy chief, and Keith Weissman, its former Iran analyst, has been gathered through eavesdropping; the two-year delay in the trial, set now to begin June 4, is due in large part to sorting through which evidence may be declassified as evidence.

Judge T.S. Ellis III's tendency to favor the defense in some instances has led the prosecution to ask for evidence to be obscured from the public, if not the jury. A number of major media outlets, including ABC, the Associated Press and the Washington Post, and First Amendment defense groups have joined the defense in challenging the prosecution's request.

"The American Jewish community has a special and compelling interest in ensuring that all of the evidence presented in the trial against Messrs. Rosen and Weissman be available to the public for review and scrutiny," says the AMCHA filing.

Other Jewish groups have taken pains to distance themselves from the case; AIPAC has fired Rosen and Weissman, and the Anti-Defamation League and B'nai B'rith International have reportedly refused to cooperate with the defense.

Ellis will hear arguments Monday.

Monday, April 9, 2007

No Freedom of Expression at Daily Kos

No Freedom of Expression at Daily Kos

First Amendment Defense Is Pursued in Hezbollah TV Case

BY JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
April 9, 2007

Two men charged with attempting to broadcast Hezbollah television say the First Amendment protects them from being prosecuted for supporting terrorism.

Whether the case against Javed Iqbal of Staten Island and Saleh Elahwal of New Jersey will grow into a major confrontation over the First Amendment is far from certain.

So far, the federal government is building its case around the alleged economic ties the men have with executives at Al Manar, the television station Hezbollah broadcasts out of Lebanon that the federal government has designated to be a foreign terrorist organization. The indictment focuses on tens of thousands of dollars Al Manar allegedly paid the two for working toward making the television station available to North American viewers via satellite.

The charges sidestep any discussion of whether the men actually succeeded in making the station available to viewers who subscribed to a satellite service they sold.

In a legal brief filed Friday, lawyers for the men filed motions seeking the dismissal of the charges. The most serious charge the men face is conspiring to provide material support to terrorists.

"The Indictment seeks to punish Mr. Iqbal and Dr. Elahwal for exercise of their First Amendment rights: facilitating the broadcast of Al Manar," according to a brief filed by lawyers for the two men, Joshua Dratel and Edward Sapone. "The content of Hizballah's message cannot serve as a justification for repressing it, and/or for prosecuting Mr. Iqbal and Dr. Elahwal for communicating it," the brief said.

Besides the First Amendment defense, the two men allege they are being targeted for selective prosecution because of either their Muslim heritage or their Middle Eastern or South Asian ethnicity. The defense lawyers argue that even though several American corporations have provided advertising revenue to Al Manar, their clients are the only two persons to be prosecuted for assisting the television station.

Law enforcement notes made public with the brief also provide a fuller picture of Mr. Iqbal's business activities. His company sold satellite subscriptions for three separate television genres: pornography, church programming, and Arabic-language television, Mr. Iqbal told investigators at the time of his arrest.

Saturday, April 7, 2007

The true story of free speech in America: Systematic censorship of Middle East reality continues

Robert Fisk

This systematic censorship of Middle East reality continues even in schools

Published: 07 April 2007

Laila al-Arian was wearing her headscarf at her desk at Nation Books, one of my New York publishers. No, she told me, it would be difficult to telephone her father. At the medical facility of his North Carolina prison, he can only make a few calls - monitored, of course - and he was growing steadily weaker.

Sami al-Arian is 49 but he stayed on hunger strike for 60 days to protest the government outrage committed against him, a burlesque of justice which has, of course, largely failed to rouse the sleeping dogs of American journalism in New York, Washington and Los Angeles.

All praise, then, to the journalist John Sugg from Tampa, Florida, who has been cataloguing al-Arian's little Golgotha for months, along with Alexander Cockburn of Counter Punch.

The story so far: Sami al-Arian, a Kuwaiti-born Palestinian, was a respected computer professor at the University of South Florida who tried, however vainly, to communicate the real tragedy of Palestinian Arabs to the US government. But according to Sugg, Israel's lobbyists were enraged by his lessons - al-Arian's family was driven from Palestine in 1948 - and in 2003, at the instigation of Attorney General Ashcroft, he was arrested and charged with conspiring "to murder and maim" outside the United States and with raising money for Islamic Jihad in "Palestine". He was held for two and a half years in solitary confinement, hobbling half a mile, his hands and feet shackled, merely to talk to his lawyers.

Al-Arian's $50m (£25m) Tampa trial lasted six months; the government called 80 witnesses (21 from Israel) and used 400 intercepted phone calls along with evidence of a conversation that a co-defendant had with al-Arian in - wait for it - a dream. The local judge, a certain James Moody, vetoed any remarks about Israeli military occupation or about UN Security Council Resolution 242, on the grounds that they would endanger the impartiality of the jurors.

In December, 2005, al-Arian was acquitted on the most serious charges and on those remaining; the jurors voted 10 to two for acquittal. Because the FBI wanted to make further charges, al-Arian's lawyers told him to make a plea that would end any further prosecution. Arriving for his sentence, however, al-Arian - who assumed time served would be his punishment, followed by deportation - found Moody talking about "blood" on the defendant's hands and ensured he would have to spend another 11 months in jail. Then prosecutor Gordon Kromberg insisted that the Palestinian prisoner should testify against an Islamic think tank. Al-Arian believed his plea bargain had been dishonoured and refused to testify. He was held in contempt. And continues to languish in prison.

Not so, of course, most of America's torturers in Iraq. One of them turns out to rejoice in the name of Ric Fair, a "contract interrogator", who has bared his soul in the Washington Post - all praise, here, by the way to the Post - about his escapades in the Fallujah interrogation "facility" of the 82nd Airborne Division. Fair has been having nightmares about an Iraqi whom he deprived of sleep during questioning "by forcing him to stand in a corner and stripping him of his clothes". Now it is Fair who is deprived of sleep. "A man with no face stares at me ... pleads for help, but I'm afraid to move. He begins to cry. It s a pitiful sound, and it sickens me. He screams, but as I awaken, I realise the screams are mine."

Thank God, Fair didn't write a play about his experiences and offer it to Channel 4 whose executives got cold feet about The Mark of Cain, the drama about British army abuse in Basra. They quickly bought into the line that transmission of Tony Marchant's play might affect the now happy outcome of the far less riveting Iranian prison production of the Famous 15 "Servicepersons" - by angering the Muslim world with tales of how our boys in Basra beat up on the local Iraqis. As the reporter who first revealed the death of hotel worker Baha Mousa in British custody in Basra - I suppose we must always refer to his demise as "death" now that the soldiers present at his savage beating have been acquitted of murder - I can attest that Arab Muslims know all too well how gentle and refined our boys are during interrogation. It is we, the British at home, who are not supposed to believe in torture. The Iraqis know all about it - and who knew all about Mousa's fate long before I reported it for The Independent on Sunday.

