Washington Report - May 2017 - Vol. XXXVI, No. 3

cover1_May 2016 Cover 4/20/17 6:17 PM Page 1

COMPLETE 2016 PRO-ISRAEL PAC CONTRIBUTIONS

IsraelLobbyandAmericanPolicy.org www.WashingtonReport.me

• March 24, 2017 at the National Press Club • Groundbreaking Conference Proceedings • What the Mainstream Media Won’t Cover

DISPLAY UNTIL 6/19/2017

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:09 AM Page c2

!"#$%&'"($&%% )*%'+",%% #*-%,*.)/&%% 01%2$3"1*1% "14%5"6"7% !"#$!%&$'()&"!*#

&%% ,%% &%% 1% "7%

*#

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 2:05 PM Page 3

Table of Contents

The Israel Lobby and American Policy

IntroductIon — delinda Hanley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 WelcomIng remarks — dale sprusansky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

american Public opinion about u.s. aid to Israel and other top aIPac Programs — grant F. smith . . . . . . . . . . . 7 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

keYnote address: What Has changed since Publication of The Israel Lobby and What the new

administration can do differently — Prof. John mearsheimer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

recent legislation that threatens First amendment rights of Palestinian solidarity activists and the legal challenges thereto — maria laHood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 a conversation With retired congressmen Jim moran (d-Va) and nick rahall (d-WV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

keYnote address: the Israel lobby and the “Peace Process” From a Palestinian Perspective

— Hanan ashrawi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

challenges and changes in 25 Years Working on Israel-Palestine Issues, and advice for Independent Filmmakers — tom Hayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 strategies to successfully Push Back against Harmful Hollywood stereotypes about arabs and muslims, and the Work new generations must now take on — Jack shaheen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Pro-Israel organizations, donors and Islamophobia: Findings from Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America — Wajahat ali. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 the Israel lobby and “Fake Peace Processing” — khalil Jahshan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

keYnote address: the Value of Viewing Israel-Palestine through the lens of

settler-colonialism — Prof. Ilan Pappé . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

excerpts From and comments on al Jazeera’s Investigative series “the lobby” — clayton swisher . . . . . . . . . . 74 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

conFerence organIzers’ remarks — delinda Hanley and grant F. smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 electIon WatcH: Pro-Israel Pac contributions may Be too Public for the

lobby’s taste — Janet mcmahon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Pro-Israel Pac contributions to 2016 congressional candidates— compiled by Hugh galford . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Index to advertisers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Cover Photo Phil Portlock

May 2017

3

MAY 2017 ralph 7_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 4:26 PM Page 4

35Years

Managing Editor: News Editor: Assistant Editor:

Middle East Books and More Director:

Finance & Admin. Dir.:

THE RELEASE OF SPY FOR ISRAEL JONATHAN POLLARD

Art Director: Publisher: Executive Editor:

?

G ISRAEL BANDONIN A S L A IC GEL ARE EVAN

Of Telling The Truth Contact the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs P.O. Box 91056 • Long Beach, CA 90809-1056 Telephone: (888) 881-5861 • Fax (714) 226-9733 For further information call (202) 939-6050 e-mail:circulation@wrmea.org • Web site: www.washingtonreport.me

Digital and Regular Subscriptions (U.S. Funds only, please)

U.S. Subscriptions Canadian Subscriptions Overseas Subscriptions Digital Subscriptions

1 year

2 years

3 years

$29 $35 $70 $10

$ 55 $ 65 $125 $ 20

$ 75 $ 85 $185 $ 30

JANET McMAHON DELINDA C. HANLEY DALE SPRUSANSKY NATHANIEL BAILEY CHARLES R. CARTER RALPH U. SCHERER ANDREW I. KILLGORE (1919-2016) RICHARD H. CURTISS (1927-2013)

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (ISSN 8755-4917) is published 7 times a year, monthly except Jan./Feb., March/April, June/July and Aug./Sept. combined, at 1902 18th St., NW, Washington, DC 200091707. Tel. (202) 939-6050. Subscription prices (United States and possessions): one year, $29; two years, $55; three years, $75. For Canadian and Mexican subscriptions, $35 per year; for other foreign subscriptions, $70 per year. Periodicals, postage paid at Washington, DC and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, P.O. Box 91056, Long Beach, CA 90809-1056.

Published by the American Educational Trust (AET), a non-profit foundation incorporated in Washington, DC by retired U.S. foreign service officers to provide the American public with balanced and accurate information concerning U.S. relations with Middle Eastern states.

AET’s Foreign Policy Committee has included former U.S. ambassadors, government officials, and members of Congress, including the late Democratic Sen. J. William Fulbright and Republican Sen. Charles Percy, both former chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Members of AET’s Board of Directors and advisory committees receive no fees for their services.

The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs does not take partisan domestic political positions. As a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, it endorses U.N. Security Council Resolution 242’s landfor-peace formula, supported by nine successive U.S. presidents. In general, it supports Middle East solutions which it judges to be consistent with the charter of the United Nations and traditional American support for human rights, self-determination, and fair play.

Material from the Washington Report may be reprinted without charge with attribution to Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. Bylined material must also be attributed to the author. This release does not apply to photographs, cartoons or reprints from other publications.

Indexed by ProQuest, Gale Ebsco Information Services, InfoTrac, LexisNexis, Public Affairs Information Service, Index to Jewish Periodicals, Ethnic News Watch, Periodica Islamica.

CONTACT INFORMATION: Washington Report on Middle East Affairs Editorial Office and Bookstore: P.O. Box 53062, Washington, DC 20009-9062 Phone: (202) 939-6050 • (800) 368-5788 Fax: (202) 265-4574 E-mail: wrmea@wrmea.org bookstore@wrmea.org circulation@wrmea.org advertising@wrmea.org Web sites: http://www.washingtonreport.me http://www.middleeastbooks.com Subscriptions, sample copies and donations: P.O. Box 91056, Long Beach, CA 90809-1056.

Phone: (888) 881-5861 • Fax: (714) 226-9733 Printed in the USA

4

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 2:01 PM Page 5

Introduction

Introduction

S

Delinda Hanley

ix hundred attendees and speakers traveled to Washington, DC from the Middle East, Europe and the West Coast to attend our fourth conference, “The Israel Lobby and American Policy,” on March 24, 2017—again co-sponsored with the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep).

Thanks to generous donors, organizers were able to fund travel stipends and free tickets for an impressive number of students. Our speakers—varied and brilliant—made this symposium unforgettable and, we believe, of vital importance to all our readers.

The growing popularity of this annual conference is an indication that more people are paying attention to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East: military, political and financial. Interest in the Israel lobby—unapologetic drivers of U.S. policy—also is at an all-time high.

IRmep’s Grant Smith described the Israel lobby as a $3.7 billion nonprofit ecosystem with 14,000 employees, 350,000 volunteers and a paying membership of 774,000. The good news is that despite those numbers, polls show U.S. support is waning for the most important program: obtaining unconditional U.S. foreign aid.

Prof. John Mearsheimer’s keynote speech was a concise overview of the lobby, which he said “is defined by its political agenda, not by ethnicity or religion” and which, he argued, “has pushed policies that are in neither Israel’s nor America’s national interest.” Khalil Jahshan placed the blame for the “huge cemetery of peace processes in the Middle East” on the lobby. “Since its inception,” Jahshan told the audience, “AIPAC has been the great facilitator, the advocate, the enforcer of Israeli policies and American peacemaking efforts between Israel and Palestine.”

In her keynote address, Dr. Hanan Ashrawi described the many ways the lobby owns the peace process. She cited the “revolving door” used by “peace negotiators” like Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk and others who move from the State Department, to the Washington Institute or another pro-Israeli think tank, and back to the State Department. As a result, their careers are spent influencing, then making, U.S. policy.

Ashrawi also lambasted individuals like Haim Saban, Irving Moskowitz and Danny Abraham, as well as Sheldon Adelson, who tried “to buy a president here, but he’s also buying a prime minister in Israel.” Then there are the spin doctors and Israel apologists, and extreme Zionist-Christian organizations, as well as “toxic,” well-funded organizations like MEMRI, NGO Monitor and Palestinian Media Watch.

Prof. Ilan Pappé, another impressive keynote speaker, argued that while the lobby has a huge impact in “affecting and influ-

encing American policy,” it also is essential that Americans understand the nature of the Zionist settler colonialist project. He urged activists to concentrate on achieving human and civil rights for Palestinians rather than “a small bantustan next to Israel.”

Clayton Swisher, director of investigative journalism at Al Jazeera, described a six-month undercover operation in the UK which captured Israeli Embassy officials plotting to “take down” lawmakers hostile to Israel. Al Jazeera’s four-part series “The Lobby” shows a front company fighting BDS by using dirty tricks and hacking e-mails to collect information to smear people. “Just imagine if Russia was doing this,” Swisher concluded. Maria LaHood of the Center for Constitutional Rights described the lobby’s fight against BDS in U.S. courts.

Journalist Wajahat Ali discussed his Fear, Inc. report identifying seven major funders who had given over $43 million in 10 years to successfully mainstream fear, bigotry and hatred against Muslims and Islam in America. Their work has helped justify efforts to impose the so-called Muslim ban. Ali said he’s been begging people to do a sequel to Fear, Inc., following the money trail to expose the transatlantic connections.

Prof. Jack Shaheen rebuked “peddlers of prejudice” in film and TV shows, then gave five concrete suggestions to eliminate antiMuslim and anti-Arab stereotypes.

Many respondants to the post-conference survey praised filmmaker Tom Hayes for his inspirational talk, honesty and punch.

Hayes described the Israel-Palestine conflict as a First Amendment issue here in the U.S., illustrated by his experiences after making a film about Palestinian refugees. His right to free expression was challenged with violence and terrorism in Columbus, OH. The lobby’s “aim is to keep our eyes closed, our mouths shut, and our wallets open,” Hayes said, and called on artists and activists to “get your butts over there” to Israel and Palestine.

Although retired Congressmen Nick Rahall (D-WV) and Jim Moran (D-VA) proposed concrete steps to weaken the Israel lobby, a number of survey respondants wished speakers had included even more ways to counter the lobby. One step we recommend is reading each of these important talks in this issue and/or watching them on our YouTube channel. Then pass along the magazine—whether digital links or paper copies—or suggest that your friends, families and coworkers view the talks online.

Contact us for multiple copies to distribute at your own events.

Support—and yes, funding—for this vital topic, and for next year’s conference, depends on you. Please help us spread this information far and wide! ■ May 2017

5

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:21 AM Page 6

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

Welcoming Remarks

I

Dale Sprusansky

’m Dale Sprusansky. I’m the assistant editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. On behalf of the Washington Report and the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, the two organizations sponsoring this fourth annual event on the Israel lobby, it’s my pleasure to welcome you here to today’s conference.

Before we get going, I just want to take a moment to thank all of the people who made today possible—our donors. Such a monumental undertaking would simply be impossible without their continued support, and we are tremendously grateful for their generosity.

Also, before we begin, we’d like to take a moment to acknowledge a special person who is not here today, at least physically. That is our late publisher, Andrew Killgore, who died at the age of 97 in December. Before co-founding the Washington Report in 1982, Andy had a distinguished career in the U.S. Foreign Service, serving in Jerusalem, Amman, Baghdad, Tehran and many other cities. He concluded his diplomatic career by serving as Jimmy Carter’s ambassador to Qatar from 1977 to 1980.

Andy dedicated his retirement to the Washington Report, seeing the magazine as a way to provide Americans with a better understanding of the Middle East, a region he loved dearly. In particular, Andy fought tirelessly to challenge the Israel lobby’s powerful grip on U.S. policy.

Despite his advanced age, Andy came into the office pretty much every day. Before his passing, he participated actively in the planning of today’s event. He would often comment about how encouraged he was by the continued success of this event, and it instilled in him a sense of hope for the future. So he may not be here today, but his presence is surely felt. We do miss him dearly, and we dedicate this conference to him.

As we were planning this conference, one of the things that we pondered was how the outcome of the November election would impact this event. I think most people viewed Hillary Clinton, at least on this issue, to be a much better known commodity, for better or for worse. That’s up to you to decide, we’re nonpartisan. We felt confident that the lobby would remain a 6

pertinent and timely issue in the early days of her presidency.

But Donald Trump, of course, is a much different entity, an unknown quantity in the political sphere, and some have argued his independent streak would allow him to operate with greater autonomy from lobbying groups. Others would point to his speech at AIPAC last year as evidence that he doesn’t really plan on challenging the lobby. Others would point to the influence of people, like his son-in-law Jared Kushner, as evidence that maybe the lobby doesn’t need to do so much convincing within the Oval Office. Then, of course, there is also the theory that he himself really isn’t sure what he’s going to do with this topic.

But regardless of where Trump moves U.S. policy on this issue, I think recent events have shown that this topic remains an incredibly important one.

Take for instance the Anti-Defamation League’s recent defamation campaign against Keith Ellison during his bid to become the chair of the DNC. The ADL and other pro-Israel groups and donors sought to portray Ellison as an anti-Semite simply because he openly questioned Israel’s influence on U.S. policy to the region.

On the topic of Islamophobia, just a few weeks ago Eli Clifton of LobeLog reported that in 2015 AIPAC donated $60,000 to well-known Islamophobe Frank Gaffney. We’ll hear more about the Israel lobby’s ties to anti-Muslim groups later in the day from Wajahat Ali. President Trump, despite proposing a 28 percent reduction in diplomacy and foreign aid, has pledged that Israel will continue to receive the more than $3 billion in annual military assistance it currently receives. Israel is, of course, the top recipient of U.S. foreign aid, with Egypt being second.

Then last week, as many of you know, the U.N. released a report describing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians as apartheid. Predictably, Israel balked at the report, and the U.S. administration in turn swiftly pressured the U.N. to repudiate the report. Unsurprisingly, the U.N. gave in and removed the report from its website.

Rima Khalaf, the head of the Economic and Social Commis-

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:22 AM Page 7

Grant F. Smith: American Public Opinion About U.S. Aid to Israel and Other Top AIPAC Programs

sion for Western Asia, the U.N. agency that commissioned the report, resigned, saying, “It was expected that Israel and its allies would exercise pressure on the U.N. secretary-general to distance himself from the report and that they would ask him to withdraw it.”

Back here on Capitol Hill, the 115th Congress has shown that it’s business as usual when it comes to Israel. In just the past two months, about 30 bills and resolutions directly relating to Israel have been introduced by members of Congress.

That’s more legislation on Israel than on China, Russia, North Korea or even countries where the U.S. is engaged in active military conflicts, such as Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Yemen.

In fact, perhaps only Mexico has more legislation introduced than Israel, and most of that is just dealing with immigration and border issues, such as environmental agreements. So one can certainly argue that Israel is the pre-eminent focus of foreign affairs legislation on the Hill. Of course, we’ll be hearing more about how the lobby interacts with Congress from former

Representatives Jim Moran and Nick Rahall later this morning.

So all of this is just to say that, despite the media’s heavy focus on potential Russian interference in the U.S. election, health care policy, the Muslim ban, Trump’s tweets, etc., the lobby is still at work, and it remains an important and timely topic to discuss. That is evidenced by the fact that all of you are here today and that we’ve had our highest registration ever for this event this year.

Just two notes on schedule changes today. Eric Margolis was previously scheduled to attend here today, but due to an illness, he will not be able to attend. And just this week Katherine Franke from Columbia Law came down with pneumonia, so she will not be here today. But no need to fear, we have Maria LaHood from the Center for Constitutional Rights to fill in.

She’s wonderful. She came here last year. For those of you who were here, you will remember her.

With that, we’re going to get going with our first speaker of the day, Grant Smith. ■

American Public Opinion About U.S. Aid To Israel and Other Top AIPAC Programs Grant F. Smith

PHOTO PHIL PORTLOCK

Dale Sprusansky: Grant Smith is the director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy—again, the co-sponsor of today’s event. He’s the author of the 2016 book Big Israel: How Israel’s Lobby Moves America, which covers the history, functions, and activities of Israel affinity organizations in America.

Grant has written two unofficial histories of AIPAC, and many other books.

His organization is constantly working on Freedom of Information Act requests and uncovering important documents, especially on Israel’s nuclear program. I can tell you that few, if any, people work harder on this issue than Grant. Between his frequent research, appearance in FOIA

court, his writing, his polling and his 5:00 a.m. e-mails, Grant is truly a one-man machine. Today he will be sharing polling data on U.S. aid to Israel conducted by his organization and by other pollsters.

Grant Smith: Thank you, Dale. Public opinion polling is very important, obviously, but there isn’t very much done in terms of asking about what the public thinks about core Israel lobby programs. But that’s going to change today. The polling that we are about to look at could and should provide input to elected officials, who should then, in turn, act in the public interest.

Polling about the Israel lobby programs that we’re going to look May 2017

7

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:22 AM Page 8

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

When informed of its relative size, 60 percent of Americans at reveals the growing gap between what the public thinks believe that U.S. foreign aid to Israel is either much too much or about particular issues, and the government actions being detoo much. And this finding is also reflected in polls by Shibley manded by the Israel lobby.

Telhami and some Gallup polls. This has been consistent over Last year, I spoke here about the birth of the Israel lobby in time. Recent years—2014, 2015, 2016—showed similar levels the United States, its growth, its size, its composition and diviof responses. Americans responding to this poll have been insion of labor. This was all based on my book Big Israel, in which formed that aid has I reveal a $3.7 billion been around 9 pernonprofit ecosystem Question: Many US lobbyists, nonprofit cent of the total foron track to reach $6.3 organizations & individuals steer campaign contributions to incumbents & sitting members of eign aid budget, but billion by 2020. With Congress solely on the basis of support for Israel. this question will have 14,000 employees,

to change in the fu350,000 volunteers, G('6(%6&(@II"6M#(( .,-( ture, as Dale has but a paying member6H(&58$($*$&#=A( mentioned, since the ship of approximately G(@II"6M#(( Trump administration 774,000, it is this non/1-( 6H(&58$($*$&#=A( proposes cutting the profit lobby, along with State Department overlapping camF&5#"( ]-( budget, while leaving paign-finance infraaid to Israel unstructure—whether it @c" A@c" !@c" #@c" ?@c" L@c" C@c" B@c" f@c" touched. So we is large individual )15%0/8"27*/D"(,%15J,"$11J;/"Q1'35*/%")5%F/>3" ,RD38ZZ35%F/>3HJ11J;/H01*ZF+/K\35%F/>^J/F+1I35KIL/db>C1B**0&K,15mb5/341'^AmE;(/%^m%K^Am1%J^" should ask ourselves donors, stealth politiwhen that happens, cal action commitwhat will it be—10, 20, 30 percent? We don’t know yet. tees—that provide Israel with the U.S. support that it would othThe Sept. 14 Memorandum of Understanding, the U.S. guarerwise not have. All of this will be on a brilliant display when anteed in this MOU security assistance over 10 years. There 15,000 AIPAC members assemble this weekend to begin their are no Israeli obligations, and up to 28 percent could be spent annual policy conference. So let’s continue looking at the lobby, on Israel’s own export-oriented industries. This is the latest in a and what Americans think of that program. series of 10-year commitments, and the public has been told The following surveys I’m about to show you are Google that this will guarantee Israel’s qualitative military edge.

Consumer Research Surveys, probably the single most accuWhen we polled this right after the MOU signing, the public rate polling tool available in America today. The famous Nate responded—60 percent of them—that they had higher prioriSilver said, “Perhaps it won’t be long before Google and not ties. When questioned if the $38 billion was a good investment, Gallup is the most trusted name in polling.”

60 percent said health care for U.S. veterans, education, and So let’s take a look at what Americans think about Israel’s paying down the national debt would be far better expendisingle most important program, which is obtaining unconditures. Only 17 percent thought it should be spent on Israel. tional U.S. foreign aid, including advanced American When Congress passes aid to Israel and presents them to weaponry, cash for Israel’s export-oriented military industry, the president in bills to be signed, both rely on a subterfuge packaged into 10-year memorandums of understanding, or that the U.S. does not, and indeed cannot, know whether Israel MOUs. These 10-year MOUs we’re going to look at require has nuclear weapons. However, under the Arms Export Control keeping the entire issue of Israel’s nuclear weapons program Act, procedures must be followed whenever the U.S. provides off the table. foreign aid to known nuclear powers that have not signed the The U.S. has provided $254 billion in known foreign aid to IsNuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In 2012, under increasing rael, more than any other country. Now there has been a repressure—including from a journalist who’s here today and cent attempt by scholars, such as Prof. Hillel Frisch, to try to Helen Thomas, who’s not with us—the Obama administration move the goalpost and claim that Japan, Germany, and South passed a gag order that punishes any federal employee or Korea are in fact bigger recipients. However, this argument is contractor who speaks out about what most people already wrong. Japan, Germany, and South Korea are in a different know, which is that Israel has nuclear weapons. category—that of treaty-bound allies. The military alliance exSo in a public opinion survey, first of its kind, most Americans penditures, with contributions by both sides, have mutual obligwould prefer an honest discussion about Israel’s nuclear ations which make them not usefully comparable to U.S. aid weapons. Fifty-two percent said Congress should take nukes with Israel, which has no obligations.

8

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:22 AM Page 9

Grant F. Smith: American Public Opinion About U.S. Aid to Israel and Other Top AIPAC Programs

bassies to relocate in Jerusalem, which is, under the original under consideration. Officially Congress has said it does not take partition agreement, supposed to be international. But, leveraga position on this matter. But under pressure from reporters—a ing Bob Dole’s presidential aspirations, in 1995 the Zionist Orhandful—and legal action to block U.S. aid over its nuclear ganization of America and AIPAC championed a law that was weapons program, and dogged reporting, this could change. passed that defunds State Department overseas building bud[START OF VIDEO CLIP] gets unless the U.S. Embassy is moved. U.S. presidents have Sam Husseini: Do you acknowledge that Israel has nuclear refused to do it, but there are now many champions of the weapons, sir? move in the Trump administration.

Sen. Chuck Schumer: I’m not—you can go read the newsAmericans are not so excited when told in a survey question, papers about that.

“Israel’s U.S. lobby wants the U.S. Embassy in Israel moved Sam Husseini: You can’t acknowledge that Israel has nufrom Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. No other country, in accord with the clear weapons, sir?

U.N. resolutions opposing such a move, has done so.” Fifty-six Chuck Schumer: It is a well-known fact that Israel has nupercent of Americans indicate the embassy should not move, clear weapons, but the Israeli government doesn’t officially talk while 38 percent say it should. about what kinds of weapons and where, et cetera.

There is a renewed push to return to a policy of no daylight S a m H u s s e i n i : Could the U.S. government be forthright? between the United States and Israel. This policy, particularly Chuck Schumer: Okay. That’s it. championed by former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael [END OF VIDEO CLIP] Oren, means that the U.S. and Israel can disagree, but not Grant Smith: That was Sam Husseini, who is here with us openly, since that would encourage common enemies and rentoday. In 1985 Israel and its lobby were the primary force beders Israel vulnerable. Of course, such a policy mainly benefits hind providing preferential U.S. market access to Israeli exIsrael as a bargaining chip it can put in its pocket and leverage porters. This was later rebranded as America’s first free trade the appearance of U.S. unconditional support in its own relaagreement. Because U.S. industry and labor groups were tions. So there is an unanimously opposed Question: Israel & its US lobby want a "no effort underway for to it, an Israeli Emdaylight" policy of the president never openly that. bassy operative criticizing Israeli settlements, giving Israel billions in aid, & diplomatic support at the UN Americans, when covertly obtained and told and asked, Israel passed a 300-page K>($5637'(%6&(5@M#(( D]-( and its U.S. lobby are classified report com@(_%6('@*78<5&_(I6784*( the only parties makpiled from proprietary ing such a demand in industry data from the K>($5637'(5@M#(( 1E-( a question—“Israel ITC to help AIPAC @(_%6('@*78<5&_(I6784*( and its U.S. lobby overcome opposition. want a no-daylight This was investigated F&5#"( D-( policy, the president as a counterespinever criticizing Isonage matter by the @c" A@c" !@c" #@c" ?@c" L@c" C@c" )15%0/8"27*/D"(,%15J,"$11J;/"Q1'35*/%")5%F/>3" raeli settlements and FBI. ,RD38ZZ35%F/>3HJ11J;/H01*ZF+/K\35%F/>^1+b/!:6//#+3e#6a:C%5*5K,0bmb5/341'^AmE;(/%^m%K^Am1%J^" giving Israel billions And, as could probin aid and diplomatic support at the U.N.”—most say, 56 perably be expected from such a process, it replaced a balanced cent say, the majority say, there should not be a no-daylight trading relationship with a chronic U.S. deficit to [Israel]. policy.

In fact, on an inflation- adjusted basis, the U.S.-Israel Free We have Maria LaHood with us today who can do a much Trade Agreement is the worst bilateral free trade deal ever, better job talking about what Boycott, Divestment and Sancwith a cumulative deficit of $144 billion. tions (BDS) are—a movement to end international support for In this era of popular disapproval of trade deals—whether it’s Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians—and the effort by the the Trans-Pacific Partnership initiative or the North American Israel lobby to pass laws blocking this, making it illegal across Free Trade Agreements—when informed of the Israel free the country. trade deal, 63 percent of Americans would either renegotiate or So I’ll only say that Israel lobby direct mail fund-raising camcancel it altogether. paigns are virtually unequivocally focused on stopping BDS as Another bad deal that has been a long-term Israel and lobby a fund-raising and major program initiative right now. It’s highly initiative is moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. Since visible. It’s the number one priority.

1948, Israel has been attempting to persuade foreign emMay 2017

9

MAY 2017 ralph 7_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 5:10 PM Page 10

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

disclosure laws and But Americans are Question: Until 1970 the US enforced laws didn’t have quite so ambivalent.

When requiring public disclosures when Israeli much power over Conasked, 60 percent neigovernment & surrogate programs sought to gress and elected offither oppose nor supinfluence U.S. public opinion and lobby congress. cials. Sixty-six percent, port such laws, with 21 US should be regulating 66% in fact, when asked, percent opposing them such activities favor returning to reguand only 18 percent US should not be regulating lating such activities. supporting them. So 31% such activities Perhaps this is driAmericans are not beven by warranted inhind BDS, are not Other 3% vestigative journalism highly on board with it, about coordinated Isand they also don’t 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Source: IRmep through Google Consumer Surveys rael lobby and Israeli support the entire idea https://surveys.google.com/view?survey=q24vsudsvm52awhmwlfz2obw34&question=1&filter=&rw=1&org= done government officials of single issue lobbying that are still using every on behalf of a single means possible, including covert ones, to win. That includes an foreign country. attempt to overturn a very beneficial—the JCPOA—Obama adI think this is the most important survey question, because it ministration deal with Iran which most Americans favor, but gets to the heart of the entire mechanism by which the Israel which Israel and its lobby do not favor. lobby has accumulated so much influence—campaign contriSo you do have good journalism that came out about surveilbutions. So here it is. That system ranges from seed funding lance of the negotiations with the Iranians, about the Israeli of political candidates to funding through coordinated stealth government offering to do whatever is necessary with individpolitical action committees, bundled campaign contributions, ual members of Congress if they would oppose passing this and pro-Israel mega donors. Janet McMahon and two former deal which the entire mainstream establishment Israel lobby— congressmen will be talking about that, I’m sure.

AIPAC, the ADL, the AJC—were united in opposing.

Seventy-one percent of Americans do not support this system.

So, in conclusion, solid majorities of Americans polled, when They are probably not aware, however, why lobbyists for Israel using accurate survey technology, believe that U.S. foreign aid no longer talk about getting guns and diplomacy for Israel. They to Israel is too much. They don’t really even approve of the talk about maintaining the U.S. special relationship with Israel, means by which they’re won, and the funds and the U.S. uniand there is a legal reason for that. Lobbyists for Israel, including lateral commitments that are made to execute. However, this is the old-timers such as Abraham Feinberg and the founder of a passive majority. None of these opinions and views has reAIPAC Isaiah Kenen, in their writings and speeches were far cently been, with few exceptions, translated into direct action more forthright in the early days. They honestly stated that their by their members of Congress. So only through active opposigoal was weapons, money, and diplomatic support, because Istion, rather than passive opposition, which is clearly out there, rael needs it. There was no talk of because America needs Israel. will Americans be able to get their government back into the AIPAC received, indirectly, foreign startup money to launch itbusiness of representing them. And only by clearly asking self, and today the tight coordination with the Israeli governabout, and polling, and surveying, and doing serious research ment continues. But the PR frame, the public relations frame, about Israel lobby programs and what Americans think about has changed. Now, it’s one of preserving special interests and them, will we be able to have a process that takes wing and common values. By the 1970s, no matter what the lobby did, goes viral, so to speak, in terms of engaging more Americans the Justice Department stopped pursuing questions about to get out of this passive mode and become active participants whether some of its actors were in fact foreign agents who once again with their government. should be regulated as such. And since that year, a growing So with that, I am hoping our wonderful ushers, who are number of espionage investigations of AIPAC, and even the here today earning some community service hours, will circuADL, were opened, but then quietly closed for no justifiable realate—Adrien, and Tabatha, and Sebastian, there we have sons. 1970, in fact, was the last year the Justice Department Sapphire. If you have any questions, please pass your cards took an interest in the Israel lobby as a foreign agent. There to them. We’ve got a very tight schedule, so we’re trying to were in-depth hearings in 1962 and 1963 pleading with the IRS keep our question and answer sessions getting to the most to look at their tax-exempt status, but nothing happened. important questions first. Thank you. Do we have any quesHowever, Americans appear to support a return to that simtions yet? ■ pler time when foreign agents were compelled to comply with 10

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:22 AM Page 11

Grant F. Smith: American Public Opinion About U.S. Aid to Israel and Other Top AIPAC Programs

PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

Questions & Answers

Dale Sprusansky: One question off the bat here is, so you used the term Israel lobby in your polling, how can you be certain that Americans understand what exactly you mean by Israel lobby when you mentioned it?

Grant Smith: Right. That’s a good question. We did some preliminary polling, and these slides and a subsequent report will be out soon. But it turns out that if you ask people what is the Israel lobby in the context of these questions about Congress and international relations, they will actually say it’s not the registration desk of the hotel in Jerusalem, the King David Hotel. They’ll say it’s not a group in the Israeli Knesset which has a similar name. They know what it is. So I can assure you that on the basis of having done some preliminary work, we’re not asking about an entity that is completely unknown at this point.

Dale Sprusansky: There is just one question about how the polling was conducted and the sampling. Were these respondents simply voluntary or self-selected? Was there any regional, age, religious or other kind of sampling?

Grant Smith: That’s great. So there’s been a lot of junk polling that’s been done. When I pulled this presentation together, I had a section on junk polling. There is a piece of polling that was conducted by Kellyanne Conway, many of you have heard about it, a self-selected poll on Muslims which did not have a representative sample. It had extremely, sort of toxic implications and it’s informing the government right now. You can when you—and I suggest you download this slide deck.

You can certainly go to all of these hyperlinks at the bottom of this Google survey and see every single response, and look at the representative sampling that was done by Google to get these responses. This is not a Kellyanne Conway or other type of poll which has an agenda. Yes, we’re asking about the lobby because it’s important and it can be done. But this is a legitimate, statistically significant survey.

Dale Sprusansky: We just have another question asking you to draw some conclusions based on these polls. Do you feel that they represent America’s moving more away from a proIsrael stance? Do you think we’re at a tipping point right now?

The person points out that polls show that Democrats and young people are increasingly prone to be siding with Palestine.

Grant Smith: I’m not sure we’re at a tipping point. I think there are a lot of people in this room, including some speakers who are coming up very soon, who’ve done an excellent job in bringing a higher public awareness about what the Israel lobby is, what its agenda is. But the only way we’re going to get a tipping point, I think, is if we manage to spread the word a lot further; if we manage to continue drawing alternative media; if we continue to have brilliant journalism exposing some things. And I include the Wall Street Journal, which broke an important story. It’s not just Mondoweiss, which is a great place as well—and I notice that Philip Weiss is here today, so be sure to say hi to him. There are others, including one of my favorites, Antiwar.com, where I write a lot of articles. We’re trying to spread the word, because there hasn’t alMay 2017

11

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:22 AM Page 12

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

Grant Smith: He’s not here yet, is he? I have to say, I wrote ways been a welcoming presence for this type of information an entire book called Spy Trade, about the espionage that was in the mainstream media. conducted to pass America’s first free trade agreement. It Dale Sprusansky: Great. So a question here about—not diwasn’t as American as apple pie what happened to U.S. inrectly related to polls, but since you are involved in this, what is dustry. It just wasn’t. It wasn’t as American as apple pie when the latest on your legal actions on Israel’s nuclear arsenal? two AIPAC executives managed to obtain information they Grant Smith: Right. So we found that in order to get good thought they could use from Col. Lawrence Franklin to gin up information from the government, you have to file a FOIA and an attack on Iran. I think that there’s far more going on, includthen follow it up with a lawsuit. This afternoon, when we’re ing coordination to oppose the JCPOA, that’s a mix. It’s lobbysort of wrapping up—I know some of you have been very ining. It’s phone banking. It’s coordinated campaign contributerested in a lawsuit we filed about Israel’s nuclear program, tions. But there is a foreign covert action component to a lot of about the compliance of foreign aid with Symington and Glenn these things. And so, to me, it’s not as American as apple pie. amendments inside the Arms Export Control Act—there’s talk Sorry. about that a little bit toward the end. But I can tell you, that Dale Sprusansky: Okay. I think that we should wrap it up. lawsuit is ongoing and we’re learning a great deal about funcGrant Smith: Do we have one more? tions of government by pursuing it. So more to come on that.

Dale Sprusansky: We have one more quick one.

Dale Sprusansky: Great. Then a question to broaden the Grant Smith: Okay. conversation about military contractors. Someone asked, aren’t Dale Sprusansky: Why does the IRS continue to grant prothey behind most of the lobbying for U.S. aid to Israel?

Israel groups, especially those that fund settlements, tax-exGrant Smith: Yeah, I get a lot of things in my inbox saying, empt status? you know, Grant, this is really about Lockheed Martin, this is reGrant Smith: I think that’s a great question. Recently, a test ally about the large defense contractors. But if you look at their case was that the Zionist Organization of America lost its tax total revenue compared to the $3 billion a year/$4 billion a year exempt status, and so it had to go back we know about given to Israel, it’s a tiny, (Advertisement) and re-apply. This ancient organization, tiny fraction. If you go to the signing cerewhich was really one of the originals, had monies for MOUs—which is part of my to go back and apply to the IRS and make job, I do that—you don’t see a lot of deits case for why an organization that was fense contractors attending those events. purely about promoting Zionism in the So I would have to say, based on the U.S. was tax-exempt. And we obtained all data, based on the book Big Israel, based of the correspondence from the IRS about on the book Spy Trade, based on a lot of that. They asked the question. Mort Klein research and a lot of investment into this, and his team of lawyers evaded it, and I don’t think that they are a major part of they were never asked again. The questhe push to pass massive foreign aid tion has never really been put forth and packages to Israel. In fact, a lot of them answered by the IRS. really don’t like and attempted to get the Senator J. W. Fulbright made an atmajority of the last MOU spent on Ameritempt to ask about the status of AIPAC, can arms as opposed to being spent on Gifted Palestinian students about the status of the Jewish Agency at developing Israel’s export-oriented induscan reach their potential with that time, and a number of other organizatries. AIPAC takes the lead on this. This is your generous donation. tions, to the IRS after a seminal investigatheir key core function, arms and money (Tax ((T Tax Exemption p is Applied for) tion in 1963. And they strong-armed him in the form of serial foreign aid packages and did not answer the question. So it’s from the United States. It’s not the military an open question. The one about settleand defense contractors.

AFBU ment financing in particular is the subject Dale Sprusansky: All right. Well, perof litigation right now. The problem is alhaps this is a good transition to our next American Friends of Birzeit University ways standing. You should probably ask a speaker, our keynote speaker. We have a real lawyer, like Maria LaHood, that quesquestion about Mearsheimer and Walt’s tion in the following sessions. book. They claim the Israel lobby is as Thank you in advance for Dale Sprusansky: Great. Thank you American as apple pie. Do you agree with ki d ib b i very much, Grant. ■ that assessment? Be careful.

