Ha'aretz says U.S. officials face 'pro-Israel' background check

There is an amazing story in Ha'aretz today on the "pro-Israel" litmus test that determines who is permitted to serve in the United States government. Here's the sort of lede you're not likely to read in the New York Times or Washington Post:

Every appointee to the American government must endure a thorough background check by the American Jewish community.

In the case of Obama's government in particular, every criticism against Israel made by a potential government appointee has become a catalyst for debate about whether appointing "another leftist" offers proof that Obama does not truly support Israel."

The story goes on to rehearse what happened to Chas Freeman (whose appointment was derailed by the Israel lobby because he voiced a few mild criticisms of Israel's behavior) and reports that similar complaints are now being raised against the appointment of former Senator Chuck Hagel. Even more bizarrely, the Zionist Organization of America and other rightwing Jewish groups are complaining about the appointment of Hannah Rosenthal to direct the Office to Combat and Monitor Anti-Semitism. Why? Apparently she's been involved with J Street and other "leftwing" organizations that ZOA et al deem insufficiently ardent in their support for the Jewish state, and has suggested that progressive forces need to be more vocal in advancing the peace process.

One has to feel a certain sympathy for Ms. Rosenthal, who is forced to defend her own appointment by telling an interviewer:

I love Israel. I have lived in Israel. I go back and visit every chance I can. I consider it part of my heart. And because I love it so much, I want to see it safe and secure and free and democratic and living safely."

These are fine sentiments, but isn't it odd that she has to defend her qualifications for a position in the U.S. government by saying how much she "loves" a foreign country? For an American official in her position, what matters is that she loves America, and that she believes anti-semitism is a hateful philosophy that should be opposed vigorously. Whether she loves Israel or France or Thailand or Namibia, etc., is irrelevant. (And yes, it's entirely possible to loathe anti-Semitism and not love Israel).

But the real lesson of all these episodes is the effect of this litmus test on the foreign policy community more broadly. Groups in the lobby target public servants like Freeman, Hagel, and Rosenthal because they want to make sure that no one with even a mildly independent view on Middle East affairs gets appointed. By making an example of them, they seek to discourage independent-minded people from expressing their views openly, lest doing so derail their own career prospects later on. And it works. Even if the lobby doesn't manage to block every single appointment, they can make any administration think twice about a potentially "controversial" choice and use the threat to stifle open discourse among virtually all members of the mainstream foreign policy community (and certainly anyone who aspires to public service in Washington).

The result, of course, is the U.S. Middle East policy (and U.S. foreign policy more generally) is reserved for those who are either steadfastly devoted to the "special relationship" or who have been intimidated into silence. The result? U.S. policy remains in the hands of the same set of "experts" whose policies for the past seventeen years (or more) have been a steady recipe for failure. If a few more Americans read Ha'aretz, they might start to figure this out.

Source: Stephen M Walt

JIM TRAFICANT SET FREE

Wrongfully imprisoned Congressman comes home to warm welcome after spending seven years in federal jail

Former Congressman Jim Traficant came home to freedom on September 2 after serving seven years in prison for crimes he did not commit. More than a thousand of his friends and admirers bought tickets to a banquet being held in his honor in Boardman, Ohio in his former congressional district surrounding Youngstown.

Although the major media is still smearing Traficant as a “crook,” those who know Traficant know his prison sentence was “a railroad job” from the beginning. The fact is that although there are probably dozens of members of Congress who could be indicted and convicted for major criminal offenses involving high-stakes bribery and influence peddling that is often quite open and never prosecuted, the Justice Department spent many years coming up with a handful of dubious charges against Traficant.

Ask anyone who knows how it works in official Washington and they’ll privately admit that the real reason Traficant was indicted on criminal charges was simply the fact that “the powers that be” didn’t like Traficant: he was just too honest and too outspoken.

Right up front, let’s lay it out. Here were some of Traficant’s real “crimes” in the eyes of the elite who railroaded him into federal prison in 2002:

� Criticizing the Internal Revenue Service and calling for expanded protection for the rights of taxpayers under fire from the IRS;

� Taking a hard-line stand against NAFTA, the World Trade Organization and so-called “free” trade and urging protectionist measures to preserve American jobs, defend domestic industry from predatory global speculators and save the American economy.

� Tackling not only corruption inside the FBI and the Justice Department, but also assailing the personal integrity of former Attorney General Janet Reno;

� Attacking Wall Street wheeling and dealing and raising questions about the enrichment of high-level financial interests through the lending practices of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

� Accusing then-Vice President Al Gore of “trying to steal the election” in the midst of the long-and-drawnout post-election debacle in 2000;

� Calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from trouble-spots around the globe and questioning constant U.S. meddling in the affairs of other nations;

� Charging American policymakers with treason for having given top-secret U.S. defense and nuclear technology to the butchers in Peking;

� Coming to the defense of Ukraine-born Cleveland autoworker John Demjanjuk, who was falsely charged by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Justice Department‘s Office of Special Investigations of being a “Nazi war criminal”—only to be cleared, ironically, by an Israeli court. (Ultimately, with Traficant sidelined in his own federal trial, they went after Demjanjuk again on “new” charges and restarted the process of seeking to deport the beleaguered old man, who is now in Germany facing trial on 29,000 counts of being an accessory to the alleged murder of European Jews.)