Because it's really all about shutting the reality of the Middle East off from us. It's to prevent the British and American people from questioning the immoral and cruel and internationally illegal occupation of Muslim lands. And in the Land of the Free, this systematic censorship of Middle East reality continues even in the country's schools. Now the principal of a Connecticut high school has banned a play by pupils, based on the letters and words of US soldiers serving in Iraq. Entitled Voices in Conflict, Natalie Kropf, Seth Koproski, James Presson and their fellow pupils at Wilton High School compiled the reflections of soldiers and others - including a 19-year-old Wilton High graduate killed in Iraq - to create their own play. To no avail. The drama might hurt those "who had lost loved ones or who had individuals serving as we speak", proclaimed Timothy Canty, Wilton High's principal. And - my favourite line - Canty believed there was not enough rehearsal time to ensure the play would provide "a legitimate instructional experience for our students".

And of course, I can quite see Mr Canty's point. Students who have produced Arthur Miller's The Crucible were told by Mr Canty - whose own war experiences, if any, have gone unrecorded - that it wasn't their place to tell audiences what soldiers were thinking. The pupils of Wilton High are now being inundated with offers to perform at other venues. Personally, I think Mr Canty may have a point. He would do much better to encourage his students to perform Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus, a drama of massive violence, torture, rape, mutilation and honour killing. It would make Iraq perfectly explicable to the good people of Connecticut. A "legitimate instructional experience" if ever there was one.

Friday, March 16, 2007

Israeli PM's office threatens legal Arab dissent

PMO to Balad: We will thwart anti-Israel activity even if legal

By Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondent

The Prime Minister's Office has sent a letter to the editor of the publication of the predominantly Arab party Balad saying it would combat the activity of any group or individual seeking to harm Israel's "Jewish or democratic character," even if that activity was legal.

"The Shin Bet security service will thwart the activity of any group or individual seeking to harm the Jewish and democratic character of the State of Israel, even if such activity is sanctioned by the law," read the letter, sent by the Prime Minister's Office on behalf of the Shin Bet to editor Ala Hlehel.

The letter, published Friday, also said that the Shin Bet would fulfill this task with the "force of the principle of a democracy that defends itself."

Hlehel petitioned the PMO last week following media released information of a closed-door meeting between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and head of the Shin Bet, Yuval Diskin, in which the latter reportedly described Israel's Arab population as a "strategic threat" to the prime minister.

The two reportedly discussed four documents drafted by groups representing Israel's Arab population which call for a change in Israel's character: "The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel," by the Higher Arab Monitoring Committee, the Musawa oganization's "Ten Point Document," the "Democratic Constitution," by the Adala Center, and the yet unpublised "Haifa Treaty."

When Hlehel accused the Prime Minister's Office of "attempting to shut mouths," the Shin Bet responded by saying that there was nothing wrong with the formulation of the documents "unless they reflect or encourage subversive activity," and that the Shin Bet's activity includes foiling such activity on the part of various groups "even if their activity utilizes democratic tools."

Hlehel told Haaretz on Friday that the Shin Bet's response violates the law that regulates its activity, constitutes a blatant breach of its authority, and proves that the "era of military rule imposed upon Arab citizens never ended."

"The Shin Bet is supposed to defense the security of the country, not prevent democratic discussions over the nature of the state... this is very grave and affects all citizens of the state, not just the Arabs," he added.

Monday, March 12, 2007

Police target group blog for criticizing Israel

Note to cops: FUCK YOU. Check it out mutherfuckers.
Related
Fuck the NYC Police State Terror Cops
---

Zionists target WUFYS for criticizing israel

When you make waves, you make enemies . . .

extremely malicious ones.

I was expecting a baseless attack on my reputation, a warantless smear of anti-semitism or otherwise, but I was not expecting two anti-terrorism detectives to come knocking at my door to investigate an accusation that my site is funded by or funds Hamas.

Not only is the accusation outrageous because it's a LIE, but also far from a routine cry of anti-semitism, the 'anonymous female caller from Brooklyn' who claimed to be 'a former friend of mine' was aiming to land me in federal prison for a very, very long time.

This was a very malicious plot. But, also a stupid one, as the accusation is obviously patently false.

As a 'former friend,' she knows enough about me to be absolutely certain that her accusations are false, and that a few dozen years in prison would destroy not only my life but the lives of those dependant on me.

But, then again, 'anonymous tips' are the perfect avenue for cowards to launch their malicious attacks on political victims, without fear of being held accountable for their lies.

Of course, I have no way of knowing for certain 'who' this anonymous caller is. But, suffice it to say that I have strong suspicions about who 'she' might be.

And if I ever come across evidence that the person I suspect indeed made these accusations, then she will be staring at a major defamation lawsuit, not unlike the one that the Wiesenthal Center lost in Paris recently.

Finally, I have one last thing to say to this 'former friend' of mine and anyone else who seeks to silence critics of israel through smears, defamation, and threats of physical violence and imprisonment - for every critic that you silence, a thousand more will follow in their footsteps.

We have remained silent for too long.

We will not give up.

The Truth is Eternal.

And you cannot prevail.

Posted in Submitted by qrswave on Mon, 2007-03-12 01:57. qrswave's blog

Friday, February 16, 2007

Journey of a ("Self-Hating") Jew

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Among other events in recent history, the formation of the group Independent Jewish Voices in the UK has once again pushed the debate on Israel and Palestine into the spotlight. Along with this, the usual, tired and outrageously misplaced allegations of “self-hatred” are made by the more shrill voices among the “Israel can do no wrong” lobby. Here are some of my ruminations on this discussion.

David Rovics

There are few issues more divisive in US society, including on the left, than the issue of Israel and Palestine. Even the word “Palestine” is divisive! The state of Israel claims to represent Jews worldwide. This is a preposterous and plainly incorrect claim, but one often made and often assumed, to the detriment of much of humanity. People who vocally oppose Israeli policies are labelled anti-Semites. Jews who oppose Israeli policies – or who dare to question the right of this apartheid state to exist as such – are labelled “self-hating Jews.” Supporters of Israel are using historic anti-Semitism and the memory of the Nazi holocaust as a means to stifle dissent. Reason and compassion is not on their side, so they resort to name-calling. I have some personal experiences with this state of affairs, and I thought I’d recount some of them and share some thoughts on the subject.

I used to be lovers with a woman from Germany. She and I were visiting my grandmother at her retirement community in Florida. It seems about half the Jewish population of Brooklyn ends up in Florida by the time they’re 65, and grandma Diane was among them. One of the women grandma played Bridge with was a German Jewish holocaust survivor. When she met my partner, there was something she clearly felt compelled to tell her. “We were Germans,” she said. “We were Germans.” That was all, three words.

Any non-fascist historian can confirm this fact. By the early twentieth century most German Jews were what they call “assimilated.” They were about as German as any other German. For many, their Jewish identity was about as important to them as which Christian denomination their neighbors belonged to. They were integrated members of a European society, Europeans, Germans. They were communists, social democrats, conservatives. They were laborers and they were bosses. They were renters and landlords, rich, poor, and in between. Obviously, the rise of Hitler changed all that, and suddenly Jews recognized themselves as Jews again. The Nazis wanted to kill all of them, so Jewish identity suddenly became a matter of life and death. When people are thus threatened, oppressed, and ultimately slaughtered in their millions, this sort of thing tends to bring people together to attempt to defend themselves. Thus from this disparate group of people once again is born a “community.”