American Friends of Birzeit University

12

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:22 AM Page 13

Prof. John Mearsheimer: What Has Changed Since Publication of The Israel Lobby

KEYNOTE

What Has Changed Since Publication of The Israel Lobby and What the New Administration Can Do Differently Prof. John Mearsheimer

PHOTO PHIL PORTLOCK

Janet McMahon: Hello.

I’m Janet McMahon, the managing editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. I was out at the registration table trying to help sign people in when Dale started speaking, so I don’t know if he told you that the Washington Report will be 35 years old next month. And we have been following the Israel lobby since our very first issue in 1982, so it’s a special pleasure to introduce our first keynote speaker—Prof. John Mearsheimer. He is the R. Wendell Harrison distinguished service professor of political science and the co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago.

In March of 2006 he and Prof. Stephen Walt of Harvard published an article in the London Review of Books entitled “The Israel Lobby.” The article had originally been commissioned

by The Atlantic monthly, but that American publication decided not to publish it after all. Instead it found a home overseas. The paper’s publication caused an uproar, in no small part because it shed light on what AIPAC operative Steve Rosen described as a night flower that “thrives in the dark and shrivels up in the sunlight.” Harvard posted the paper on its website, but removed its logo. Attacks on Mearsheimer and Walt ranged from naïve— that’s from Noam Chomsky—to—and this will shock you—antiSemites. The following year their article evolved into the book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, which has since been translated into 22 languages. Professor Mearsheimer, by the way, will be signing copies of his book at 12:15 at the registration table where you signed in.

I’m also particularly glad that he is joining us today because

every year people ask us if he is going to be speaking at our conference. So it’s been a great pleasure this year to be able to say, “Of course he is!”

Today he will be discussing what, if anything, has changed in the decade since The Israel Lobby was published. Please join me in welcoming Prof. John Mearsheimer.

John Mearsheimer: Thank you for the kind introduction. It’s a great pleasure to be here today to speak before this distinguished audience. I would like to thank IRmep and the Washington Report for inviting me to give this talk. Of course, I thank all of you for coming out to hear me, and the other speakers.

I would like to focus my talk on what has transpired regarding the Israel lobby and the U.S.-Israeli relationship in the 10 years since Steve Walt and I wrote The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. My talk is comprised of four parts. I’ll begin by briefly restating the core arguments in our book. I’ll then describe four major changes that have taken place regarding the lobby and the U.S.-Israeli relationship over the past decade. I will then describe what has not changed and conclude by speculating about the future.

The central argument in the book is that the United States has a special relationship with Israel that has no parallel in modern history and it is almost wholly due to the lobby. What makes Israel’s relationship with the United States extraordinary is not simply the fact that Israel has received more foreign aid than any other country, or that Washington almost always backs Israel diplomatically. What makes it truly special is that the aid is May 2017

13

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:22 AM Page 14

KEYNOTE

“”

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

given unconditionally. In other words, Israel gets this aid even when it does things that the United States opposes, like building settlements in the West Bank.

This discussion raises the obvious question: why does the United States give Israel so much aid and without any conditions? Israel supporters sometimes argue that it is because Israel is a vital strategic asset. This is not a serious argument. In fact, giving Israel nearly unconditional support is one of the reasons we have a terrorism problem. Others argue that there’s a moral rationale for this special relationship. Israel is said to be a democracy that shares our values.

The two countries certainly share some values, but Israel is a Jewish state which clearly privileges its Jewish citizens.

Non-Jews are second-class citizens in both theory and practice. The United States, on the other hand, is a liberal democracy that works hard to treat all of its citizens equally.

It certainly is not a Christian state that treats non-Christians as second-class citizens. Indeed, that kind of discrimination, which is part of Israel’s essence, is antithetical to the American way of life. Furthermore, Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians in the occupied territories is sharply at odds with U.S. values.

Finally, there’s the claim that the American people have such a favorable view of Israel that they demand their politicians back the special relationship. This argument, however, is not persuasive. If you look at the survey data on how the American public thinks about Israel, as Grant made clear before I spoke, there’s no question that Americans have a generally favorable image of Israel in part because media coverage tends to be favorable. But as poll after poll shows, that support is not especially deep or wide.

So what explains the special relationship if there is no strategic or moral imperative and if most Americans do not favor it?

Our answer, of course, is the lobby.

What exactly is the lobby? Steve and I argue that it’s a loose coalition of individuals and groups who actively work to influence U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. It’s not a centralized organization, and the groups that make up the lobby do not agree on every issue. It includes organizations like AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, the Conference of Presidents [of Major American Jewish Organizations], the Zionist Organization of America, and Christians United for Israel, just to name a few.

It also includes think tanks like WINEP [Washington Institute for Near East Policy] and the American Enterprise Institute, and publications like The Weekly Standard and Commentary. It cer-

tainly is not a cabal or a conspiracy that “controls” U.S. foreign policy. Rather, it’s a powerful interest group like the NRA, the farm lobby, the Cuba lobby, or the AARP, and it operates pretty much the same way those other interest groups do.

Very importantly, the lobby is not synonymous with Jewish Americans. Surveys suggest that about a third of American Jews do not care that much about Israel. Others do not support the lobby’s positions. Some groups that work on Israel’s behalf, such as the so-called Christian Zionists, are not Jewish.

In short, the lobby is defined by its political agenda, not by ethnicity or religion.

Finally, we argue that the lobby has pushed policies that are in neither Israel’s nor America’s national interest. In particular, we maintain that it would have been much better for both countries if the United States had long ago pressured Israel to stop building settlements and allow for the creation of a viable Palestinian state. But this did not happen—and it will not happen—because the lobby makes it impossible for American leaders to use the leverage at their disposal to pressure Israel. In essence, that’s the story Steve and I tell.

Let me now switch gears and talk about what has changed regarding Israel and the lobby since the book was first published in 2007. I think that there have been four noteworthy changes. First there’s been a fundamental change in how Americans think and talk about Israel, the special relationship, and the lobby. When we initially wrote our book, there was much ignorance about these subjects. My sense is that most people who read our book, or who have read our book, thought there was a large element of truth in what we said, but that we had nevertheless exaggerated the lobby’s influence.

There was also a great deal of ignorance in the American body politic about Israeli policies, especially toward the Palestinians, and little understanding of the special relationship. This is hardly surprising, because one of the lobby’s main goals is to prevent an open conversation in the media about Israeli policy, the U.S.-Israeli relationship, and the lobby itself. It was successful for a long time, but my sense from talking to many people about these matters, and from closely following the public discourse, is that those days are over. For example, it’s commonplace, even in the mainstream media, to talk about the lobby, using just that word. I cannot tell you how many people have said to me that, if anything, Steve and I just scratched the surface in our discussion of the lobby’s power and influence.

I might add that there’s now more discussion of Israel’s policies and actions in the American media. If you read the comment sec-

Why does the United States give Israel so much aid and without any conditions?

14

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:22 AM Page 15

KEYNOTE

PHOTO PHIL PORTLOCK

Prof. John Mearsheimer: What Has Changed Since Publication of The Israel Lobby

tion that follow many newspaper stories, you will see that there are a substantial number of Americans who are critical of Israeli behavior, especially toward the Palestinians. Only someone who is blind and deaf would not recognize that the United States is deeply committed to defending Israel’s behavior at almost every turn. In short, there is much more awareness of these critical issues today than there was a decade ago.

What has caused this change? I think that our original article and the book helped. Both attracted an enormous amount of attention. Indeed, the Lobby book made the New York Times bestseller list and, because of the Internet, the article on which the book was based was widely read all over the world.

But I think that, ultimately, our arguments would not have had much impact were it not for a number of other factors.

First, the actions of Israel and the lobby over the past decade have done much to substantiate many of the claims we made in the book. Just to take one example, consider how Israel and the lobby responded to the Iran nuclear deal. Prime Minister [Binyamin] Netanyahu went to extraordinary lengths to sabotage the agreement, going so far as to give a speech to a joint session of Congress on March 3, 2015 that not only sought to undermine the deal but was also an indirect attack on President [Barack] Obama. Of course, he was aided by AIPAC, which went all out to defeat the deal. This nasty fight between Netanyahu and the lobby on one hand, and the Obama administration on the other hand, played out in full public view.

The second factor behind the increased awareness of Israeli policy and the lobby is the Internet and social media. There are now all sorts of places on the Internet one can go to for information about these subjects. The website Mondoweiss, which I’m

sure everyone in this room knows about, is a case in point. It posts a steady stream of stories that reveal important information about Israeli policy and the lobby’s activities, not to mention critical assessments of those matters. Mondoweiss, which is now 11 years old, had eight million visits to its site in 2016.

Of course there are other sites that provide valuable information like the Electronic Intifada, which is run by Ali Abunimah, and the site for the Israeli magazine +972. Another important source of information on the Internet is Haaretz, the liberal Israeli newspaper which often runs pieces that take a critical perspective on Israel, as well as the lobby. And in the age of Twitter, important pieces that appear on these sites are immediately spread around the world to huge numbers of people. These same pieces are also circulated on e-mail lists that go to hundreds, if not thousands, of interested readers.

Third, there are hosts of organizations that are willing to criticize Israel and the lobby. IRmep is a case in point, as it has played an important role in exposing the lobby’s activities over time. There are also a number of organizations that are deeply committed to Israel which, nevertheless, are willing to take Israel to task when they disapprove of its behavior. They include J Street, Jewish Voice for Peace, Americans for Peace Now, and the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, among others.

Finally, there are some important voices in the mainstream media who have taken to speaking critically about Israeli policy and the lobby. The most important person in this regard is Peter Beinart, who wrote a very influential article in the June 2010 issue of the New York Review of Books entitled “The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment,” which is critical of the lobby for aiding and abetting Israel’s misguided policies in the May 2017

15

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:22 AM Page 16

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

tain the fiction that there would eventually be a legitimate Palestinian state living side by side with Israel, but it is now clear that there is virtually no chance that will happen, and Greater Israel is here to stay.

That Greater Israel, as Richard Falk and Virginia Tilley make clear in an important new U.N. study, is already an apartheid state. Israel and its defenders vehemently deny that fact, but even among Israelis it’s not unusual to hear Israel described as an apartheid state.

For example, two former Israeli prime ministers, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, have said that if there is no two-state solution, Israel will—to quote Olmert—“face a South African-style struggle.” Well, there is no two-state solution.

Speaking of South Africa, there are a number of individuals who were well acquainted with the situation in that racist state before it collapsed who believe that the situation in Israel is worse. John Dugard, the eminent South African law professor, says that the crimes against the Palestinians are, to quote him, “infinitely worse than those committed by the apartheid regime in South Africa.” He is hardly the lone voice in that regard.

For anyone who doubts how bad life can be for the Palestinians living under Israeli control, one only has to consider what happened in Israel’s three major assaults against Gaza over the past decade: Operation Cast Lead, Operation Pillar of Defense, and Operation Protective Edge.

Because of time constraints, I will focus exclusively on the first of those operations, Cast Lead, which took place in the weeks before President Obama was inaugurated in 2009. Israeli forces killed about 1,400 Palestinians, of whom roughly 1,200 were civilians; 350 of those civilians were children. In contrast, 13 Israelis were killed. The ratio of Palestinians to Israelis killed in that operation is 108:1. That’s not a war in my lexicon— that’s a massacre. I might add that 6,300 Palestinian homes were destroyed, contributing to the 600,000 tons of rubble that littered Gaza when the shooting ended.

The U.N. commissioned an investigation in the wake of that conflict which was headed by the distinguished South African jurist Richard Goldstone. The final report concluded that Israel had engaged in “a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population.” It went on to accuse Israel of committing war crimes and possible PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

KEYNOTE

occupied territories. He has continued to write and speak about these matters since this article appeared.

Before Beinart, there was the late Tony Judt, who offered searing criticisms of Israel and its American defenders. Of course, there are a number of other key figures in the mainstream media who have occasionally taken aim at both Israel and the lobby over the past decade. They would include Roger Cohen, Thomas Friedman and Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times, as well as Jon Stewart of “Daily Show” fame. In sum, I think there has been a significant change in how Americans think and talk about Israel since our book appeared.

The second big change is that Israel’s image in the West, especially in the United States, has suffered serious damage over the past decade. This is due in part to the fact that information about Israel is more readily available now than it was in the past, thanks in good part to the Internet and social media. But it is also as a result of the fact that things have been changing inside of Israel in recent years. For starters, the political center of gravity in Israel has been moving steadily rightward for decades, and it has now reached the point where government ministers occasionally make racist comments about Palestinians and write legislation that is directly at odds with basic liberal values. The recent legislation banning individuals who support BDS from entering Israel is the latest example of this phenomenon. All indications are that this rightward shift will continue for the foreseeable future and Israel will become an increasingly illiberal country, even toward its own citizens.

But the key stain on Israel’s reputation is its brutal treatment of the Palestinians and the fact that it has become an apartheid state. Until recently, Israel and its supporters were able to main16

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 2:18 PM Page 17

Prof. John Mearsheimer: What Has Changed Since Publication of The Israel Lobby

KEYNOTE

PHOTO PHIL PORTLOCK

crimes against humanity.

There are other signs of serious trouble in Israel. Especially worrisome are the racist attitudes among large segments of Jewish Israeli youth.

Given these attitudes, it is hardly surprising that a year ago today a young Israeli soldier shot and killed a wounded and defenseless Palestinian.

Equally unsurprising, there was a huge outcry in Israel when he was indicted and later convicted of the reduced charge of manslaughter. Press reports from Israel make it clear that many Israelis thought his behavior was justiJournalist Philip Weiss (second from left) covered the conference for Mondoweiss. fied, and that it was hardly an in strength over time as increasing numbers of American Jews isolated incident. He simply had the misfortune of getting caught look to join institutions that challenge Israel’s repressive policies on film. The fact that the shooting was captured on film virtually toward the Palestinians. guaranteed that it would go viral on social media and further In addition to these changes in the Jewish establishment, damage Israel’s image. there are changes taking place in the broader American Jewish The bottom line is that the days when Israel was seen as a community that do not bode well for either the lobby or Israel. In morally upright David taking on an evil Goliath are over. The particular, it seems clear that younger Jews are not as commitdamage to Israel’s reputation probably started in 1982, when it ted to Israel as their parents and grandparents. For example, a invaded Lebanon, but it has accelerated at a marked pace over Pew survey from 2013 found that among Jews who are 65 the past decade. years or older, 53 percent say that caring about Israel is essenThe third big change involves changes within the American tial to being what Jewish means to me. That’s 65 years or older, Jewish community. One of the most important developments in 53 percent. In contrast, 32 percent of American Jews under the recent years is a shift in the balance of power between the age of 30 held a similar view. That is a gap of 21 percentage mainstream organizations and the lobby that reflexively support points. It seems likely that support for Israel in the American Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians, and a more progresJewish community, which has been weakening over the past sive set of organizations that are determined to find a way to decade, will weaken even more in the years ahead as generamake peace between the two sides. The divide between those tional change continues. groups has long been present, but the balance of power beLastly, there’s been an important change in Israel’s support tween them has always been lopsided in favor of the organizawithin the United States. For purposes of background, it’s imtions that support Israel no matter what it does. portant to re-emphasize that public support for Israel in the That situation, however, has begun to change, especially with United States has never been particularly strong. One way that the rise of J Street, which was created in November 2007 as a the lobby deals with this thin support is to have significant influhome for individuals with progressive views on Israel. It not only ence both inside the Democratic and Republican parties. In has a high profile, but it also is willing to criticize Israeli policies essence, the lobby has worked hard to make sure that Israel in the occupied territories and actually take on the hard-line orenjoys strong bipartisan support and is not strongly backed in ganizations in the lobby. J Street is surely not as powerful as an one of the major parties but not the other. The lobby was sucorganization like AIPAC, but the mere fact that it has survived cessful in this regard for a long time, but that bipartisan support and is thriving shows that times are changing. After all, a similar has begun to erode over the past decade as support for Israel organization called Breira was established in 1973, but the inside the Democratic Party has plummeted. At the same time, mainline forces in the lobby quickly crushed it. Not only has J it has grown substantially inside the Republican Party.

Street survived, but there is good reason to think that it will grow May 2017

17

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:26 AM Page 18

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

In a Pew poll from this past January, only 33 percent of Democrats said they sympathize more with the Israelis than the Palestinians, while 74 percent of Republicans said they sympathize more with Israel than the Palestinians. This is a gap of 41 percentage points. In short, there has been a marked erosion in support for Israel within the Democratic Party in recent years, which raises serious questions as to whether the lobby will be able to maintain bipartisan support for the special relationship in the years ahead.

Let me switch gears again and now focus on what has not changed over the past decade. Three things have not changed.

First, the lobby is as powerful as ever. One might be tempted to see the lobby’s defeat on the Iran nuclear issue as evidence that its power is waning, but that would be a mistake. The lobby does not win every time, and it is most likely to lose when it is pushing the United States to do something that might get it into a war. The Iran deal fits squarely in that category. Its failure to make a deal with Tehran would have sharply increased the chances that the United States would have attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Where the lobby almost always wins is on matters relating to the Palestinians and financial support for Israel. The fact that the Obama administration could do virtually nothing to get Israel to move toward a two-state solution, yet still opted to provide Israel with $38 billion in aid over the next decade is clear evidence that the lobby remains very powerful. It’s important to understand that the key to the lobby’s success is that it focuses mainly on influencing high-level policymakers and opinion makers, as well as the elites in both political parties—not the rank and file.

I noted earlier that there has been a significant decrease in support for Israel within the Democratic Party. The reason that change has had little effect on policy is that the elites in the Democratic Party remain deeply committed to the special relationship. They fear the lobby will target them if there is any evidence they are wavering in their support for Israel. One might think that politicians who are supposed to place the American national interest above the interest of all other countries would stand up to the lobby when it pushes policies that they know are not good for the United States. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates explains why this does not happen: “I saw most of 18

Congress as uncivil, incompetent in fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibility, micro-managerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thinskinned”—here are the key words—“and prone to put self and re-election before country.”

The second big nonchange is that U.S. policy toward Israel remains the same as it has been for the past decade. The special relationship, in other words, is firmly intact. Of course, this continuity is hardly surprising, given that there has been no diminishment in the power of the lobby. As many of you probably remember, there was a brief moment during the recent presidential election where it looked like candidate [Donald] Trump might favor a more even-handed approach to dealing with Israel and the Palestinians. But he quickly reversed field and made it clear that he would go to great lengths to be even more pro-Israel than President Obama. Naturally, Hillary Clinton made the same pledge. Thus, there is no good reason to think that American policy toward Israel is going to change in a meaningful way any time soon.

Finally, there is hardly any sustained criticism of Israel in the American foreign policy establishment. This, too, is unsurprising, since the lobby is as powerful as ever and, as I emphasized, it focuses most of its attention on keeping the country’s elites in line.

Anyone who wants to be a serious player in the making of U.S. foreign policy understands full well that if he or she criticizes Israel, there will be a price to pay. The result is that there is no serious debate about Israel or the special relationship in Congress, the mainstream media, or prominent think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations. This is not to deny, however, that there is an open and vigorous discussion of Israel and its relationship with the United States outside of these establishment institutions.

Let me conclude by talking about where we go from here. I believe dark times are ahead for both Israel and the lobby. There is no reason to think Israel is going to move toward a two-state solution. Greater Israel is here to stay, and that state is and will remain an apartheid state. That brute fact will become increasingly clear to people all over the world, especially now that it’s clear the Palestinians are not going to get a state of their own. Moreover, the Palestinians, who already comprise almost half of the population of Greater Israel, will continue to resist their oppression, which will force Israel to escalate the repressive policies that have already badly tarnished its image.

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

STAFF PHOTO DELINDA HANLEY

KEYNOTE

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:26 AM Page 19

Prof. John Mearsheimer: What Has Changed Since Publication of The Israel Lobby

KEYNOTE

The Palestinians’ most potent weapon in this fight will be BDS, which is a global movement that aims to generate significant economic and political pressure on Israel that will ultimately force it to give the Palestinians equal rights. Israel and its supporters in the West view BDS as an existential threat, because it not only has the potential to delegitimize Israel, but it might ultimately lead to Israel’s undoing. After all, the Palestinians, if they were given equal rights, Israel would cease to be a Jewish state, as there eventually will be more Palestinians than Jews inside of Greater Israel.

There are good reasons to think that BDS might succeed, at least when it comes to delegitimizing Israel. First, it takes dead aim at apartheid, which is a morally repugnant political system that is universally condemned. Apartheid South Africa eventually disappeared. Why should Israel be any different? Second, the call to give the Palestinians equal rights is fully consistent with basic Western values. It’s a demand that will surely resonate in Western Europe and the United States, causing all sorts of problems for Israel and its supporters.

Of course, Israel and its supporters are counting on the lobby to stymie BDS. Over time, however, that will become an increasingly difficult task, simply because there is no good defense for apartheid, which is a reprehensible political system.

Nevertheless, the lobby is extraordinarily powerful, and it will go to enormous lengths to protect Israel at every turn.

It’s difficult to say where this conflict will lead in the decades ahead. Many Israelis will surely be interested in expelling the

Palestinians from Greater Israel if they have the opportunity, thereby eliminating the need for apartheid. But that outcome is unlikely, because there are now more than six million Palestinians living within Greater Israel’s borders, and they would surely put up fierce resistance if Israel tried to expel them from their homes. Moreover, massive ethnic cleansing would be an enormous and everlasting stain on Israel’s reputation. It’s more likely that Israel will simply remain an apartheid state and, with the help of the lobby, just hunker down and accept the fact that most of the world considers it a pariah state.

Finally, there is the possibility that BDS will carry the day and Greater Israel will become a legitimate liberal democracy. If that were to happen, which is not likely, it would undoubtedly come after much bloodshed, as most Israeli Jews would fervently oppose this outcome, since it would mean the end of the Zionist dream.

Again, it’s hard to say which one of these outcomes will carry the day. It will probably take another 20 or 30 years before we understand how this conflict will ultimately be resolved, or maybe not resolved. Regardless of the outcome, I’m deeply sad to say that the decades ahead promise abundant trouble for Israel, and especially for the Palestinians. The United States will not be spared either, simply because the lobby will be working overtime to protect Israel and preserve the special relationship, which is likely to harm America’s intellectual life, as well as its politics. Thank you. ■

Janet McMahon: Thank you very much, Dr. Mearsheimer. We have several questions. I want to start with one of my own.

When you talk about the deteriorating image in the United States, do you think that’s because people think it’s because Israel has a right-wing government, and if it didn’t have a right-wing government these things wouldn’t be happening?

John Mearsheimer: Well, I think at a very general level the deteriorating image is due to two factors. One is exposure because of alternative media. Number two, because of what’s happening inside Israel. I think that in part what’s hap-

pening inside Israel is that the politicians who now are beginning to dominate the discourse there are unattractive from a liberal American point of view. Since the vast majority of American Jews are liberal, they’re deeply bothered by what these politicians are saying.

But I think that’s not the key.

I think the key is that it’s becoming increasingly apparent that Israel is an apartheid state, and that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is simply unacceptable to large numbers of people.

My argument is that, as time goes by, that will be more and more the case.

STAFF PHOTO DELINDA HANLEY

Questions & Answers

May 2017

19

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 2:21 PM Page 20

KEYNOTE

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

Janet McMahon: So now we’ll get to some questions from the audience. Here are two related ones, I think. Your 2006 book largely attributed the U.S. decision to invade Iraq to the Israel lobby. But many of the neoconservative policymakers involved in that decision were not particularly loyal to Israel, including Donald Rumsfeld. What is the evidence that the lobby was the primary cause? Another question. To what extent would you say that the Israel lobby was responsible for the attacks on various Middle East countries, such as Iraq?

John Mearsheimer: With regard to the Iraq War, our basic argument was that of course George Bush and Vice President [Dick] Cheney had to be in favor of the war for it to happen, and that neither one of them is part of the Israel lobby. Our argument in the book, and of course in the article as well, is that the lobby was deeply interested in getting Iraq and taking Saddam Hussain down for a long time before the actual invasion on March 19, 2003. The lobby, and here we’re talking especially about the neoconservatives, were pushing very hard for a war against Iraq. In the wake of what looked like a stunning military victory in Afghanistan in the fall of 2001, we came to the conclusion— falsely, of course—that we had the magic formula for taking down regimes and getting out of town quickly so that we could march on to the next target. This is what the Bush doctrine was all about.

So what you had in 2002 and early 2003 was a situation where we thought we could win a quick and easy victory in Iraq, point number one. Number two, you had this group of neoconservatives who were deeply committed to taking down Saddam Hussain, who had a huge amount of influence in the media and in the Bush administration, who pushed very hard. Therefore, we argued, they were the main driving force. But there’s no question that they alone could not have made the war happen.

They needed President Bush, and Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and they all went along because they basically bought the neoconservative arguments which were of course not simply couched in terms of doing something that was good for Israel, right? They bought the argument, and they thought that we could go in and win a quick and decisive victory.

They were wrong. We jumped into a quagmire. Furthermore, they were wrong in the sense that we had not won a decisive victory in Afghanistan. We had won a temporary victory. And the Taliban eventually came back from the dead. So we had two huge disasters on our hands, which still exist today—one being Afghanistan, two being Iraq. Of course, as a result of the Iraq War, in part, Syria has turned into a disaster as well.

Janet McMahon: Here is a question about your professional

Continued on page 63

Recent Legislation That Threatens First Amendment Rights of Palestinian Solidarity Activists and the Legal Challenges Thereto Maria LaHood

Dale Sprusansky: As I mentioned earlier, we had one speaker change today, and that is that Columbia Law professor Katherine Franke, who was scheduled to speak, came down with pneumonia. But no need to worry, because we have the wonderful Maria LaHood here to take her place. Maria will be addressing an immensely important topic. As many of you know, there has recently been a rash of anti-BDS legislation introduced and passed at both the state and federal levels. These anti-BDS bills have raised concerns about the First Amendment rights of Palestinian solidarity activists. They have also kept the lives of lawyers such as Maria very busy.

Maria is deputy legal director at the Center for Constitutional Rights. She has worked tirelessly to defend the rights of those 20

who face legal pushback for challenging Israel’s policies. She has defended Olympia Food Co-op board members for boycotting Israeli goods, represented Prof. Steven Salaita, who was terminated from a tenured position for tweets critical of Israel. She also works closely with Palestine Legal to support students whose speech is being suppressed for their Palestinian advocacy.

For those of you who were here last year, you will remember her brilliant overview of the challenges faced by Palestinian advocates on campus. This year she will be discussing the recent legislation that threatens First Amendment rights of Palestinian activists, and the legal challenges thereto. We couldn’t be happier to have her with us here today, and are so happy she agreed to join us at the last second.

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:27 AM Page 21

Maria LaHood: Recent Legislation That Threatens First Amendment Rights of Palestinian Solidarity Activists

PHOTO PHIL PORTLOCK

Maria LaHood: Thank you very much. Thanks to IRmep and the American Educational Trust for inviting me to speak. It’s an honor to be here with you all.

Israel has declared that BDS is the biggest threat it faces. As mentioned earlier, it has recently banned BDS supporters from even entering the country. Boycott, divestment and sanctions is a nonviolent, timehonored tactic to demand basic rights, such as equality. Proponents of BDS simply demand that Israel comply with international law. Yet, tens of millions of dollars are being spent to combat BDS; to combat a peaceful means of seeking social change and respect for human rights.

Students for Justice in Palestine groups have been active all over the country educating their campuses. This is despite being maligned as uncivil, divisive, anti-Semitic, or supportive of terrorism; despite being investigated and disciplined when they protest; despite the bureaucratic barriers they face when they try to form a club or bring in a speaker to talk about BDS. Recently the administration of Fordham in New York rejected students’ application to even form an SJP, stating that it was polarizing, and that calling for BDS is a barrier to open dialogue, and claiming that SJP groups at other schools have engaged in misconduct. Each of these reasons violates basic principles of free speech and free association, not to mention the university’s mission to foster intellectual and moral development and open inquiry.

Despite widespread efforts to suppress activism for Palestinian rights, it is on the rise on campuses and off. The U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights has a list of 170-plus United States BDS victories. Students have passed divestment resolutions on campuses all over the country. Numerous churches and foundations have divested from companies facilitating the occupation. And the cultural and academic boycott continues to grow. Six NFL players recently pulled out of an Israeli-sponsored government trip to Israel.

As we know, when there’s no defense, the tactic of a bully is to silence, malign or intimidate the speaker. According to the Emergency Committee for Israel, which has supported the nationwide anti-BDS legislative effort, legislating against BDS tells its proponents, “while you were doing your campus antics, the grownups were in the state legislatures passing laws that make your cause improbable.” Thus far, 16 states have passed anti-

BDS legislation of one form or another. The Israeli Foreign Ministry, in cooperation with the Israel advocacy organizations, is reportedly behind the anti-BDS laws. Several of these laws establish a public blacklist of entities that boycott Israel and prevent the state from investing in them or contracting with them.

The first such law was passed in Illinois in 2015.

It blacklists foreign companies that boycott and requires the state’s pension fund to divest from them. Florida and Arizona passed laws to create blacklists of companies and other entities that boycott, and the state is prevented from contracting with them, as well as investing in them. Maryland currently has similar blacklist bills pending which also apply to natural persons and nongovernmental organizations, meaning that individuals, churches, foundations, trade unions and other groups could be blacklisted for boycotting or divesting from corporations complicit in Israel’s violations.

The bills are supported by the Jewish Community Relations Council, but there’s a large, well-organized broad-based coalition fighting them, so they’re lingering—and in Maryland, the legislative session ends on April 10. Activists had mobilized against similar bills in New York, so Governor [Andrew] Cuomo bypassed the legislative process, which he called “tedious,” and issued an executive order to create a blacklist of institutions and companies that the state must divest from. Incidentally, the executive order that Governor Cuomo signed was signed on the day of the Celebrate Israel Day parade in New York.

The American Jewish Committee lobbied for the New York law and Governor Cuomo has been named co-chair of AJC’s Governors [United] Against BDS initiative. Thus far, the state blacklists that exist in Illinois, Florida, and New York have only named foreign corporations. Not to say that others couldn’t be added in Florida and New York. Colorado has an anti-BDS list that is completely blank, and Arizona’s list is due out April 1st. So although the blacklist tactic is pure McCarthy, the actual reach thus far is quite limited—but the chill can be much broader. Although New York already has a blacklist, earlier this month the New York State Senate fasttracked three bills aimed at silencing advocates of Palestinian rights, with no committee hearing and no opportunity for pubMay 2017

21

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:28 AM Page 22

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

PHOTO PHIL PORTLOCK

In South Carolina, the House passed a bill this week requiring colleges and universities to use this anti-Semitism definition in deciding whether their policies are violated, to the praise of the Zionist Organization of America. Activists recently defeated similar Virginia bills which would have amended Virginia’s Human Rights Act to include the definition. The Massachusetts bill was also defeated. These bills are problematic on many levels, including that the distorted definition undermines the fight against true anti-Semitism—not to mention their sole focus on antiSemitism to the exclusion of other forms of bigotry, such as the rise of Islamophobia.

In December the United States Senate passed by unanimous consent the AntiSemitism Awareness Act, which would have required the Department of Education to consider the State Department definition of anti-Semitism in determining whether a university had discriminated in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It died in the House, but it certainly could be introduced again.

There is a current bill in Congress, the Combating BDS Act, supported by AIPAC and introduced by Senator [Marco] Rubio, that attempts to nullify the argument that state anti-BDS laws should be struck down because they’re pre-empted by federal law. But the main argument against these state laws is not that they are pre-empted, but that they violate the First Amendment.

There was also the 2015 Trade Promotion Authority Law, which requires the U.S. government to discourage BDS or trade barriers against Israel in trade negotiations with European Union countries. And who knows what else is coming at the federal level?

Yesterday the Senate confirmed David Friedman as U.S. ambassador to Israel, 52-46. Friedman has taken the position that the U.S. should view BDS as inherently anti-Semitic and take strong measures, both diplomatic and legislative, to thwart it.

But for all the anti-BDS bills that have passed, many more have been defeated, showing the power of mobilization: that organizing, and writing and calling, and meeting with your representatives, makes a difference. Legislators have heard concerns that the bills are unconstitutional, but they’ve also heard their constituents’ passionate views about Palestinian rights.

It’s important to remember that none of the anti-BDS laws take away your right to boycott or to advocate for BDS, nor can they under the U.S. Constitution. They do, however, punish expression of a particular viewpoint—BDS against Israel— which is unconstitutional. Under the First Amendment, the government cannot pass a law that abridges our freedom of speech or discriminates based on viewpoint. It cannot regulate

lic input or debate, and they passed with overwhelming support.

One bill is like the executive order in New York, but expands the blacklist to include individuals and nonprofits. One bill would prohibit state funding for student organizations at state or city universities, or community colleges, that support BDS campaigns against Israel. The other would take away state funding from colleges that use state aid to fund any academic organization that advocates a boycott of Israel. Several academic institutions have endorsed the call for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions. In 2013, when the American Studies Association did so, legislatures around the country proposed bills similar to this one, but a public outcry prevented them from passing. Companion bills have not yet been introduced in the New York Assembly for these three bills, but we’re on the lookout.

California passed a law requiring prospective contractors to certify under penalty of perjury that they’re not violating state anti-discrimination laws; and, if they have a policy against a foreign nation, that they don’t use it to discriminate. The bills had originally explicitly prohibited contracting with companies that boycott Israel, but because of the mobilization against them and constitutional concerns, they were substantially revised. But the law still names no nation other than Israel and no discrimination other than against Jewish individuals under the “pretext of a constitutionally protected boycott or protest of the state of Israel.”

A few states—Virginia, South Carolina, Massachusetts and Tennessee—as well as Congress, have introduced bills to expand the definition of anti-Semitism to include criticism of Israel for purposes of determining whether someone is discriminated against. These bills adopt the definition of anti-Semitism that’s used by the United States State Department to monitor human rights violations around the world, which describes anti-Semitism relative to Israel as demonizing Israel, applying a double standard to Israel, and delegitimizing Israel.

22

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

“ ”

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:28 AM Page 23

Maria LaHood: Recent Legislation That Threatens First Amendment Rights of Palestinian Solidarity Activists

our speech based on its content or message. In a case stemming from the boycott of white businesses in Mississippi in the 1960s to demand racial equality, the Supreme Court made clear that nonviolent boycotts to bring about political, social or economic change are protected under the First Amendment.

Moreover, the government may not deny a benefit to someone for exercising their constitutional rights.

We must demand that our state and local lawmakers protect our federal right to protest and dissent, and reject these unconstitutional laws. And when they do pass, we must not let them chill our protected speech. But it’s even more critical that we resist the distraction of focusing on our speech rights in the U.S., and instead use the fact that our legislators are actually talking about BDS against Israel as an opportunity for us to talk about Palestinian rights and freedom.

We need to defend our right to engage in BDS, but we must demand an end to the occupation, to apartheid, to settlements, to the closure of Gaza, to attacks on human rights defenders in the occupied Palestinian territory who are targeted, arrested, detained, threatened and harassed for peacefully protesting, for seeking justice and accountability. It’s also essential to be uniting struggles. In addition to anti-BDS laws, and in response to recent protests across the United States, a

recent wave of anti-protest bills have been introduced in state legislatures which increase fines and impose jail time for protesters. In response to Standing Rock protests, North Dakota introduced bills that would exempt drivers from liability if they injured or killed protesters on a roadway, as long as they didn’t do it intentionally.

We need to keep making connections between struggles. We need to keep making connections between settler colonialism, state violence, and racism in this country and in Israel. The struggle for Palestinian liberation is tied to all struggles against oppression. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” He also described the pivotal Montgomery bus boycott against segregation in the U.S. as a refusal to cooperate with an evil system.

All over the world, including in the U.S., people are increasingly refusing to be complicit in Israel’s violations of international law, and are demanding the same of our government officials. It’s not simply a matter of our right to dissent; it is our moral duty. Cooperation with the occupation, with apartheid, is complicity. BDS helped end apartheid in South Africa, and it will eventually do the same in Israel. The wave of anti-BDS legislation just shows the power of the movement for Palestinian rights has to expose Israel’s violations of international law, and eventually help bring them to an end. Thank you. ■

BDS helped end apartheid in South Africa, and it will eventually do the same in Israel.

Questions & Answers Dale Sprusansky: Thank you very much. One question we have here is, since many of these bills are so very clearly in violation of the First Amendment, why are they still standing, and what is the process to get them taken down, and how long will that take?