� Demanding that U.S. troops be sent to guard the Mexican border and prevent continuing hordes of illegal aliens—and potential terrorists—from entering into the United States; and—last but very far from least:

� Challenging one-sided U.S. aid and support for Israel, saying that the biased policy was to the detriment of America’s security and Middle East interests.

Traficant was the only member of Congress—the day after the Sept. 11 tragedy—to point out that U.S. support for Israel and open borders were root problems leading to the tragedy.

While Traficant enunciated these truths, other members of Congress squirmed uneasily, sitting in silence, as Traficant spoke out—even in the face of his impending trial—never one to be cowed.

Congressman Jim Traficant was most assuredly lynched by the Justice Department just as if he had been taken by force and hanged from a lamp post near the U.S. Capitol in Washington—a method of justice that certainly should be applied to many of the corrupt individuals who continue to misrule America from their positions in Congress and throughout official Washington.

However, what happened to Traficant could happen to any American should he or she fall into the gunsights of the powerful forces that reign supreme in America. The Traficant case is the proverbial tip of the iceberg, for the truth is that sitting alongside Traficant in prisons today—federal, state and local—there are probably thousands of Americans who were as much victims of an unjust system as Traficant.

These people, too, are “political prisoners” in the plainest and most very real sense of the words. But we haven’t heard about these folks because they didn’t have the high public profile of the outspoken Jim Traficant.

So the lesson to be learned is simple: Even someone in a position of influence—such as a U.S. congressman—can be railroaded into prison by the very people whose job it is to enforce the laws.

Source: American free press

Traficant Lashes Israel Lobby On Fox News

In his first interview after being released from prison last week, former congressman James Traficant let the cat out of the bag about the strangle hold that the Pro Israel Lobby has over Washington DC. The interview took place last night with Fox News's Greta Van Susteren.

Susteren asked him if he has any grudges. Traficant says that he was the number one target of American Israeli Public Affairs Committee" and the Justice Department. He goes on to say that "he believes that Israel has a powerful stranglehold on the American government. They control both members of the House, the House and the Senate. They have us involved in wars in which we have little or no interest. Our children are coming back in body bags. Our nation is bankrupt over these wars. And if you open your mouth, you get targeted. And if they don't beat you at the poll, they'll put you in prison." He says "Israel gets approximately $15 billion a year from the American taxpayers. That $15 billion is $30,000 for every man, woman and child. And people in my district are losing their pension benefits."

Greta asks "Are you an antisemite," James replies, "what I am is an American. You see, I think America comes first. And we have a one-sided foreign policy in the Mideast, and we've alienated Arabs who have no way of fighting. So, what they've done -- and I predicted this on the House floor -- is they would export violence to America. And they have. They have no other way to fight.".

Traficant talked about his controversial defense of John Demanjuk, who was accused of Nazi war crimes, and was facing execution by Israel. Traficant's used the freedom of information act to prove he was innocent and who the real individual was. A rulling by Israel's supreme court released him but Traficant's role angered the Jewish Establishment in America. Demanjuk is now facing trial in Germany, despite being found innocent by Israel.

Unlike most convicted politicians who are sent to country club prisons, he was not given any special treatment. He said he spent time in solitary confinement and was put in danger in a prison full of many illegal immigrants, being a staunch opponent of illegal immigration. He talks about how his experience in prison has changed his entire outlook on the justice system and that he now believes no one should go to prison for non-violence offenses and that he wishes he did more to right the war on drugs when he was in congress.

Traficant expressed interest in running for congress again saying it is a 50/50% chance. Whether he gets back in office or not he is a needed Populist Constitutionalist voice against the powers that control our government.

The full transcript is here.

Interview with Traficant by Greta Van Susteren

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0scNGzWfv8A

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g6a9re563Y

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AV4NnojbWI

How the Israeli Lobby Works to Subvert Democracy

In the early 1960s, the late Sen. William J. Fulbright (D-Ark.) fought to force the American Zionist Council to register as agents of a foreign government. The council eluded registration by reorganizing as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC has since become what Fulbright most feared: a foreign agent dominating American foreign policy while disguised as a domestic lobby.

Israelis and pro-Israelis object when they hear that charge. How, they ask, can we so few wield such influence over so many? Answer: it’s all in the math and in the single-issue advocacy brought to bear on U.S. policy- making by dozens of “domestic” organizations that compose the Israel lobby, with AIPAC its most visible force.

Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) enthusiasm for all things Israeli ensured him the GOP nomination to succeed Christian-Zionist G.W. Bush. McCain’s style of campaign finance reform proved a perfect fit for the diaspora-based fundraising on which the lobby relies. (“Diaspora” refers to Jews living outside Israel.—Ed.)