Enter 21st-century USA. There is no such thing as a “Jewish community.” There is no such thing as a “Christian community” either, or an “Irish community,” “Italian community,” etc. There is no oppression to speak of in the US or Europe directed at people based on their Jewish or Christian identity, any more than there is still oppression against people of Irish or Italian descent. Certainly there used to be all of these things, but it’s been a while. In the forty years I’ve been living in the US I have hardly ever heard a serious anti-Semitic remark. I’ve never been victimized in any way as a result of being Jewish, and I don’t think I have ever met anyone of my generation who has had a problem with anti-Semitism of any significance, either.

Jewishness of course is an unusual phenomenon that is often defined as a religious, ethnic, and/or quasi-national identity, depending on who’s doing the defining. Regardless of the definition, there is plenty of common history for Jews anywhere, but like Catholics, Poles or whoever else in the modern US, Jews do not have a common identity in terms of their politics, professions, geography, etc. Jews are not ghettoized anymore, whether by law or by a generalized discrimination. They are rich, poor and in between, and they live anywhere in the country where you might find other people. Sometimes in large numbers, sometimes in very small numbers. Sometimes they have contact with each other as Jews for one reason or another, usually they don’t.

Once I had a gig at a law school in Vermont. Three people came to hand out literature about my alleged anti-Semititic views to people coming to the show. These three people were in a group that called itself The Jewish Community, as I recall. But in the civilized discussion that followed my concert, it turned out that there were more than three people of Jewish lineage in the crowd who were not members of The Jewish Community and didn’t share their views on Israel. It didn’t seem to me that these Jews were any less Jewish than The Jewish Community -- they just weren’t in a group that called itself The Jewish Community.

This also, it seems to me, is the distinction between groups like AIPAC and the rest of the Jewish population. The rest of us don’t tend to organize as a “Jewish community,” but as whoever we are – environmentalists, anarchists, union members, real estate developers, whatever.

Of course, there is plenty of oppression in the US. Racism, for example, permeates society. Race, of course, is a social construct with no biological basis, but it is a social construct that is the basis for both historical and ongoing discrimination of massive proportions. But if a Jew, a Catholic, or even a Muslim is white, then he or she is white, and treated as such. This is how modern US society functions. There is a sort of caste system, and it changes in various ways over time. It used to be a liability to be most anything other than a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. This is no longer the case. Over the course of the post-war period the “white” category has expanded to include light-skinned Jews and other historically-oppressed ethnic and religious groups such as Irish and Italian Catholics.

This is not to say that white people don’t suffer from discrimination. You can still be discriminated against according to your regional accent, how you dress, whether you can read or write, etc. As a youthful, long-haired hippie driving an old beat-up car, I was pulled over by the cops many times more than most other white people, probably for all of those offenses – being young, having long hair, and driving an old car. But I’m quite certain it was not for being Jewish.

History is another matter entirely. While the label of “self-hating” is generally misapplied and used to try to silence Jews critical of Israel, self-hatred certainly exists, and other conditions like it. I think of my nanny when I was very young, living in upper Manhattan. She was a deeply loving woman full of enthusiasm for life, and children, her own two sons and the many young children she took care of. I visited her now and then for decades after my family moved from New York City when I was a small child. She was full of stories. She talked about all the gangsters in the area and how they never pick on her because she’s known them all since they were babies. New York was her city. She had a strange accent, impossible to place. She said she was English. She met an Italian-American jazz musician there in England and moved back to New York with him after the war. She talked about being a teenager in London during the blitz, and how she used to use the air raids to her advantage, to spend more time with boys. “Sorry mom, I can’t come home now, there’s an air raid happening.”

She raised her kids to be Irish-American Catholics in New York City. Several years ago I was visiting New York and I gave her a call. Her eldest son answered the phone. His mother had died a few months before, he told me. He also told me that he had found out during the last year or so of her life that she was not from England -- she was a German Jew. She was one of the last Jewish children sent to England during the Kindertransports. For whatever reason, she had hidden her identity from everyone, her friends, her family. She told her son on her deathbed about how her society, Germany, had rejected her. Perhaps the rejection was too much to bear, and she had to try to forget about her past, her German and Jewish identity. Perhaps the term “self-hating” could in some measure apply to this wonderful, vibrant, but apparently troubled woman, although the term seems far too simplistic to fit such a complex person so full of love for humanity.

Perhaps it was experiences she had after arriving in the US that strengthened her resolve to keep her ethnic and national identity hidden. My grandmother’s mother was from Russia, and spoke Yiddish, never becoming very fluent in English. When my dad was young it was Yiddish that the matriarchs of the house spoke, their secret language which they never taught him. Grandma Diane’s parents were refugees, leaving Russia because they didn’t want to be killed in the pogroms and didn’t wanted to be drafted into the Tsar’s army, a death sentence in itself. Before the Nazi holocaust, Diane Rovics and her mother were in touch with dozens of relatives in Europe, Diane once told me. Her mother died soon after the war, and I don’t know how much Diane tried to get back in touch with her relatives across the ocean, but she said she never heard from any of them, and presumed them all to be dead.

Grandma Diane’s Jewish identity was always terribly complex for her. For a long time she was looking for housing outside of Brooklyn. This search went on for years before she eventually moved to New Jersey and then Florida. In every community she visited there were either too many Jews or not enough Jews. She wanted the safety of having lots of Jews around, but didn’t want anybody else to notice. When I was a child she often told me that I was lucky to have blond hair and blue eyes and not to “look Jewish.” She’d say the same about our last name, from Grandpa Alvin’s part of the family, Rovics, which she informed me was not a typical Jewish last name.

Once when she left the safety of New York City to visit Connecticut about a half century ago, land of the “gentiles” back then, there was a sign on the beach saying “no Jews or dogs allowed.” I’m sure she had many other similar experiences. Being Jewish was for her a source of strength and a source of anguish, but mostly anguish. She always just wanted to fit in, to be an American, and ultimately, she did, and she was. She was traumatized by her family history and by the Nazi holocaust, but she wanted to put it behind her. She would often tell her idealistic leftwing grandson, “you can’t change the world.” She’d tell me to just look out for myself, get a good job, go to business school, become a dentist, be a respectable part of society and hopefully you will be respected in turn, or at least left alone.

For other assimilated, white, light-haired, blue-eyed US citizens such as Diane’s daughter, my aunt Judy, who knows where life could have gone. But as with so many others, the Jewish genocide that was going on when she was born in 1941 made a lasting impact. The Zionist movement for a Jewish homeland, not very popular among Jews worldwide before the Nazi holocaust, became much more popular after it. Lots of Jews – though far from all – joined that bandwagon, and my aunt was one of them. We haven’t spoken in years, but from what I understand, for her and her synogogue in New Jersey, criticism of Israel is completely unacceptable, there is no room for debate.