Maria LaHood: Well, we have not yet brought a case to challenge them. We are thinking about the most strategic case to bring, but just because they haven’t yet been challenged in court doesn’t mean they’re any less unconstitutional. They are unconstitutional.

Dale Sprusansky: So the people in favor of it, when asked, given these issues with the First Amendment and told about them, how did they respond? What is their defense? How did they argue that it is, in fact, not a violation of First Amendment rights?

Maria LaHood: I think some of the claims are that BDS is inherently anti-Semitic, which it is not. I don’t fully understand the arguments, because it is unconstitutional and it is clearly a violation of free speech. I think it is not so much an argument that it’s constitutional, they are appealing to legislators and arguing that it is a fight against anti-Semitism, which it is not. There are many ways to fight anti-Semitism, and stifling criticism of Israel is not one of them.

Dale Sprusansky: We have a practical question here: What are some ways that the average person can help fight against anti-BDS laws?

Maria LaHood: Well, I think get involved wherever you are.

Find out what’s happening in your state and in your county.

There are also county bills, or anti-BDS county bills, as well.

May 2017

23

MAY 2017 ralph 7_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 5:35 PM Page 24

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

STAFF PHOTO DELINDA HANLEY

In New York, for example, Find out what you can do. there are church groups Find out who’s working on who run pre-kindergarten them. You can always conschools that are paid for by tact the Center for Constituthe state. So there are contional Rights, that’s ccrjuscerns that, well, if we entice.org, or Palestine Legal dorse BDS or if we’re affiliat palestinelegal.org, or ated with the larger church whoever is active in your that engages in BDS, what community. Again, talk to does this mean for our state your legislators. Educate funding? There are legitiyourself. Educate them. mate concerns. Again, like I Fight against them. said, thus far the blacklists Dale Sprusansky: One are naming foreign compaquestion here, I guess prenies only, in part, I think, bedicting: Are there any more cause of the increased conbills being proposed other Hunter DeRensis won prizes for best tweets. stitutional concerns about than the ones that have limiting the free speech of U.S.-based corporations. been introduced so far that people should be aware of?

Dale Sprusansky: There’s kind of a technical question here: Maria LaHood: Yeah. You can actually go to Legally speaking, is there a difference between BDS action righttoboycott.org, and there’s a map of where laws have been against Israel and BDS action against companies that operate introduced all over the country, and that’s another way you can in the West Bank? find out what’s happening in your state, and get involved. There Maria LaHood: I personally don’t think so. Some of the laws continue to be laws introduced in the legislature, and because do expressly include boycotts against Israel and boycotts there’s this Governors [United] Against BDS initiative, there against Israel-occupied territory. There are distinctions that peocould also be more executive orders like the one in New York. ple make based on settlements, but I believe that there are inDale Sprusansky: One question here, how do you counter ternational law violations across the board, so I personally don’t the argument that anti-BDS legislation does not abridge freethink there is a difference. dom of speech, but only certain areas of conduct?

Dale Sprusansky: This involves the law of another country, Maria LaHood: Certain kinds of conduct? but I’ll throw it at you and see how comfortable you are answerDale Sprusansky: Yeah. ing it. Can you elaborate on the new law that the Israeli Knesset Maria LaHood: In the case I mentioned out of the 1960s, passed that targets BDS activists?

NAACP vs. Claiborne Hardware, a boycott can be considered Maria LaHood: I haven’t looked at a translation of the law in more than speech. It is conduct. But that boycott, a nonviolent Israel. My understanding is that it prevents BDS supporters who boycott for social change, is protected by the First Amendment. need a visa from entering the country. I’ve heard that maybe to Perhaps it is possible that there is discriminatory conduct, obviget into the West Bank, if you don’t need a visa, perhaps it will ously, that can be precluded by law. But BDS against Israel, in not preclude your entry. I do not know, I haven’t looked at it. But response to the call by Palestinian civil society, which seeks the basic thrust of the law is to discourage BDS supporters from compliance with international law and respect for human rights, going to Israel and to Palestine. This isn’t the only law in Israel. is not discriminatory.

Israel has also passed a tort law that provides for damages Dale Sprusansky: One other question. Have you seen, since from any BDS actions if they can be shown. these laws have been introduced, any sort of decline in activity, They’ve also cracked down on NGOs who get most of their especially among students? You have the Canary Mission and funding from foreign entities, which largely impacts organizaall that stuff. People are wondering if that has had an impact, tions that are fighting Israel’s violations. You’ll hear later about especially on young people. crackdowns on Palestinian rights activism in the UK. France Maria LaHood: Unfortunately, there is a chill. People misunhas a law that has criminalized BDS, that will soon be before derstand the laws. People hear that BDS laws are penalizing the European Court of Human Rights. It is part of a global trend BDS or criminalizing BDS. There have been incidents where to suppress speech and suppress advocacy on behalf of Palesstudents have not used school funds to pay for a speaker who tinian rights. supports BDS, because they fear reprisal or they fear defundDale Sprusansky: A question here, a general question: Are ing. There are concerns among church groups.

24

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:29 AM Page 25

A conversation With retired congressmen Jim Moran (D-VA) and Nick rahall (D-WV)

Israelis more worried about image or the economic threat of BDS? Maria LaHood: Yeah, I don’t know what Israelis are more worried about. I think at this point, where we are in this movement, is that the economic threat is not yet so serious, but the delegitimization threat is huge. The isolation threat is huge. The notion of a pariah state is, I think, what is the threat. Sort of dismantling the international support for Israel, especially the United States support for Israel, is key. I think at some point the economic concerns may become more serious, but right now it is the fact that it is calling out Israel’s violations.

You mentioned that I represent former board members of the Olympia Food Co-op, a tiny little—22,000 members—co-op in Olympia, Washington, where Rachel Corrie was from, [that] boycotted Israeli goods and took nine or so things off the

shelves from Israel, and they were sued for that. So it’s not about the economic impact. It’s about what it says about Israel.

Dale Sprusansky: A question concerning a local issue here: Maryland state has introduced an anti-BDS bill. We have a very strong team that will be fighting against it. Can you tell us what’s happening next if it passes? I guess some advice for the Maryland contingent here.

Maria LaHood: Well, we’re hoping it doesn’t pass. There are hints that it will not pass based on what’s happened in the legislature, so we will see. But that is one, especially because it includes individuals and nonprofits, that would be very good for a challenge.

Dale Sprusansky: I think we’ve run through a heavy set of questions here. Thank you very much.

Maria LaHood: Thank you. Thank you. ■

A Conversation With Retired Congressmen Jim Moran (D-VA) and Nick Rahall (D-WV)

Photo Phil Portlock

Grant Smith: Everybody, we need to start. So please take your seats. While you do, we’re going to roll a very short clip of an interesting panel that took place. Everyone has been talking about J Street. Well, this is a J Street panel.

We’re just going to roll a very short clip about a former fundraiser speaking on J Street, Stephanie Schriock [now president of Emily’s List], and her experience in obtaining startup capital for political campaigns. Can you cue [“Beholden to Israel and AIPAC Even before Running for Office”], Nart [Shekim]?

[VIDEO CLIP] Janet McMahon: One of the main focuses of the Washington Report is keeping track of members of Congress and the pro-Israel PAC contributions so many of them receive. I think Grant Smith made it clear this morning that these pro-Israel members of Congress increasingly do not reflect the views of the majority of Americans.

Today I’m very happy to introduce two Democratic former members of Congress who do reflect those views. Fortunately, I don’t have to introduce them to each other, since they have been colleagues and friends for nearly a quarter of a century. We thought it would be fascinating and informative to hear a conversation between them about their experiences as congressmen and how they continued to win reelection for decades despite the opposition of the Israel lobby.

Jim Moran, on my far right, represented Virginia’s 8th congressional district, just across the river from here, from 1991 until he retired in 2015. He was the mayor of Alexandria, VA from 1985 to 1990, when he defeated incumbent Stanford Parris. As a congressman, Jim was a staunch critic of moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem—an issue which never seems to die—and of the major role the Israel lobby played in pushing for the disastrous U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

May 2017

25

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:29 AM Page 26

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

26

opposition to the first Gulf War by saying, “the only three people I know who support Saddam Hussain’s position are Muammar Gaddafi, Yasser Arafat, and Jim Moran.”

Jim Moran: He left out Nick.

Janet McMahon: He didn’t know him. Nick, you’re an Arab American who got elected at the age of 27 to become the youngest member of Congress. You went on to be re-elected 17 times. How did you each do it?

Jim Moran: Go ahead, buddy.

Nick Rahall: Well, in my case, unlike my dear friend Jim Moran, I had never held political office before my first run for Congress in 1976. I was unheard of except in my local hometown where I had been active in local issues, civic clubs, chamber of commerce, etc., etc.

My predecessor had served for 18 years. Much to everybody’s surprise, at literally the last second of the filing period that year, [he] dropped out of the congressional race to run for governor. I had previously filed for the congressional race, again, as an unknown, with several other unknowns, the main political figures in the district not believing that the incumbent was going to drop out to run for governor. Well, when he dropped out I decided and I was fortunate enough to be able to borrow money at that time on my own, and used those borrowings to run for Congress. At that time it cost me I think $150,000—a drop in the bucket these days.

There was another well-funded Democrat running as well.

Four of us really were running for a seat, and nobody knew anything about either of us. I proceeded to run a very aggressive campaign. I had the backing of our senior senator at that time, although not publicly, in a primary. But I used his name quite a bit, Sen. Robert Byrd. I had worked for him previously, which was my only experience in the political arena. With an aggressive media campaign, I was able to secure the nomination.

My predecessor lost his race for governor. He came back against me, trying to lead the people to believe he was the incumbent in the general election on a write-in campaign. The press caught on to it very quickly and reminded the people he’s not the incumbent. He gave up the seat. We have a nice young guy running by my name, Nick Rahall. I had pretty good press endorsements. Much to my surprise, I had Democratic establishment support, and I had my own money.

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

PHOTO PHIL PORTLOCK

Of Irish decent, Jim is the son of professional football player James Moran, Sr. and the brother of Brian Moran, the former chairman of the Democratic Party of Virginia. He is currently a professor of practice at Virginia Tech’s School of Public and International Affairs.

Nick Rahall, to my immediate right, is the grandson of Lebanese immigrants and the longest serving ever member of Congress from West Virginia, whose 3rd and 4th districts he represented from 1977 to 2015. He was one of only eight House members to vote against the authorization for use of military force against Iraq in 2002 that preceded the U.S. invasion.

He has repeatedly expressed concern about America’s relationship with Israel stating, “Israel can’t continue to occupy, humiliate, and destroy the dreams and spirits of the Palestinian people and continue to call itself a democratic state.”

When Nick spoke at our conference two years ago, he regaled us with his story about going on an AIPACsponsored trip to Israel in 1995, and taking with him to Gaza several AIPAC board members who wanted to meet Yasser Arafat. “They were just stumbling over themselves to get their pictures taken with him,” he recalled.

Seriously though, I think this is proof that Nick is willing to talk to anyone in order to advance the cause of peace and justice. Unfortunately today Congress seems to have few members who follow that lead. So please join me in welcoming Jim Moran and Nick Rahall today.

Let’s get the conversation going by starting at the beginning, how the two of you got elected in the first place. In the short video that you just saw, we heard a political strategist and campaign fund-raiser explain that, in her experience, funding from three groups was essential—labor, pro-choice, and the Jewish community. But before approaching the Jewish community, Stephanie Schriock said a potential candidate had to meet with the lead AIPAC person in his or her state who would make it clear that the candidate needed to draw up a paper on Israel even before hiring a campaign manager or policy director.

“That’s how we raise money,” she said. So to raise money from the Jewish community, a major contributor to Democratic candidates, one needs the AIPAC seal of approval.

Jim, you defeated a five-term incumbent who criticized your

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:29 AM Page 27

A Conversation With Retired Congressmen Jim Moran (D-VA) and Nick Rahall (D-WV)

So AIPAC was not a factor. There are very few synagogues in my district, in southern West Virginia—a very rural area of our country where coal is the main industry. So running an aggressive campaign, I got elected that first term basically without any outside groups. I did not even have labor endorsement. They were for another candidate that was an official of the United Mine Workers union in my primary campaign. So I had no major group endorsements—not labor, not NRA, not anybody.

Then becoming the incumbent, my predecessor was still running against me in my full first term, again trying to mislead the public into believing he was the current congressman. Re-elect your congressman. Ken Hechler was his name. He came at me one-on-one in the primary two years later in ’78. Again, I had to borrow some additional money. I had no major endorsements, and I ran. Actually, I’m sorry, on my first re-election I did finally get labor endorsement. That was a big boost in defeating my predecessor, actually a second time. He then came out against me a third time 10 years later, but I was well-entrenched then and defeated him a third time.

But really AIPAC never was a factor in my early elections. I was a homegrown boy, so to speak, and had gotten the committees I wanted in the Congress. Then-Speaker Tip O’Neill, my first Speaker, was very kind to me, knowing I was a newcomer. In those days, a newcomer [wouldn’t] sit on the back of the bench and keep quiet until you’ve been here 30 years. Tip O’Neill was very good about giving newcomers their committee of preference, and I used that to my advantage to continue to be reelected year after year.

Jim Moran: So when that comment was made by Stan Parris, a Washington Post reporter called me in an unguarded moment. (Of course no staffer or anything [was] around and not having the erudition, not to mention the intellect of Professor Mearsheimer…) So they asked me, you know, he says, “how do you feel? Mr. Parris said in connection to Muammar Qaddafi and Saddam Hussain.” I said, “Oh, Christ, I’d like to punch that fatuous jerk on the nose, is how I feel,” which the Post printed in its entirety. That probably set me back a little, because the district in Northern Virginia is one of the best educated and most politically engaged in the country. But it didn’t cause any kind of mortal political wound.

Basically in the first election I just worked, because I wasn’t going to let myself lose. So I’d get up at 4:00 in the morning and I’d go down to Prince William County. Down at Prince William County in ’95, if any of you is familiar with the area because of

the traffic, they have buses that can use the HOV lanes. But in order to get a parking space, let alone a place on the bus, you have to get there by 5:00 a.m.

So I’d go down there and I’d knock on the car doors. I have to… (Well, I’m not supposed to say “car.” I’m supposed to say “automobile” doors, because it betrays my Massachusetts accent, but I don’t care now that I’m not running.) So I knock on the car doors and they’d roll [down] the window. I didn’t wake them up, obviously, because they have to get there at 5:00 in order for them to get on the bus that left at 6:00. So I’d wake them up. They turn and they give me a digital salute invariably for the first couple of weeks. But after I kept doing it, eventually they reached their hand out. It was the same. I’d stand at a corner holding the sign, and the same initial reaction. But after a while they realized, gosh, this guy means it. If he’s willing to work this hard, then maybe he’ll work this hard for me. So eventually that worked, but it was just through sheer determination plus something else.

I think Nick and I have in common—I know actually what we have in common. We like people and we enjoy running.

We go into a big room, “Oh, this is fun. Let’s go and meet so and so.” Even people that didn’t agree with us, you know, we’d say, “How are you doing?” and so on. That’s [like] the Kennedy clan, and there’s a lot of folks who certainly—Tip was like that. Politics should be about liking people and enjoying doing something meaningful for them when you get the opportunity. Unfortunately, it’s more about money now, frankly. But before the process was so corrupted, it really was just about who wants to work the hardest and who enjoys meeting people the most. So I think that’s how I got elected the first time.

Janet McMahon: Then both of you kept getting re-elected.

Then you did have some opposition from the lobby as the years went by, I gather. So how did you keep getting re-elected?

Jim Moran: Well, I can speak for myself. I did engage in some herculean efforts to make some of my races challenging.

[LAUGHTER] I don’t need to go into all of those things that I said and did but, yeah, we had some close races. One of them in particular was at the time of the Iraq War. I was asked at a forum, actually by a Jewish woman who asked, “Why aren’t more Jews involved in opposing the war?” I said, well, it’s similar to my criticism of Catholics. War is wrong and, yet, all we seem to hear from the Pope is how wrong abortion is. Somehow they overlooked some of the other wrongs that are taking place. If the Catholic Church came out in opposition to the war

“ ”

Politics should be about liking people and enjoying doing something meaningful for them.

May 2017

27

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:29 AM Page 28

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

(at that time 80 percent of the American people were in favor of going into Iraq) I think it would make a difference.

And I said similarly, if the leaders of the Jewish community— particularly the pro-Israeli community—had a different attitude and were willing to get more engaged against the war, I don’t think we’d have a war. So that was reported in a way that was the most critical you can imagine. The conservative rabbi in my district took it and ran with it and put it on the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and made a big name for himself. The headline in the Post was “Moran Blames Jews for the War in Iraq.”

But of course, as Professor Mearsheimer mentioned in his terrific address, the Israeli lobby had an instrumental role. It wasn’t the only reason by any means that we went into Iraq, but it was a contributing factor.

I might as well get into some of the policy issues. It was interesting, in Tony Blair’s book, he mentioned going down—before England chose to side with the Bush administration in the Iraq War—that he went down to the Crawford ranch to meet with Bush, and it was Netanyahu who met him. The executive director of AIPAC in 2003, in an interview with a New York newspaper, took credit that his greatest accomplishment was getting the authorization for the use of military force in Iraq. So the Israeli lobby did have a contributing influence to us going to war.

There are other reasons or things I can cite too to support that, but my suggesting that particularly upset the Washington Post. I’m sure I could have been far more articulate in explaining my position. But it stung because I think many people did realize this is something that Israel wanted us to do, and certainly Netanyahu did.

Sharon understood what George H.W. Bush understood, that this may not in the long run be beneficial to Israel given the Shia-Sunni conflict and the ramifications that it caused. Sharon felt that Iran should have been where the focus was, but Bibi was pretty adamant that he wanted us to go into a war in Iraq.

Anyway, that’s a digression from the original question. But I’m just trying to get into a little of the policy here instead of the personal reflection on our political career. But the point is that we had some tough races.

I never lost a race, and Nick never should have lost a race until the Koch brothers went after him in the last race and finally beat him with the help of the Israeli lobby, frankly, who always gave him a hard time. Nick is one of the people who I’ve always looked up to because it’s hard not to admire people who show

courage and conviction. Nick always has, and was one of my heroes in the Congress frankly.

Nick Rahall: Thank you, Jim. You’re very kind with your words. As I mentioned earlier, Tip O’Neill was my first Speaker.

You may recall his famous saying was, all politics is local. I really took that to heart during my entire time in the U.S. Congress. I always felt my duties were first to the constituents that honored me and humbled me by sending me to Washington. I always was back home every weekend and every congressional break.

Working the grassroots continued from my first days of standing outside the coal mine gates and meeting every coal miner as he or she went to work at 4:00 a.m. or 5:00 a.m. and when they’d get off the shift at 3:00 p.m or 4:00 p.m.; at factory gates when we had large numbers of people working in both of those operations, which is not true today, but in those days we did.

I always was close to the ground back home. I got to be known as the personal representative of my district. I took to heart the fact that we in the House are the closest elected federal officials for our people.

Nobody’s ever appointed to the House of Representatives. We have to always be elected regardless of any vacancy where we served. Unlike senators, who can be appointed. So I really worked the grassroots throughout my career.

My first running amok of the lobby, so to speak, was I guess in 1982. Tip O’Neill came to me first at the height of the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon. When I saw what was happening there, I said to a local reporter back home—which hit press throughout my district—that Israel was acting as a monster; that they were out of control; that Sharon had gone beyond the initial aim of that Israeli campaign that year in ridding southern Lebanon of the PLO. He was wanting to capture Beirut, and that’s when I really started to have run-ins with the lobby.

But Tip O’Neill came to me, even after I had said those comments. He said, Nick, I want you to lead a congressional delegation to the Middle East and to Beirut, and I’ll give you a plane.

You know, I’m only in my third term. I thought about it not very long, of course. But I said, yes, Mr. Speaker, I’ll do it. At that time he had a daughter-in-law who was of Lebanese ancestry and he was quite concerned about what was happening in Lebanon.

So I got six other members of Congress. We went to six countries in the Middle East. We happened to be in Beirut on July 31, 1982, the height of the Israeli bombardment. I had arranged through contacts to meet with Chairman [Yasser] Arafat in the bowels of Beirut at the height of the bombing. It

“ ”

The Israel lobby wasn’t the only reason by any means that we went into Iraq, but it was a contributing factor.

28

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:29 AM Page 29

a Conversation With Retired Congressmen Jim Moran (D-Va) and nick Rahall (D-WV)

Photo Phil Pasquini

took about four hours of rendezvousing around Beirut, from about midnight to 4:00 a.m. We had to lose our State Department security, because certainly they couldn’t know where we were headed and we had to really be secretive about it. At least I thought that was the way it was going to be, because I’d met with Chairman Arafat two years before in a very private meeting that never hit the press.

But this time we came out of that meeting. The members of Congress with me were Mary Rose Oakar; Pete McCloskey; Mervyn Dymally, the late congressman from California. Elliott Levitas, a Jewish member, was with us on the CODEL but he did not go to the Arafat meeting. He made it clear he could not do that.

So those are basically the four of us that came out of that meeting about 4:00 a.m. and, lo and behold, the worldwide press is there.

Arafat had made sure that it was going to get to the press, which was okay, nothing wrong with that.

But during that meeting we’d gotten Arafat to sign the paper saying that he recognized Israel’s right to exist, that he renounced violence, and that he recognized all U.N. resolutions relevant to the Palestinian question. Something that— really, we were just a decade early, but that’s something that came to fruition in Oslo.

But in 1982 we were way ahead of our time, and everybody in the press said, “You’re just being snookered by Arafat. He didn’t really say or do that,” even though we showed a signed document where he did say that. But of course nobody wanted to believe him at that time.

The next day we had meetings scheduled with the prime minister of Israel and with the defense minister, [Ariel] Sharon, at that time. [Menachem] Begin was the prime minister at the time.

Well, they heard about our Arafat meeting, of course. They cancelled the meetings with us. Elliott Levitas, the Jewish member of Congress from Georgia on our CODEL sent word back to Begin and Sharon. “Listen, I’m a Jewish member of this congressional delegation. I did not attend the Arafat meeting. But I’m going to tell you, you’re going to continue your previously scheduled meetings with this CODEL—I don’t care who they met with yesterday—or you’re going to have trouble from this Jewish member of the Congress when I get back to Washington.” Begin and Sharon both rescheduled us. We got in to see them. [APPLAUSE]

Having met with Arafat just the day before, it got into a shouting match. Sharon’s map in his office showed no division and no borderlines between Israel and Jordan or Israel and Lebanon. It was Eretz Israel. The Greater Israel was his version of the land at that time. We questioned about the use of American-made cluster bombs, [which were] supposed to be used only for defensive purposes. [We asked] why are you dropping them in southern Lebanon? Sharon picked up a piece of paper and said, “Here’s what we do with agreements. We don’t care what country it’s with. In times of war, this is what we do with agreements.”

He picked up that paper and just ripped it apart. We just looked around at each other, just shuddering at what he was saying.

So it was a very contentious and angry meeting. We went on and we met with other heads of state. We met with the president of Syria on this trip, the president in Egypt, and the king in Jordan. So it was quite a whirlwind trip we had that summer of 1982.

But while in Beirut, I might add also, as I said, we met with Arafat at the height of the Israeli bombardment. It was the next day that Ronald Reagan, to his credit, got on the phone to Menachem Begin and said, “call Ariel Sharon off.

Enough is enough. He’s going too far into Beirut now.” That’s when the bombing ceased.

That’s what we need more of these days in the president of the United States, is the courage that Ronald Reagan had. [APPLAUSE] I’m not defending every action of Ronald Reagan of course, but during that particular moment he did get on the phone and called to tell the Israelis to stop it.

So back home, getting to your question—I’m sorry for the diversion. But back home, did I take flak? The lobby was enraged. They got a gentleman from New York, Ben Rosenthal, to introduce a resolution in Congress to impeach me for treason and high crimes. I went to Tip almost crying and saying, “Mr. Speaker, I’m sorry. What should I do about this?” He said, “Nick, are you crazy? You don’t have anything to apologize [for]. Don’t worry about this resolution. It’s not going anywhere.” So then he put my mind at ease. He wanted to hear all about the trip, which I relayed to him a lot more than I have here. He was very pleased with the actions of our CODEL. But back home they were on my side, quite honestly. When I used the argument that, hey, I’ll talk with anybody; I’d rather talk May 2017

29

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:30 AM Page 30

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

30

There’s no microwave ovens or anything in it. [LAUGHTER] So it’s interesting how often—on two issues. The primary one that we’re referring to is on Israeli-Palestinian-related issues, but it also oftentimes happens in gun issues. Members will say, “Hey, that was a good amendment”; “I’m proud of you for voting the way you did.” Then you look at them because you know that they oftentimes spoke against you and certainly voted against you. I said, “Well, thanks a lot for your support, not.” They’ll say, “Well, I couldn’t be with you obviously. I’d be defeated. But you are right, of course.”

A comment was made earlier that people are not voting with the views of the vast majority of Americans on some issues.

Oftentimes they’re not voting consistent with their own views.

But there’s a political reality that they see. There are a lot of members who know what the consequences would be and are not willing to face those consequences. That’s why I single out Nick who would be the first one to take to the floor and let it rip, but he was always informed. Dennis Kucinich was another one who spoke from his heart with a lot of courage.

There are a few others.

But frankly, when you say the other side of the aisle, this issue is not really—because of certain developments, and I think there’s some credit to the Obama administration certainly Senator [John] Kerry and people like Keith Ellison and so on—that there’s actually a very substantial shift in views toward the Israeli-Palestinian issue between Republicans and Democrats now. But in terms of the voting, the AIPAC has at least as much influence within the Democratic caucus as the Republican caucus.

So when you say on the other side of the aisle, it happens that there’s maybe half a dozen or, well, I guess it’s close to a dozen now, who will speak out. They tend to be Democrats, but it’s not partisan in terms of this issue, generally speaking.

Nick Rahall: Let me just add to what Jim has said. I totally agree with what he had said. There is a great deal more opposition privately in the Congress to U.S. policy in the Middle East than is publicly stated. Members will come up to me, as I’m sure they did to Jim, after many of these one-sided resolutions we’d vote upon that blamed everything on the Palestinians and say in the cloak room—again, like Jim is saying—“Nick, I had to [hold my nose gesture] when I voted,” [They’d] hold their nose and

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

than fight; communication does not mean capitulation of your views—it worked back home. The polls showed that the people agreed with my CODEL. They agreed with what I had said.

They agreed that we should be more objective on our policies in the Middle East. They agreed on a homeland for the Palestinians and a homeland for the Israelis, as I said back in those days, before the two-state solution was ever in popular vogue.

My votes against foreign aid, for example, it all went so well back home. I think the lobby saw that and they never really came after me until about a decade later, when they thought all of this would subside. It wasn’t major, not like they came against Jim Moran.

Yes, they found a Jewish member of the Reagan White House, I believe it was. He came down to West Virginia, bought a farm and claimed he was a West Virginian, and ran against me with AIPAC money. But again it was not the AIPAC money to the degree that they put up against Jim Moran.

Again, I think it’s because they saw me as a member of Congress of Arab descent, saying, “Ah, he’s just speaking because of his ancestry, let him go.” That may have been something in their thought processes. But then I think the biggest thing was because of the local rapport and the local support—again, all politics is local—that I had back home that allowed me to survive those early challenges of AIPAC. Janet McMahon: I think I’m going to intersperse questions from the audience as they come up.

Nick Rahall: Sure.

Janet McMahon: So here’s a good one that follows right on what you’re saying. Can both of you describe your interactions with the other side of the aisle, including those Israel-firsters and those you find more agreement with, such as Ron Paul? So was there more bipartisanship? Was there more working together? Or how has that evolved over the years, or deteriorated?

Jim Moran: Well, with Ron Paul, his philosophy is basically that of isolationism. So he has opposed American intervention militarily. But something that I think the public might be interested in is that after votes, members will go to an elevator that is off the floor on the Republican side. It’s only members that are allowed so you can talk freely. I don’t think it’s bugged.

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:30 AM Page 31

A Conversation With Retired Congressmen Jim Moran (D-VA) and Nick Rahall (D-WV)

vote the way they did, but they had to vote the way they did.

The real truth of why they voted the way they did—it’s easier.

It’s an easier path to follow for so many members of Congress.

They’re not hearing from their constituency on the issue. It’s not a big issue back home. It is, if not already, a possible good campaign financing vote to help them raise money without having to put up with the anger if they vote the other way, which is much more of a repercussion, severe repercussion, against them of having to answer phone calls, having to answer letters that the lobby may generate from their district, but more than likely it’s going to be from other parts of the country.

So members of Congress are so often as—well, it’s kind of a Pavlovian reflex. When they see something come up in the Middle East, they’re going to jump out there to try to “outAIPAC AIPAC.” They don’t want to be hassled and have to put up with what AIPAC’s going to direct. They know what’s going to come their way if they don’t do a letter. They don’t want to be accused of doing a letter that AIPAC wrote for them. So they jump out and write their own letter that actually ends up to “outAIPACing AIPAC” in order to get ahead of the curve and try to beat themselves on the chest and say what they did for Israel, especially during the campaign or in preparation for a campaign—which we’re always doing in the House. That’s a never ending process.

The money is a big factor, there’s no question about it. I think one of the ways that is most effective these days in working around it is—and I think there is progress being made. Witness the 80 votes earlier this year on the U.N. resolution settlement question, most of which were Democratic votes. But you had minority leader [Nancy] Pelosi in that bunch. You had Jan Schakowsky from Illinois in the 80 “no” votes. The resolution, and I think everybody recalls it, it was disapproving our actions in the U.N., Obama’s actions in the U.N. [abstaining] on settlements. There were 80 “no” votes. Yesterday’s vote against David Friedman as ambassador to Israel, 52 to 46, unprecedented. The most number of “no” votes for any ambassador, not just to Israel, I think has ever gotten in the Congress of the United States. So that’s an indication. [APPLAUSE] Yeah.

So what you need to do is look at those 80 votes earlier this year and look at those 46 votes yesterday in the Senate. Thank them. Write them a letter. Email them. Let them know that their vote is appreciated by somebody out there. So look at those two lists and other votes that come up in which you note coura-

geous actions from members. Urge them to go to the Middle East at any opportunity. If you know groups who can help send them there—you have to get Ethics Committee approval these days, of course, but it can be done. Urge your member of Congress to go visit. See the facts on the ground.

There’s one other individual, by the way, going back to my previous description of my trip to the Middle East, one other important individual who was on that CODEL with me, who came back with his eyes opened, was David Bonior from Michigan.

He came back and rose in the leadership at the House. He kept saying it’s because of that CODEL to the Middle East in 1982, which I led, that his eyes were opened as to what was happening in the Middle East. So you’ve got to get members of Congress over there. Not just on AIPAC trips. Not one-sided trips.

But get them over there to see the reality on the ground in Palestinian territory.

Janet McMahon: So one thing you mentioned was that AIPAC often generates letters and responses from all over the country, not just from one’s own congressional district. How can people talk to the congressperson from their own district and make a difference, from the constituents in one district? Or does it have to be… How can constituents from a given district support their congressman? Is that sufficient, or would it have to be a national effort where people from everywhere are calling and saying thank you? How can we build on that?

Jim Moran: Forget the national effort, really. For the most part, unless you have a lot of money and are willing to contribute to their campaign, people don’t care that much about how somebody feels that they don’t have to answer to within their constituency in the House. It’s the same case in the Senate, but there are different broader constituencies, of course, in the Senate. It’s your own member of Congress. The reality is, and I know that Nick will agree, there is virtually no downside in voting for Israel’s policy, whatever it may be. In this context, we’re talking about the Israeli lobby’s policy which includes more than AIPAC, of course. There’s no downside for voting with them, generally speaking. I mean you may tick off two or three people who you’ll hear from.

But there’s a whole lot of downside if you stand up to them, because they’re well-organized within every congressional district. They’re generous. They’re well-informed. They’re politically engaged. That’s not a bad thing, because this is not a random sample of people off the street that we have in this room. The best way if you oppose AIPAC’s power and influ-

“ ”

There is virtually no downside in voting for Israel’s policy. But there’s a whole lot of downside if you stand up to them.

May 2017

31

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:30 AM Page 32

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

ence and even tactics, the best thing is to understand why they are so successful.

I have to share with you, it bugs me no end to go see some of my friends sitting around at a coffee shop drinking good strong coffee and complaining about something that just happened. So many of them will only talk within their comfort zone, only talk with people they agree with. They don’t get involved locally.

They don’t even know who their school board member or their county board member are. Sometimes they don’t even know who their member of Congress is. They’ve got lots of opinions, but they’re useless in terms of the political process unless you get engaged, particularly with people who disagree with you.

So the best approach to dealing with the influence of the Israeli lobby is to understand why it is so powerful, to organize, to contribute. It doesn’t have to be a whole lot of money. To know your member of Congress, to get your kid to intern, to reach out to your neighbors. I don’t want to get too cliché’ish, but it’s up to everyone individually and then collectively. People need to be informed. They need to have their eyes opened. That’s what happened with me.

Initially Tom Davis, who was then a supervisor at Fairfax County for the Mason district, and Al Wynn, who was a county attorney in Prince George’s County, and David Clarke, who had just been elected to the [DC] City Council, and I was a vice mayor in Alexandria, we were contacted back in 1982 by the Jewish Community Council of Greater Washington—they were actually based in Montgomery County [MD]—to go to Israel. Oh, that sounds kind of fun. They said, you know, you’ll enjoy meeting the people. How did they know that I would be elected mayor and then to the Congress; Al Wynn would be elected to the Congress; Tom Davis would become chairman of the board of supervisors and be elected to the Congress; and David Clarke became president of the DC City Council? Because they were watching. They were engaged.

They understood how this political system works.

We all went. I had come with an open mind. Gosh, I went into Yad Vashem. I was struck and I stayed there. I delayed the whole bus. I couldn’t get it out of my mind and so on, and I became a firm supporter of Israel, not knowing anything else. That was my paradigm. In fact, back in the very beginning when I was first elected, there was a vote on the $10 billion loan [guarantees] that shouldn’t be used for settlements, and I just went along with it. It was a wrong vote. It was a horrible vote. I can’t believe I voted that way. I didn’t know any better.

There was a young Jewish activist who came to me, and he was all upset. He said, “This is so wrong.” I said, “Really?

You’re Jewish?” He says, “I’m a humanitarian. This is wrong, let me tell you why…”

I got to thinking. Then I talked to Saba Shami, who we both know, and who made his way into the campaign. I started thinking and reading more and watching the votes and realizing that the people who had the most courage of conscience were invariably voting in the minority on this. But if you asked them why they voted, it wasn’t because of politics or campaign contributions. They would explain exactly why they voted, and it was the most thoughtful response, as I mentioned last night. Those are the people I wanted to identify with because life’s too short to just follow the herd. [APPLAUSE] Then there was a guy by the name of Danny Abraham. He sold Slim-Fast—owned SlimFast. Ironically, he sold it to Tom & Jerry’s ice cream—Ben & Jerry’s, excuse me, go figure.

[LAUGHTER] But Danny Abraham is at the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation. He had this woman, Sara Ehrman, who had worked for AIPAC, and she was very close to Hillary. In fact, she’s the one who convinced Hillary to go down to Arkansas when Hillary wasn’t sure: Do I want to go with this guy or do I want to follow my Wellesley classmates? Anyway, she convinced her to go down to Arkansas. The rest is history.

But Sara started talking with me. Danny Abraham brought me to the West Bank to talk to Yasser Arafat. I asked Arafat at the time—you have to put this in a historical context, this was right after Rabin had been assassinated—I said, “I heard that you cried; that they couldn’t talk to you, you were so upset when Yitzhak Rabin had been assassinated. Why?” He said, “Yitzhak was the only Jew who ever treated me like I was a man.” That’s fascinating.

So a lot of this is a struggle for dignity and being recognized. Anyways, one thing led to another and eventually you form your views. But it goes back to the need to open people’s eyes. When you open their eyes, sometimes their heart opens up too and they do the right thing. The fact is that the Jewish community in the United States realizes that this is a true democracy. If you get sufficiently engaged, it will serve your purposes.