Co-sponsored by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), this change in federal election law typifies how Israeli influence became systemic.

“McCain-Feingold” raised the amount (from $1,000 to $2,300) that candidates can receive from individuals in primary and general elections. A couple can now contribute a combined $9,200 to federal candidates: $4,600 in each of the primary and in general elections. Primary elections, usually low budget, are particularly easy to sway.

Importantly for the diaspora, this change also doubled the funds candidates can receive without regard to where those contributors reside. A candidate in Iowa, say, may have only a few pro-Israel constituents.When campaign support is provided by a nationwide network of pro-Israelis, that candidate can more easily be persuaded to support policies sought by Tel Aviv.

Diaspora-based fundraising has long been used by the lobby with force-multiplying success to shape U.S. foreign policy. Under the guise of reform, McCain doubled the financial resources that the lobby can deploy to elect and retain its supporters.

The influence-peddling process works like this. Candidates are summoned for in-depth AIPAC interviews. Those found sufficiently committed to Israel’s agenda are provided a list of donors likely to “max out” their campaign contributions. Or the process can be made even easier when AIPAC-approved candidates are given the name of a “bundler.”

Bundlers raise funds from the diaspora and bundle those contributions to present them to the candidate. No quid pro quo need be mentioned. After McCain-Feingold became law in 2003, AIPAC-identified bundlers could raise $1 million-plus for AIPAC-approved candidates simply by contacting 10 like-minded supporters. Here’s the math:

The bundler and spouse “max out” for $9,200 and call 10 others, say in Manhattan, Miami, and Beverly Hills. Each of them maxes out ($10 x $9,200) and calls 10 others for a total of 111. [111 x $9,200 = $1,021,200.]

Imagine the incentive a candidate has to do well in the AIPAC interview. One call from the lobby and a candidate can collect enough cash to mount a credible campaign in most congressional districts. From Tel Aviv’s perspective, that political leverage is leveraged yet again because only about 10 percent of the 435 House races are competitive in any election cycle (typically 35 to 50).

Additional force-multipliers come from: (a) sustaining this financial focus over multiple cycles, (b) using funds to gain and retain seniority for those serving on congressional committees key to promoting Israeli goals, and (c) opposing candidates who question those goals.

Jewish Achievement reports that 42 percent of the largest political donors to the 2000 election cycle were Jewish, including four of the top five. That compares to less than 2 percent of Americans who are Jewish. Of the Forbes 400 richest Americans, 25 percent are Jewish according to Michael Steinhardt, a key founder of the Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC was led by Jewish Zionist Sen. Joe Lieberman ( I-Conn.) when he resigned in 2000 to run for vice president with pro-Israeli presidential candidate Al Gore.

Money was never a constraint. Pro-Israel donors were limited only by how much they could lawfully contribute to AIPAC-screened candidates. McCain- Feingold raised a key limit. The full impact of this foreign influence has yet to be tallied. What’s known, however, is sufficient to apply the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Of the top 50 neo-conservatives who advocated the attack on Iraq, 26 were Jewish.

Harry Truman, a Christian Zionist, remains one of the more notable recipients of funds. In 1948, he was trailing badly in the polls and in fundraising. His prospects brightened dramatically in May after he recognized as a legitimate state an enclave of Jewish extremists who originally planned to settle in Argentina before putting their sights on Palestine.

That recognition was opposed by Secretary of State George C. Marshall, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the bulk of the diplomatic corps, the fledgling Central Intelligence Agency and numerous distinguished Americans, including moderate and secular Jews concerned at the troubles that were certain to follow. Not until 1984 was it revealed that a network of Jewish Zionists had funded Truman’s campaign by financially refueling his whistle-stop campaign train with $400,000 in cash ($3 million in 2009 dollars).

Until then, Truman was badly trailing Dewey. His election was a great upset. To buy time on the public’s airwaves, money raised from the Israel lobby’s network is paid to media outlets largely owned or managed by members of the same network. Presidents, senators and congressmen come and go but those who collect the checks rack up the favors that amass lasting political influence.

The U.S. system of government is meant to ensure that members of the House represent the concerns of Americans who reside in congressional districts—not a nationally dispersed network (a diaspora) committed to advancing the agenda of a foreign nation. Federal elections are meant to hold senators accountable to constituents who reside in the states they represent—not out-of-state residents or a foreign government.

In practical effect, McCain-Feingold hastened a retreat from representative government by granting a nationwide network of foreign agents disproportionate influence over elections in every state and congressional district. Campaign finance “reform” enabled this network to amass even more political clout—wielding influence disproportionate to their numbers, indifferent to their place of residence and often contrary to America’s interests.

This force-multiplier is now wielded in plain sight, with impunity and under cover of free speech, free elections, free press and even the freedom of religion. Therein lie the perils of an entangled alliance that induced the U.S. to invade Iraq and now to seek war against Iran—which will be the biggest no-win war ever if we attack Iran. By allowing foreign agents to operate as a domestic lobby, the U.S. has been induced to confuse Zionist interests with its own.

Source: American Free Press