For people like Judy, “never again” means “never again to us.” Fuck everybody else, especially Arabs. The fascists in Europe killed us, nobody stopped them, and now if we need to steal somebody else’s land in order to have a home, so be it. People like Judy invent all kinds of outrageous theories to justify the fundamentally racist movement that has led to the state of Israel. There are no Palestinians, they’re all Arabs, and the 800 million Arabs in the world all hate Jews and want to “drive the Jews into the sea.” The Palestinians are really Jordanians and should be just as happy there as in the land of their ancestors. The hundreds of Palestinian villages destroyed by the Zionists never really existed. The Palestinians were all nomads if they weren’t Jordanian. The refugee problem is one created by the Arab states -- not the Jews who drove the refugees off their land.

People like Judy live in a sea of lies, and are miserable. At least they’re miserable. Hating other people so vehemently – Arabs, your fellow Jewish critics, and whoever else – causes one to be miserable. I’m sure there must be some happy ones out there, but the “ardent Zionists” I meet tend to be about as miserable as other members of hate groups I’ve met. I remember seeing the Orange marchers in Glasgow one time. What a miserable bunch. They all looked so pathetic, those men and boys dressed in their antiquated outfits, singing songs about being “knee-deep in Fenian blood.” These people have decided that the solution to their perceived problems lies in the oppression of another people. Not only does this kind of mentality breed misery, but it also doesn’t work.

Disenfranchised people always struggle for their liberty. Sometimes their struggles will be crushed, as in the case of the German left in the 1930’s. Sometimes their struggles will meet with relative success, such as the European labor movements that have been largely responsible for creating many of the most prosperous societies on Earth. Other times the oppression of a people leads to an ongoing struggle for justice that goes on for decades, such as the Palestinian struggle for self-determination. There can never possibly be peace and security for Israel as long as there are millions of impoverished, angry refugees surrounding it, no matter how high the walls they build, no matter how many children they massacre, no matter how many youths they torture in their prisons. History has demonstrated this fact, over and over again. Where there is oppression there will be resistance. The resistance may or may not be successful, but it will always harm the oppressor to one degree or another. This is not mere rhetoric. It is history and current events, all over the world.

There are those for whom “never again” takes on a very different meaning than for people like my aunt. For them, these lessons of history are learned. Of course, such people have existed since long before the Nazi holocaust, but the holocaust also was responsible for creating lots more of them. People who believe oppression should be opposed in all it’s forms, and those struggling for their lives and liberty should be supported. For these people, the term “us” means something much bigger than Jews, Catholics, Americans, or some other such limited category. Bob Steck is one such example.

Bob Steck died last December at the age of 95. He was a friend of mine, who I used to see much more of back when he lived near my mother in Connecticut, before he and his wife moved to Arizona. Bob grew up near Davenport, Iowa. When he was a boy in the 1920’s, Davenport was a town full of socialist intellectuals. The countryside around the town was full of radical farmers. When the fascist generals rebelled against the democratically-elected government in Spain in 1936, Bob was one of many thousands of Americans who volunteered – against the wishes of the US government – to fight fascism in Europe. Bob had never been to Spain, and I’m not sure if he had ever even met a Spaniard before, out there in the middle of the farm belt. He was not fighting for people he knew, or for “his people” in some kind of limited sense – he was fighting for humanity, for the future, for justice, for dignity.

Along with Bob, thousands of young men and women joined the International Brigades from England, Ireland and elsewhere. The biggest contingents of people ready to die in the fight against fascism came from Germany and Italy. After more than a year fighting the war in Spain he was captured, and spent 16 months in a concentration camp where he was regularly beaten, where the conditions were atrocious. Some German Nazis visited the camp once and measured everybody’s faces, thinking they could tell the Jews apart from the others by the size of their noses. He was Jewish, though that never occurred to me until one morning at his house when he made a particularly tasteless Matzo Ball omelette for me. Most of the Americans to go to Spain were killed there, but Bob was one of the those who ultimately returned home.

More than anything, Bob was a communist, and a historical optimist. He would tell me that ever since society has been divided into classes, several thousand years ago for much of the planet, there has been a class struggle, and this struggle will continue until we eventually abolish poverty, racism, and these sorts of divisions in society. Just as he fought against fascism in Europe, he fought against racism in the US. He was the Director of Activities of Camp Unity, a daring inter-racial working-class resort in upstate New York. He saw himself as a part of a movement, not as an exceptional individual, though he was most certainly both. He taught history for 30 years in the public schools of New York City, playing his part in the evolution of society, with books and lectures, just as he had in Spain with rifles and supply trucks. Yes, he was Jewish, and like so many Jews and so many other people of his generation, he was a communist first and foremost.

Bob was a very stoic man, by his own admission. He was stoic before the Spanish Civil War, but being held in the concentration camp taught him stoicism to a much larger degree. Never let the guards know how badly you are suffering, or it will demoralize the other prisoners. This was his view. I don’t know how much he may have had to question his beliefs from time to time, but when I asked him what his thoughts were on Israel, his response was quick and unequivocal. There must be justice for the Palestinians.

Long before I ever went to Israel I had strong opinions on the behavior of the Israeli government, and whether there should even be an Israeli government as such (that is, a government wherein non-Jews are systematically discriminated against, disenfranchised or killed). I had never been there, but my impression was that it was a colonial state, a society of settlers, like South Africa, Australia, the US, Canada and others. One of many societies where European invaders had colonized the place at gunpoint and either killed or driven out the indigenous population. The scars of living in societies like these can be seen on anybody living in them, whether they are members of one of the oppressed groups or one of the privileged groups. Whether they are being killed, doing the killing, or giving the orders to fire.

I was uncertain what to do when in 1999 I received an invitation from the Israeli Folk Music Society to do a tour of Israel that they would set up. But I quickly decided I should do it. I lived in one society that was brutally colonized by European invaders, so it seemed silly not to go, just because Israel was much more recently-conquered territory than the US. Besides, I wanted to see first-hand what was up there, and the offer to organize a tour was a perfect way to meet real Israelis.

And that’s what I did. Not Peace Now, not Gush-Shalom, not Women In Black, not Anarchists Against the Wall. They’re not members of the Israeli Folk Music Society. I met regular Israeli Jewish anglophone folk music fans. Like so many Israelis, the vast majority of the men and women I met were not born in Israel. Many were from New York, and others originally came from Britain, Australia and elsewhere. I was trying to be sort of undercover, wanting to see what Israeli Jews thought about their situation, not wanting to impose my viewpoint first. Besides, I hadn’t yet written any songs about the Palestinian struggle (at least nothing I liked enough to sing in public), so that made it easier for me.

What I found in my ten-day tour of Israel was the most racist society I had ever encountered. The secular yuppies of Tel Aviv were the worst, while the most compassionate people opposed to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza tended to be very religious, which was an unexpected revelation for me. The most sensible person I met on that trip was a religious man who was in the Israeli military for the wars of both 1967 and 1973. It was after 1973 that he had an awakening, and came to recognize the brutal reality of the Israeli occupation.