But I also want to say something, I think, that’s very important. If this issue is going to turn in the direction of justice, and you can’t have peace without justice, but if it is going to turn, the

“ ”

The best approach to dealing with the influence of the Israeli lobby is to understand why it is so powerful.

32

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 2:53 PM Page 33

a Conversation With Retired Congressmen Jim Moran (D-Va) and nick Rahall (D-WV)

Photo Phil Pasquini

arc of history is going to turn—as Barack Obama would say— toward justice, a lot of it is going to be because young Jewish men and women who are on campuses and who are reading and who understand the importance of this democratic process, and are of the same ilk that disproportionally turned around the civil rights struggle in the South. They were the ones that came down from New England and the northeastern states and so on, and many of them lost their lives. They have to be engaged, too. And they will be engaged as long as sufficient information is out there, as long as people know the facts on the ground and have the courage of their convictions to share that information, and understand that basically most people are good. When they know the reality of a situation, they’re going to do the right thing and then the Congress will follow. [APPLAUSE] Janet McMahon: You want to add anything to that, Nick? I mean you’ve said that you think the Israel lobby is—there are many lobbies and many special interests.

Nick Rahall: Let me just say one thing to follow up on what Jim has said about the young people and getting them involved. That is so crucial. I’m going to say something here that may Shai Tamari (l) and Jim Moran. be heresy and some are going to boo probably when I mention the name, because I know they’ve been described as AIPAC lite and other descriptions. But a group in town that has been very effective at involving the young people and getting them to see members of Congress and, I think, provide a great deal of cover for members, including these two votes I mentioned earlier, a group in town that I think is worth reaching out to in trying to get across the divide is J Street.

I think they are a growing organization. They’re involving a lot of young active people across this nation. They’re causing a stir in the Democratic Party. You saw, for example, this year—the first time I’ve ever seen in a presidential debate—the issue of Israel and Palestine come up like it did and be debated. They can get into members of Congress’ office, and that’s important.

So whatever coalition building you can do, there might not be a hundred percent agreement on—not a lot—but a few issues.

But I think there is a common goal. It’s important to stress upon members of Congress, especially the newer members of Congress, that AIPAC does not speak for the Israeli people. They speak for the right-wing Likud government. A lot of newer mem-

bers of Congress don’t quite distinguish that; whereas, J Street…

Let me just tell you some of their positions. I’m sure you probably know it. They supported the Iran nuclear deal. They opposed David Friedman as U.S. ambassador [to Israel]. They opposed the Trump anti-immigration policies, including the ban on Muslims, civil liberties, and increased defense spending at the expense of domestic programs. J Street opposed the Israeli settlement expansion and supported the Obama administration’s decision to abstain from U.N. Resolution 2334. That’s that 80vote I referred to earlier. They opposed a 2015 amendment to the U.S. trade promotion bill that would have protected Israeli settlements from the BDS movement. They have acknowledged the painful side of Israel’s creation, which was a displacement of the Palestinian people.

So I think there is a ground there for a reach out and an approach that says, let’s do this together and let’s go to Congress together. I think members of Congress will respond when they see Jewish- and Arab- [Americans] working together instead of hurling insults each way. We all know the American people are yearning for that to happen in our political environment. We’re not there yet. We’re further back, I think, than when Jim and I were in the Congress. But that’s what, I think, would strike a responsive chord if we want to expand beyond just this group, is what I’m saying, and beyond just Arab groups working on behalf of a two-state solution, for example. J Street supports that, and I think that’s what we’ve got to get back to. So I throw that out. It’s something that I think should be explored to try to enhance our mutual goals. [APPLAUSE] Janet McMahon: Here’s another question from the audience: I’m the son of an Irish mother and an Arab father. I’m from the Deep South originally, so the two of you are as good as it gets. [APPLAUSE] Would either of you consider moving to my district in Dallas, Texas and running against Sam Johnson?

[LAUGHTER] Jim Moran: What’s the district? We may be interested.

What’s the district?

Janet McMahon: I don’t know. Go out there and track this person down. Well, I think I… Jim Moran: That was a rhetorical question, I assume.

Janet McMahon: I don’t know. I doubt it. So I’d like to thank, May 2017

33

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:32 AM Page 34

KEYNOTE

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

again, Nick Rahall and Jim Moran for being with us today. [APPLAUSE] Nick Rahall: Thank you, Janet. Thank you. Thank you.

Jim Moran: Could I just give a little shout out here? Shai Tamari, come in here. Shai’s in the front row here. He shaved his hair since he last worked for me. Shai was my foreign policy person. Shai used to be a member of the Israel Defense Forces. He informed, in large part, my view, because you need to know where people are coming from whose views differ from yours. That ability to empathize was extraordinarily powerful in

terms of my understanding of why this issue was so important and worth taking the tough votes on. It’s people like Shai Tamari [see photo, P. 33] who are going to, as I say, bend the arc of history in the right direction. So thank you, Shai, for all you did for me. [APPLAUSE] Janet McMahon: I also wanted to thank Jim and Nick for their service to our country for so many decades, not only for being here today. [APPLAUSE] Nick Rahall: Thank you.

Jim Moran: It’s our honor. ■

The Israel Lobby and the “Peace Process” From a Palestinian Perspective Hanan Ashrawi

34

Dialogue and Democracy.

It is not hyperbolic to say that Dr. Ashrawi has also broken through the Palestinian sound barrier, the wall of silence in America’s media which excludes Palestinian voices.

She is the Palestinian Iron Dome. Whenever Israel sends war planes, troops and weaponized drones to attack her people, we can count on Hanan Ashrawi to be out there trying to stop the bombs and the Israeli propaganda. Her only weapon: her articulate, reasonable voice and demand for justice and fair play. She will address the Israel lobby and the peace process. Welcome, Hanan Ashrawi.

Hanan Ashrawi: Thank you very much. Thank you. This is indeed heartwarming and humbling. I thank you all for coming.

Thank you, Delinda, for your invitation. Thank you, Grant. Thank you, Janet for picking me up also, and all the people who made this possible. I’m delighted to be here with you. I’m delighted to be part of this occasion, this endeavor, which in many ways is extremely timely. It does respond to a sense of urgency, really— a need to intervene and to shape policy and discourse. And it’s wonderful to hear all these, not just distinguished people, but very profound and persuasive people and courageous people,

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

PHOTO PHIL PORTLOCK

Delinda Hanley: I’m Delinda Hanley, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs news editor and executive director of the American Educational Trust.

Dr. Hanan Ashrawi has broken through the glass ceiling that can prevent women around the world from reaching the top. She was the first woman to be elected a member of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization in 2009. She served as the official spokesperson of the Palestinian delegation to the Middle East Peace Process from 1991 to 1993 and participated in the 1991-1992 Madrid Peace Conference. In 1993, Dr. Ashrawi founded the Palestinian Independent Commission for Citizens’ Rights, PICCR, to investigate Israeli and Palestinian human rights violations, recording her experiences in This Side of Peace: A Personal Account, which she just signed at lunch time.

In 1996, Ashrawi was elected and subsequently re-elected many times to the Palestinian Legislative Council. In 1996, she also accepted the post of minister of higher education and research. In 1998, Ashrawi founded and continues to serve in MIFTAH, the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 3:34 PM Page 35

Hanan Ashrawi: The Israel Lobby and the “Peace Process” From a Palestinian Perspective

really, who are speaking truth to power and who are standing up for justice. I don’t want to waste too much time because I have a lot to say. So you have to let me know ahead of time.

As you know, this is a very significant occasion, because we’re talking about 100, 70, 50, and zero: A hundred years since the Balfour Declaration. I do hope that the Brits will not celebrate it, even though Theresa May invited [Binyamin] Netanyahu to celebrate with her. This is a colonial legacy par excellence.

Seventy years since the partition plan that did partition Palestine and created the State of Israel, at that time on 55 percent of Palestine.

Fifty years since the occupation of 1967.

And zero time for the two-state solution.

I’m asked to talk about the Israel lobby and the peace process. I will focus on the peace process, because you all know that the Israel lobby is never absent. Whenever anything happens related to Palestine, it is there. And when it comes to the peace process, they have always been a shaping force-intertwining, interweaving, intervening their presence, and at the same time maintaining their—I don’t want to say control, but their influence every step of the way. They play a major role in shaping and influencing U.S. policy, particularly the peace process.

Since its inception, there’s a sense of ownership, that the peace process is owned by the Israeli lobby in many ways, because they’re looking out for the interests of Israel all the time.

There are various components of the lobby. As you all know, they’re not monolithic. They all have their impact here and there. But the most significant impact is for the lobby groups, the special interest groups that are closest to the Israeli government in particular. And that tends to be the more hard-line extremist groups. Even though there are different voices, but the greatest impact is by the more extreme voices. The most influential, of course, is AIPAC and its Washington Institute for Near East Policy—as you know, a think tank that has probably had the most direct say in terms of the peace process itself—and other organizations–the Heritage Foundation and so on.

So you have all these organizations that move from the extreme right to the center like J Street, as was being discussed before this talk. They all have a different set of requirements and different ways of intervening. There are different fields and players. There’s a diversity in the pro-Israel lobby. There’s the private sector. And as you know [Sheldon] Adelson was trying

KEYNOTE

to buy a president here, but he’s also buying a prime minister in Israel. [Irving] Moskowitz, who bought settlements, who built settlements in Jerusalem. These are individuals in the private sector who have had a direct impact and direct intervention using their money. Haim Saban, as you know, and Brookings, and down to the left, Danny Abraham, who has accompanied the peace process all along from a more liberal perspective.

There are institutions and think tanks with individuals feeding into them. The most significant—and you’ll hear me talk about him often, not because I like him very much, but because he has been the most persistent—[is] Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk and others. Then you have academic and cultural individuals and spin doctors who have been a primary force in shaping public perceptions, including [Charles] Krauthammer, [Alan] Dershowitz, I’m sure you’re hearing him now, Daniel Pipes. There are lots of people who are Israeli apologists and spin doctors.

Then you have religious organizations and institutions, self-appointed Israeli apologists and defenders who take the Bible literally, many of them.

And this is the extreme ZionistChristian organizations. They are extremely dangerous, in the sense that they do have a literal biblical exegesis that gives Israel license to do whatever it wants. And one of them told me once, Palestinians have no right to exist because you’re standing in the way of prophecy, the fulfillment of the prophecy. So I said, “It doesn’t sound very Christian when you advocate genocide.”

And then there are toxic organizations, as you know. They have been very effective in distorting the Palestinian message in reality, like MEMRI. You know, M-E-M-R-I? You should be aware of this. This is a most toxic organization. It is run by Yigal Carmon, who used to be the adviser to the military governors, and he became the adviser to Shamir on terrorism and so on.

And he used to interrogate me once in a while. But now, he has this organization with tremendous funds. He monitors everything and then he has access to Congress, particularly to many decision makers. He distorts Palestinian utterance and anything that is published. We can talk about this later. You have MEMRI, you have NGO Monitor that attempts to bad-mouth all Palestinian NGOs. You have the PM Watch [Palestinian Media Watch], which is also waiting for any Palestinian to open his or her mouth and they attack.

And then you have publications. I’m sure you’re hearing more and more about Breitbart, for example. Gatestone Institute.

These are extreme right-wing white supremacists. Some of

“ ”

The peace process is owned by the Israel lobby in many ways, because they’re looking out for the interests of Israel.

May 2017

35

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:33 AM Page 36

KEYNOTE

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

them are really anti-Semitic, but Zionists—very interesting, this combination. Now, they influenced substance, structure, procedure, and priorities and objectives in the peace process. They influenced terms of reference. And they influenced also the players, and predominantly the U.S. role in the peace process.

I would like to mention that many of the individuals who are associated follow what I call the revolving door. They use the revolving door as a charge against Palestinians, that when people are arrested, they are released later. But you have a revolving door in terms of their role. Many of them were in the State Department. And it seems that—like Dennis and Martin—that they do go to the State Department, and then they leave and go to the Washington Institute or another pro-Israeli lobby. Then they come back through another door in the State Department.

Now we have people in the White House who are not only lobbyists and advocates, but who are active supporters of settlements. So it’s not enough to have settlers in the Israeli coalition government.

Now you have settlers in the White House. This is incredible. So they don’t need to lobby. They are decision makers. So that’s what’s happening. That frames in terms of influence the peace process with this revolving door. You’ll be surprised also that ex-[U.S.] Ambassador [to Israel] Dan Shapiro, for example, decided to stay in Israel. He’s joined the Institute for National Security Studies, which is something that also Dennis joined at one point or another—Dennis Ross.

It’s interchangeable. Either they are influencing policy or they are making policy. That’s why American policy was so distorted, because they played a significant role in framing and defining the discourse and perceptions, but went beyond that to manipulating the verbal public space, anything related to the peace process.

And they generated a narrative based on myths, and provided alternative facts. It’s not Kellyanne [Conway] who invented alternative facts. We’ve been victims of alternative facts all our lives, alternative realities. They’ve certainly willfully misled public opinion with a fabric-I don’t want to go into details about the spin, about the hasbara, as they call it. But it has been very active in shaping public perceptions and, hence, attitudes.

A distorted pattern emerged that was totally weighted in favor of the occupation, generating a cyclical pattern, a vicious cycle, that totally subverted progress and led to the current impasse, which has been in the making for quite a long time-since the beginning. And they ensured that the peace process maintained its

parameters within the domain of Israeli priorities and interests.

Now we are back at the beginning. I wanted to read you a quotation from a paper in 1991, a position paper by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. And guess who wrote this?

Martin Indyk. This is March 4, 1991 just before the peace process started, when President [George H.W.] Bush and James Baker were preparing for the 1991 Madrid process.

Some of the things he says, I mean, are being said right now.

That’s why I call it a cyclical pattern. He says, “Israel now has a golden opportunity to deal with an indigenous Palestinian leadership in the territories before the PLO phoenix rises again. It’s true the prime minister leads an unruly coalition of right-wing and religious parties unwilling to countenance territorial compromise in the West Bank. But if there is a genuine offer of peace from the Arab side”-outside then-“he’s acceptable to delivering a territorial compromise on the Golan Heights and an interim deal for Palestinian self-government which leaves open the final status of the territories.”

This is the ongoing policy. I mean, all you need to do is go to the Washington Institute website and you will find all these policy papers.

Now there’s another one.

I’m not going to read all these things, but this one is the Transition 2017: Toward a New Paradigm for Addressing the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, David Makovsky and Dennis Ross, Washington Institute.

This is another blueprint that was prepared to give to your new President [Donald] Trump—and you have my full sympathy—on how to progress. Because they want to confiscate the language once again and confiscate the process once again and decide how it’s going to proceed.

Anyway, so the peace process, conceptually, the influence was on the terms of reference. They made sure it dealt only with [U.N. Resolutions] 242 [and] 338, not other resolutions. Because 242 [and] 338 deal with ’67. They don’t deal with ’48 or the roots of the conflict, if you call it a conflict. They also made sure that there was no reference to sovereignty or statehood for the Palestinians. No reference to the roots of the conflict, including refugees and so on, 1948, [U.N.] Resolution 181. No international law. It must not apply. Only what the parties agree to in this asymmetry of power, where you have occupier and occupied, you go and talk and you agree and we’ll agree with whatever you decide.

And of course, they used the Egyptian-Israeli Camp David Accords in order to define Palestinian objectives or rights as autonomous. We need autonomy, functional autonomy, or self-

“ ”

Now you have settlers in the White House. This is incredible.

So they don’t need to lobby.

They are decision makers.

36

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 2:58 PM Page 37

Hanan Ashrawi: The Israel Lobby and the “Peace Process” From a Palestinian Perspective

PHOTO PHIL PORTLOCK

government for the people, as though the Israeli control is a given, and therefore you deal with self-government for Palestinians. No reference to Palestine as a country or the Palestinians as a people or a nation.

You’ve had this construct of Israel and Palestinians. It’s never Israel and Palestine. It’s never Israel and the Palestinians. It’s Israel and Palestinians that we found by the wayside.

Again, I mean, look, Nikki Haley at the U.N. voted against Salam Fayyad, vetoed the appointment of Salam Fayyad as deputy secretarygeneral to [Antonio] Guterres.

Why? Because the appointment had the word “Palestine.” So we are guilty for existing. We are guilty because we have an identity. We are guilty because we are members of Palestine— the Palestinian nation.

Now of course, you’ve read Uri Savir’s article on Madrid II or Moshe Ya’alon’s new article on [giving] the Palestinians autonomy, or Netanyahu’s speeches here and there, particularly in Australia, when he talked about transitional phases and functional approach. We will get to that later. But you have enough literature to see where they’re heading with that.

On substance, the priority, of course, for the peace process was Israel’s security. That was the primary objective. Israel’s security is defined in military terms and maintaining military control. Now, there is doctrine if you want a demilitarized state minus our entity, then if you want a state minus, then it has to be demilitarized. Then Israel has to have full military control, especially control over the borders, the air space, territorial waters, and with true presence. And of course, they want the Palestinian Authority to be the security subcontractor.

Congress in its overzealousness wanted to cut off all funds to the Palestinians. There was a resolution—what’s her name? I forgot her name. Anyway, she’s the one who always comes up with these interesting resolutions about the Palestinian culpability a priori. Kay Granger of Texas. Any of you from Florida? You’re really blessed with what’s her name– [Ileana] Ros-Lehtinen. Yeah, the hyphenated name. It’s obsessive with them.

Anyway, but they have decided that they should cut off all funds from the Palestinians. Then AIPAC went to them and said, no, no, no. You can’t cut off funds to the security forces.

You have to keep paying the Palestinian security forces, be-

KEYNOTE

cause they’re good for Israel’s security. Really. It’s AIPAC that wanted funding for the Palestinian security force. They want a subcontractor, and that to them is the primary function of any Palestinian security force.

But also, finally enough with this, it doesn’t have to do with security, but I always like to say this. That the Congress in its overzealousness to protect Israel-who was it? I think, Jim [Moran] was talking about it or Nick [Rahall], about how they are overzealous. Sometimes they want to outdo AIPAC, Congress members.

Yeah, in their overzealousness to serve Israel and protect Israel, they took resolutions that gave us enormous power. They took resolutions that any organization which accepts Palestinian membership will be defunded by the U.S. and they will not pay their fees. They took resolutions that any convention or agreement that we accede to and so on will not be supported by the U.S. What’s happening? We told them, fine, we are going to join all of them. This means the U.S. will be isolated because it will have to leave all of them. [APPLAUSE] So can you imagine what happens when we join WIPO Intellectual Property? What will happen to all the patents and intellectual property of the U.S.? Or when we decide to join the Atomic Energy Commission? But they say, if you join these things and if you accede to any agreement or convention that you will be punished. We will not fund you. Well, thank you very much. Let’s accede and see what happens to the U.S. when it has no say in any international organization. Anyway, that’s overzealousness. Sometimes you go overboard where you punish yourself.

Not only that, but we were supposed to be held-I said this before, forgive me if I quote myself, it became a famous quote, I think-that we are being held responsible for the safety of our occupiers. That the Israeli settlers and the Israeli army can do whatMay 2017

37

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:34 AM Page 38

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

them. Therefore, it becomes a question of controlling the people in Palestine. And we are a domestic issue.

I’m sure many of you have read [Isaac] Herzog’s 10-Point Plan. Herzog is supposed to represent the more moderate, what has become the Labor Party in Israel that has been renamed as the Zionist Camp, because they have to compete with Likud on Likud’s terms.

They have to show they are more right-wing and hard-liner than the Likud. Now, he has a plan, a 10-point plan. Again, functional approach. Again, gradual approach. Put the Palestinians on probation. I will talk about this later.

But this is Netanyahu’s constant hymn-that the Palestinians live in population centers, fragmented and localized. Of course, the approach now is back to the Village Leagues approach. If you remember, many of you are young enough not to remember, but some of you are old enough to remember the attempts to establish Village Leagues, localized communities, community centers, and so on. But it takes us back even further, where you can find collaborators who will collaborate with the occupation and then our lives. It takes us back to the Balfour Declaration, right? Didn’t he say they want to establish a national home for the Jews but at the same time a state? Keeping in mind what the interest of—the well-being—without prejudicing the nonJewish communities in Palestine. We are being now addressed as the non-Jewish communities in Palestine.

Excuse me. I mean, the majority and the basis were Palestinian—Christian, Muslim and Jewish, and some atheist, but they couldn’t be officially atheist. That’s the majority. We’re not the exception as being non-Jewish. Now, it’s the minority that has become the defining factor. Now, we are the non-Jewish community, so we are back to 100 years ago. Of course, there were attempts at bringing together some Arab countries, like the Aqaba meeting, in order to come up with an agreement with Israel. This time it was Netanyahu who scuttled it. The whole approach, of course, is the substance. It’s not ending the occupation but carrying out administrative functions, economic ease, the quality of life argument which is now part of the [Jason] Greenblatt platform.

I remember when they offered us in the early 1980s to run our lives. They said, you can have all the powers and responsibilities of the civil administration. We said no thank you. We PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

KEYNOTE

ever they want to us, and we are responsible for their safety. No Palestinian can react, not even in self-defense. Because automatically, the terrorist label comes out and like a Post-It it’s on your forehead, you’re a terrorist. Because a 14-year-old dared attempt to strike at a soldier carrying scissors—she was carrying scissors. But he was on Palestinian land as an occupation soldier wearing a bullet-proof vest, wearing a helmet, and carrying a machine gun at a checkpoint on her own land. But she’s the terrorist.

He’s the victim. And she was the one who was shot.

Anyway, we are responsible for the safety of our occupiers.

The Israeli army can go into Area A-and I hate this designation—but Area A, in which they are not supposed to come in.

And they can arrest. They can blow up homes. They can do whatever they want at will. But should the Palestinian security forces try to stop them, they’re in serious trouble. They cannot, and they’re not supposed to, stand up to the Israeli army.

Should any Palestinian react to this intense injustice, then he or she is a terrorist.

Now, in terms of the regional dimension, of course, it has become very clear and it has come back to haunt us. Now it is called the outside-in approach. And it’s a very sexy term now.

I’m sure you’ve read this in all the new proposed approaches to peace making, outside-in. Let’s go to the Arabs. Let’s go to the region. Let’s put the API–the Arab Peace Initiative-on its head.

Let’s normalize with the Arabs, and then we can deal with the Palestinians. This was from the beginning the Israeli lobby approach. Two tracks, Palestinian-Israeli track, Arab-Israeli track.

Bilateral track. Multilateral track. Normalize. Bring the Arabs to normalization with Israel and then the Palestinians will fall in step. Not just that, but you transform the Palestinian issue into a domestic issue within Israel. We can control-we’ll deal with 38

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 2:59 PM Page 39

Hanan Ashrawi: The Israel Lobby and the “Peace Process” From a Palestinian Perspective

don’t want to work for the occupation. We want the occupation to leave—then we can run our lives. So now, this has become another focus. We are going back to the beginning and even pre-peace process.

Four, maintain the strategic alliance between U.S. and Israel.

This was a constant focus of the peace process. It was brought to bear on everything that was done in that context. It has enhanced the power asymmetry and the imbalance until now. The features of this alliance was accommodate Israeli priorities and demands, adopt their own diction and perspective. I was going to say fiction. Yes, most of it is fiction and perspectives. Always frame the relationship in terms of the Judeo-Christian traditions–remember-and shared values.

So I keep asking my American friends, what shared values?

The values of occupation, of enslavement of a people, of impunity, of oppressing a whole nation, of carrying out extrajudicial executions, of demolishing homes, of stealing other people’s lands, and so on. Are these the values you want to share with Israel? Is this the Judeo-Christian tradition? I don’t know. I mean, really. To me, it’s very strange. Because automatically, the moment you find this fusion today, you are excluding Islamic, Buddhist, any other tradition that does not belong to this club. And to me, Islam is one of the most tolerant religions, because it doesn’t deny the existence of the others. It builds on Judaism and Christianity, while Judaism and Christianity supposedly cancel each other out, don’t they? Anyway.

Of course, the other myth is that Israel is the only democracy in the region. You hear that all the time. This is part of this alliance. Even Theresa May talked about this when she criticized John Kerry for not vetoing the [U.N.] 2334 resolution on settlements. How dare you criticize the only democracy in the region and our best friend, our ally? And the Palestinians, of course, are the alien, the other, the fearful, the incomprehensible. And even the orientalist glasses, to quote Edward Said, the late Edward Said, have come out again. And of course, there is an automatic linkage between terrorism and Islam. And now, it’s becoming much more evident.

Never surprise Israel with any American statement, position, or document related to the peace process. This I know from experience, and they will admit it. The American team, they always coordinated with the Israelis first on any American position. They always cleared it ahead of time with the Israelis. And if you have the Greenblatt-Friedman Plan, also you should read

KEYNOTE

it, it was called a policy paper for Trump. He was candidate Trump then and it became Trump’s policy paper on Israel. You will see how toxic it has become. It was read by him as an AIPAC speech.

Again, never allow or express any public censure or criticism of Israel. That’s why they reacted in such a hysterical manner.

They waxed ballistic just for the mere fact that the U.S. abstained on settlements, when a few years earlier they had vetoed a resolution on settlements, which violate international law and so on. Therefore, they’re not used to accepting any kind of criticism or censure, let alone sanctions.

Always use the positive approach with Israel. Incentives, rewards, advanced payments, inducements, and so on. When we started the talks, they immediately got the Zionism is Racism resolution nullified. You know that. And then they got the diplomatic recognition, trade agreements, and so on.

Another thing, of course—incentivizing Israel, including Europe. I can give you many examples how Europe used this approach too. Conversely, you use pressure, threats, and blackmail on the Palestinians.

Exploit the weakness of Palestine and augmenting Israeli power and control. Of course, this was the special contribution of AIPAC, ZOA, and others, the Council of Presidents [of Major American Jewish Organizations]. And drafting Congressional resolutions that always adopted punitive measures against the Palestinians especially if we joined organizations like the ICC [International Criminal Court] and IC3 [Internet Crime Complaint Center]. How dare you hold Israel accountable? Israel is above the law. Hence, the Palestinians are always on probation, on good behavior. We have to prove that we deserve our rights. We have to prove that we deserve human recognition. It’s a test that we have to demonstrate that we are worthy, the test of merit.

I’m sure you’ve read Dershowitz’s horrible article posted on the Gatestone Institute website, in which he says, “Palestinians must earn the two-state solution.” And of course, he proceeded to give a fake version of history. I have news for him, the Palestinians don’t think that the two-state solution is a fair or just solution. It was a major painful compromise by the Palestinians. [APPLAUSE] So it’s not our aspiration to give away 78 percent of our land. It is a compromise that we made in order to give our children a future and a life in freedom and dignity and to exercise our right to self-determination. Now, Israel, and probably the world, are not very keen on seeing it happen. Well, I’ll get to that later.

“ ”

The Palestinians don’t think that the two-state solution is a fair or just solution. It was a major painful compromise.

May 2017

39

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:35 AM Page 40

KEYNOTE

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

Now, always blame the Palestinians in the blame game. I can give you many examples from the Clinton Parameters, even when there was discussion in Camp David in 2000. I was there. We were told, you will not be blamed. Give it your best shot. And I remember Yasser Arafat told them, “We are not ready. The talks have not progressed enough to have a summit in Camp David.” Clayton Swisher is here. I don’t know if you remember, right? He said, “We are not ready.” And both Madeleine Albright and Bill Clinton said, give it your best shot.

We won’t blame you. What happened later? The whole mess of the generous offer. We were blamed when there was no offer. I said, “Show me. Show me a concrete offer on the table.” There were all these different groups discussing different issues in a fragmented way, but there was no generous offer that the Palestinians—and this myth gained a life of its own, actually.

Now every time you hear an Israeli apologist, he or she will say, you see the Palestinians refused the generous offer.

And we have to earn it. Always blame the Palestinians.

We said that, again, the roadmap. Do you remember the roadmap, 2002-2003?

Sharon placed 14 reservations on the roadmap that totally nullified and negated it. They came out and said, the Israelis accepted the roadmap. The Palestinians didn’t. The Palestinians accepted the roadmap knowing that it’s not perfect or ideal. But we knew that Sharon was rejecting it. So the issue was that Sharon accepted it and not even a footnote about the 14 reservations. But the Palestinians didn’t. I don’t know where they get their version of history.

Again, John Kerry’s initiative on 2014. You remember when he tried this initiative. He tried to do more of the same thinking that he will get a different result, or thinking that he might get one. Anyway, he promised. He said that any party that scuttles or undermines or rejects or whatever the peace talks will be publicly blamed. So what happened?

The Palestinians dutifully went to these negotiations knowing full well that we took a decision not to go, frankly speaking, because there were no terms of reference. There were no clear objectives. There was nothing to tell Israel to stop settlement activities, to respect signed agreements, to release prisoners and so on. And John Kerry said, try your best. He was given a verbal promise, an oral promise by the Israelis that they will minimize settlements, that they will release prisoners.

What did they do? Immediately, they escalated settlements.

They escalated violence. They shot a few people at check-

points. And then they refused to release the last installment of prisoners. So where is the blame? Both sides. They’re not ready. What? The Palestinian leadership lost its constituency for going to these negotiations when they weren’t assured of the substance and outcome. And the Israelis deliberately violated their commitments and obligations, and they weren’t blamed.

There were some leaks here and there that the settlements were bad.

In that context, I have to mention this. It’s a very racist statement that makes me very angry. Abba Eban said this, “The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

It has been used to bash the Palestinians and to feed these misconceptions and distortions forever. So every time you hear this, I think you have to reverse this. It’s the Israelis that missed historic opportunities to make peace and totally destroyed the chances of peace. We’re not on the defensive. We don’t have to prove that we miss opportunities, because we never had one.

Of course, the other terms, like the leitmotifs of our reality, have been shaped by the Israeli lobby. Like, Hamas rockets raining down on Israeli towns and villages. Have you heard this? And it’s repeated verbatim by everybody in Congress and outside Congress. Nobody asked how many did they kill, and nobody asked how many Palestinians were killed by the Israeli army. And nobody asked about the siege and the assault and so on. It’s as if people in Gaza decided to wake up one day and manufactured these homemade pipes and threw them out of the blue because they’re terrorists by definition.

Again, Palestinian terrorism, incitement, and violence.

Now, you cannot mention Israeli settlements without finding a force equivalent with incitement. Palestinians incite. Palestinians incite to violence. Palestinians think that their prisoners are heroes, and they are terrorists. So you adopt the language of the Israelis that everybody who’s a Palestinian is a terrorist. But since 1967, Israel has imprisoned more than 800,000 Palestinians, including myself and many others of my friends. And so I don’t think there are 800,000 terrorists. People who did not acquiesce to the occupation or accept to have their spirit broken— these are not terrorists. Israel has killed more than 75,000 Palestinians since ’67. Who are the terrorists?

Now again, there are new preconditions. The refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish State, that’s our fault. Either we become Zionists or we are not fit for human company. Again, any criticism of Israel is conflated with anti-Semitism. You’ve heard this

“ ”

The Israelis deliberately violated their commitments and obligations, and they weren’t blamed.

40

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 2:59 PM Page 41

KEYNOTE

PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

Hanan Ashrawi: The Israel Lobby and the “Peace Process” From a Palestinian Perspective

before. So this is one way of censoring and silencing criticism.

And the Palestinians are not a peace partner. We don’t have a peace partner among the Palestinians. I can’t tell you how many types of negotiations there were, needless negotiations from direct to indirect, to proximity talks, to bilateral, to multilateral, to long-distance talks, to exploratory talks. And at the end, we even had epistolary talks, exchanges of letters. We’ve been talked out, frankly speaking. But it was a good peace process because Israel used it as a cover to create facts on the ground, to negate the very substance and to destroy the objective of the talks. So here we are.

Now, while the process is ongoing, never allow any issue critical of Israel to be brought before the U.N. This is something ongoing—again, massive lobbying. I don’t want to give you too many examples, but we don’t have time. I know I’ve run over my time. Should I stop? [AUDIENCE SAYS NO] Okay.

So use the veto, and at the same time protect Israel’s impunity. Enable Israel but maintain Palestinian vulnerability. We shouldn’t have access to international organizations or international law to protect our rights and our lands. But Israel has the full right to act outside the law. No sanctions or punitive measures from any party anywhere, no accountability and so on.

And this generated a culture of entitlement, exceptionalism, preferential treatment and privilege in Israel which in itself justifies the subjugation, discrimination, violence, and total captivity of the Palestinian people, and especially the continued military assaults on Gaza.

Palestinian lives in Gaza have been reduced to abstractions.

They are numbers; they’re not human beings. The murder of civilians doesn’t count. It’s the fact that there were 70 soldiers

who were killed, that’s very important. But they [Palestinians] were being attacked, bombed from the air. Ninety-two families totally obliterated from the population register. It doesn’t matter.

And yet, you blame the victim because Hamas was using these people as human shields. Therefore, they have the right to kill them. Of course, the occupier is claiming self-defense. They are defending themselves against their own victims. I’ve never heard this logic before in all history.

Then, the structure and participants, the Palestinian-Jordanian delegation as you know, now it’s back again, the whole issue of the Jordanian option, the alternative homeland, the confederation, that it’s a Jordanian issue. When they said no Palestinians from the PLO and no Palestinians from Jerusalem, that’s precisely because they didn’t want a national address for the Palestinians, a localized address. Village Leagues, communities, and so on, but not the right to self-determination and not Jerusalem.

Again, there was a division of labor. I will skip a few things.

That the U.S. is in charge of the political process, but Europe and the Arabs are in charge of signing checks. So the political decisions are up to the U.S. It’s a monopoly. The others have to work on nation building. Because you see, we have to prove that we deserve a state, even though it is a right enshrined in international law—the right to self-determination. Again, proof of merit.

Even then, for the U.S. to participate directly in the talks, it had to get Israel’s permission. They couldn’t participate unless Israel invited them to participate or asked them to participate with their approval. So Israel positioned itself as a gatekeeper to the peace process. And the Europeans followed step. They always had to give them inducements and advance payments May 2017

41

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 3:06 PM Page 42

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

KEYNOTE

and rewards and so on to allow them to play a role. If you are the occupying power and you are the gatekeeper, what kind of peace process is this where you exclude others?

Procedurally, the phased approach, conflict management, open-ended process—you can look at all these documents I gave you. And of course, the deal, we had to deal with administrative, technical, peripheral issues first. Postpone the real issues and get no guarantees on that. No mechanisms for arbitration, monitoring and verification, although all negotiations should have those—even though I still believe negotiations between occupying and occupied are illegal. They violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, by the way. And it has to be done between equal parties. But when you have a situation of occupation, where one party exercises total control over the others, any agreement will be illegal because it will be reached under duress and with undue influence and force.

And then the whole issue of pocket and proceed. This is happening with things like the land swaps. There was never any agreement on the land swap. But somehow they decided that, yes, land swaps, because they want to keep the settlement blocs no matter what. All settlements are illegal, whether they are blocs or whether they are outposts or whether they are mo-

bile homes or whatever. They are all illegal. So we never agreed to having settlement blocs as being legal or remaining.

Now, they talk about it as a foregone conclusion, or that there will be land swaps. It was very difficult to accept the ’67 boundaries. Now, we have to give away Jerusalem, the Jerusalem environment, Ariel, Gush Etzion, all this. So they pocket and proceed, including the issue of refugees, by the way.

The process is a process for its own sake. Now, using prolongation and stalling, it is the Dennis Ross logic, I call it, where so long as there’s a process, God is in his heaven, all is well with the world. Let the two parties speak. And then Israel can do whatever it wants on the ground, which is an endless process. It became an abstraction. It became a tool for Israeli power and expansionism and so on. And they cover for the occupation. So negotiations became an objective, not a tool to get somewhere.

Now, we are back at the beginning, as I said. At one point, there was one point in which there was talk of ’67 boundaries, two states. It started with George Bush and Clinton talking about two states. It wasn’t, by the way, Obama who was bashed

by Israel for mentioning ’67. It was Clinton and George Bush. It was George Bush actually who talked about ’67 and the two

Continued on page 64

(Advertisement)

!

"#

Alalusi Foundation has provided one-year sponsorships to over 4,085 Orphans in Iraq !

$45 $500 " %

42

#

$

*

+ ,+-,

#& '

!

() $

.

$

/ /

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

!