I met some other fairly decent folks there, but most people I encountered seemed to be right out of a Klan rally in 1950’s Alabama. Very odd, since many of the Americans among them had been involved with the Civil Rights movement back in the day. But they seemed to have no problem talking about “the Arab mind,” refusing to use the term “Palestinian” in conversation, even when avoiding it meant jumping through all kinds of verbal hoops. They talked fondly of one friend living on a West Bank settlement, whose politics were often described as “somewhere to the right of Ghengis Khan.” One of them talked often of her “Christian Arab” friend who lived in a “Christian Arab” town in Israel, who we should visit at some point. (We never did.)

Once I was doing a house concert there. As long as I sang about oppression elsewhere in the world people loved it. They were reminiscing of their days in the movement against the Vietnam war and their time in SDS. I was trying to end my show after quite a while, but they wanted more, more. It was at least the fifth encore, and I thought, OK, now I’m gonna hit ‘em with a song against the US bombing raids and UN sanctions that were currently causing mass suffering in Iraq. It was the first time I sang a song at a gig and nobody clapped.

After a very pregnant silence, a self-described socialist originally from Scotland began clapping, but no one joined him. There was basically unanimity in the room. The song was wrong, the bombing of Iraq was right. And how outrageous to sing that song in Israel, I was told, since “we had to put gas masks on our children and hide in bomb shelters.” A handful of Israelis were killed by the Scud missiles, a few years after Israel had itself bombed Iraq, and the Israelis had to sleep in bomb shelters, all emerging safely the next morning, unlike the Iraqis who were being killed in their hundreds of thousands, including those incinerated by the US Air Force while hiding in their bomb shelters.

But for these people, the suffering of the Iraqis simply was irrelevant. The Iraqis didn’t matter, they all wanted to kill the Jews, even the Iraqi children, I was told there to my unbelieving face.

My German girlfriend was with me on that tour. In the long discussion that followed me singing the song about the war on Iraq, she and I were told that the bombing of Dresden was a good thing. This man was telling us that the killing of a hundred thousand women and children, for no reason other than to kill them, was a good thing. He was telling us that one of the great war crimes of world history -- right up there with other mechanized mass killings, such as the blitz, the Nazi holocaust or the carpet-bombing of Korea and Vietnam – was a good thing. He couldn’t justify it in any way, but it was good, and he wanted us to know that.

This was around the time that I realized that the whole of Israeli society is full of trauma survivors of one sort or another. Palestinians inside and outside Israel traumatized by ongoing oppression of so many sorts, and Jews traumatized by living in the war zone they created when they declared their “independence” (from whom?) in 1948. Traumatized by their parents and other relatives being killed in Europe. Traumatized in such a way that most of them had decided, it seemed, that “never again” clearly meant “never again to us Jews.” To hell with everybody else.

About a year later, to my surprise, the Israeli Folk Music Society offered to organize another tour for me. I again decided in favor of constructive engagement. But then, a couple months before the tour was to happen, Ariel Sharon took a thousand troops to the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the spark – along with the settlement-building, the road closures, the increasing numbers of checkpoints, the bulldozing of houses and olive groves -- that lit the powder keg that set off the second Intifada. And then I wrote a song about the Israeli soldiers gunning down children with live ammunition soon after Sharon’s visit to the mosque, and it was all over.

The organizer of the tour didn’t cancel it right away. One by one, the organizers of nine of the ten shows I was scheduled to do wrote me outraged emails. How could you write a song like this, how could you say these things, we thought you were one of us, you sound like them. From most of the presenters there, and then from other supporters of Israel from the US and elsewhere, I started receiving emails regularly calling me a self-hating Jew, a neofascist, a fascist, a Nazi, etc. One of the ten presenters wrote me and said he liked the lyrics and looked forward to hearing them. He was the veteran of 1967 and 1973 I mentioned earlier.

Then a few days later I started receiving emails from Palestinians throughout the diaspora who had gotten the lyrics to my song somehow, too. These emails far outnumbered the ones from the Israel supporters. Many were short, just thanking me for making this statement. Others were much longer and full of stories of the nakba, “the catastrophe,” as they call the events of 1948. Others wrote about the brutality and humiliation of life under occupation, or life in the refugee camps. I started meeting Palestinians of all walks of life, in the US, Canada, England, and eventually in Palestine itself.

The news lately is full of factional fighting between Fatah and Hamas. But this is not the sort of thing that characterizes Palestinian society. Palestinians do have a community. One reason for this is the fact that they are all under siege, and all struggling to live under the occupation, all wanting it to end. The Muslims and Christians get along fine. They are all Palestinian. When you’re there, these things are obvious, especially if you’ve visited other communities engaged in resistance. You see those common signs, that universal sense of determination, purpose, existing in the moment, not knowing what horrors tomorrow may bring, whether their house will be bulldozed, whether their daughter will be shot by a sniper while sitting in school, whether the olive grove will be burned by settlers. On the ground in Palestine, it’s very clear what’s happening. This is a place under occupation by a massive, fundamentally racist military power.

Most people in the world with a knowledge of world events recognize the situation for what it is. This is certainly true in Europe. According to polls I’ve seen lately, most Jews in Europe and in North America do not identify with Israel as a country that represents them. Most people in Europe do not have any problems with Jews. There are always a few boneheads here and there desecrating cemetaries. It doesn’t take many people to do that. But generally, serious acts of anti-Semitism are virtually unheard of in Europe or North America. Most Europeans, however, are very critical of Israel and concerned about the plight of the Palestinians. And most Europeans recognize that there is no contradiction here, since they understand that “Israel” and “Jews” are, thankfully, two different things.

Germany, however, is a unique case, where as far as Israel and Palestine are concerned, it’s a different story.

In my family there’s long been a bit of a suspicion of Germany and Germans. Most of us have been to Europe, but only a couple have actually visited Germany. Bordering countries, yes – Holland, France, Denmark, but not Germany. Of course, the neighboring countries are all much more attractive, since most of their cities survived WWII intact, while almost all of Germany’s were destroyed by British and American carpet-bombing. But the comparative lack of pre-war architecture wasn’t why my family avoided visiting Germany.

I was a bit hesitant about it the first time I visited. I didn’t know a lot about recent German history. I mostly knew German accents from WWII movies. After spending quite a bit of time there, though, I developed a real affection for German society. Spending lots of time with lots of Germans, I found so much beauty, and so much anguish. As much as German society suffered from the Allied bombardments, from a generation of young men being sent off to kill and be killed in battle, from so many non-Jewish Germans also being killed in the camps, Germans as a whole are even more paralyzed with an unbearable guilt about the genocide of their Jewish brethren. Most Germans today have no recollection of what society was like with millions of German Jews in it, but their absence is like a ghost standing on every street corner.

Most Germans would be horrified to be accused of anti-Semitism. Whereas the left throughout almost the entire world is critical of Israel and supports Palestinian sovereignty, the German left is largely quiet about it, or actively and uncritically supporting Israel.

I remember one guy in the neighborhood in Hamburg where I spent quite a bit of time, who had a radio show at the local free radio station (equivalent of what we’d call community radio in the US). For one of his shows he interviewed a Palestinian doctor about life under the Israeli occupation.
Specifically about the challenges of providing medical care under the circumstances, with the checkpoints delaying ambulances for hours or turning them back, with tanks firing at ambulances, etc. By consensus, the collective board that ran the radio station canned his show permanently for this offense. What did he do? He failed to have an Israeli on his show at the same time. To dare to have a Palestinian doctor with no Israeli to somehow balance out his views was unacceptable.

Many Germans on the left who have dared to try to be consistent internationalists in solidarity with oppressed people around the world, and have included Palestinians within that worldview, have suffered similar fates. When you know that this is the environment on the German left and in German society in general, the Autonomen become even more impressive. These were Germans in the tradition of Bob Steck, true internationalists who supported liberation everywhere, including for Palestinians.

In the 1980’s the German autonomous movement followed in the footsteps of the Italian autonomous movement a decade before. They ccupied buildings, reclaiming the commons, building a different society. They rejected the Soviet model as well as the capitalist one. They opposed US as well as German military and economic intervention in the Third World. They were antifascists to the core, spending much of their time physically battling Nazi boneheads on the streets of Germany, and often battling the German police as well. (When they have to choose, the police almost always side with the right in these situations.) They supported struggles for self-determination around the world. And, consistent with the rest of their principles around anti-racism and Third World liberation, at the top of their flagship squat in Hamburg, Haffenstrasse, were two words that shocked German society probably more than anything else coming from the Autonomen: “free Palestine.”

But with the decline of the Autonomen has come, among other things, the rise of a uniquely German organization known as the Anti-Deutsche.

I’ll be returning to Germany for the G8 protests this summer, but the last time I was there was several years ago, and the last concert I did there was in the town of Marburg. I had seen a flyer that the Anti-Deutsche had made, criticizing me and my music the night before. This time, when I got to the arts center in Marburg where my concert was to happen, there were eight or so blond men and women in their early twenties, forming a gauntlet in front of the entrance to the building, handing out the flyers. Some people didn’t go to the show as a result, I don’t know how many.

The flyers claimed I was an anti-Semite. I was clearly an anti-Semite because I support the Palestinian struggle, and the Palestinians all hate women and hate their own children, since they fail to prevent them from being shot by Israeli tanks. They furthermore argued that since I was critical of capitalism, I was therefore anti-Semitic because making statements against institutions like the World Bank is a veiled anti-Semitic thing to do. This kind of thinking seems to be supporting all kinds of strange anti-Semitic myths about the ranks of Jews being filled with rich bankers, but there you go. Also, since I opposed the war in Iraq, I was an anti-Semite, since the war in Iraq was being waged to benefit Israel, and therefore it was good, and therefore the US should be supported most of the time, and Israel all of the time. I approached them politely to try to have a civil discourse about the flyer, but was told by one of them that “we don’t talk to fascists,” so there would be no discussion.

If this was an isolated cult of wingnuts it would be one thing, but the Anti-Deutsche are a fairly common phenomenon all over Germany, with their base in Leipzig. They actually originally come out of the more communist end of the German left. Many Germans will privately acknowledge them as nutters, but they’re often loathe to confront them, fearing the label of anti-Semitism.

To their credit, the Anti-Deutsche apparently spend much of their time opposing actual fascists. But they seem to spend at least as much time harassing people like me. I haven’t seen any overviews on this sort of thing, but my friend Attila the Stockbroker, a punk rock songwriter and poet from England who tours in Germany regularly, has recently been banned from a number of music venues on account of his fairly mild opposition to Israeli policies. He hasn’t written any songs specifically on the subject, but just mentioning his opposition to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was enough to get the Anti-Deutsche to actively denounce him. And that was enough to get several venues to ban him, and for some of his traditional leftwing punk audience to stop coming to his shows.

As irrational as the Anti-Deutsche patently are, they have a chilling effect on the German left, and they are a real product of German history, and of the German collective guilt complex. So in order to avoid being anti-Semitic, that is, in order to avoid being anti-racist, they must support a racist regime. It’s convoluted logic that most people outside of Germany can see through, but in Germany this logic plays pretty well. Two wrongs make a right. We are traumatized because our people killed millions of Jews, therefore we must support the traumatized victims of the Nazi holocaust as they act out their displaced feelings of aggression towards us and focus them against the Palestinians, slaughtering thousands of them annually and making sure the rest live in a state of squalor.

Jews like my aunt or like so many Israelis say “never again to us,” while the Anti-Deutsche and other Germans say “never again to them.” The Autonomen and the Bob Stecks of the world say never again to anyone.

Who holds the moral high ground is obvious. The thing that allows people like me to sleep well at night, though, is having the knowledge that not only is this the moral view, the view that is easier to live with as a human being with a conscience, but it is also the sensible understanding of history and reality. Blinded by rage, trauma, or guilt, what the pro-Israel people apparently don’t see is that no matter what you do, a subjugated people will fight back. As anybody who’s visited a VA clinic in the US can tell you, the cost of oppression is also very high for those doing the oppressing.

So I say save the Jews and free Palestine!

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Bush at Press Conference Wednesday Contradicts Sunday's "Anonymous" Briefing on Iranian Weapons

Bush at Press Conference Today Contradicts Sunday's Briefing on Iranian Weapons

By E&P Staff

Published: February 14, 2007 1:45 PM ET

NEW YORK At his press conference this morning in ice-covered Washington, D.C., President Bush was pressed by reporters on U.S. officials' claims at a Baghdad briefing on Sunday. These unnamed officials charged that not only were weapons from Iran killing American soldiers in Iraq, they were being used on orders from top Iranian leaders.

The New York Times and Washington Post, among other papers, featured these charges on the top of their Web sites and front page on Sunday and Monday. Since then, skepticism has grown, with even Gen. Peter Pace saying that he knew of no evidence linking Iranian leaders to any use of such weapons.

So the question came up at today's press conference. Here is an excerpt.
*

QUESTION: Critics say that you are using the same quality of intelligence about Iran that you used to make the case for war in Iraq -- specifically about WMD -- that turned out to be wrong, and that you are doing that to make a case for war against Iran.

Is that the case?

BUSH: I can say with certainty that the Quds Force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated IEDs that have harmed our troops.

And I'd like to repeat: I do not know whether or not the Quds Force was ordered from the top echelons of government.

But my point is: What's worse -- them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and it's happening?

And so we will continue to protect our troops.

We -- our strategy is comprehensive in order to resolve problems that will affect our own peace and the peace in the world.

And the biggest problem I see is the Iranians' desire to have a nuclear weapon. And, as you know, we've been dealing with this issue ever since you've been covering me, and pretty much ever since I've been the president.

And we've made it very clear to the Iranians that, if they would like to have a dialogue with the United States, there needs to be a verifiable suspension of their program.

I would hope that they would do that. I would like to be -- have been -- given a chance for us to explain that we have no desire to harm the Iranian people.

But my focus is on making sure that this weapon is dealt with, the program is dealt with in a constructive, peaceful way.

And we'll continue to work toward achieving our common objectives, with other nations in the world, in a peaceful way....