%& '' ()374

1

!!! $

* +

#

*

" 1

"

# #

*

,

0 # "

,

)

2 1 /34 5 * *

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:38 AM Page 43

tom hayes: challenges and changes in 25 Years Working on israel-Palestine issues

Challenges and Changes in 25 Years Working on Israel-Palestine Issues, and Advice for Independent Filmmakers Tom Hayes

Photo Phil Portlock

Delinda Hanley: I now have the honor of introducing Tom Hayes, the independent filmmaker from Columbus, Ohio whose film “Two Blue Lines” was screened this morning.

Tom Hayes visited the Washington Report office in the 1990s. He told my father, Richard Curtiss, about the film “Refugee Road” he made in the 1970s, which focused on a Khmer family living in a refugee camp on the ThaiCambodian border. That film inspired Americans to give those refugees a hand. Hayes planned to do the same kind of film focusing on Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. He was certain that selfless Americans would help Palestinians once they saw the film he was to call “Native Sons.” My dad warned him there is a huge difference between the two when it comes to getting films about the Middle East funded and shown in the U.S. In superb articles published by AMEU in The Link—available at their booth—Hayes wrote that he set out to test the hypothesis that there was some kind of too-tight tourniquet on information about the Palestinian experience. After filming “People and The Land,” his film about the intifada, Hayes noted that many of the Palestinians he had filmed or worked with were arrested and beaten, and four of them were shot. He had kicked a hornet’s nest, both in the occupied territories and back home in the States. But harassment didn’t intimidate him. It motivated him and made him realize that this is as much an American issue as it is a Palestinian issue.

His latest film, “Two Blue Lines,” filmed over the past 25 years, focuses on Israeli and Jewish voices who tell the truth and speak with human empathy and passion. And we’re selling

it at our bookstore. My dad wrote in the Washington Report: “Reading his account in The Link will make you furious, sad, and immensely proud to be a member of the same species as Tom Hayes.” Seeing his latest film will make you applaud the people who helped him break through the information blockade.

After screening selections from “Two Blue Lines,” Tom Hayes will discuss the challenges and changes in 25 years working on Israel-Palestine issues.

[Clips from the Documentary, “Two Blue Lines”] Hanna Barag (Blockade Watch): This is all done on purpose.

Nothing of the occupation happens by chance. No. It happens on purpose. It happens in order to make the Palestinian’s life a hell.

Anat Hoffman (Women in Black): We have dehumanized the enemy as we have been dehumanized only a short time ago.

We call them a two-legged animal. We are re-enacting, without being able to control it, we are re-enacting what happened to us, as if we’ve never learned anything.

Tom Hayes: There are Jewish-only roads. There are Jewishonly communities. Somebody in, let’s say, Hebron can come up here and buy one of these beautiful houses?

Ardie Geldman (American settler living in the West Bank): You could absolutely do so—absolutely. There’s no law on the books preventing a non-Jew from buying a home here.

Jessica Montel (B’Tselem): Well, no. Settlements are defined as closed military zones. Now it’s a funny kind of a closed military zone, because you never know it. You would walk into a settlement freely without knowing that you’re in a closed military May 2017

43

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 1:02 PM Page 44

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

Tom Hayes: Last night large numbers of people killed. But now I hear the ambulances running.

Shireen: Can you imagine this feeling that I feel always when we are bombed?

Tom Hayes: Apache helicopters hovering up there.

That’s happening just at bedtime here, at 9:00 at night, just when the kids would go to bed.

Shireen: This feeling, exactly this feeling that you are in your room, in your bed and you’re praying.

Tom Hayes: Here we are again. The choppers are very close this time. There’s another bomb which is going to explode.

Shireen: You’re praying. It’s as if only your room will be bombed from the whole building.

Tom Hayes: Here comes another one fired from a much lower angle right off to my left. They’re coming right down across the town. It’s 3:00 a.m. and the killing is going on. Imagine the United States paying for all of this.

Prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz (Hebrew University): There is a way leading from humanity through nationality to bestiality.

Jeff Halper: I think the American Jewish community has played a very dishonorable role in this whole thing. You know, Israel claims to speak for them, and they accept that—that Israel was our country in one way or another. It’s a Jewish country. It speaks for the Jews, represents the Jews. So that makes them complicit in all these human rights violations.

Dr. Stephen Langfur: There’s an enormous American responsibility for this situation here, so I don’t think Americans can sit back as if they are simply observing the situation from afar and with the kind of lordly distance, as if they have no part in it.

It’s because of that American veto in the Security Council that Israel is able to go on acting the way it has, which I think would lead to its own destruction if it’s allowed to go on like this.

Female Voice in U.S. Congress Joint Session: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Israel.

Jeff Halper: This occupation is not perceived as an Israeli occupation. It’s perceived as an American-Israeli occupation. It is clear that Israel couldn’t maintain this occupation for a month without the political, and military, and financial support that the United States offers.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu: God will give strength to his people. God will bless his people with peace.

Thank you very much.

[End of video clip] Delinda Hanley: This film needs to be in every library in America and to be shown in every church and synagogue.

Please get this film. Tom Hayes, thank you. Thank you for your work. [APPLAUSE] Tom Hayes: Thank you. It’s really an honor to be here. It’s been such a delightful breeze to actually hear a Palestinian

zone—as would I, a citizen of Israel. It’s a closed military zone that applies to a Palestinian. So not only can a Palestinian not buy or rent a house in a settlement, he can’t physically enter a settlement without a special permit.

There are certain areas defined as danger zones, no-go zones for Palestinians. The order is given to soldiers, any Palestinian entering those areas can be shot at. In some cases, the order is, any Palestinian has to be shot at if they enter those danger zones, the areas around settlements and the areas around military bases. We have many cases of Palestinians injured and in some cases killed simply for approaching those danger zones.

Male Voice: There are Palestinian houses on the top of this tunnel. They are not allowed to drive their cars, even to walk in the tunnel under their houses. It’s only for Israelis.

Jeff Halper (Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions): You’re not allowed to build settlements. You’re not allowed to build highways that link those settlements into your country.

You’re not allowed to use the resources of an occupied power.

Israel takes a third of its water from the occupied territories, which is illegal looting of the resources of an occupied territory.

Dr. Stephen Langfur (Israeli author): This segregation most manifests in the summertime, when the Jewish settlers have all this water and the Palestinians turn on the faucet, no water. No water. One group is going thirsty, while another group a few yards away is living it up with swimming pools. It’s incredible.

Shireen: Hi. My name is Shireen. I’m from Gaza.

Male News Anchor: The Gaza Strip, a space only 22 miles long and 5 miles wide.

Shireen: I’m a Palestinian from Gaza, which is considered as a big jail.

Tom Hayes, as film rolls in Gaza: That’s about the fourth explosion. All over the city dogs are barking.

Shireen: Death is around you, always around you.

44

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:38 AM Page 45

“ ”

Tom Hayes: Challenges and Changes in 25 Years Working on Israel-Palestine Issues

voice in North America even for a few moments. [APPLAUSE] I’m grateful to the Washington Report and IRmep and, of course, all of you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

I’m neither Palestinian nor Jewish. I have no DNA dog in the fight. I have no ethno-religious dog in the fight. My route to Palestine was around-about, via the killing fields of Cambodia.

But when I was working on “Refugee Road,” I became sensitized to the refugee experience. It became real to me. One morning after I finished that project, kind of by a fluke of information, I connected a report on what American newspapers called an Israeli airstrike on a guerrilla stronghold in southern Lebanon with Rashidieh, a Palestinian refugee camp in southern Lebanon.

Making that connection was like being struck by lightninghaving some idea of what that means in a refugee camp.

I’m American. I’m trained just like everybody else, so “Israel good.” But I’m also keenly aware—keenly aware—that dropping large bombs into a refugee camp anywhere in the world is a craven act of mass murder. So I was rocked. I mean, I was rocked to cognitive dissonance. I couldn’t feature “Israel good” doing anything so patently evil. I just couldn’t get my head around it, and I particularly couldn’t get my head around the fact that the papers were reporting it with such blinkered language. That was my first whiff of the Israel lobby.

So I started researching, meeting people, studying Arabic, fund-raising. Eighteen months later I was in Rashidieh with a camera on my shoulder. In those days, 16-millimeter was really the only viable field acquisition format. So the gear, the film stock, the lab, it was all crazy expensive. Those capital requirements really served as sort of gates between filmmakers and unpopular topics. That gate is crumbling even as I speak.

Lebanon was a pretty rough shoot, what with the Israeli occupation and the friskiness of the Amal militia. But I got back intact and set to work on the edit of “Native Sons.” Martin Sheen wound up narrating it for me. The film is available free on Vimeo.

I was in the midst of editing that film when I had my first real encounter with the Israel lobby in its many lurid shades.

The Columbus Dispatch, our local rag, ran a little blurb in the arts section that said that the Gund Foundation was providing a grant of finishing funds to the Community Film Association, which was handling my grants, “for a film by Tom Hayes about three Palestinian refugee families in Lebanon.” That was it. No political statement. No Israel criticism, just “a film about three Palestinian refugee families in Lebanon.”

My life, and my family’s life, changed overnight. It was a multifaceted experience. On the one hand, anonymous ADL types or JDL types began threatening to murder me and murder my wife.

I’m talking of phone calls at all hours of the day and night. Then our windows started coming in, started getting broken out. Our home wound up looking like a police station in Northern Ireland, with heavy wire and blast tape. Simultaneous with the “Enthusiasts” campaign, and equally grave, the Columbus Jewish Federation, apparently on the prompting of regional B’nai B’rith took an interest in the project and me.

The board of the Film Association that was handling my grants began getting calls from the Federation. They were told that they were using public funds for propaganda and that their personal assets, like their homes, would be seized because of it. The upshot was, I got a letter from the Film Association saying that it was going to forfeit the grants I already had on tap because I was (allegedly) engaging in propaganda.

I had borrowed heavily against my home (without informing my wife) on a large grant from the Ohio Arts Council, that, due to this forfeiture, was not going to pay out. So I had to tell her, it looks like we’re going to be eating take-out Chinese in the gutter because of this film “about three Palestinian refugee families in Lebanon.” The message was pretty clear. If you speak about Palestinian refugees or assist in speaking about Palestinian refugees, we will try to make you homeless, too.

Eventually an Arts Council administrator persuaded the Film Association that it was not in their long term interests to make me homeless. But it was a white-knuckle time for us. Threats kept coming. No visible police action. Eleven days before the premiere, Alex Odeh was blown in half entering his office for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

It’s premiere night at the Drexel Theater. It’s show time, and a bomb threat comes into the theater—which, 11 days after Alex was killed, seemed like a pretty serious thing. So the building was evacuated. The bomb squad swept it. And anyone who was willing to be searched was allowed in to see the film.

Let’s just step back for a second. When I did a film about Cambodian refugees, nobody threatened to murder me or my family. Our home wasn’t attacked. There were no bomb threats at any screenings. And I think this experience points to some truths about the Israel lobby. It’s a hood comprised of many discrete threads that is pulled down tight over the eyes and ears and, when necessary, mouths of American people. It’s not as simple as pointing fingers at the All-in for Defamation League,

When I did a film about Cambodian refugees, nobody threatened to murder me or my family.

May 2017

45

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 3:07 PM Page 46

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

thetically banal than that. The ways that the jaws of the lobby snatch at those who won’t acquiesce in silence to Israel’s war crimes is part of my life’s experience. Career advancement issues for journalists militate against taking that beast on. Look at what happened to Helen Thomas. It’s “uncomfortable.”

Cowardice is easier than courage. Cowardice is an essential nutrient for the Israel lobby. [APPLAUSE] This joint and those affiliated with it are nutrient-rich. Look at the voices we heard from the mainstream media during the last great butchery in Gaza. We did occasionally get a glimpse of Professor Ashrawi. But there were virtually no Palestinian voices to be heard. That’s the National Press Club.

The exclusion of Palestinian voices in American media is racist, and racism is a weakness. It occurred to me that this racism could be weaponized. It could be weaponized against itself. If Palestinians are not acceptable voices to address the situation of Palestinians, if the only credible voices to address the conflict are Jewish voices, then what if I crafted a film in which Jewish Israelis—people who actually have skin in the game— told the truth? The result is “Two Blue Lines.” The film feeds the Zionist snake its own little tail. [LAUGHTER] The best thing that’s happened with “Two Blue Lines” is that I was able to get it on Amazon Video-On-Demand. If it gets enough hits on Amazon Video-On-Demand, it will go on Amazon Prime Video, where it will be free to a lot of people. Just so you know. Anybody who wants to see the film can see it, though, which I love because that’s a tough thing.

This whole digital technology thing, I think, is going to be key to crushing the Israel lobby, and key in the liberation of Palestine, and maybe key in the liberation of humankind. Facebook posts, YouTube videos that poured out of Gaza during the last horror could not be stopped by the Israel lobby. They affected a lot of people all over this planet. The media-creation environment has changed radically. The means of production are now in the hands and in the phones of the people. Cost of media creation has plummeted. Means of dissemination has exploded.

It’s easier now than ever to document and defend the Palestinian struggle, except in Gaza.

So if you’re a filmmaker, please screw your courage to the sticking place and get thee to Palestine. Document, gather testimony, share it with the world. Cloud technology makes it easy to get it out. You don’t have to carry it through Ben-Gurion [Airport]. You can just [makes a popping sound toward the sky].

The lid is off on this thing. The carefully guarded lid is off.

One cautionary note: there was a time when a Palestinian

or AIPAC. This thing called the Israel-Palestinian conflict is much more than that. It’s a First Amendment issue. I mean, the First Amendment is a bedrock part of our Constitution. My right to free expression was challenged with violence and terrorism. I mean terrorized we were.

The spectrum of mendacious mechanisms we encapsulate in the term Israel lobby are, in fact, an attack on the foundations of the United States by a foreign interest. Its aim is to keep our eyes closed, our mouths shut, and our wallets wide open. [APPLAUSE] Critical to that aim is the prevention of Palestinian voices reaching American ears. But by the time “Native Sons” was done I was thoroughly engaged, so I’d raise money, go over, film, come home, dig out of debt, raise money, repeat. That’s been pretty much my adult life. I’ve been driven by the conviction that someone has to keep a record of the monstrous abuse of the Palestinian people. That record may not change the situation right now, or even in my lifetime, but it’s going to be critical in future war crimes trials and in reparations trials. [APPLAUSE] Along the way I’ve tried to make work that kicks open the windows on the humanity of Palestinians and the craven oppression that they’re enduring. Yet, every time I go back it’s worse, which kind of impels me further. Every time I leave Palestine, I swear I’ll never go back. It’s a disgusting thing to bear witness to. Israel’s abuse of humanity is a disgusting thing to witness.

But it doesn’t take long back in the States for me to start feeling like I would rather be back in Palestine. Being in the States is like being dipped in a bath of bullshit. [APPLAUSE] Everything I read on this topic in the mainstream media, everything I watch, everything I hear on the radio—bullshit. Which brings me to a particular irony of standing in this place, right herela maison de merde. The National Press Club is as much a part of the Israel lobby as AIPAC. I’m not suggesting some dark conspiracy of Zionist control. No. It’s simpler than that. It’s more pa46

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:48 AM Page 47

Jack Shaheen: Strategies to Successfully Push Back Against Harmful Hollywood Stereotypes

who was cordial with cameras would wind up taking a beating and draw some prison time—an acceptable risk level in the cause of liberation. But things have changed. Nowadays, the Israel Destruction Forces require zero pretext to murder Palestinians. So it’s important to understand the depth of jeopardy that you place Palestinian lives in when you share their faces. Have a care—you get to leave, every generation of their family doesn’t get to leave. That said, I think it’s critically important that creative people get their butts over there. Artists have a role to play in the bitter struggles for human rights and human dignity.

Think Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Twain’s Huckleberry Finn, Paton’s Cry, the Beloved Country, Davis’ Hearts and Minds.

I was nine years old when my mother read me Cry, the Beloved Country. I was 39 when Nelson Mandela became president of South Africa. That book may not have had any more impact than a grain of sand on the struggle against South African apartheid, but a grain of sand on the move can start an avalanche. If enough of us grains of sand shake our asses loose, we could bury the Israel lobby. [APPLAUSE] We can clear the road to Palestinian freedom and self-determination.

Thank you so much for this opportunity. [STANDING OVATION] Delinda Hanley: A powerful movie, a powerful speaker, and a powerful writer. I hope you’ll grab a Link copy. ■

Strategies to Successfully Push Back Against Harmful Hollywood Stereotypes About Arabs and Muslims, and the Work New Generations Must Take On Jack Shaheen

PHOTO PHIL PORTLOCK

Dale Sprusansky: Our next speaker, many of you know, truly needs no introduction. Jack Shaheen is an internationally acclaimed author and media critic. His lectures and writing include many, many things. His books include A Is for Arab: Archiving Stereotypes in U.S. Popular Culture, and Guilty: Hollywood’s Verdict on Arabs After 9/11. He’s been in this field for an incredibly long amount of time, and we couldn’t be happier to have him here today. His book signing will be at 6:00, rescheduled from lunchtime. Ladies and gentlemen, Jack Shaheen.

Jack Shaheen: Well, colleagues, guest speakers, friends— heartfelt thanks for your participation today. It’s extremely, it’s wonderful to be here. My heart belongs with the Washington Report, mainly because the first speech I ever gave on stereo-

typing was in Beirut, and the man who sat in the front row was the Delinda Hanley’s father, Richard Curtiss. [APPLAUSE] Anyway, to paraphrase Plato, those who tell the stories rule society.

Flashback 1962, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, commencement address at Yale University: “Damaging myths are doing our nation a great disservice.

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, the myth—persistent, persuasive, and realistic.”

Now journey with me briefly this afternoon as I offer five suggestions as to how to contest those persistent myths about Arabs and Muslims. First, a bit of history: for nearly half a century—I know I look much younger than I am—I’ve tracked HollyMay 2017

47

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:48 AM Page 48

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

48

Today, more than ever, these villains prowl TV screens. Arab and Muslim, along with American Arabs and Muslims, are terrorists. They commit heinous acts like holding students hostage in a Hawaiian high school. They blow up students in a coffee shop in Illinois. They appear in popular series that I hope you don’t watch, such as “Tyrant,” “24: Legacy,” “Madam Secretary,” “Hawaii Five-0,” “Chicago Justice,” “Six,” “NCIS: Los Angeles,” and a score of others.

And the shows do not project our country’s mosques as they are—holy places of worship. Rather, they are projected as a haven for terrorists. God. We don’t project synagogues or churches this way. Why do we focus on mosques? As Ed Murrow reminds us, “What we do not see is often as important, if not more important, than what we do see, the sins of omission and commission.”

Now, how to eliminate these stereotypes? I’m not like the genie from Aladdin’s lamp, but I do have five suggestions. The most important is this one: Americans with Arab roots and American Muslims, people like writer/director Cherien Dabis, who made the movie “Amreeka” and other films; as well as those involved in the TV series “Mr. Robot,” Emmy Award-winners Sam Esmail and Rami Malek. Well, they’ve got to get their act together and form a coalition of activists. Some organizations have reached out to the industry, but no one is more qualified, no one knows more about how best to offer correctives, than young Arab and Muslim American image makers. They are part of the profession.

They are on the ground in Los Angeles and in New York. This group of activists could meet regularly with the industry’s image makers. Early on, as soon as they learn that a new TV show or film will be produced. Before the show begins production, because once they go into production, it’s too late.

For example, this summer there’s a new movie coming out called “Aladdin.” It’s going to be a live-action Disney movie directed by Guy Ritchie. Now, not one organization—except the ADC—not one individual—except yours truly, there may be others—has reached out to contact Disney and Ritchie about “Aladdin.” Why? So we could offer constructive suggestions about how best to avoid stereotypes that appeared in that ani-

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

wood’s Arabs and Muslims. Almost always, I found they appear as villains. They’re godless, evil, enemy, other. Renewed and repeated over and over again, these images are hardwired into our psyches. As the Arab proverb reminds us, “By repetition even the donkey learns.”

Islamophobia has joined Arabophobia. Prejudices are escalating, not diminishing. Today’s villains are not just Arabs and Muslims from over there. They are homegrown Americans with Arab roots, and American Muslims, including Muslims from countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran. Before 9/11, darkcomplexioned actors portrayed Arabs from over there as villains. They were listed in the credits—I think this is interesting— the credits always stated: Terrorist #1, Terrorist #2, Terrorist #3.

They had no identity. No names. But today, thanks to the rise of Islamophobia, they are listed: Jihadist #1, Jihadist #2, Jihadist #3.

Now in my modest opinion, the dramatic changes in villains took place right after 9/11, due primarily to one producer by the name of Howard Gordon, who produced the series “24.” This Fox television series aired about 10 weeks after the attacks.

Until that time, American Arabs and American Muslims were invisible on TV screens. We did not exist in media land, except for Danny Thomas in the ’60s, you know, with the “Danny Thomas Show,” and Jamie Farr, lovable Jamie running around in the woman’s dress in “M*A*S*H.” That was it.

Otherwise, we just were invisible.

And then suddenly, Howard Gordon started showing Americans with Arab roots and American Muslims as homegrown terrorists out to destroy their country. “24” was so successful that numerous copycat series copied that format from “24.” Shows that I hope none of you have ever seen, like “Threat Matrix,” “Sue Thomas: F.B.Eye,” “The Agency,” “The Unit,” and others.

And what’s really hurtful about all of this is that Arab Americans and Muslim Americans, like others at the World Trade Center—they were victims. More than three dozen were killed.

There’s never been a story about the brave Yemeni who worked in the Marriott Hotel who lost his life saving people. Yet here we are as victims of 9/11, and Gordon comes around and these other image makers, and they make us the terrorists.

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:48 AM Page 49

Jack Shaheen: Strategies to Successfully Push Back Against Harmful Hollywood Stereotypes

mated version of “Aladdin.” You know: “I come from a land from far, far away / a place where the caravan camels roam / where they cut off your ear, if they don’t like your face / It’s barbaric but, hey, it’s home.”

It’s important that we work with Ritchie now, to help him make a film that will be successful, that makes a profit and that entertains, and that Americans can go to if they have Arab roots or American Muslims, and not be ashamed of their heritage or fear that their children are going to be damaged by these stereotypes.

Why not? Why can’t these image makers get together and try to lobby to make a difference? For too many years, Arab and American Muslims have been relegated to playing terrorists.

Fortunately, there are some who have spoken out. My friend, Maz Jobrani, an Iranian American, told his agent, “No more terrorists. I don’t need to play these parts—you feel like you are selling out.”

My other friend, comedian— my friends are all comedians.

You know, I tried. I said, I’m available, but they didn’t want anyone with grey hair. Anyway, Ahmed Ahmed had this to say. He refused to change his name. He said, quote, “I’m never going to change my name. It’s my birth name, my given name.” Now consider the plight of this young actor from England. His name is Amrou Al-Kadhi. He is a 12 year old. When he was 12, he was cast as the son of a terrorist in Steven Spielberg’s movie “Munich.” “I am 26 now,” he said recently. “I have already been sent 30 scripts for which I’ve been asked to play terrorists on screen.” My proposed coalition could hopefully end such typecasting.

Second, when I first started to explore this issue back in the mid-’70s, I was alone. With the exception of my wife and the cellphone that’s currently ringing, there was no one around. My wife, God love her, Bernice, stood by me, but I was the only one.

Nothing was written. Nobody talked about this image. Nobody wanted to publish anything. But now, thank goodness there are graduate students and faculty members who write and teach about shows that humanize and vilify Arabs and Muslims. Now these scholars need to expand their research efforts. How? By going outside the walls of academe, going to Los Angeles, going to New York, meeting with producers and writers on a one-toone basis, as I did in my early book, The TV Arab. We’ve got to make our presence known. It’s a great way to get something published. So that’s my advice to my colleagues in academe.

Third, more presence is needed in the media, just as more presence is needed in politics, right? We need more than Keith

Ellison in Washington. Anyway, presence propagates power. “The more power you have,” remarked producer Gilbert Gates, “the louder your voice is heard.” Now, thanks to producers and directors like Stephen Gaghan, Charles Roven and George Clooney, I was fortunate to have my voice heard in a very, very positive way on two feature films—“Three Kings” and “Syriana.” The men and women that I worked with on those two features were absolutely terrific. They, I would say, embraced 90 percent of the suggestions that I offered to eliminate stereotypes. But my main goal was to help them make a better movie without offending anyone.

So they deserve a tremendous amount of credit—but, again, my presence on the set made a tremendous difference. I say that because when I initially read the screenplays, I thought they were the worst—I can’t use the word. Anyway, they were bad.

All right, four years ago, there were some signs of encouragement. Four years ago, members from New York University came to our home on Hilton Head Island and took away 5,000 Arab artifacts, more than 2,000 films and TV shows.

Now at NYU, there is the Shaheen Archive, which houses this collection [APPLAUSE], which is available to scholars and students and filmmakers worldwide. What’s interesting about this collection is they put together an exhibit called “A Is for Arab” (which is also the title of my new book, which I will be signing at 6:00). This “A Is for Arab” exhibit goes all around the country to universities, and it’s available just to cover the cost of postage.

My wife, bless her heart, it was her idea to create the Shaheen Scholarships, and each and every year, we award scholarships to young Arab-American students majoring in media. To date, we’ve awarded over 70 media scholarships to encourage these young people to become involved. [APPLAUSE] Young Arab and American Muslims—I was doing research, I had to do research for this, because this was something fresh, and I told Delinda I wouldn’t use any of my old notes. I found young Arab American filmmakers and Muslim Americans—comedians like Maz Jobrani, Ahmed Ahmed, Dean Obeidallah, all three of them—not only do they do standup acts, but they produce movies, feature films. Jobrani did four—“Jimmy Vestvood: Amerikan Hero,” “Brown and Friendly.” Ahmed Ahmed did a great film called “Just Like Us.” Dean Obeidallah did “The Muslims are Coming!”

They’re out there. I discovered there are at least 10 ArabAmerican and Canadian women who actively make feature films. And there are at least two dozen women from the Arab world, from 10 different countries, making feature films and doc-

“”

My main goal was to help make a better movie without offending anyone.

May 2017

49

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 3:09 PM Page 50

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

umentaries. Women like Saudi filmmaker Haifaa al-Mansour, who directed the 2012 Academy Award-nominated drama ”Wadjda.” We still have a long way to go, but these young women, along with their male counterparts, are leading the way, replacing damaging portraits with inventive, realistic images.

Fourth—I see the caution light is on—fourth, I’ll go quick.

Those [organizations] that do Arab film festivals throughout the country are great. They just do a marvelous job. My only recommendation is that they bring in producers and writers if they can, if their budgets allow—honor them, respect them, and showcase them during their festivals.

Finally, the fifth and final suggestion: major organizations such as the ADC—of which I’ve been a charter member since, well, I won’t say when but I’ve been a major member for a long time. Anyway, they should become active and acknowledge more often image makers whose films enhance tolerance and image makers who vilify Arabs. They should do this on a regular basis. They should let the trade papers know so it gets inked. Use social media such as Twitter and Facebook. We need to let them know that we know what they’re doing, and acknowledge those who are doing things to shatter myths.

Stereotypes don’t exist in a vacuum. They injure people, especially children. Damaging myths also injure those who may look Arab—black, Sikhs, Native Americans, Hispanics and others. They give ammunition to recruiters for extremist groups like the Islamic State, ISIS. They use these stereotypes to recruit members in their propaganda films. History teaches us the more people and their faiths are vilified, the more they are “them” and not “us.”

There have been scores of TV series over the years focusing on physicians and lawyers and broadcasters and journalists. Yet to my knowledge, not one of these series ever featured an Arab-American protagonist in medicine. We have never seen the equivalent of a pioneering heart surgeon, Dr. Michael DeBakey, or Dr. George Hatem. George Hatem, there’s a statue of him in China because of the wonderful work that he did there. We have never seen the equivalent in law of a woman like Rosemary Barkett, the [former] chief justice on the Florida Supreme Court, or someone like our friend Ralph Nader. In journalism, we’ve never seen the equivalent of Arab Americans like Leila Fadel, National Public Radio’s bureau chief in Cairo and a Shaheen scholarship recipient.

Or Michael Sallah, the Miami Herald’s Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist.

From the beginning, I have always proposed that image makers project Arab and Muslim characters as three-dimensional humane individuals—no better, no worse than they project other people. Why don’t they include in future scenarios a doctor, like “Dr. Victor Nassar, At Your Service”? A lawyer like Michael Rafeedie and a reporter like George Hishmeh? Why not? Are we not part of America’s landscape? Have we not made great contributions in these fields and others? Then we should be part of the visual landscapes on television and in cinema.

In conclusion, perceptions impact public opinion and public policies. I’ll repeat it. They impact opinion and public policies.

Given the rise of ISIS and recent terrorist attacks here and abroad, shattering stereotypes is more difficult today than ever before. Politicians and members of some special interest groups actively campaign to vilify all things Arab and Muslim. Resulting in what?

More hate crimes, more harassment, more fear, more deaths, notably innocent Arabs and Muslim Americans, college students in North Carolina, a Christian Lebanese in Tulsa, an imam in Queens, as well as the deaths of anyone who is perceived to be Arab or Muslim—an Indian in Kansas, a Sikh in Washington.

Unfortunately, there are those who do not see or care about the difference between Sikhs and sheikhs. Media images continue to teach us whom we should love and whom we should hate. Yet in spite of the current barrage of hate rhetoric and racist policies and damaging images, I remain an optimist. I have faith in young scholars and image makers, because I always believe the future belongs to them and to the men and women in the industry who are humanists.

Let me just give you two examples of two shows that I just saw. One is a CBS sitcom called “Superior Donuts.” In this one episode, there’s a dry cleaning shop owned by Fawz, an Iraqi American. Someone sprays on Fawz’s windows, “Arabs go home.” When Arthur, who runs Superior Donuts, the donut shop, sees that—Arthur is Jewish, by the way—he takes a rag and he removes that from Fawz’s window. Then he takes a can of spray paint and sprays on his window of the donut shop, “Arabs welcome.” Arabs welcome—that’s a telling moment, I think, in TV sitcoms. There are other shows, but in the interest of time, I’ll skip them.

Finally, there’s Mandy Patinkin, who stars in the series “Homeland.” He admitted for the first five seasons, Muslims were the bad guys. Admitting that because it’s an on-the-edge-of-yourseat political drama, the series was not helping the American

“”

Media images continue to teach us whom we should love and whom we should hate.

50

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 3:10 PM Page 51

Wajahat Ali: Pro-israel organizations, Donors and islamophobia: Findings From Fear, Inc.

Muslim community. “We take responsibility for it. We are part of the problem,” he said. “But we also desperately want to be part of the cure.” And then Richard Gere speaking out against the way Palestinians were being treated in the occupied territories.

To rebuke these peddlers of prejudice—you like that: peddlers of prejudice? I think I stole it from someone. I don’t remember who, but I like it. To rebuke these peddlers of prejudice, I think that we should keep in mind two things. First, the wisdom of Václav Havel, former president of the Czech Republic, who reminds us that none of us as an individual can save the world as a whole, but each of us must behave as though it was in his or her power to do so.

Finally, yesterday I went to the African American Museum, whose moving displays reflect the damage that hateful stereotypes did for centuries upon the African American people of our country. I thought when I was there of one quote from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. King was in a jail in Birmingham, Alabama, and he said something like, “I think the people who have ill will have used their time more effectively than have the people of good will.” He says, to change all of this, we should become movers and shakers.

So ladies and gentlemen, Hanan, Tom, Jim, Delinda, John, Mary, Bill, Abdul, whoever is in here, please join me in becoming a mover and shaker. Thank you very much. ■

Pro-Israel Organizations, Donors and Islamophobia: Findings From Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America Wajahat Ali

Photo Phil Portlock

Grant Smith: Wajahat Ali is a journalist, writer, lawyer, and an award-winning playwright. But of major interest to us is a fascinating report that he wrote along with his team while they were at the Center for American Progress back in 2011. We’ve asked him to come and talk about a seminal report about the overlap between some Israel lobby organizations and donors that promote or otherwise distribute Islamophobia in America. Please welcome Wajahat Ali. Wajahat Ali: Hello, hello. How’s everyone doing? That was amazing. Thank you for that overwhelming enthusiastic applause, and I appreciate that. People on the top, I recognize you. I see you people on the top. Let’s give it up for godfather, Arab uncle extraordinaire, Jack Shaheen. Where is he? He’s

hiding all the way in the back. Thank you, Grant, for inviting me to speak on this heartwarming, uplifting topic of Islamophobia, a topic I’ve been trying to avoid and get away from for the past five years, and I feel like Al Pacino in “Godfather Three”: “Every time I try to get out, they pull me back in.” Thank you.

Bucket list checked. I wanted to do that in front of an audience and I finally was able to do that.

I really couldn’t care less what happens in the next 20 minutes. I was able to do that.

I am Wajahat Ali. I am the last moderate Muslim left on Earth.

Us moderate Muslims, any other moderate Muslims? Two. We are an endangered species. We are the circumcised unicorns of America, and currently we are very popular because people May 2017

51

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:50 AM Page 52

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

lead author and researcher of the investigative report Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America that was published by the Washington, DC think tank Center for American Progress.

Don’t worry. I won’t do the entire 138-page report, but for those of you who have not read it, in two minutes I will summarize everything for you.

What this report was, was an investigative report that exposed how at that time seven major funders had given over $43 million over a period of 10 years after 9/11 to a small— key, small—very interconnected, I would say incestuous group of individuals and organizations responsible for mainstreaming fear, bigotry and hate against Muslims and Islam in America.

Now, for purposes of this conversation, what is Islamophobia? Great question. We defined it, as it manifested itself in America, as the following: an exaggerated fear, hatred and hostility toward Islam and Muslims that is perpetuated by negative stereotypes resulting in bias, discrimination—this is the key— the marginalization and exclusion of Muslims from America’s social, political and civic life. Are you guys still with me?

Why is it relevant? Because for the first time ever we really dissected and exposed the network, categorized it, gave it a structure, named the names, connected the dots, traced the funding and the money trail, and showed the genesis of several fictitious anti-Muslim talking points—some of them that I mentioned—that you now hear on mainstream news and spewed by the president of the United States of America. So, what is the Islamophobia industry? It’s five pillars.

Number one, the color that every racist loves is green. It starts with the money, the money trail. We see several funders and we gave seven funders—I’ll name a few: Fairbrook Foundation; Rosenwald Family Foundation; Russell Berrie Foundation; Becker Foundation. We also had Donors Capital Fund, we also had Scaife Foundation, we also had the Bradley Foundation—that give money.

Question: where does the money go? Primarily to Washington, DC and East Coast think tanks: Daniel Pipes, Middle East Forum; David Horowitz’s Freedom Center in California; Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism; and Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy. By the way, AIPAC just gave

can’t stop talking about us. In fact, if you play a drinking game— and I don’t drink because I’m a good Muslim, and if you drink and you’re Muslim, God is watching—if you play a drinking game and take a shot of alcohol each time the Trump administration mentions Islam or Muslims, you will die of alcohol poisoning by January. If you’re like my father and drink mango lassi instead, you will go into a diabetic coma.

We’re always in the news. Raise your hand if you’ve heard the following, and honestly, if you’ve heard the following raise your hand. President Obama is a Muslim. Okay. Sharia is a threat to America. Radical Islam has infiltrated America, the government, and every single mainstream Arab- or MuslimAmerican organization. Okay. There is no such thing as moderate Islam, traditional Islam is radical Islam. Okay. A practicing Muslim cannot be a patriotic or loyal American.

Now, if you looked around you would see that the overwhelming majority of this audience raised their hands. About five years ago when I used to do this experiment, only about half of the audience used to raise their hands. This once fringe, and I repeat, fringe—talking points: they were really fringe—and extremist—have now become part of the mainstream discourse, where nearly 90 percent of a 600-person audience is raising their hands because they’ve heard it on mainstream media, and literally from the mouths of mainstream politicians, including the president of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump.

Question: How did these once fringe memes become mainstream and why? And who is behind these toxic divisive messages? It was a great phrase you just said, Jack Shaheen, peddlers of—what was it?—peddlers of prejudice. So, to answer these questions, in 2011—I was once a young man—I was the 52

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:50 AM Page 53

Wajahat Ali: Pro-Israel Organizations, Donors and Islamophobia: Findings From Fear, Inc.

$60,000 to Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy. Frank Gaffney was so extreme that CPAC, the annual conservative conference—the who’s who crème de la crème—found him so extreme that they banned him. Yet Frank Gaffney’s discredited poll that he ran with Kellyanne Conway was used by Donald Trump last year to justify what at that time was the permanent Muslim ban, that has now become the temporary Muslim ban, that now has become the travel ban that isn’t a Muslim ban, but really is a Muslim ban. [LAUGHTER] Now, money goes to the think tanks that create the memes.

How do the memes get distributed? It’s a very good question.

The third pillar: grassroots groups in America. Do not underestimate the power of grassroots groups in America—and also, I’m sorry to say this to my evangelical Christian friends, megachurches. Okay? ACT! For America, co-founded by Brigitte Gabriel, who once said, “Arabs and Muslims have no soul”—awesome, I cannot sell my soul to the devil, good to know—who was, by the way, just in the White House yesterday and tweeted it out, one degree of separation out of the White House. She works specifically with Frank Gaffney, and all the think tanks to mainstream the anti-shariah legislation.

People literally hand deliver the anti-shariah bill to their local congressmen in states like South Carolina, and also evangelical Christians, people like Pastor John Hagee, who runs Christians United for Israel. In fact, that quote I just gave, where she said, “Arabs and Muslims have no soul”—she said that in front of a CUFI conference, Christians United for Israel. So much so that a New York Times reporter e-mailed me two weeks ago and said, “Man, I was in Tennessee, and I was just hanging around doing research, talking to people in the South, in the Rust Belt, and these average Christians, just average Joes and Josés, came up to me and said, ‘Islam is not a religion. It’s a totalitarian ideology.’ Now, I’m like, where do these people get this definition from? These are just average Joes.” These definitions are literally hand delivered from the think tanks and spread through these grassroots groups.

Number four: the media megaphone, the blogosphere, one news channel in particular—any one of you want to take a guess? I know; I’m sorry. I’m sorry for being a stereotype. But yes, Fox News, right-wing radio, and books. Many of these people, if you look at the back of their books, they keep blurbing each other. These people that I’ve just mentioned, especially the think tank experts, end up as national security experts on Fox News, on Breitbart—where Frank Gaffney, by the way, got

a lot of play—on right-wing radio, Sean Hannity, also Mark Levin, who you guys might remember because Donald Trump cited him for the wiretapping that didn’t happen, but probably did happen, but didn’t happen. Are you guys with me?

Finally, number five: politicians. Literally, word for word, the talking points that emerged from the Center for Security Policy’s 2010 Report, “Shariah: The Threat to America,” were word-forword talking points for mainstream political politicians. I’m talking about nearly every single Republican presidential candidate in 2012—except Mitt Romney, because he’s Mormon—ran with this. And every single major political politician, especially from the Republican Party—I’m talking about Donald Trump and Ben Carson—word for word their talking points on shariah can get traced to the document that was released by the think tank. So, money, think tanks, grassroots groups, media, politicians—congratulations, you don’t have to read the report.

Now, you guys are still with me? All right, 13 minutes left. In order to make this somewhat conversational and different, Grant sent me five questions and said in 20 minutes, answer these five questions, which is like thesis questions, and enough for an hour-long keynote. I actually wrote him an e-mail, and I said Grant, why don’t I just respond to the questions you gave me in front of this audience? I thought that would be interesting, and he said, yeah, just do that. So in 12 minutes let me do that. Five questions—if I get through three, it’s a win.

Question number one: the revenue of the organizations profiled in Fear, Inc. seemed to have flattened since 2011, with an e-mail appeal for funds from the Middle East Forum growing in frequency and desperation (in tone, anyway). That’s Grant. Do you think the exposure these organizations received in Fear, Inc. had anything to do with this? Is Fear, Inc. a lesson for investigative journalists?

First, yes, I think it is a lesson. Second, I question whether or not these groups have all become flattened as a result of the Trump presidency, in the one degree of separation that exists between Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, Stephen Miller, Jeff Sessions, Mike Pompeo and most of Islamophobic industry players mentioned in Fear, Inc. Mike Pompeo, by the way, received an award from ACT! For America, and let’s not forget that Jeff Sessions, top cop, received an award from Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, and publicly praised David Horowitz in his confirmation hearing. I’m just throwing that out there. I would look forward to the 2016 and 2017 returns to prove whether or not it has been flattened. It will be very illuminating.

“”

Do not underestimate the power of grassroots groups in America.

May 2017

53

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:50 AM Page 54

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

Fear, Inc. definitely did have an impact, though. I haven’t mentioned this story publicly, but a week before Fear Inc.’s release, this was about five years ago, we sent a heads-up e-mail to the eight funders that were mentioned in Fear, Inc. Now, if you were paying attention to me, I said seven funders. So the question should be how did it go from eight to seven? Very good question. Let me answer that.

There were originally eight funders mentioned. One of the funders realized what he was funding, came back, and said, “I’m so appalled and shocked. I thought they were doing national security work. I had no idea what their real ideology was. Please take this as my pledge to remove $1.1 million from the Islamophobia industry.” You can applaud that. [APPLAUSE] I can’t name this funder, but this was a Jewish-American funder. Okay.

Number two, a board member from another group that was listed called us up and said he loved hearing about this report.

He said, “Man, I hate David Horowitz and the other people mentioned. Please take my name away from this.” I said, “Look. We followed the money trail. It went to your organization. You’re on the board,” and then he paused and he said, “It’s my crazy, right-wing aunt.”

So even within some of these organizations, it’s important to know that there’s discord, okay? There is discord. Also, we know that the Bradley Foundation pulled out of Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy in 2012, which we think was a direct result of Fear, Inc. Another group, Russell Berrie Foundation, has been blasted for its funding of Steve Emerson, and I know for a fact it has caused tremendous dialogue and debate and discord within this organization as well. Two former high ranking government officials, one a senior adviser to President Obama and another Republican adviser to the Bush administration, both told me they hand delivered Fear, Inc. to people in the White House. Specifically, the Obama adviser said it was the only think tank piece he ever saw brought into the White House. Most think tank reports, as you know, die a lonely, miserable death.

The other lesson is the use of grassroots groups and social media communities. We deliberately strategized for this to go outside the academic and Capitol Hill Beltway. That was a major reason for its success. In the second question I’ll answer, I’ll give you exactly why and how we did that.

Finally, connect the dots in plain English. There is no need to use highfalutin’, academic geek speak that no one cares to read or understand. Make it smart. Make it digestible. Use infographics. Make it easy for people to understand.

Final point, and the reason I think it was successful, is we sought alliances. We sought alliances from nontraditional players. We actually worked beforehand with Republicans who were very high ranking, who were disgusted at the time by this extremism that had crept in and now has taken over their party.

Getting multiple messengers worked. Get multiple messengers to carry your water. Oftentimes, this is my own critique, we work in our silos or are paralyzed by an absolutist litmus test that creates certain echo chambers and bubbles in isolated cocoons that ultimately limit our effectiveness.

Question number two: funding from opaque donor-advised funds, Jewish federations and large individual donors always greatly outnumber “the right-wing” funders identified in Fear, Inc. While “right-wing foundations no longer seem to be significant sources of revenue, do you think the Islamophobia outfits will ever lose their far more important backers?”

So for the purposes of today’s conversation, there are many ideologies, interests and footprints in the modern American Islamophobia industry. A large footprint, sadly, and I say this with sadness, belongs to Jewish American groups. I said this in front of Jewish Americans. The Israeli lobby is not monolithic, neither is American Jewry. In fact, most American Jews would be horrified by these politics, but a rather small, but very influential, wealthy, and very committed portion, nonetheless still fund and support these endeavors. Why? I think these two quotes from Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum—you guys all know him, shaking your head—are very illuminating. Here’s a quote from a 1990 [issue of] National Review. “Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned people, cooking strange foods, and maintaining different standards of hygiene. All,”—can’t even make this shit up—“All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most.”

A 2001 speech to the American Jewish Congress: “The increased stature and affluence and enfranchisement of American Muslims will present true dangers to American Jews.”

It’s a zero-sum mindset for some of these people, where the rise of Muslims, and I would say Arabs, and those who look Muslim-y, is somehow directly tied to the marginalization of Jewish Americans and somehow a direct threat to Israel, even though American Jews and Israel are not always, as you know, completely connected. All for nothing, zero-sum, for sake of national security, for sake of supporting counter-jihad, for sake of

“ ”

There are many ideologies, interests and footprints in the modern American Islamophobia industry.

54

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:50 AM Page 55

Wajahat ali: pro-israel organizations, Donors and islamophobia: findings from Fear, Inc.

Courtesy Center for ameriCan progress

Israeli security, for sake of fighting “existential” threats, we must marginalize, limit, humiliate—and for some, eradicate—this violent horde called Muslims or Arabs or the Muslim-ys.

Even the moderate Muslim cannot be trusted, because the moderate Muslim is doing something called Taqiyya. Be honest, who here knows what Taqiyya is? Very few. If you ask most Muslims—I’ve done this, I’ve gone to Muslim majority countries—I say, “What’s Taqiyya?” Most people don’t raise their hand.

They think it’s a new taco released by Taco Bell. Taqiyya sounds delicious. Okay. But Taqiyya was misdefined

by Frank Gaffney in that 2010 report, “Shariah: Threat to America,” as religiously mandated lying, specifically saying that even a peaceful moderate Muslim— we’re not against all Muslims, only the radical Muslims later on— but do you know that all Muslims do Taqiyya and they hide their true agenda? What’s their true agenda? A violent militant jihad to impose a totalitarian ideology of Islam and implement shariah, which they misdefined in a way which was unrecognizable to any Muslim as a military, political, legal doctrine that seeks to supplant the Constitution and make every non-Muslim submit under the sword. Are you guys still with me?

Some rationalize funding the Islamophobia network as helping the Luca Brasis, right? That’s a great Godfather reference— Google it. The people who are willing to do the dirty work, this is a game that’s played in the sewers, we don’t want to do it, but it’s still an existential threat. So, we’re going to empower the Luca Brasi hitman to do the dirty work for us, for security and for defense. An example is Nina Rosenwald of the Rosenwald Family Fund, heiress to the Sears Roebuck wealth, whose father actually used his money to help Jewish refugees. She, however, who is an heiress and a socialite in New York, uses the money to oppress and demonize Muslims through institutions

like Gatestone Institution and funding to the Islamophobia industry. AIPAC giving $60,000 to Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy after that was outed as a hate-mongering group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and even marginalized by the Republicans. We also saw the Israeli ambassador accept an award just a few months ago from Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy. Jewish groups are still funding Pamela Geller, and even the ADL, which knows better, relied on Steve Emerson, who was discredited, to smear Keith Ellison just a few months ago.

This has also gone international, and if I have one thing to say, if anyone has money, I’ve been begging people to do the sequel to Fear, Inc.—the transatlantic connections. Finally, finally, finally this month, people made the financial connections in mainstream papers— New York Times—between the Islamophobia industry and what’s been happening in Netherlands and France and Belgium. You guys have been following the rise of the far right, the death march of white supremacy. Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party of the Netherlands, who just lost in the Dutch elections—yay—who believes we’re at war with Islam, wants to ban Qur’an, wants to ban the mosques, and the Dutch court found him guilty of inciting discrimination.

Nonetheless, David Horowitz, mentioned in the American Islamophobia industry, contributed nearly $150,000 to Mr. Wilder’s party for over two years, of which nearly $120,000 came in 2015, making it the largest individual contribution in the Dutch political system that year. Wilders is “a hero” and a “Paul Revere” of Europe to David Horowitz. Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum has also supported Geert Wilders’ legal fees.

Congressman Steve Israel—excuse me, Steve King of Indiana—said—I didn’t mean to say that, totally didn’t mean to say that. Steve King. Steve King tweeted out recently, “Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny. We May 2017

55

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:50 AM Page 56

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

with The Guardian, and a few writers did as well. It came out. It triggered. It went viral. Okay? It took on a life of its own.

Eli Clifton, co-author, and I had tremendous pushback with including MEMRI in the report, which we thought was a slam dunk. MEMRI, if you don’t know, is the Middle East Media and Research Institute, a Middle Eastern press monitoring agency created by former members of the Israel Defense Forces that supplies translations relied upon by many members of the Islamophobia network. We traced it. That includes Spencer, Pipes, Gaffney, ACT! For America. We found it very strange that we had to prove that it needed to be included even though we found the direct quotes. Around that same time MEMRI had received State Department funding.

Nobody was fired. All of us who worked on Fear, Inc. found out that we could no longer work on Islamophobia or broader Mideast-related topics if we chose to stay there. There was self-censorship.

AIPAC proxies, such as former communication director Josh Block, had ties to senior figures at CAP and, we believe, were able to influence them that these were third rail topics, and we believe at that time they were effective in scaring CAP’s leadership. But at the same time, as you remember, Anders Breivik, the white Christian nationalist in Norway, killed 76 people. He left behind a 1,500-page manifesto, which directly quoted nearly every single person mentioned in the Islamophobia report and shared their ideologies. Slowly but surely, more and more of this became mainstream, and then about three to four to five to six months afterwards, CAP started promoting the piece and owning it.

I am out of time. I had two more quick questions. But that’s my time. I want to respect the time. If you want me to answer it, I will. Five minutes?

Grant Smith: Answer it, and send in your questions.

Wajahat Ali: I’ll finish in three minutes.

Four: will there ever again be positions at mainstream think tanks or news outlets for such work, or should aspiring investigators wishing to follow in your footsteps look for other perches? Why are so few people able to follow?

So this is what I say. Don’t give up hope. You really shouldn’t give up hope. Look. There are 600 people here right now, right? I think opportunities are now there more than ever, especially with Donald Trump in the White House, especially with Steve Bannon

can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.”

Geert Wilders lived in Israel for two years, has visited the country 40 times in the past 25 years. In 2009, he told an audience during a report that, “We in the West are all Israel,” and he has also said that Israel is the West’s first line of defense against what he perceives to be the threat posed by Islam. The good news is, most American Jews are repulsed by this. But the far right is doubling down, especially in the age of Trump, and this is happening across Europe.

Question three in two minutes, I’ll do it. Why did AIPAC hit back so hard against CAP? Why did CAP scrub follow-up reports of Israel funding sources from its website? What do you make of it?

So, I’ll share it for the first time. I can only speculate. While writing Fear, Inc., I can tell you there was a strange pushback within CAP. For example, I know that CAP had a budget to do an all-out press breakfast, something just like this. And by the way, everyone was paid, and there was money left over in the budget.

Are you guys still with me? Okay. But—and by the way, it was supposed to be originally a 25-page report, and when I started my research I told them a great “Jaws” quote, “We are going to need a bigger boat.” After all that, we still had money left over.

I was told by someone senior in CAP the week the report was about to be released that they were going to bury the report on that Friday on a afternoon caller, right before the storm was about to hit in DC. I was literally told, “Wajahat, if you don’t use your networks to push this out, I fear it might just die.” So then I became a marketing outreach guy in addition to researcherwriter, and I used all my grassroots connections, all the NGOs, the think tanks, the leaders in the different communities. I used Facebook and Twitter. I gave people a heads up: it’s coming. I used the online community, blogs, and I also authored an op-ed 56

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 3:11 PM Page 57

Wajahat Ali: Pro-Israel Organizations, Donors and Islamophobia: Findings From Fear, Inc.

as his right-hand person, especially with the fact that they were so transparent and open about their ideologies and their connections. They are so overt with their extremist agenda, you can now just grab and taste it like, um, Islamophobia tastes disgusting, right? And so much so that allies who otherwise were on the sidelines and said, oh, you Muslims and Arabs, you always complain. As a result of the election of Donald Trump, people are saying, you guys were on to something. How can we help? Case in point are the people who came out en masse organically to Dulles, to JFK, to SFO right when the Muslim ban happened and welcomed visitors to our shore. That’s something huge.

I was only partially kidding about Fear, Inc. Remember, I did it like four and a half years ago, five years ago, it was like the most miserable professional experience of my time, took six months of my life. But Fear, Inc. is now more relevant than ever, for better and for worse. Peter Beinart in The Atlantic did two huge pieces that came out last week which essentially let out the same cases of Fear, Inc., right? Atlantic did it. Fox did it.

These are now mainstream talking points. Not just the liberals, not just the progressives, not just Jack Shaheen. It’s not just all of us who are Muslim-y, and the Arabis. It is mainstream international news, especially with the rise of Le Pen in France, with UKIP, and with Geert Wilders.

So this is something, I think, that people should take a lot of heed in, and there is an opportunity and opening here to really play this well strategically, because it’s all out there, right? It’s not a conspiracy theory—I wish it was. And also that level of journalism, and that level of investigative journalism, as we are seeing, is very necessary, and there has been a huge spike in subscriptions and a huge spike in donations when it comes to both local, state and national newspapers doing this work. And the good news is these people are being outed.

And my request, again, for the next two, three years, is someone please fund the research for the transatlantic connection between U.S. Islamophobes and European Islamophobes.

With the refugee crisis not going away, with the death march of white nationalism, I am telling you—hint-hint, wink-wink— there are massive connections. Do Fear, Inc. 2, this will be very helpful.

Final question, many are asking, who is currently backing major Islamophobia campaigns, any updated insights? I know there is a new report, new research coming, I can’t mention the people who are doing it. But it’s still mostly the same nexus of players, but now throw the weight and the power of the White House, and also the resurgence of radical right-wing anti-gov-

ernment groups, radical anti-immigrant groups, and white supremacist groups—who, by the way, not only hate Muslims and Arabs and those who are Muslim-y, but also African Americans, Latinos, women and—not surprisingly, but ironically—they are also very anti-Semitic. This has become intersectional. Hate has become intersectional, which was inevitable.

Keep an eye out for the Jewish Communal Fund, a mainstream philanthropic fund that describes itself as “co-dedicated to the welfare and security of the Jewish community at home and abroad.” It’s a donor-advised fund, meaning donors to the fund deposit money and receive an immediate federal income tax deduction and the fund directs the money to eligible 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organizations. However, “the board of trustees of the Jewish Communal Fund retains the right to deny any grant request where the purposes and activities of the recommended charitable organizations are deemed to be adverse to the interests of the Jewish community.” But, with that, they have given funds to Pamela Geller, David Horowitz Freedom Center, Middle East Forum, Steven Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism, and Frank Gaffney’s CSP. The UJA-Federation of New York holds a “controlling financial interest in JCF.” So, if you look at their mission statement, it seems by funding these groups this is somehow in the interest of the Jewish American community. And there are reports coming out within Jewish American groups, I got a report that I think was still—I can’t talk about it, it’s embargoed. But there are Jewish Americans in New York who are actually pushing these communal funds to stop and to divest from these organizations. Again, it is not mainstream American Jewry. It’s that same small, wealthy interconnected group that is unfortunately doubling down in the age of Trump and I would say—and I’ve said this in front of Jewish organizations—to their detriment.

Last year I was invited to—I was like the first Muslim invited to a synagogue in Florida, this particular synagogue—and I warned them then, they’ll first come after Muslims, they’ll go after undocumented immigrants because they’re the lowesthanging fruit, they’ll go after blacks, they’ll go after Latinos. And that bus and train is never late—they’re going to go after Jews.

And you’re seeing the rise of anti-Semitism in America, and I think there are many Jewish allies now who are waking up and realizing we have to work together against this hate.

I would also keep an eye out on grassroots groups such as ACT! For America. Do not underestimate ACT! For America,

“”

Hate has become intersectional, which was inevitable.

Continued on page 64

May 2017

57

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:53 AM Page 58

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

The Israel Lobby and “Fake Peace Processing” Khalil Jahshan

58

Khalil Jahshan.

Khalil Jahshan: Thank you, Janet. I’d like to begin by thanking IRmep and the American Educational Trust and the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs for organizing this great event for the fourth year, and for inviting me this time to participate in this very specific panel, an important panel, dealing with peacemaking in the Middle East. I have great personal respect for this organization, its founders and current leaders, for their principled positions and unwavering commitment over the years to real, just, and lasting peace in the region. Actually for more than 37 years, since I first came to town and met Dick Curtiss and Andy Killgore. We worked together from the very beginning. So I am indeed personally very honored to be with you today.

On June 5, 2017, in 72 days precisely, the world marks the 50th anniversary of the 1967 occupation by Israel of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza, including Jerusalem. The occupation, initially portrayed by Israeli leaders at the time as a temporary measure, has become clearly, particularly for all those who visit the area—for all practical purposes, it has become permanent.

Of course, notwithstanding the arrogant statement at the time of Defense Minister Moshe Dayan in an interview in 1967, on the last day of the war, on the BBC that became infamous as he displayed his intoxication with his own Pyrrhic victory at the time. He was saying, and I’m quoting him, “We are waiting for a phone call from the Arabs” looking for a peace deal.

Needless to say, the phone never rang, for good reasons and clear reasons. Dayan is no longer with us, but Israel’s military occupation remains as pervasive and as deeply entrenched as ever, to the detriment of Arab, Israeli and American interests alike. Realistic expectation of just peacemaking today has be-

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

PHOTO PHIL PORTLOCK

Janet McMahon: When I first interviewed our next speaker in 1991, Khalil Jahshan was the executive director of the National Association of Arab Americans, or NAAA, which lobbied Congress and the executive branch on behalf of immigrants and their descendants from 21 highly diverse Arab states. A lobby, he explained, must keep track of every decision, every piece of legislation and be plugged into the process on day one.

NAAA’s research arm monitored everything in Washington, Khalil said—hearings, votes, speeches, think tank activities, etc. That’s quite an undertaking.

I didn’t ask at the time, but I suspect that his organization operated on something less than AIPAC’s staff of 451, and annual budget of $89 million. Is that a fair assumption?

Khalil Jahshan: Very fair.

Janet McMahon: Okay. Today Khalil, who was born in Nazareth, Palestine, is executive director of the Arab Center Washington DC, a position he has held since its founding in 2014. He previously was a lecturer in international studies and languages at Pepperdine University, and executive director of its Seaver College Washington, DC internship program. He also has served as executive vice president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, or ADC; vice president of the American Committee on Jerusalem; and national director of the Association of Arab American University Graduates.

Khalil has brought his wealth of experience and expertise to the Arab Center—a nonprofit independent and nonpartisan research center focusing on the Arab world. Those of us who live in the DC area have also benefited from the center’s many excellent and thought-provoking programs on timely and important issues.

One of the issues we seem to hear about incessantly these days is fake news. At this gathering, Khalil will discuss the Israel lobby and fake peace processing. Please join me in welcoming

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:53 AM Page 59

Khalil Jahshan: The Israel Lobby and “Fake Peace Processing”

come an expression of utter naiveté and a total disregard of facts on the ground. The situation in Palestine as we speak today is quite dismal. Most experts agree that the economic—and I’m sure you’ve heard today from different people on the subject— most experts agree that the economic, humanitarian, political and security situation in occupied Palestine is quite untenable.

The protracted dehumanization, internal colonization and dispossession of the Palestinian people cannot be sustained indefinitely. This is not stemming purely in a selfish way from Palestinian analysis or interest, but even some Israeli scholars and officials have come to the same conclusion. As a matter of fact, I was surprised to read an article on Tuesday this week by former Mossad chief Tamir Pardo, no peacenik by any stretch of the imagination, declaring on the 21st of March that, and I’m quoting him, “Israel has chosen not to choose, hoping the conflict will resolve itself. Perhaps the Arabs will disappear. Maybe some cosmic miracle will happen. One day we will become a binational state because it will be impossible to untie the Gordian knot between the two peoples. This is not the way to decide.”

Pardo stated in Haaretz, “Israel has one existential threat, it is a ticking bomb. We have chosen to stick our head in the sand, creating a variety of external threats.” Israel, he concluded, “must deal with the demographic reality and decide which state we want to be. Life”— and I hate that he borrowed from Trump—but “life with alternative facts harbors a disaster for the Zionist vision.” I’m glad he did, actually, because it kind of puts it in terms we’re familiar with in this town. A serious predicament indeed—but who’s responsible for this predicament?

In order to be fair, objectively speaking that is, there is an abundant amount of blame to assign to all the parties to the conflict. One, Israel: Israeli intransigence and insatiable appetite for land, particularly other people’s land—land that does not belong to Israelis—I think has been one of the main reasons for the impediment that we are facing today.

Two, on the Palestinian side, I believe that weak leadership and lack of vision and political will to end Israeli occupation, instead of contributing to it in many different ways, has also contributed to the protracted nature of this predicament.

Three, the Arab world: the Arab world cannot escape some responsibility for what’s happening today, particularly with its current preoccupation with internal narrow interests and collective resignation from the historic Arab commitment to the Palestine cause.

Four, the world community itself, including the United Nations: it has given us more evidence in the past few days, in terms of even refusing to support an internal report by a U.N. agency with regards to discrimination and apartheid in Israel.

Neglecting its responsibilities under international law by the United Nations and its agencies, I think, has also contributed to this predicament.

Last but not least, which is the subject of our discussion today, is the U.S. and U.S. policy. The United States, by losing track of its own national interest, despite the warning that our first president warned us of—not to fall in love or to hate any other nation where you can become a slave to that love or hate relationship and you lose track of your interest—we have done exactly so in that bilateral relationship between Washington and Tel Aviv. By losing track of its own national interest, by reducing itself to a biased active party in the Arab-Israeli conflict, thus, the United States disqualified itself from playing any constructive role in any potential political process, with all due respect to people who are addicted to peacemaking à la U.S. in the Middle East.

As we all know, the U.S. of course is not a newcomer to Middle East peacemaking. The U.S. has been dabbling with trying to find a solution, a political solution, to the Palestine question since 1937—11 years before the creation of the state of Israel. This is one of those unique weird conflicts where peacemaking started 11 years before the actual conflict started, in the sense that the international community began to anticipate trouble brewing in Palestine as they began to talk about ending the [British] Mandate. The Peel Commission was formed and proposed its first partition plan in 1937, followed 10 years later by the other partition plan that was considered by the United Nations.

Arab-Israeli peacemaking, as far as the United States is concerned, has been an American national sport for every U.S. administration since 1948. For those of you who are not aware of the history of peacemaking in the Middle East, the threatened peace plan that is supposed to be released in about three weeks or so—I’ll talk about it in a few minutes—is going to be the number 76, the 76th attempt at resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1937. Many of these plans were American plans that were proposed by almost every administration. You guys might remember. Old-timers remember the Johnson administration, the Carter administration, the Reagan administration, the Rogers Plan. Name it. Every administration since 1948 has had a plan named after its secretary of state.

“ ”

By losing track of its own national interest, the United States disqualified itself from playing any constructive role.

May 2017

59

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:53 AM Page 60

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

“”

Yet, where do we find all these plans? At this huge cemetery of peace processes in the Middle East. It behooves us as students of history, as political activists, as active citizens, as historians, as political scientists to ask why. Why this huge cemetery? Why this dismal failure over the years? As I said, Washington has proposed more peace proposals during this period than any other stakeholder in the conflict. Yet, in practical terms, the American contribution to affecting a peace solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict has been lackluster at best, lacking in vitality, political force, and moral conviction above all.

Since its inception, AIPAC has been the great facilitator, the advocate, the enforcer of Israeli policies and American peacemaking efforts between Israel and Palestine as part and parcel of its, of course, larger agenda dealing with U.S.-Israeli bilateral relationship. AIPAC’s platform on Middle East peace is essentially very simple. Although the organization has been gradually—for those of you who have been noticing—downgrading its commitment to a two-state solution—it has kind of quietly in the past couple of years, the term has disappeared, at least from the front page on the website. It’s still in there, but you have to look for it these days—in order to reflect basically, or out of deference to, change in Israeli policy downplaying, if you will, the two-state solution.

So AIPAC’s lobbying efforts remain focused on essentially, at the risk of oversimplification, I would say a four-pronged approach. One, two states for two people. It’s still there. It’s not the number one priority, but it’s still in the background. But their definition of it is slightly different than most of us in this room, if not all of us. A Jewish state of Israel—Jewish state of Israel—living in peace with a demilitarized Palestinian state. Two, only direct talks between the parties can lead to a real and lasting peace.

Okay, fine. It depends on what you mean by real and lasting peace, but that’s another story.

Three, the U.S. can play an important facilitating role, but it cannot dictate the terms of peace. AIPAC wants to have its cake and it wants to eat it too. It wants the U.S. to dominate the process as the sole legitimate peacemaker in the Middle East, but it doesn’t want it to dictate. I don’t know if Trump will change that. He keeps saying if you pay the bill, you have the right to dictate. But we’ll see. I doubt it.

Four, Arab states must take an active and constructive role by normalizing relations with Israel. This is a very important and dangerous item that was added more recently on AIPAC’s agenda in an attempt to finally kind of liquidate, if you will, the Palestinian cause and replace Palestine as the core of the

Arab-Israeli conflict with basically Arab-Israeli peace; peace between Israel and Arab states, where there is no territorial compromise involved and there is no solution to the Palestine problem, in other words.

Let’s talk just for a couple of minutes about the failure of past U.S. efforts. Why? I think basically as an observer of these series of processes, fake or otherwise, most of them are fake, I could summarize probably the reasons into five main reasons.

One, American lack of even-handedness and bias toward Israel from the very beginning. For various domestic, political, cultural and ideological reasons, Washington is not, has never been, and will never be, a neutral arbiter or mediator in the Arab-Israeli conflict, ladies and gentlemen.

Two, vague objectives with regards to ending Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, establishing a Palestinian state, confronting all the permanent status issues such as boundaries, Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, water. Without these core issues being at the heart of a process, that’s not a genuine peace process. That’s why many of these processes we have seen, they might have started on the right track, but they quickly ended up being fake peace processes rather than realistic ones.

Three, the open-ended and protracted nature of American peace processing lacking clear and enforceable mechanisms and timelines. I missed Hanan’s speech earlier, but she has made this point year after year clearly for many, many years in her book, in her presentations, in her interviews—this absence of mechanisms, enforcement mechanisms, and timetables have been the enemy of peacemaking and negotiations in the Middle East as a negotiator.

Four, consistently allowing Israel to dictate the terms of reference governing the process, and vetoing any attempt, whether by the Palestinians or the international community, to change that pattern. That has dogged us from day one and will continue, I think, unless there is a serious change in policy by whatever party is trying to mediate the conflict in the future.

And fifth, acquiescence to Israeli demands at every difficult juncture in the process. How many times have we seen and witnessed throughout these negotiation processes where the Israelis would say no? It doesn’t matter who it is—Rabin, or Shamir, or Sharon, or Netanyahu. Whenever an Israeli leader comes in and says no, the U.S. tucks its tail between its legs and takes a step back and lowers the ceiling of the terms of reference and the expectation. That has been also detrimental to attempts at peacemaking in the Middle East.

AIPAC has been gradually downgrading its commitment to a two-state solution.

60

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:53 AM Page 61

Khalil Jahshan: The Israel Lobby and “Fake Peace Processing”

PHOTO PHIL PORTLOCK

What’s next? With the rest of the balance of my time, let me just quickly speculate about what I anticipate over the next three or four years—three or four weeks, not years; otherwise, we’ll be here until next week—with regards to the rumored, I call it the Trump-Kushner-Greenblatt plan.

So there is a new one for you.

Number 76, okay?

As all of you are aware, President [Donald] Trump dispatched his envoy to the Middle East peace process, Jason Greenblatt, to the region for about four days to listen, learn and explore—according to the White House—with various sides the potential for resumed American-led process. As if after all these years we still need to listen, to learn, and to explore.

We are told that the White House Energizer Bunny, Mr. Greenblatt—who lacks any diplomatic experience, by the way—convinced the parties of Trump’s seriousness and solicited enough support in principle to justify—they just concluded yesterday—talks secretly held here in Washington between an Israeli security delegation and the administration with regards to what is possible down the road, particularly with regards to settlements. Of course Netanyahu, who is in China, was quick to say no change in settlement policy. So make sure that nobody misunderstands what his delegation did here in town.

In addition, of course, the Arab side has also responded positively to the Trump administration, and you’re going to see a rush of Arab leaders coming to town. King Abdullah of Jordan, after, of course, the Arab Summit in Amman; before is, of course, President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt; and then, of course, Mahmoud Abbas of Palestine to follow by mid-April.

The administration is talking about a draft paper. What’s in this draft paper? Of course, as you know, most plans that Trump has come up with, whether during the campaign or since his arrival at the White House, are still secret. We don’t know any of his plans. He hasn’t announced anything. But there is a draft paper and people in town are talking about it. Let me tell you what I heard through the rumor mill in town as to what it involves and compare that with what I said earlier about the detriments to peacemaking in the Middle East, because it looks like this administration is about to repeat the same mistakes, but maybe in a more intensive way than what we have done over the past 58 years. So there is no change at all.

One, Trump basically in his paper tells his counterparts in the Arab world, and in Palestine, and in Israel, he wants to assure them that he is seriously committed to Arab-Israeli peace and will personally—personally—get involved in the process. If that doesn’t convince you to stay home, I don’t know what will.

That’s the scariest part of the plan.

Two, the paper talks about pursuing sustained security for Israel and a provisional entity. There we are. After all these processes, we’re back talking about, like 15, 20 years ago, a provisional entity for Palestinians, without even a definite article.

Not a two-state solution retreat—because after all he is for one state, two states, whatever you guys want. Hence only, hence in the paper, at working within that framework. I mean, even Oslo did not get that low in doublespeak.

Three, the Palestinians will be promised continued financial and technical support in return for full cooperation with Israel if they end incitement and they resume their counterterrorism cooperation with the U.S. and with Israel. Palestinians will be asked, of course, also, or are being asked in the paper, to cease all—this comes from pressure from Congress, actually—all legal campaigns against Israel in international courts and fora at this time. No complaining about Israeli occupation anymore.

Four, the plan seeks a phased and transitional approach. Not an end of conflict arrangement, another major retreat from previous processes that failed.

Five, the plan expresses general concern about continued Israeli settlements, but falls short of calling for a freeze. Indeed, the Israeli delegation negotiating here in town that I mentioned earlier with the Trump administration talked about “a construction slowdown,” but insisted without distinguishing inside the settlements or outside—sometimes they do that, they go into these May 2017

61

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:53 AM Page 62

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

technicalities—but this time even without bothering to distinguish, just a construction slowdown—but insisted that settlement freeze, particularly in Jerusalem—I’m quoting Mr. Netanyahu and his team here—“is off the table.” So tell me who wags whom?

Six, the Arab Peace Initiative that came a few years back in the early ’90s from Arab sources—the Arab League, Saudi Arabia and so on—the Arab Peace Initiative will be given this time a central role, a central prominence in this plan—in order not again to balance things, but in order to refocus the process away from being focused solely on Palestine, which is the problem at stake. I mean, we’re not going to go have a peace

process about Palestine and discuss Puerto Rico. It’s not relevant. So remove Palestine as the core of the process and put the Arab Peace Initiative instead. My advice to you is to watch the deliberations of the 28th Arab Summit that will be held on the 29th of this month, because that is going to be where the preparation is going to take place before announcing this plan.

Ladies and gentlemen, lots of mistakes have been made. The reasons are very clear to any objective student of peacemaking in the Middle East. Lessons have not been learned. So don’t blame me for not being optimistic about this next plan over the next few weeks. Thank you. ■

Janet McMahon: If people have questions and want to write them on the cards and pass them to the ushers, they’ll bring them up here. I’ll start by asking what might be a very naïve question: What is the origin and the general acceptance of the idea that the U.S. has to be involved for there to be a viable peace process? Where did that come from?

Khalil Jahshan: Arrogance. If you allow me to be frank about it, basically the U.S., in order to assert itself as the protector of Israel, has declared itself many years ago—when peace plan after peace plan was emerging and as Israel kept basically turning down these offers—the U.S. decided to arrogate to itself the role of the sole legitimate peacemaker in the Middle East, and has refused to even allow our closest allies—Europe—whenever the French popped their head, shut up. Carry the dustpan and the broom and clean after us, that’s what Europeans are being told. Unfortunately, they have abided by that. That’s one

of my criticisms of European policy. It has a much more progressive policy on Palestine than the U.S. policy, but they are not willing to take initiative.

The U.S. prevented also the U.N. from doing so and we’re facing the same question today—should there be a peace process over the next few weeks? Again, rest assured that the U.S. will not allow any other party to share in basically directing, if you will, or mediating or participating in the management of that process.

Janet McMahon: Do you think that this idea originated with the Israel lobby or with just the U.S. wanting to be a superpower?