Q I want to follow up on Iran one more time. Are you saying, today, that you do not know if senior members of the Iranian government are, in fact, behind these explosives? That contradicts what U.S. officials said in Baghdad on Sunday. They said the highest levels of the Iranian government were behind this.

It also -- it seems to square with what General Pace has been saying, but contradicts with what your own press secretary said yesterday. What...

BUSH: Can I -- let me -- I can't say it more plainly: There are weapons in Iraq that are harming U.S. troops because of the Quds Force.

As you know, I hope, the Quds Force is a part of the Iranian government. Whether Ahmadinejad ordered the Quds Force to do this, I don't think we know. But we do know that they're there.

And I intend to do something about it.

And I've asked our commanders to do something about it. And we're going to protect our troops.

Q But given some of those contradictions, Mr. President...

BUSH: There's no contradiction that the weapons are there and they were provided by the Quds Force...

Q What assurances can you give the American people that the intelligence this time will be accurate?

BUSH: We know they're there. We know they're provided by the Quds Force. We know the Quds Force is a part of the Iranian government. I don't think we need who picked up the phone and said to the Quds Force, "Go do this," but we know it's a vital part of the Iranian government.

What matters is, is that we're responding. The idea that somehow we're manufacturing the idea that the Iranians are providing IEDs is preposterous. My job is to protect our troops. And when we find devices that are in that country that are hurting our troops, we're going to do something about it, pure and simple.

Now, David says: Does this mean you're trying to have a pretext for war? No. It means I'm trying to protect our troops. That's what that's means. And that's what the family members of our soldiers expect the commander in chief and those responsible for -- responsible for our troops on the ground.

And we'll continue to do so.


E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Media Try to Bar Access to the U.S. Capitol

Capitol Hill Junior High School, Or How the Media Kool Kidz Try to Bar Access to Your Government

In Montana, anyone can walk into the state Capitol and sit in on any meeting, press conference or other gathering, thanks to our state’s Open Meeting Law. You literally can sit in on everything. You want to watch the Democratic Senate caucus meeting? Go right ahead. You want to take notes on the Republican House caucus meeting? Totally fine. It is the ultimate in transparent democracy: anyone - reporter, citizen, activist, anyone - can see their government at work. The same cannot be said of the U.S. Capitol - and not because of any security concerns, but because there are certain people who have a very vested interest in preventing the public from seeing what’s going on.

This is the underlying subject of a very snarky, highly irresponsible, yet laugh-out-loud funny article on the Washington Post’s website that features yours truly. As Mary Ann Akers breathlessly "reports" in the first paragraph, after a committee of journalists denied me a temporary press credential for an article I was working on for the award-winning, 35-year-old magazine In These Times (which I am a senior editor at), I supposedly devised an ultra-devious, almost criminal plot to infiltrate the U.S. Capitol and - gasp! - interview senators like other reporters do. How did I do this? I got an intern pass from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who I was shadowing for the day as part of my article.

Of course, buried in the third to last paragraph, Akers notes that the very journalists who denied me a credential and are now criticizing me actually admitted that they were the ones who told me to get the intern pass in the first place. But that’s a minor 11th-paragraph-worthy detail to Akers - even if it destroys the entire premise of her supposed gotcha. (Another minor detail she forgot to mention was that the Businessweek reporter tried to cite a very old biography of me to justify her behavior, and then accused me of doctoring my website when she got called on the carpet, even though you can tell it’s an old biography because it still calls the Progressive States Network the Progressive Legislative Action Network - a name changed a long time ago).

It’s easy to dismiss this story as just the sad, juvenile high school nature of Capitol Hill, with me as the proverbial nerd, the Hill journalists as the Kool Kidz lording their Koolness over me by denying me a credential, and this Washington Post reporter behaving as the class gossip who treats everything that goes on as just one huge inside joke. But there’s something deeper and more troubling at work.

What we have here is a Beltway press corps that is watching its own relevance shrink thanks to new media (blogs, the internet, etc.) and in reaction, is trying to pull its last remaining levers of official power to preserve its own monopoly over what should be public information. In this case, a cadre of Capitol Hill’s corporate journalists used their credentialing discretion granted by Congress to limit access TO Congress - all in order to preserve their own exclusive access to official Washington. That the officials they are limiting access to are the people’s representatives is of no concern to these reporters - all that matters is making sure that, in an age of shrinking circulation/readership/subscribership/viewership for traditional media sources, traditional journalists are trying to convert public information into something “exclusive” - even though public information (in this case day-to-day congressional affairs) is supposed to be just that: public.

Make no mistake about it - there needs to be some basic security oversight of who gets to walk the halls of the Capitol. A criminal background check, for instance, is entirely appropriate for someone applying for a press credential. But being denied a credential on the basis of your political leanings is outrageous, to say the least. This is especially true when you consider that, according to the Capitol Press Gallery’s own website, the number of ultra-conservative partisans being credentialed grossly outnumbers the progressive writers granted the same credentials (Apparently, Fred Barnes, Rommesh Ponnuru and Byron York with their regular GOP talking points and wild-eyed screeds against Democrats are perfectly worthy of credentialing, but me - a senior editor at In These Times who has been published in major national newspapers - and other progressive journalists are supposedly unfit to report on Congress).

Maybe I’ve just become too used to real transparency out here in Montana. Maybe I have forgotten that we’re supposed to just accept that people in Washington will stop at nothing to assert their tiny fiefs of power and to satisfy their insecure desperation to feel important, even if such behavior tramples basic democracy for everyone else.

Or maybe, just maybe, the traditional, corporate-owned media is responding to its new problems in ways that seriously imperil the very transparency and First Amendment freedoms it purports to care about. I suspect the latter is exactly what’s going on. And if for a magazine article or for my next book I have to get an intern pass to tell that story and all the other tales of deceit and corruption going on in the U.S. Capitol, then it’s a tiny price of personal humiliation I’m willing to pay in order to once again document how our democracy is under siege.

COMMENTS: Go to Sirota's Working Assets site to comment on this entry

Thursday, February 8, 2007

Resisting the Israel lobby

Related
Israel 'misused' US-made cluster bombs
A US investigation has found that Israel probably violated US arms export agreements last year when it dropped US-made cluster bombs among villages in Lebanon.

Why Was the Palestinian Mother of Eleven Murdered?
---
Jews who speak out can be deluged with with verbal abuse, hate mail and intimidation.

February 8, 2007 02:40 PM

Abe Hayeem

Criticism of Israel's human rights contraventions - and particularly any mention of boycotts - elicits an immediate and powerful barrage from the pro-Israel lobby. Editors of national newspapers and journals can expect to be inundated by letters from Israel supporters, often copying their arguments word-for-word from the numerous websites that push the Israeli embassy line.

At the same time, critics can be deluged with hate mail couched in lurid language. The SHIT List ("Self-Hating Israel-Threatening") website exemplifies the extreme verbal abuse and intimidation heaped on Jews who speak out.