Khalil Jahshan: Frankly, the Israel lobby and its influence— let me tell you something. My first lesson as a lobbyist when I arrived in town, a somewhat still innocent young man, my first meeting with a senator—Sen. [Mark] Hatfield. I was not with any Arab-American organization yet at the time, I was basically

62

PHOTO PHIL PORTLOCK

Questions & Answers

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 3:13 PM Page 63

Khalil Jahshan: The Israel Lobby and “Fake Peace Processing”

serving as an academic advisor to a group of church leaders in this country. I participated with them in advocating for, basically, peace and justice in the Middle East, and they asked me to accompany them as a resource person to a meeting with a series of leaders in Congress.

The late Senator Hatfield of Oregon listened to us and then he asked me to stay after the group decided to leave. I did. He looked at me. He said, “What are you going to do?” I said, “Well, I’m moving to town and I’m going to work on behalf of Arab causes and particularly my cause, the Palestinian cause.” He looked at me like, you know, he established eye contact with me, and he said, “Young man, this is a very difficult task you’re embarking on.” And he said, and I will never forget these words as long as I live, he said, “In this great distinguished institution of the United States Senate, when the Israel lobby says jump, 90-plus of my colleagues say how high? They never ask why.”

So with that type of control, particularly in Congress, you can’t tell where the idea came from—whether it’s volunteered by these people who are more than willing to sell out morally and politically, or from the lobby, or how the two kind of feed, if you will, on each other.

The second point, quickly, the issue of the two-state solution.

Why is it that most of the time in recent history I have a higher percentage of Knesset members in Israel that support the twostate solution than I do in the U.S. Congress of America? Ask yourself that question. We’ve never exceeded 60, 70, 80 members of the U.S. Congress out of 535 in both Houses. Right? In Is-

rael, the number was at 70 or 80 at one point—out of 120. It shifts, and people mean different things, of course, by two states.

They are not all in harmony. But it’s a good question to ask, I think. As American citizens, it behooves us to ask and to understand the answer to that question. Thank you.

Janet McMahon: Let me ask you this final question then. How do we move from conflict management to conflict resolution?

BDS, the Arab Initiative? What other routes are available to us?

Khalil Jahshan: I don’t think so. We haven’t moved yet. It will probably, unfortunately, take much longer to do so. But BDS is a very interesting concept that is having its effectiveness and its impact, at least on the Israeli psyche. Some Israelis have problems [but] support it in terms of targeting the settlements. Some Israelis do not, because they see it as a disguised attempt to boycott all of Israel together. But it’s beginning to have an impact. I mean, today it is not accidental that the prime minister of Israel and most of its national security leaders view the BDS as the number one national security threat to the state of Israel, because it’s exposing it worldwide, in no uncertain terms, to the fact that occupation has got to end, occupation cannot be tolerated. The more clarity there is associated with that, I think, the more effective the campaign would be and the more attractive it would become, particularly here in the U.S. Janet McMahon: Well, thank you very much.

Khalil Jahshan: Thank you.

Janet McMahon: Khalil Jahshan. ■

MEARSHEIMER KEYNOTE: Questions & Answers Continued from page 20

career. What has been the evolution or impact of your book, and your principled and outspoken views, on your career? Has your university been uniformly supportive of your academic freedom?

John Mearsheimer: I think that there’s no question that for both Steve at Harvard and for me at the University of Chicago, we’ve not been punished in any significant way, at either Harvard or at the University of Chicago. Both universities have fully supported our right to speak out on this issue and other issues.

American universities are actually excellent when it comes to freedom of speech issues in almost all cases. Not every case, but in almost all cases. We were taken care of in that regard.

Larry Summers was the president of Harvard at the time, and he defended Steve down the line. The key officials at Chicago did the same with me.

It’s very hard to say exactly how much of an impact writing that book had on our professional lives. I would note that, just in my own case, I’ve written a number of other controversial pieces on controversial subjects that have got me into trouble. For example, I argue that with regard to the present crisis in U.S.-Russian relations, that we—the United States—are principally responsi-

ble for creating that crisis. [APPLAUSE] The Ukraine crisis was not the result of Vladimir Putin’s doing. It had to do with the fact that the West, and especially the United States, were very interested in making Ukraine a Western bulwark on Russia’s doorstep. The Russians had long made it clear that that was unacceptable. It was our policies that led to the crisis.

You can agree or disagree with that, but that view is a minority view. I can tell you there are probably about five people in the United States who believe that. So there are a lot of people who are angry at me for that, right? It’s hard to tell how much of the trouble I have getting speaking engagements here and there, or getting put on this board or that board, is due to the fact that I wrote The Israel Lobby, or due to the fact that I have been controversial on other issues as well. But I think just in general, without going into any details, there are surely a number of opportunities that we were not afforded because we wrote the article and the book.

Janet McMahon: I think we’re out of time. I’m tempted to ask you more questions, but I think we’re on a pretty tight schedule.

So thank you so very much, again. ■ May 2017

63

MAY 2017 ralph 7_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 4:51 PM Page 64

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

ASHRAWI KEYNOTE

ALI

states. You’ll be surprised. And then now, the cycle is completed. We’re going back to all the issues of the functional approach, non-sovereign approach, gradual approach, and so on.

With Greenblatt, I just want to mention quickly-there are two things I cannot skip. The fact that we are not a demographic problem for Israel, please do not accept this. [APPLAUSE] We are a nation with our rights, with our history, with our culture, and we abide by international law. I don’t believe any other country in the world is allowed to discriminate against the people because it wants to maintain the ethnic or religious purity of its own entity at all. So we cannot be a demographic problem to scare the Israelis into giving us our little statelet or state minus, as they say.

Now, they are busy superimposing Greater Israel on historical Palestine. What are the options if they destroyed and they are destroying the two-state solution? Is it the ongoing state of apartheid that exists? Of course, again, they waxed hysterical when people described them as being apartheid. Note what happened to Rima Khalaf. Because now, the U.N. is echoing the language of Israel at the behest of Netanyahu and Danny Danon, and all these people who formulate that language. If the situation will continue then it will run its course as an ongoing perpetual occupation, conflict, extremism. Or are we going to have a qualitative shift? Maybe we need to de-Zionize Israel rather than Zionize the Palestinians.

I have to stop. Okay. I will talk later about what Greenblatt did.

But I wouldn’t hold my breath. Thank you very much. It’s a pleasure. Thank you. [APPLAUSE] ■

especially how they work with local churches in the South and in the Rust Belt. ACT! For America and megachurches—you need a local strategy here. Do not underestimate the power of local pro-active community building, because they are going to their local councilman saying, “Under zoning ordinances, we can’t have this mosque. It’s too loud. Not enough parking.” So zoning is being cited now as a pretext to shut down mosques.

And churches, and church community members who are not malicious people with horns on their heads, you know, with tridents and forked tongues—I went on the campaign trail and talked to many Trump supporters—but they are being fed, deliberately, peddlers of prejudice. You have to fight back against that and appeal to people’s goodwill.

And last thing I’ll finally say is there’s a great quote of the Prophet Muhammad that “even if you see the day of judgment coming, plant a seed.” And many of us think that one of the horsemen of the apocalypse is a Cheeto-colored man with small fingers. But plant a seed. Have hope. I have two kids. Two American born Muslim kids, Ibrahim and Nusaiba, and I refuse to tell them that their legacy will be, “You’ll be a fantastic victim, you’ll always suffer.” I’ll tell them that they can throw down and own the American dream and be a protagonist of the American narrative. And inshallah, when they make it, they’ll look back, and lift up all the other marginalized communities who will also have a stake and a right in the American dream. Thank you for your time.

Grant Smith: Thank you, Wajahat. ■

Continued from page 57

(L-r) Russell Mokhiber, Claire Nader, Delinda Hanley, Ralph Nader and Albert Mokhiber.

64

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

PHOTO JAMILA JOUDEH

Continued from page 42

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:55 AM Page 65

(Advertisement)

Read R ea d

MON DOWEI SS

News N ews & opinion o pin io n y you an ttrust o u ccan rust about Palestine, United a bo ut P alestin e, Israel Israel & the the U n ited States States MONDOWEISS M O N D O W EI S S . N NET ET

E - SUBSCRIBE SU BSCRI BE

FOLLOW F O LLO W

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:56 AM Page 66

KEYNOTE

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

The Value of Viewing Israel-Palestine Through the Lens of Settler-Colonialism Ilan Pappé

PHOTO PHIL PORTLOCK

Dale Sprusansky: Our final keynote is a man who is well known to all of you, Ilan Pappé. As Hanan Ashrawi mentioned earlier today, in an age of alternative facts, I think we can all agree on the importance of being able to discern truth from fiction. While alternative facts may be a new term in American politics, the idea behind it is far from original. As we all know, for decades colonial powers have developed and propagated false narratives to legitimize the subjugation of indigenous peoples.

Like colonists before them, Israel has relied on alt history, a false or distorted account of history, to justify its policy toward the Palestinians. If the so-called conflict is ever going to be resolved, the events that led to the creation of Israel—namely the Nakba— must be reckoned with. This reality, that an honest understanding of the past is necessary to pave a better tomorrow, is the reason we invited historian Ilan Pappé to today’s conference.

Ilan Pappé has written prolifically and with honesty and courage on the history of Israel and the events that facilitated its creation. His 2006 book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, with its painfully honest title, created controversy, but it’s nonetheless a seminal book on this issue. Professor Pappé chose the title knowing that it would be provocative, but that it was also true to the research presented in his book. As I told him at dinner last night, one can say that, in choosing the title, Professor Pappé was being more timeless than timely.

I’m sure as the West slowly comes to better grips with the reckoning of the history of Israel, future generations will find the title of his book progressively less controversial—at least I hope.

Ethnic Cleaning, of course, is just one of many books Professor 66

Pappé has written. He has an upcoming book entitled Ten Myths about Israel, which will be released shortly and will surely be a valuable resource to those looking for a critical and honest assessment of pro-Israel narratives.

Professor Pappé is currently a professor of history and director of the European Centre for Palestine Studies at the University of Exeter in the UK. He was born in Haifa.

Prior to coming to the UK, he was a senior lecturer in political science at the University of Haifa. His keynote today will focus on how an honest assessment of history is necessary in order to resolve the seemingly intractable conflict. Professor Pappé.

Ilan Pappé: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [STANDING OVATION] Thank you. Thank you very much. I’m really honored to be here, and thank you for the warm and empowering reception. I told my dear friend, Clayton [Swisher], that we have traveled farther than anyone else. For me it’s midnight, for him it’s 2:00 in the morning. Yet, we were put at the end of the conference. And we wondered what was the hidden agenda. Either they thought we can wake you up after a very long and exhaustive day. Or they thought that you are sleepy anyway, so you won’t notice the provocations that both of us are going to present to you. So we’ll see which one of the two narratives is valid.

Bill Quandt, in a series of articles in the Journal of Palestine Studies, very cleverly charted what makes an American president’s legacy about Israel and Palestine valid. He pointed to three major factors that inform such a legacy. One is the personality of the president. The second one are the lobbies. By the lobbies, he meant both the AIPAC and the Christian Zionist

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:56 AM Page 67

Ilan Pappé: The Value of Viewing Israel-Palestine Through the Lens of Settler-Colonialism

lobbies. The third group, he called them the professionals—the people who work in the State Department, in the National Security Council, in the intelligence community, and were there not necessarily just because of their political affiliation to the presidency, but also because—at least allegedly—of their professionalism.

He concluded, and I think he is right, that the president’s personality, although it is very important—and I don’t have to tell you this today, he wrote it before he thought that personality could be that important in a president [LAUGHTER]—but he concluded that the personality of the president did not have a huge impact on American policy toward the Palestine question.

It did have some impact, but not a fundamental impact.

He did agree with everyone who spoke before me that the Israeli lobby had a huge impact on American policy toward Israel and Palestine, but also tended to grant or credit the professionals with an equal impact on American policy toward the IsraelPalestine question.

I would like really to focus on that third group, because everyone else was talking about the lobby and I don’t need to repeat the wise words that were already said. In fact, what I’m going to argue today, this afternoon, is that as much as the lobbies are important in affecting and influencing American policy, there is a basic and fundamental misunderstanding of what the conflict in Palestine is all about, including among those American diplomats, pundits, politicians who see themselves champions of Palestinian rights.

The level of—I wouldn’t call it ignorance, because these are very educated well-read people, so ignorance would not be a fair concept here—the level of blindness, or the level of ignorance in the sense of ignoring certain chapters rather than not being able to understand reality, this level is so high that it really makes it impossible, even when you have a period in which the lobbies are not strong or even when you have a president who is more pro-Palestinian than anyone before him. The level, the depths, of that ignorance is so significant that it would not allow the two other factors, even if they are diminished or weakened, to influence fundamentally the American policy and, in association, the reality on the ground.

Now, what is missing? And this is what I would like to point out. What is missing is an understanding of the nature of Zionism, the nature of the Zionist project in Palestine—not as a nostalgic journey into the past, but as a current analysis. The late and amazing scholar of settler colonialism, Patrick Wolfe, said famously that settler colonialism is not an event. It’s a structure.

KEYNOTE

Zionism is not an event. It’s a structure, and it’s a settler colonialist structure. It was a settler colonialist structure in 1882, and it is a settler colonialist structure in 2017.

You don’t appease a settler colonialist project by dividing Palestine into two states. That will never appease the settler colonialist project. The only way to challenge a settler colonialist project is to decolonize the settler colonialist project. This challenge has not been digested by American policymakers, including those who regard themselves as open-minded, balanced—if you want—objective above the situation.

I don’t blame them, because to talk about decolonization in the 21st century is abnormal. Colonialism, in our mind, belongs to the 19th century. Decolonization belongs to the first half of the 20th century. But in the 21st century, if we will not resell or return to these fundamental concepts of colonialism and decolonization, we will not move forward toward a solution in Israel and Palestine.

I will give you examples of how the narrative, the discourse, the conceptual framework of settler colonialism can lead us to a different view on the reality today, not just about the reality in the past. I will begin with something that, even here, I think, is sometimes accepted maybe not intentionally, maybe unconsciously, but is part of the American heritage of dealing with conflicts such as Israel and Palestine.

This is the idea that in Palestine you have a conflict between two national movements, and then everything else comes out of this analysis. If these are two national movements, we have to satisfy both of them. We have to divide the land between both of them. They share responsibility for the conflict equally. We should find a way of satisfying their aspiration equally.

Now, it doesn’t matter, of course, that when you translate this paradigm of parity to a percentage of territory or demography, of course it was never suggested by any mediator—whether they were Americans or non-Americans—that the land would be divided 50/50. That was never in the cards. But even the idea of 22 and 78, or the 55 and 45 of 1947, was based on this false analysis that what you have in Palestine is a genuine struggle between two national movements.

Zionism is not a national movement. It’s a settler colonialist movement. The Palestinians, before they become a nation, they are first and foremost the native indigenous people of Palestine [APPLAUSE] who sometimes chose nationalism as the best vehicle to defend their native indigenous rights, and probably would have to find a different vehicle in the 21st century to protect their rights—much more an agenda of human rights and

“”

Zionism is not an event.

It’s a structure, and it’s a settler colonialist structure.

May 2017

67

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 3:20 PM Page 68

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

Bil’in non-violent activist Iyad Burnat (l) and Ilan Pappé.

civil rights than national rights. Because the national rights have been understood in the world as a wish to have a small bantustan next to Israel, and this is not going to work.

Another point which is important when you use the settler colonial perspective on the situation in Israel and Palestine. A basic American assumption—and not just an American assumption, a United Nations assumption, in fact an international assumption—is that the conflict in many ways began in 1967.

Not because people don’t know what happened before 1967, but because in 1948 the international community through the United Nations legitimized the idea of a Jewish state over 78 percent of Palestine. So even Palestine’s friends advised the Palestinians not to bring the future of the 78 percent of Palestine, namely Israel, into the negotiation. The best, they were told, you can hope for is to have a state over 22 percent of Palestine.

Now this idea that because the United Nations legitimized a state—which is, of course, an important fact which we should never ignore—but this idea of course brings us to a narrative of why there is a conflict which has little relevance or connection to the reality on the ground. The conflict did not start in 1967. The reason that there is still a conflict today is not because of the events of 1967. In fact, our historical research these days shows something many of us who lived in Israel knew anyway, but it was always good to corroborate this by new documentations and archives: that Israel planned the occupation of the West Bank long before 1967.

In fact, from a Zionist perspective, it made no sense whether you were on the left in the Zionist movement or the right of the Zionist movement. It made no sense whatsoever to allow the 68

Transjordanians, namely the Jordanians, to annex the West Bank while the Zionist movement had the military power to take it over. The reason they allowed the Jordanians to annex the West Bank was because they wanted to neutralize the Arab Legion in the ’48 war so that the most efficient Arab army would not be part of the all-Arab coalition. They were supposed to save Palestine from the Zionist conquest.

But in any case, many among the Israeli generals and politicians regretted their decision and from 1948 onwards created a lobby that pushed the Israeli government to seek the opportunity to occupy the West Bank. In fact since 1963—and a book of mine on this will come out in the summer called The Biggest Prison on Earth—since 1963 the Israelis systemically and methodically prepared for the occupation of the West Bank. And Gamal Abdel Nasser provided them the opportunity that they were looking for in June 1967.

The Israelis were very well prepared for taking over the West Bank. They already had the military rule imposed on the Palestinian citizens in Israel. All they had to do was transmit this military rule from Israel itself and impose it on another group of Palestinians. But maybe even more important, if you understand Zionism as settler colonialism and Israel as a settler colonial state, you understand that any depiction of the Israeli society as being torn between two camps—a liberal camp that wants to withdraw from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and believes in a two-state solution, and an intransigent, inflexible camp, a war camp that does not want to give up the territories— this depiction is true only as far as the general public is concerned, but is not relevant to the DNA of the Israeli political, military and strategic elite. They are united, and they were united since 1967, in their determination to do all they can to keep the West Bank as part of Israel and find ways of not incorporating the population that lives there. And they had a similar strategy toward the Gaza Strip as well.

The peace process was not born in Washington. It was born in Tel Aviv as a means of creating this charade of an internal Israeli debate that brings hope for anyone who believes that these two national movements could be coached through the intervention of a mature mediator into a reasonable peace treaty; one that you can easily find in a textbook in the political

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

PHOTO PHIL PORTLOCK

KEYNOTE

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:57 AM Page 69

Ilan Pappé: The Value of Viewing Israel-Palestine Through the Lens of Settler-Colonialism

science departments in American universities which is drawn from the world of business where, as Madeleine Albright used to put it, everything visible can be divisible. So you divide land, demography. She warned us when she was the secretary of state that everything which is invisible is indivisible; namely, don’t talk about justice, morality, the refugee problem, the nature of Zionism and the nature of the state of Israel because there is nothing we, who learned this in the departments of business and political science, can offer in front of such realities.

What can be done in order to move forward the discussion so as to address the mismatch between the discourse that we have been using for years about the conflict, its origins, its nature, the reasons for its continuation? How do we move from this mismatch to a conversation, at least a conversation that is far more relevant to the reality on the ground?

In every passing day with these unilateral Israeli policies on the ground, you don’t even need to talk to people about settler colonialism because the one Israeli state is already there.

The one apartheid state of Israel came into being around 2001, but maybe we haven’t noticed that. But it’s there. It is there and it’s going to be more and more legalized as an apartheid state with every passing day. If we will continue to talk about a two-state solution, if we will continue to talk on the basis of the assumptions of the previous peace process, there is nothing we could do to change that reality, in which six million Palestinians would continue to live under an oppressive regime in various forms.

So what can we do? One thing I think, and I know it’s difficult for some people, is to realize that the two-state solution is dead.

[APPLAUSE] Many of us still sleep with the two-state solution, but you are sleeping with a corpse. Many of us still dine with the two-state solution, but you are sleeping with a dead body. It’s time to go to the morgue together and watch together the corpse of the two-state solution. Hopefully we will all be invited to the funeral so that we can get over it and move on. [APPLAUSE] Secondly, and not less importantly, we should understand that decolonization is not a process that can be forced from the outside. What you can force from the outside is the end of occupation, the end of oppression, the end of the atrocities that are done in the name of apartheid. But you cannot force reconciliation between the settlers and the natives from the outside. But as long as you are not sending the message—as we did send the message to apartheid South Africa that the end of apartheid is a precondition for a process of reconciliation, whereas, in

KEYNOTE

Palestine we always said reconciliation first, and then the end of apartheid—as long as we don’t send this message either as a civil society or as a political and intellectual elite, we will continue to have this mismatch between the way we talk about the reality and the way the reality unfolds on the ground.

I think this clearer division of labor between the outside and the inside from the perspective of decolonization—not from the perspective of a peace process, from the perspective of decolonization—it has to be urgently adopted by anyone of us who is either a student of the conflict or is involved in it or is interested in it or wants to show solidarity with its victims. Because if we in the universities, in the press, in the political arena, if we will not use the right dictionary and the right language to describe what goes on on the ground, then we will continue to provide an umbrella of immunity to the settler colonial state of Israel to try and complete what it started in 1948—namely, to have as much of Palestine as possible with as few Palestinians in it as possible.

Believe me, I know what I’m talking about. I was born in Israel in 1954. I’m a product of the Israeli education system.

Probably not a very good product of the Israeli educational system [LAUGHTER], quite a flawed product of that system.

But there is sometimes someone who was part of that system, who was indoctrinated in this system, when you hear the discourse abroad about the possibilities that are open in the Jewish society for change, when you hear that there is a twostate solution around the corner somewhere in the globe, you find it very frustrating, because in your daily experience you know how far away from the reality is this conversation.

Now, analyzing correctly does not mean that it will be an easy ride forward. I’m finishing. Analyzing or having the right analysis doesn’t mean that the prognosis would be easy. I’m not going to say here that the move into decolonization, into probably the path on a one-state solution—with various models that are possible—is an easy journey. It is as difficult as any journey we have to take as a human society when we face an indoctrinated racist society that has to be deprogrammed. It has to be decolonized in the mind before we can decolonize it on the ground.

The only thing I’m saying is that for 50 years now we didn’t even try to do that because we claimed that the only urgent need we had was to convince the Israeli society to give up the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and then we can lead to the path toward reconciliation and peace. Well, this was a waste of time. This was a waste of energy. Fifty years are a lot of time in a peace process that was based on the wrong assumptions and had reaped the bitter fruits that anyone with his eyes in his head

“”

Many of us still sleep with the two-state solution, but you are sleeping with a corpse.

May 2017

69

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 3:22 PM Page 70

KEYNOTE

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

could have seen were the only possible consequence of such a misconception and misunderstanding of what the conflict is about.

Finally, I would say this. Nothing of what I said can materialize without, of course, a new unification of the Palestinian political scene. We need a different Palestinian thinking. We need a

united authentic representation of the Palestinian people, which we don’t have today, that should give us the lead. We will have to get rid eventually of the existing political structures in Palestine in order to be able to lead us, settlers and natives together, into a future that has normal life in it, as you and other people in the world enjoy. Thank you. ■

PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

Questions & Answers

Dale Sprusansky: Thank you very much. Most of the questions here revolve around one point here, and that’s what exactly a one-state solution would look like. So one person asked, what happens to the Palestinians? Another asked, how do Israelis, settlers, Palestinians and refugees coexist? What happens in that first day, week, year, or decade?

Ilan Pappé: Right. Well, building a different political structure from the one you have is a long journey. Any attempt to answer all these questions would be wrong, because first of all, as I said, you have to remove the one conversation that does not allow you to invest the same energy as you have invested in the last 50 years in the wrong solution. So I would say two points about this.

One is, as I think there is already a one-state solution, we 70

don’t need to build a one-state solution. What we need is to change the regime of that one state. We need to make it a democracy, because now it is not a democracy. Now, you build it by a slow movement from below and not by big revolutions, as the Arab world has learned unfortunately and painfully in the last six or seven years.

It is time, I think, for academics, pundits, and people who have the time and the energy to try and begin to build models of a joined curriculum, a joined judicial system, a joined political solution for questions of symbolism such as names, the identity of the state and so on. I don’t think it’s time for a political movement to do it as yet. It’s too premature. I’m just saying we have to start this conversation.

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:58 AM Page 71

Ilan Pappé: The Value of Viewing Israel-Palestine Through the Lens of Settler-Colonialism

There are more and more movements from below that define themselves as a one-state movement. We talked about the BDS a lot today. But there’s also an ODS, the One Democratic State movement from below. Now this group of people— whether they are activists, whether they come from different walks of life—begin to give answers to the questions that you are asking. But I think more than anything else—I’m always surprised when I’m sort of re-listening to John Kerry’s last speech.

If you remember, in a very dramatic voice he explained to us that without a two-state solution, the only possible scenario is an apartheid Israel. I wanted to say, hello, John. How are you?

I’m looking up [LAUGHTER]. The one-state apartheid is already there, so your warning is not about the future. You’re actually describing the present.

Secondly, couldn’t you find one moment in your speech, maybe two sentences in your speech, to say that actually having a democratic state for Jews and Palestinians between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean is not a doomsday scenario? Couldn’t you just say, wouldn’t it be wonderful to have settlers and natives living as equal citizens in the same state? Why do you have to describe this as a doomsday scenario?

The only people in the world who would describe this as a doomsday scenario are Zionists. Because they think that when the Jews are not the majority, the only possible thing Palestinians can do is to kill them.

Well, I lived in Haifa all my life. I lived in the Galilee. I was in political outfits and academic outfits where the Jews were the minority and nothing bad happened to us. The idea that Palestine cannot be a political outfit if the Palestinians are the majority and the Jews are the minority is a racist idea that should be challenged strongly. [APPLAUSE] Dale Sprusansky: A question about the role of the Palestinian Authority in an official rather than a de facto one state. How would the Palestinian Authority go about disbanding? What would that look like?

Ilan Pappé: I think, anyway, Israel is going to eventually disband the PA, so it’s not my agenda. Exactly? I’m not a prophet, I don’t know exactly how it will unfold. But I have no doubt that the way Israeli politics is going, and the way American politics is going, and the decreasing level of interest in the international community about Israel and Palestine—given all of these factors, I have very little doubt that there will be a moment where the reality that already unfolded—namely that Israel controls the

KEYNOTE

West Bank and in many ways controls the Gaza Strip, despite what the Hamas may feel—that this de facto reality would be declared as a de jure deep reality.

There’s one interesting and significant development in the West Bank that people have not noticed. In the last few months Israel has removed half of the checkpoints in the West Bank.

When I noticed that, I said, is it because an American president is coming? Because the last time they did it was before Obama’s visit. Then they returned the checkpoints two days after he left. No. They have removed most of the checkpoints from Area C because they regard Area C, which is 55 percent of the West Bank, as part of Israel, and they don’t want Israelis to move around a state which has checkpoints. It doesn’t look nice. It doesn’t feel nice. So the checkpoints are only in Area A and B and between Area A and B and C. Now the next step is to do the same for Area B. Maybe Area A would remain, Greater Ramallah, as a Palestinian enclave. I doubt whether at that moment in time there would be enough Palestinians to say this is what we were fighting for, a nation state in Area A. I’m very blunt with you because I think I don’t want to spend another wasteful year of talking the wrong language about a reality that I know very well and this language has nothing to do with that reality.

So it’s not a matter of saying the PA should go or shouldn’t go. The PA belongs to a narrative and a story that has nothing to do with the reality on the ground, and that story is going to change. In fact, it’s already changing. It’s just a matter of when people are willing to use the right words to describe a reality that they don’t like, for various reasons, to acknowledge.

Dale Sprusansky: A couple of questions about BDS. One person asked if BDS is the only way to achieve decolonization and what are the possible outcomes of the movement.

Ilan Pappé: Well, I think one thing we shouldn’t do is confuse BDS with a vision. We need the Palestinians to redefine what the liberation of Palestine means in the 21st century. We cannot rely on nostalgic ideas of the 1960s. Neither do I think the political Islamic movements have a vision that is going to work. So we need a redefinition of the Palestinian liberation project.

Sometimes people I think confuse the means, which is the BDS, with the need to rethink the vision—the project of liberation.

However, as I said before, the outside world cannot be indifferent to the suffering of the people just because we are in this limbo between a project, the two-state solution, that is irrelevant

“ ”

We don’t need to build a onestate solution. What we need to change is the regime of that one state.

May 2017

71

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 3:24 PM Page 72

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

committed in 1948—expelling half of Palestine’s population, demolishing half of Palestine’s villages, and destroying almost all the Palestinian towns apart from Nazareth.

Yes, I agree this is difficult. But I think what is important to understand is that ethnic cleansing is a paradigm as much as settler colonialism is. The Israelis perfected the notion of ethnic cleansing and adapted it to the 21st century much better than any other political movement that I know in history. For instance, they found out that actually you can achieve the same goal of having a space without the people in it by not allowing people to leave the place in which they live. You don’t have to expel people from villages. You can enclave them. You can siege them in villages and you get the same result; namely you don’t have demographically to include the enclaved, imprisoned, incarcerated people in your demographic balance, which is the most important thing for a settler colonial state.

Even liberal people around the world somehow agree that Israel has the right to talk in these racist terms, as if this is acceptable. So you don’t need massive expulsion in order to annex Area C, for instance. And they’re already doing it. I don’t know how many of you have been to ’Anata, how many of you have been to the Shuafat refugee camp, how many of you have been to Tulkarm—a whole town that is surrounded by a fence with one gate to the town in the hands of the Israeli soldiers. It’s a big jail, and the only reason people are incarcerated in this jail is because they are Palestinians—for no other crime.

Now this is the model Israelis of the left like, because they are against expulsion. They’re against expulsion. They say expulsion is the Israeli right-wing notion. Our notion is separation or, as they call it in Hebrew, hafrada, which means in English “apartheid.” Hafrada—segregation, more literally. We really believe that it’s much better for the Palestinians to be incarcerated, enclaved in homogenic Palestinian areas. They don’t even need Green Lines, the Palestinians, because they’re not the Western modernized society. We can keep it forever like this because we have hundreds of thousands of Israelis who are part of the police state—this is not an occupation—that manages the colonization of Palestine whether it is in the Naqab, in the Galilee, in the Gaza Strip, or in the West Bank.

There’s no need for mass expulsion. You have built an amazingly big apparatus that so many Israelis are involved in that you have the manpower to police daily the control over six million Palestinians within the one state that you have created 15, 16 years ago, and still even sell this to the world as a democracy that unfortunately had to occupy a certain area, but of course is just looking for the right Palestinian partner to get it PHOTO PHIL PORTLOCK

KEYNOTE

and is not going to work and—as I said—is in the morgue for a few years but we haven’t noticed. And a new project we will take quite a while to build, because we need the unification of the Palestinian side, we need more authentic representation.

We need a lot of things to happen for us to be on the road toward this new vision.

But we don’t have the luxury of remaining idle and indifferent while the clock of destruction, which is faster than the clock of reconstruction, is working. Therefore, the BDS is so important because the BDS is there to say, yes, there is a void of leadership. Yes, there is a chaotic moment in history where there is no peace process and there’s no alternative to that peace process.

But that doesn’t mean that we, as the international community, have nothing to do and can do nothing in order to stop the suffering of the people on the ground.

The greatest thing about the BDS was that it introduced to us again the two groups that the Oslo process brutally excluded from the future of Palestine—the Palestinian refugees and the Palestinian minority in Israel. [APPLAUSE] And we should be thankful to the BDS for reminding us that the people of the West Bank and the people of the Gaza Strip are only half of the Palestinian people and that these two territories are only 22 percent of Palestine. You don’t cure an illness by dealing with the hand if the whole body is ill.

Dale Sprusansky: Earlier today, in his keynote, [Prof. John] Mearsheimer suggested that the idea of an expulsion is unlikely.

But lots of people here seem to be worried about it, because I’m getting lots of questions about this. So one person asked, what exactly is stopping another mass expulsion? One person says, Netanyahu realizes the two-state solution is dead, but doesn’t want one state with Palestinians, so what’s stopping him from trying that again as in ’48?

Ilan Pappé: I think that John was right in the sense that it’s difficult to envisage an ethnic cleansing on the scale that Israel 72

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 3:26 PM Page 73

ilan Pappé: the Value of Viewing israel-Palestine through the lens of settler-Colonialism

Photo Phil Pasquini

back to them. We are still hearing this bullshit today, unbelievably. [APPLAUSE] Thank you.

Dale Sprusansky: A question about terminology here. One person says, why didn’t you choose to label the Palestinians’ suffering as genocide instead of ethnic cleansing? This person contends that Palestine is a classic example of the U.N.’s definition of genocide.

Ilan Pappé: Because I think there is a difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing. I did use the term genocide for Gaza. I called it incremental genocide. This was reiterated by the United Nations report last year that talked about the de-development of Gaza in 2020, which means the Gaza Strip is under such circumstances that massive death of people and young people is inevitable. So it becomes an incremental genocide. But for me, genocide is also a term that talks about intention and ideology and racism.

Now there is a kind of in between, but that’s a bit too scholarly and I don’t like to use it in the world of activism. But I’ll do this.

There is something in between the term of genocide and ethnic cleansing that, again, if I’ll refer to Patrick Wolfe, who I men-

KEYNOTE

tioned before. For those of you who haven’t read his work, I really recommend this. He has an amazing article called “The Logic of the Annihilation [sic] of the Native.” As I said, it’s 2:00 in the morning for me, so maybe it’s not annihilation. Where is Andrew? Andrew, are you there?

Continued on page 81

(Advertisement)

May 2017

73

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 4:03 PM Page 74

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

Excerpts From and Comments on Al Jazeera’s Investigative Series “The Lobby” Clayton Swisher

PHOTO PHIL PORTLOCK

Grant Smith: Clayton Swisher is an American journalist and author, and he’s currently working as director of investigative journalism at Al Jazeera.

He’ll be our final speaker.

He’s a former Marine reservist and federal criminal investigator. I know you’re going to have a lot of questions for him, so please make our ushers— Sebastian, Adrian and Sapphire—work hard for their final half hour.

Swisher ’s first book, The Truth About Camp David, was published to extremely favorable reviews in Foreign Affairs. In 2011 he used his investigative skills to secure 1,600 confidential documents of the IsraeliPalestinian negotiations. He broke these for Al Jazeera in what became known as the “Palestine Papers,” the largest ever leak of confidential documents related to Israel-Palestinian negotiations. His second book is the Palestine Papers: The End of the Road.

In 2016 Mr. Swisher managed a six-month undercover investigation that produced Al Jazeera’s amazing four-part series called “The Lobby,” including on AIPAC’s activities in the UK, the Israeli Embassy’s interaction with allegedly independent pro-Israel groups, and unfounded accusations of antiSemitism lodged against Labour Party members, including efforts to take down UK lawmakers deemed hostile to Israel. His series, this investigative journalism, led to the resignation of Shai Masot—a senior political officer at the Israel Embassy— and a full apology by the Israeli ambassador for what had taken place.

What we want to do in this last section is get as many questions to Clayton as possible. He’s going to stand here and answer every single one of them in the time we have left. But 74

we’re going to roll—I don’t want to impersonate him here—we’re going to roll a couple of clips that we’ve selected from his investigative series. Can we do that?

[Selected Clips From “The Lobby”] Excerpts from Part 3: An Anti-Semitic Trope Joan Ryan, Labour Friends of Israel/Jewish Labour Movement demand an investigation of fellow Labour Party member Jean Fitzpatrick.

Jean Fitzpatrick: I was actually seeking some reassurance that a two-state solution, if that’s what they were promoting, was still possible.

Joan Ryan: This is a big picture situation, and we want a two-state solution that is good for all.

Jean Fitzpatrick: No, I know, you’ve said that a number of times, but what steps—because the Labour Party is saying…

Joan Ryan: Well, I’ve told you what steps we’re taking. I’m not going to defend or criticize…

Jean Fitzpatrick: But it seems you are defending Israel.

Joan Ryan: I would defend Israel. I defend Israel’s right to exist. I defend Israel as a democracy and a social democracy.

Jean Fitzpatrick: But at what expense?

Joan Ryan: I think we have to be very, very careful not to let our feelings about this morph into anti-Zionism.

Jean Fitzpatrick: So no feelings come into account? No, I’m not being anti-Zionist…

Joan Ryan: You have to be very careful, I think. Don’t we all want a two-state solution based on coexistence and peace?