Israel is invariably portrayed as the victim, despite its record of killings, assassinations and destruction in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon, and its relentless land grabs over decades in the occupied territories, exhaustively documented by human rights organisations.

The lobby can operate at the highest levels of city government as was seen in February 2006 when the group Architects & Planners for Justice in Palestine - formed to highlight the complicity of Israel's construction industry in the occupation - was launched in the office premises of the Richard Rogers Partnership.

The presence of a mole at the meeting resulted in sensational articles in the British press claiming (inaccurately) that a boycott of Israel was being planned, practically leading to an international incident involving the Chief Rabbi and Lord Weidenfeld.

Despite only a brief reference at the meeting to the possibility of targeted action against the firms building the illegal separation wall and West Bank settlements, Lord Rogers was summoned to New York to face a tribunal of city senators and heads of Jewish organisations, since he had recently been appointed to design the Jacob Javits Conference Centre worth $1.7 billion. Javits was a well-known Zionist, though the centre was being built by public funds. New York is jokingly referred to as an outpost of Israel.

Under threat that he would be removed as architect, and unjustifiably invoking anti-boycott US laws (specifically enacted to protect Israel from trade boycotts), Rogers, even though had said he was not in favour of boycotts, was forced to bend under pressure from the distinctly McCarthyite proceedings. The pro-Israel lobby would of course hotly deny that signing a "loyalty to Israel" clause is a prerequisite for obtaining major architectural commissions in New York.

To be outspoken does not bode well, even within local Jewish communities. I was expelled from Rivers of Babylon - a group that I performed with - because of my views as a peace activist. Even though politics were not discussed within the group, which was formed to revive Iraqi Jewish music and song, the director, a childhood friend, asked me to leave due to a threatened boycott of the group's concerts from the fervently Zionist Indian Jewish community.

An editor from a pro-Israel freebie newspaper phoned to tell me he was not publishing my letter responding to two correspondents who had advocated wiping out Gaza and expelling the Palestinians, because I did not "love Israel" and was beyond the pale.

It is important that alternative Jewish voices are heard in the media and in the community, to counteract the efforts of BICOM, (the British Israel Communications and Research Centre) which has close links with the Israeli embassy, AIPAC in the United States, and all organisations engaged in "pro-Israel advocacy", including the three major political "Friends of Israel" groups (Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat), also reflected in the inaction of the Blair government over Israel's war crimes.


Click here for a full list of articles in the Independent Jewish Voices debate.


Abe Hayeem is an architect, peace activist and founder member of Architects & Planners for Justice in Palestine.

Links to articles by Abe Hayeem: Red Pepper, Architecture Week, Archibase

The myth of self-hatred: To defend Israel uncritically is a form of denial based on fear

February 8, 2007 10:00 AM

Jacqueline Rose

There is one charge against Jews who criticise Israel that seems to me particularly misguided, and that is the charge that we are self-hating Jews. Whenever confronted with this challenge, I am always inclined to ask: "What kind of Jew do you want me to be?"

For those of us who are parents, we only have to turn to our relationship with our children to recognise how useless, not to say harmful to them, and rightly distrusted by them, we would become if, when we recognise that we have made a serious blunder which affects them deeply, we refused to criticise (and indeed sometimes to hate) ourselves. Criticism and dissent are an essential part of love. In the film version of Roald Dahl's James and the Giant Peach, there is a terrifying moment where one of the two monstrous aunts, her distorted face held in grotesque close-up, turns on the little boy and says: "How dare you disagree with me!"

Rather than attacking Jews who criticise Israel for self-hatred, we should therefore be asking ourselves what love - a love that is creative rather than self-deceiving and suffocating - can and should bear to tolerate in itself. To demand only love is autocratic. At the very least such autocracy - the demand for one line only - goes against the spirit of Judaism which is endlessly open to the different meanings and interpretations invited by the Bible.

I hate neither myself nor Israel when I criticise the policies of the state. I hate what the Israeli government is doing, and has been doing for a very long time, to the Palestinians and to itself. At the memorial for Rabin this November, David Grossman mounted one of his strongest and most despairing criticisms of his government, at the same time as he described his love for Israel as "overwhelming", "unequivocal" and "complex". Is Grossman a self-hating Jew?

When Hannah Arendt was accused by Gershom Scholem of lacking Ahavat Yisrael, or love of the Jewish people, after the publication of Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1963, she famously responded by citing these words spoken to her in a conversation with Golda Meir: "I do not believe in God, I believe in the Jewish people."

Arendt was dismayed that this great people who had once believed in God, and "believed in Him in such a way that its love was greater than its fear", was now to believe only in itself. "What good," she asked, "can come out of that?" Those who charge us with self-hatred are asking for a dangerous idealisation that robs us of all accountability.

In his recent book, The Seven Sins: A Partial List, Israeli philosopher Aviad Kleinberg adds the eighth sin of self-righteousness, and gives as his example Meir's famous claim that she would never forgive the Palestinians for what they were forcing her to do to them.

Traditionally, self-hatred refers to the internalisation of anti-semitic stereotypes by the Jew. In fact we can see this process taking place in one of the founding myths of the Israeli nation: in its hostility to the diaspora Jew as weak and abject, and its glorification of the new, strong, Israeli Jew.

Of course, the history of persecution and the trauma of the genocide in Europe led to a belief in the right of the Jewish people to national self-determination and militant self-defence. But one could also argue that the hateful image of Jewish passivity, and fear of that image, has never gone away and that the attempt to defy it is still playing its part in Israel's disproportionate aggression towards the Palestinians.

"As soon as the Jewish people starts to walk with its head held high, upright," stated one of the Gaza evacuees in 2005, "the Arabs will lower their heads." Why should one people's dignity be at the cost of another?

In the past few weeks, the pressures not to criticise Israel have taken a new and alarming turn. Tony Lerman, director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, has been castigated for saying that "Zionism and the Jewish state had been failures", and there has been pressure for his dismissal. In fact he was misreported, since he spoke of the "failures" of Zionism not of Zionism as failure.

And a Jewish Chronicle leader has accused Jeremy Bowen, the BBC's Middle East editor, of partiality for including in an internal briefing, amongst other things, a reference to the "non-stop pressures of the Israeli occupation" on the Palestinians. Have there been no failures in Zionism? Is Bowen's observation not simply true?

In such an atmosphere, I am proud to be part of Independent Jewish Voices. Our desire is to foster a new atmosphere of openness and debate. To defend Israel uncritically is a form of denial based on fear.

To anyone who wishes to charge us with self-hatred, I would reply that it is not those who can withstand the pressure of internal and external criticism who hate themselves.

Click here for a full list of articles in the Independent Jewish Voices debate.


Jacqueline Rose is Professor of English at Queen Mary, University of London, and one of the steering committee of Independent Jewish Voices. She writes and lectures on literature, psychoanalysis and politics.

Her publications include The Haunting of Sylvia Plath (Virago, 1991), the novel, Albertine (Chatto, 2001), On Not Being Able to Sleep - Psychoanalysis and the Modern World (Chatto, 2003), The Question of Zion (Princeton, 2005) and The Last Resistance (Verso, forthcoming in May).