Jean Fitzpatrick: But I’m asking you how you are bringing about…

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:59 AM Page 75

Clayton Swisher: Excerpts From and Comments on Al Jazeera’s Investigative Series “The Lobby”

PHOTO COURTESY AL JAZEERA

Joan Ryan: So you make your effort and we make ours. Thank you, Jean. I’ve enjoyed the conversation. I’m leaving it there.

Jean Fitzpatrick: No, no, I’m asking you about settlements…

Joan Ryan: Well, I’m not answering it anymore.

Jean Fitzpatrick: …they’ve totally atomized the whole of the West Bank. I’m asking you. I’m really genuinely interested how a two-state solution…

Joan Ryan: I’m just working for a two-state solution.

Jean Fitzpatrick: But how can it come about if the whole of the West Bank is atomized?

Joan Ryan: We’re trying to do everything we can to support and facilitate that solution.

Jean Fitzpatrick: Okay. But in practical terms?

Joan Ryan: That’s what we’re doing as Labour Friends of Israel, that’s what you’re doing as Palestine Solidarity Campaign. That’s good, isn’t it?

Jean Fitzpatrick: No, but I’m asking in terms of, if the West Bank is atomized, where will the state be? That is a genuine, genuine question. Where will the state be?

Ilan Pappé: The activist who came to ask her tough questions about the settlements, actually, that was the main point.

She didn’t ask her about Judaism or the existence of Israel.

She just wanted a straight answer, how does anyone who supports Israel justify the settlements?

Jean Fitzpatrick: We go over there, we witness. But nothing changes.

Jean Fitzpatrick: I was quite interested in whatever funds they had and influence they had—how would this bring about a two-state solution? That was my very basic question.

Jean Fitzpatrick: You’ve got a lot of money, you’ve got a lot of prestige in the world.

Joan Ryan: I don’t know where you get that from.

Jean Fitzpatrick: Sorry?

Joan Ryan: Labour Friends of Israel have got a lot of power, a lot of money.

Jean Fitzpatrick: Well, I think so. That’s what I hear, that it’s a stepping stone to good jobs. A friend of mine’s son’s got a really good job at Oxford University on the basis of having worked for Labour Friends of Israel.

Joan Ryan: If you just believe rumors, then I— Jean Fitzpatrick: It’s not a rumor. It’s a fact.

Joan Ryan: It’s anti-Semitic.

Jean Fitzpatrick: No, it’s not anti-Semitic. It’s not.

Joan Ryan: It’s anti-Semitic. It is. It’s a trope. It’s about conspiracy theorists. Sorry. It is. Anyway, that’s my view. I think we’ll have to agree to differ.

Jean Fitzpatrick: No, I don’t think we do have to agree to differ.

Joan Ryan: Well, I’m agreeing to differ. I am ending the conversation, because I am not really wishing to engage in a conversation that talks about getting involved with this, then you get a good job in Oxford or the city. That is anti-Semitic. I’m sorry.

Reporter: That evening, at a rally to combat anti-Semitism organized by the Jewish Labour Movement, Joan Ryan described her day at the stall.

Joan Ryan: We have also brought three incidents of antiSemitic harassment on our stand, to the people who are staffing that stall today. That, I think, tells you something about why we need to be having this Against Anti-Semitism rally.

Reporter: By the following day, word had spread about Jean’s exchange at the LFI stall.

Jean Fitzpatrick: I am very shocked about the way she described my words to other people. I feel very anxious, in that she should be misinterpreting me, totally, to other people. I find that very, very worrying—going from my comment, which it was, to then saying he got a big job in banking, maybe she believes her own trope.

Reporter: After Jean had left the conference, she was contacted by a Labour Party investigator. He would only say that it was about a serious incident.

Jean Fitzpatrick: I was thinking, had I seen a fire take place? Had I seen someone throw a bottle? Had I seen a fight break out? I was really racking my brains, thinking what incident had I seen, was I aware of, was I witness to something?

Almost by return, came an e-mail that it was my conduct that was being investigated. I was totally shocked. That was like a real bombshell.

May 2017

75

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 3:59 PM Page 76

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

PHOTO COURTESY AL JAZEERA

Joe Richards: Today we are a pretty robust organization where we have one single mission, which is to make sure that the United States and Israel remain very close together in their relationship, in many different ways. The way we do that is by relationship building with our 535 members of Congress—100 in the Senate, 435 in the House.

Reporter: AIPAC’s guests explained to Robin their interest in Britain.

Male Voice: The real strategic goal is to get the UK to behave more like the U.S. than Europe when it comes to Israel. Pull them, tug them into the U.S. sphere— Reporter: By this point, Robin was well aware of the Israeli diplomat’s close ties with America’s pro-Israel lobby.

Shai Masot: I went to AIPAC last year, because I organized the American-British delegation to AIPAC. It was me and the British donors, which is around 30, 40 rich families who also sponsored the CFI. The Conservatives with us, and some from the Labour as well, and we all went together to AIPAC. But the bottom line, we have a donor meeting with the head of strategy at AIPAC. He met us basically to teach us, you know, and give us some ideas for Britain.

Reporter: Shai then announced another audacious plan, involving a front company set up by the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, whose mandate is to fight BDS. Shai Masot: So the Strategic Affairs, they asked me, they are establishing a new company, a new private company that basically will work for the Israeli government. It’s like a kind of outside company, whatever.

Reporter: The Ministry of Strategic Affairs has called it a secret war, potentially involving what this prominent Israeli reporter described as dirty tricks.

Yossi Melman: When I say dirty tricks, they can smear people, activists, BDS activists, or others. They can hack their emails in order to collect information about what they are up to.

They can, you know, trash people.

Shai Masot: It’s going to be an office of 20 people, so the position that they suggested to me to do is to be the liaison for the international communities around the world. So it’s good sometimes, because it’s good to work with AIPAC and all the others, the CFI and LFI, it’s cool, it’s good. The last position that I applied for, that there is a slight chance that I will get it, actually, is to be the head of the Foreign Affairs Department of the Intelligence Department in Israel. I’m not a career diplo-

Excerpts from Part 4: The Takedown AIPAC UK meeting: Israeli Embassy’s Shai Masot on a new private Israeli front company and taking down Sir Alan Duncan, minister for foreign and Commonwealth affairs.

Reporter: By now the senior political officer at the Israeli Embassy had become a trusted confidant of our undercover reporter.

Male Voice [in front of store window]: I really like it.

Shai Masot: That’s quite funky.

Male Voice: Yeah. I like it.

Shai Masot: I’d rather go for this one, yeah.

Reporter: Shai invited Robin to attend a meeting organized in part by the City Friends of Israel, a group he earlier said that he was establishing.

Female Voice: It seems like you get along with the Israelis.

You have this thing with Israelis. You’re very quick to get along. That’s amazing how you do that.

Reporter: Maria Strizzolo was also there. Discussion turned to Donald Trump.

Shai Masot: So he’s an unpredictable person. The only thing that you know you can, from Israel’s perspective, you can think that this guy is steady in this area, the fact that his daughter is Jewish. She converted to Judaism.

Reporter: The meeting had been coordinated with AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, perhaps Washington’s most powerful lobby group. It is not widely known that AIPAC has a presence in London.

Male Voice: As a European and somebody who lives in the Western world and enjoys its individual freedoms, I also view—and I hope most of you do as well—I view Israel as the battleground where modernity and Western values meet the forces that want to destroy that way of life.

Reporter: Joe Richards from AIPAC’s Wall Street division summed up their operations.

76

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 4:01 PM Page 77

Clayton Swisher: Excerpts From and Comments on Al Jazeera’s Investigative Series “The Lobby”

mat. I am a political posting, which means I came for just one position, to assist in political issues that are specific. Sometimes you need someone to take care just of them, to be focused on them. That’s what I do.

Reporter: At ease, and with the trust of his dinner companions, Shai floated the idea of a parliamentary plot.

Shai Masot: Can I give you some MPs that I would suggest you would take down?

Maria Strizzolo: Well, you know, if you look hard enough, I’m sure that there is something that they’re trying to hide.

Shai Masot: Yeah. I have some MPs. Maria Strizzolo: Well, let’s talk about it.

Shai Masot: No, she knows which MPs I want to take down.

Maria Strizzolo: Yeah, it’s good to remind me.

Shai Masot: The deputy foreign minister. [Sir Alan Duncan is minister of state for foreign and Commonwealth affairs. He has been critical of Israel’s policy on illegal settlements in the West Bank.]

Male Voice: This exchange between the political officer of the Israeli Embassy and a parliamentary staffer about taking down, is the phrase used, Alan Duncan is outrageous. It’s shocking. This is clearly a deliberate attempt by a foreign government to interfere in the workings of British democracy and to secure the destruction of the career of a minister in the British Government.

[End of Selected Clips From “The Lobby”]

fluence campaign, Astroturfing, setting up NGOs that are Friends of Israel but actually they are funded by the embassy or created by the senior political officer of the embassy—who they tried, after they threw him under the bus, to pawn him off like he was a summer intern or something—just imagine what the hysteria would be.

It actually was kind of painful when I tried to imagine what would the reaction be in America, because they really got their backs up in Britain over this. They know where this ends.

They know which direction the AIPAC train goes, and they don’t want that to happen in their country. Incidentally, that’s why the Ministry of Strategic Affairs sees London as ground zero, and that’s why they were, I think, probably very careless—I think they’d even acknowledge that—and arrogant to a degree, in how aggressively they were doing this—because it’s lost ground to them. Here, it’s friendly. They don’t need to be so brazen, in some respects. So if you do watch it, just imagine if this was another country, particularly—I’ve been abroad for 10 years, but every time I look at the news here, it’s hyperventilation about Russia and etc. Just imagine if Russia was doing this, what would be said.

The clips that were selected by the organizers, that was Jean Fitzpatrick and her very painful experience. It was the first Labour Party conference she went to, and it ended in her spectacular scene that, by the grace of God, our camera captured. By the way, it was interesting to note that they accused us later of cooking that up, which was part of the smear that follows a production like this. But Jean Fitzpatrick had this exchange with an MP, Joan Ryan. Just moments before, if you watch the film, Shai Masot from the Israeli Embassy was talking to Joan Ryan about giving £1 million to the Labour Friends of Israel. So her assertion that they have a lot of money was really—and the newspapers in Britain described the LFI as powerful.

So how does she go from zero to anti-Semitic, it’s a very painful thing to have to go through. For activists in Britain, imagine if we hadn’t exposed that. She probably would never have gone to an event again. It took some great degree of convincing to get her to talk about this. First to find her, and then to get her to talk about this. She was hurt by the whole thing.

These are some of the tactics that they use to reputationally kneecap you from discussing the issue. Apart from being morally outrageous, it’s offensive on so many levels in that re-

“ ”

Just imagine if this was another country. Just imagine if Russia was doing this, what would be said.

Clayton Swisher: Thank you very much. I’d like to thank the organizers for giving this film some more attention. It was put out by Al Jazeera in January. At the outset, I should say that we had an incredibly courageous and daring undercover, Robin, if you see the film. All four parts you can get on YouTube. He really kept his cool and his wits, and it was extraordinary journalism as a result. Yeah, I had a great team that worked on it.

I’m happy to be here and answer any questions that you guys have. I thought at the beginning, I don’t want to have too many remarks, because I think it’s late in the day and actually it would be good to get to your questions.

If you do watch the series and, just for a moment, go through the intellectual exercise of removing the word Israel and thinking, if this was any other government, if they are behaving in such a way, doing a brazen broad daylight covert in-

May 2017

77

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:59 AM Page 78

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

gard. Actually it diminishes the actual scourge of anti-Semitism when you just throw that around casually because you don’t like the questions you’re getting on the two-state solution.

So to the credit of the Labour Party, they actually exonerated her. We interviewed her after, and you’ll see in the film, she shared with us the investigator’s letter clearing her. So

due process did work in that case, and we thought it was important to include it in the film.

I think we should just go to some questions because I know many of you have seen the film. If you haven’t, you can see it on YouTube. Just type in “Al Jazeera The Lobby,” and all four parts are there. ■

Grant Smith: There is a great comment. I guess they want you to respond to this. It says: “How quickly the British government dismissed and ‘forgot about’ this offense after the Israeli apology. Is any government agency pursuing this, to your knowledge?”

Clayton Swisher: Yeah, a few people have asked that. It was not covered up in Britain—I can tell you, I stayed there the whole week it went to air. It was on the front page of several newspapers. It was in every single British newspaper. The day the story broke—BBC, the establishment media, Sky, ITN— there were satellite trucks in front of the Israeli Embassy live, particularly because of the threat to take down Sir Alan Duncan. So they did not paper over that at all.

Probably here, if I recall, there was something about Trump’s alleged activities/ indiscretions in Russia of a sexual nature that came out about the same time. So maybe that was missing from the debate here, if you look at and review the media.

Second, in terms of impact, the parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, they are forming a committee to study foreign influence as a result of this film. March 30th is when they called for evidence, so that’s just in a couple of days from now. As was mentioned, the senior political officer was sent home disgraced.

Maria Strizzolo, the parliamentary officer who entertained the plot, was forced to resign under pressure from No. 10 Downing [St.].

[Foreign Secretary] Boris Johnson even said—when he was asked, I think by Winston Churchill’s grandson, on the floor of the Parliament about this, what are we doing?—he said, well, whatever cover Shai Masot had has well and truly been blown, so we should just move along now.

So, definitely, the May government tried to move it along, but they had picked the wrong victim in Sir Alan Duncan. He has a lot of supporters. So the Tories are keeping this issue— and rightfully, I mean it’s outrageous—to try to get to the bottom of it. So it did have impact there. Here, the domestic news cycle is anyone’s guess.

Grant Smith: Great.

Can you talk a bit more about the extent of AIPAC or other group’s linkage to these British groups?

Clayton Swisher: Generally speaking, AIPAC—that was one of the surprising things for us, to see that they’ve got an office in London, that they’re trying to take their message there—and that’s just not going to work. I mean it’s classic American thinking, you know: We’ll just take it there and they’ll do it. No. It’s a different landscape there. The role of money and politics, okay, we have this abomination that you are all aware of, called Citizens United. It doesn’t exist there. They have much more ability and space to discuss this issue than we have here in the United States. So, yeah, I mean, of

78

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

PHOTO JAMILA JOUDEH

Questions & Answers

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:59 AM Page 79

Clayton Swisher: Excerpts From and Comments on Al Jazeera’s Investigative Series “The Lobby”

course we sent—when he was invited to it, we’re, yeah, that’s something you should definitely attend.

There’s a congressman, I’m forgetting his name now, from South Carolina, who went there to speak. AIPAC put him on the dog and pony show. He was talking about the good relationship between Congress and AIPAC. I don’t think there is any British politician who aspires to see Britain reach the stage that we are here in the United States. In fact, if anything, they value their sovereignty, and they want to have less of that, as a result of our failed experiment.

Grant Smith: This question says, “the British government saw Israel as a foreign country. Would this happen in the U.S., where it’s not necessarily seen as a foreign country but an extension of the U.S.? Please comment.”

Clayton Swisher: There’s a paradox there. So, in Britain, MI5 and in some part of MI6—MI5 is domestic security, MI6 is the foreign—they’re responsible for counterintelligence. And when I spoke with people, they indicated that because Israel is an ally, they’re not really watched in the same way. In the United States, that’s not the case. The Israeli government, the embassy’s activities, are watched, are monitored, and they do step out of line, and people do get arrested from time to time. They do get expelled from time to time.

And we have something in the United States called the Foreign Agent Registration Act, which sets a bright line of at what point you are working for or against the piece of legislation on behalf of a foreign government, you have to declare it. You guys know this from Michael Flynn, of course. So there is a line, and if you touch that, it’s very dear consequences. In Britain they don’t have that. The British services don’t monitor this, because they view them as partners, it would be an embarrassing thing.

We wouldn’t necessarily want to bring that to light. But because it was so flagrant in this case, they are investigating it. I hope that answers the question.

Grant Smith: Another question: “did you receive any sort of blowback for your work? Any retribution?”

Clayton Swisher: I did the Palestine Papers. I did the Arafat investigation. I did Camp David. I mean, there’s the usual trolls who—but we just tune them out. If I can say anything, it’s other journalists—and I realize Al Jazeera has good resources, because these kinds of things, they take time, they’re expensive.

But I hope that there’s more journalism in this regard, because exposing injustice is a part of our job. A lot of people assume that you can never do something like this. When they just do

that, they make that assumption because they never tried.

Actually when we had the grounds to start this case, we didn’t know if it would succeed. You don’t know, of course, until you step up to the plate and try. In this case, it did succeed. So I hope there’ll be more journalism of this kind, and people don’t be intimidated. In fact, when we put this stuff in there, particularly like what happened with Jean Fitzpatrick, exposing those tactics of trying to silence debate, journalists—again, like I said, reputational kneecapping—it only bothers, it only affects you, if you let it. If you expose people doing this deliberately in an underhanded way, actually it speaks more negatively about them.

The Ministry of Strategic Affairs has brazenly said in their own Knesset testimony that they’re going to discredit people, okay?

Israeli journalists write about this. They’re not doing this from Tel Aviv. They’re doing this in the United States. They’re doing this in Britain. I think that that’s a matter of extreme public interest, and journalists should be reporting on it.

Grant Smith: Excellent.

We’ve got a hard stop in about five minutes for the reception.

But there have been rumors of a certain young person circulating Washington, DC with lots of cash, hosting parties. Do you plan on doing, or have you done, an undercover series on gatekeepers in the U.S. who do the same thing here?

Clayton Swisher: Well, one, I wouldn’t be a good investigative journalist if I talked about projects that we do or don’t do. I knew you were going to ask that.

Yeah, I’m aware of The Tablet article. Interestingly, they never contacted Al Jazeera for comment. We always do that, by the way, [with] anyone that we feature in undercover footage. But I do think that such a program could be done here in the United States—I think it could be done anywhere, if the editorial people at an organization have the will to expose something, there’s nothing to stop them from it.

Grant Smith: Excellent. [This question] says, “publicly Binyamin Netanyahu has talked about technology relations with Russia. He met Vladimir Putin in September 2015.” I’m not sure where this question is going, but do you have any comments on these ties?

Clayton Swisher: I don’t even understand that question, so I’m not even going near it.

Grant Smith: Okay. Let’s see if we have anything else that’s directly related. Why hasn’t Al Jazeera—I can’t read this question.

Clayton Swisher: I’m sensing this is fan mail.

Grant Smith: Okay. I can’t read it, sorry. Write clearly people, please. Is there any shocking thing connected to this series that

“ ”

The Israeli government is quite open about its countermeasures against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.

May 2017

79

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 10:59 AM Page 80

PHOTO PHIL PASQUINI

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

you simply couldn’t air on Al Jazeera? It’s a two-part question.

What led you to this story, sir?

Clayton Swisher: I’ll say, yeah, there were things that we couldn’t put in that I—had we had sufficient evidence. Everything in there—first off, this kind of work requires not just lawyers, but very good lawyers, to make sure that you’re on the right side of the law, that you’re able to withstand public scrutiny.

And we had that from inception to broadcast. It’s something that was built into the program.

Sometimes you get good information, but if you don’t have a second source, it’s tenuous. Your legal risk goes way up and you have to make a decision. Do I put that in, because it’s probably—or do I leave it out, and maybe another day it will become relevant again? So there was an element of that in a few instances. I’m not going to talk about it, because if I couldn’t put it in my film, I’m not going to talk about it here at the Press Club.

Grant Smith: What led you to this story? If you can talk about that…

Clayton Swisher: Again, the Israeli government is quite open about its countermeasures against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Last spring, they said in an INSS—I forget, it was a conference in Tel Aviv—they talked about eliminating Omar Barghouti. It was vaguely worded: “eliminate”—politically eliminate? By the way, they talked that way about Yasser Arafat. When they say they’re going to eliminate someone, that doesn’t mean just take away his ability to travel—which they did, actually. They’ve also been quite open about the amount of money they’re spending. They’re hiring former people from the security services—Shin Bet, Shabak. They’re bringing people in 80

with a security background to counter BDS and treating it as an intelligence matter, as an information war. They also talk about smearing. We heard from Yossi Melman, the security expert who was former military intelligence, about how they will try to discredit people through hacking and other unsavory tactics.

Britain is the center of their focus.

Now, in the very beginning, we are undercover. I got very lucky, frankly—and a lot of times, like in life, luck is required—in that the person who made his introduction at the very beginning, he started going to these events. At the Labour Party, he’s Mr. Pro-Israel. He stood out pretty soon as, wow, there’s not many of you. The embassy, they spotted him as someone that they could work with, and they actually wanted him to work from the embassy. When you watch the series, they were pitching him, they were trying to recruit our undercover! I mean, the lawyer [and I] were talking about what the hell do we do if he is going to work at the embassy, he’s wearing our wire. I mean, how are we going to get him in? I mean, all sorts of tactical questions we had to go through. In the end, we decided, play it along, but we can’t accept in the end, because it just—I don’t think it’s ever been done. Just technically, we wouldn’t have been able to pull it off. I don’t think anyone can. But he met Shai Masot from very early on. And from very early on, Shai Masot wanted to co-opt him, wanted to get him to do things, and was teaching him how to set up organizations, and coaching him.

And yeah, talk on, please. I mean it worked to our favor.

Grant Smith: You’ve got to watch the entire series. Clayton Swisher, amazing, amazing work.

Clayton Swisher: Thank you. ■

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 12:46 PM Page 81

ilan Pappé: the Value of Viewing israel-Palestine through the lens of Settler-colonialism

PAPPÉ KEYNOTE: Questions & Answers Continued from page 73

Photo Phil Portlock

Andrew: The elimination.

Ilan Pappé: The elimination. I knew it was wrong. Thank you. He’s my student, so he knows he has to be awake and answer these questions even at midnight if I ask him.

So the title is “The Logic of the Elimination of the Native.” He refers to all the settler colonial societies including in this country, in the south of America, in Australia, in New Zealand and so on, in which he explains quite simply and very convincingly that the people who escaped or fled from Europe in the last three or four centuries besacres and horrible things that are happening in Syria and Iraq. cause of all kinds of persecutions and looked for a new homeThis is where the idea of settler colonialism as a structure is land encountered native populations that they believed they had so important. This is why it’s not necessary to talk about genoto eliminate for the success of building this new homeland. Here cide as much as it is necessary to say that the DNA of the setit resulted in genocide. The same happened north of the border tler colonial state of Israel is to continue the project, as I put it in and south of the border. Also in Australia it ended in genocide. simple terms, of having as much of Palestine with as few PalesIn South Africa, in Palestine, in Algeria, the methods of elimitinians in it. nating the native as an obstacle for creating the new homeland Now they have the whole of Palestine. In the last 50 years was not genocidal but it was bad enough. It was bad enough. they don’t have a geographical ambition anymore. Israelis of all So, yes, you can talk about the elimination of the Palestinians kinds do not want to occupy Lebanon, Jordan or Egypt. They as a natural consequence of the logic of Zionism of all its are satisfied with the borders that they have today. They have a shades and colors. However, elimination in the 21st century demographic issue, not a geographical issue. And when they with international focus on human rights and civil rights, with the deal with the demographic issue, they have found a formula that internal wish of the Israelis to be part of the democratic world one could say is working, unfortunately. That formula says you and maybe even genuine Israeli impulses of democracy, elimican police six million Palestinians and still the world will believe nation becomes something far more complex than what I assoyou that this is a temporary oppression, and still the world will ciate with genocide. believe you that you will stop this oppression once peace will arIn fact, we saw the need for an accurate conversation when rive. You still can convince the world the terrible events unfolded in Syria in that you are the only democracy in the 2011. We, as activists on behalf of Middle East and the oppression of six Palestine in the West, struggled to keep million people is not a relevant item Palestine as an issue. When people Alalusi Foundation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 when you analyze the country as a desaid to us how can you compare what American Friends of Birzeit mocratic state. happens to the Palestinians with what This is the importance of analyzing happens in Iraq and what happens in University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 what’s happening in Israel as settler Syria? We were trying to say, yes, but American Near East Refugee Aid colonialism that can sometimes resort you know, we are talking about the (ANERA) . . . . . . . Inside Back Cover to genocide, sometimes resorts to ethsame brutality, the same inhumanity, Kinder USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 nic cleansing, and quite often resorts but we are talking about a span of 100 to a charade of peace that provides it years. Not four or five years. This increMondoweiss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 a shield of immunity from any genuine mental inhumanity happens every day.

Speakers’ Books and DVDs . . . . . . . 83 rebuke and condemnation in the And when it happens on a daily basis, global community. [APPLAUSE] it’s not very dramatic. It doesn’t catch United Palestinian Appeal Ilan Pappé: Thank you. Thank you the media’s attention, and you can put (UPA) . . . . . . . . . Inside Front Cover very much. ■ it aside compared to the huge mas-

IndextoAdvertisers

May 2017

81

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 3:48 PM Page 82

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND AMERICAN POLICY

Delinda Hanley: We’d like to thank our incredible speakers who came from around the world to talk about the Israel lobby.

We’re doing a little end-notes thing here. Their talks will be available in the next edition of the Washington Report, which is celebrating its 35th anniversary with a new look and a new URL—washingtonreport.me.

Thank you, reporters, for showing up to shoot and write about this newsworthy event. Thank you to our hardworking staff, exhibitors and advertisers, as well as this room full of attendees, including a record number of students from across the country, diplomats and community leaders, as well as the Delaware Neighbors Against the Occupation, who chartered a bus to come here. Thank you to our generous donors. Without you, this remarkable day couldn’t have happened.

Finally, I’d like to remind you that this conference has been dedicated to Washington Report’s publisher, Andrew Killgore, who died in December convinced that this conference would be a game changer. To you, our audience, please make his hopes come true and loosen the grip of the Israel lobby on American policy. Thank you. Grant…

Grant Smith: For those of you who stopped sending in question cards because some of the speakers weren’t able to take those, don’t be gun shy. Send some in. Ilan Pappé and Clayton 82

STAFF PHOTO DELINDA HANLEY

Organizers’ Remarks

Swisher will try to answer as many as possible.

I, too, would like to thank the donors—many giving $10, $15, $20 once they heard that this conference was coming, in addition to those who gave much more. I also applaud some grassroots organizations. One of my favorites, Northfielders for Justice in Palestine/Israel who have come here, very excellent work in my home state of Minnesota. It takes time and money for people to come here personally and be here.

Whether you’re a student, a retiree, or have a job/don’t have a job, everyone who came here today did so because they care.

Next month, for those of you who keep asking me, IRmep will be filing an appeal in our lawsuit to block U.S. aid to Israel over its clandestine nuclear weapons program. So I encourage those of you who want to follow that to sign up for the email list at irmep.org.

There are representatives from many great organizations here today. As we look around for coalition partners and worthwhile projects to engage in—whether humanitarian relief, policy research, grassroots action—I just encourage everyone to consider how your work will challenge, end-run, and transcend the Israel lobby—the biggest and longest running obstacle to peace in the Middle East. ■

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 7_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 6:30 PM Page 83

Books and DVDs by Conference Speakers

Books and DVDs by Conference Speakers Available at AET’s Middle East Books and More

N

iinstitutions. Researcher Grant Smith

d A

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine $16 by Ilan Pappé; On Palestine $11 by Ilan Pappé and Noam Chomsky

ttypical CCongress on an imaginary tour of H

t

collaboration

ISRAEL’S INFLUENCE: Good or Bad for America?

8/22/16 11:34 AM Page 2

www.IsraelsInfluence.org • Speakers describe how they are “standing up to the Israel Lobby,” using the Constitution, lawsuits, freedom of speech, campus activism and alternative media to fight back and end lobby bullying.

w

Conference Speakers: Susan Abulhawa Huwaida Arraf Prof. Kirk J. Beattie Rula Jebreal Catherine Jordan Maria LaHood G

C

Jim Lobe Dr. Roger Mattson Tareq Radi Justin Raimondo Grant F. Smith Philip Weiss

Israel Lobby DVD package includes the 2014 “National Summit to Reassess the U.S.Israel Special Relationship,” the 2015 “The Israel Lobby: Is it Good for the U.S.? Is it Good for Israel?” conference and the 2016 “Israel’s Influence: Good or Bad for America?” conference. ($30 for set of three—save $30!)

This Side of Peace $18 by Hanan Ashrawi Big Israel: How Israel’s Lobby Moves America $14

by Grant F. Smith The Truth About Camp David: The Untold Story About the Collapse of the Middle East Peace Process $15 by Clayton Swisher

Tom Hayes: “Two Blue Lines” (1 hr 39 min, 2015, $20); “People and the Land” (56 min, 1997, $20)

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy $14

by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt The Domestic Crusaders $10 by Wajahat Ali

Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People $22; A is for Arab: Archiving Stereotypes in U.S. Popular Culture $22 by Jack Shaheen

www.middleeastbooks.com • bookstore@wrmea.org 1902 18th St. NW • Washington, DC 20009 (202) 939-6050 ext 2 May 2017

83

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 11:01 AM Page 84

Election Watch

Pro-Israel PAC Contributions May Be Too Public for the Lobby’s Taste

“[W]ith continuing talk about campaign finance reform, including support by Senate Republicans for abolishing PACs altogether, there was a conscious effort by AIPAC-affiliated PACs to lower their profiles.

“AIPAC leaders have boasted for years that for every dollar donated by their chain of PACs, at least one additional dollar reaches AIPAC-endorsed candidates via direct donations from individual AIPAC or pro-Israel PAC members.…In the 1994 cycle, the proIsrael PACs devoted greater efforts than ever before to generating such individual donations in order to avoid exposure by public-interest election monitors like this magazine.”

—Richard H. Curtiss, “Sharp Dip in Pro-Israel PAC Donations Reflects Drop in 1994 PAC Revenues,” April/May 1995 Washington Report, p. 27.

M

By Janet McMahon

TOP TEN 2016 AND CAREER RECIPIENTS OF PRO-ISRAEL PAC FUNDS Compiled by Hugh Galford HOUSE: CURRENT RACES Royce, Edward R. (R-CA) Engel, Eliot L. (D-NY) Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R-FL) Deutch, Theodore E. (D-FL) Zeldin, Lee M. (R-NY) Curbelo, Carlos (R-FL) Santarsiero, Steven (D-PA) Throne-Holst, Anna (D-NY) Cain, Emily (D-ME) Waxman, Henry A. (D-CA)

$77,957 52,000 45,500 33,700 32,000 30,500 30,000 29,546 27,314 26,215

House: Career Totals Engel, Eliot L. (D-NY) Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R-FL) Hoyer, Steny (D-MD) Lowey, Nita M. (D-NY) Pelosi, Nancy (D-CA) Levin, Sander M. (D-MI) Royce, Edward R. (R-CA) Sherman, Brad (D-CA) Hastings, Alcee L. (D-FL) Deutch, Theodore E. (D-FL)

ore than two decades ago, Washington Report executive editor Richard H. Curtiss noted a drop in donations to pro-Israel PACs. Because it was the early post-Oslo days, he pointed out, many American Jews either may have thought peace was at hand or opposed any possible agreement, leading to a decline in donations from both camps. But one cannot ignore the “nightflower” analogy, whereby the pro-Israel lobby “shrivels up” in the light of day, in the form of the Federal Election Commission’s required public reports, available to all.

In an article in the Nov. 5, 2014 Forward, Nathan Guttman elaborated: “pro-Israel PAC money is a drop in the bucket of Jewish giving to political candidates, especially since the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision known as Citizens United came about, opening the floodgates for unlimited independent expenditures by corporations and individuals on behalf of candidates.” Guttman went on to quote Washington PAC head Morris Amitay as saying, “It’s not about the PACs. It all takes place at the private events. That’s where they raise the real money.”

For the 2016 election cycle, the Center for Responsive Politics (<www.opensecrets.org>) estimates that pro-Israel PAC contributions accounted for just 20 percent of pro-Israel contributions, which it calculated to total $17,096,581—$1.2 million of which went to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Nearly $12 million of the total went to incumbents, and some $2 million more to Democratic rather than to Republican candidates.

Janet McMahon is managing editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

84

SENATE: CURRENT RACES Kirk, Mark S. (R-IL) Burr, Richard M. (R-NC) Ayotte, Kelly A. (R-NH) McCain, John S. (R-AZ) Blunt, Roy (R-MO) Johnson, Ronald H. (R-WI) Portman, Robert J. (R-OH) Schumer, Charles E. (D-NY) Hassan, Margaret Wood (D-NH) McGinty, Kathleen A. (D-PA)

$143,620 72,200 62,055 59,693 57,000 55,350 54,000 52,400 52,136 49,053

Senate: Career Totals $404,418 339,740 304,025 247,123 149,150 136,827 130,907 122,630 120,050 117,050

McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) Durbin, Richard J. (D-IL) Wyden, Ronald L. (D-OR) McCain, John S. (R-AZ) Sessions, Jefferson B. (R-AL)* Murray, Patty (D-WA) Menendez, Robert (D-NJ) Shelby, Richard C. (R-AL) Grassley, Charles E. (R-IA) Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI) *now U.S. attorney general

$582,392 401,171 366,962 265,693 229,325 225,523 215,318 201,825 193,523 171,606

Not only did Clinton lose the presidential race, so did the lobby’s top congressional recipient, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), who received $100,000 more than Rep. Tammy Duckworth in her successful Senate challenge. AIPAC favorite Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) also went down to defeat, but—perhaps presciently— pro-Israel PACs also contributed to her victorious opponent, Maggie Hassan, the former governor of New Hampshire, who won by a mere 1,017 votes. Pro-Israel PACs stuck to their incumbent strategy in the Wisconsin Senate race, where former Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold, despite his high career total, received less money than successful incumbent Sen. Ron Johnson. Incumbent Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) received less in pro-Israel PAC contributions than his Democratic challenger, Kathleen McGinty, but was re-elected nevertheless.

The incumbent strategy also was abandoned in several House races. While also donating to the incumbent, pro-Israel PACs supported challengers to Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL), Rodney Blum (R-IA), Bruce Poliquin (R-ME), Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Lee Zeldin (R-NY), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Thomas Reed (R-NY). Of these incumbents, only Garrett failed to win reelection. Nadler, the only Democrat so challenged, committed the cardinal sin of backing the Iran nuclear agreement. While it may have been a sin in the eyes of the Israel lobby, it apparently was not in the eyes of Nadler’s constituents. ■

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 11:01 AM Page 85

PRO-ISRAEL PAC CONTRIBUTIONS TO 2016 CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES State Alabama

Alaska Arizona

Arkansas California

California

Office District S H H H H H H S S S H H H H H H S S S H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H

1 2 3 4 6 7 2 3 4 5 8 9 2 3 5 7 7 8 9 10 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 24 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 31 33 33 34 35 36 36 37 38 39

Candidate

Shelby, Richard C.* Byrne, Bradley R. Roby, Martha Rogers, Michael D. Aderholt, Robert B. Palmer, Gary Sewell, Terri A. Murkowski, Lisa* Kirkpatrick, Ann Leila*# McCain, John S.* McSally, Martha Grijalva, Raúl M. Gosar, Paul A. Salmon, Matt Franks, Trent Sinema, Kyrsten Boozman, John* Harris, Kamala D.* Sanchez, Loretta*# Huffman, Jared Garamendi, John Thompson, Mike Bera, Amerish Jones, Scott Cook, Paul McNerney, Jerry Denham, Jeff Eggman, Michael R. DeSaulnier, Mark Lee, Barbara Speier, Jackie Swalwell, Eric M. Costa, Jim Honda, Mike Eshoo, Anna G. Lofgren, Zoe Farr, Sam Nunes, Devin G. McCarthy, Kevin Carbajal, Salud O. Fareed, Justin Knight, Steve Caforio, Bryan Brownley, Julia Chu, Judy Schiff, Adam Cardenas, Tony Sherman, Brad Augilar, Pete Chabot, Paul R. Lieu, Ted Waxman, Henry A. Becerra, Xavier Torres, Norma Ruiz, Raul Stone, Jeffrey E. Bass, Karen Sanchez, Linda Royce, Edward R.

Party R R R R R R D R D R R D R R R D R D D D D D D R R D R D D D D D D D D D D R R D R R D D D D D D D R D D D D D R D D R

Status I I I I I I I I C I I I I N I I I O O I I I I C I I I C I I I I I I I I N I I O O I C I I I I I I C I N I I I C I I I

2015-2016 Contributions $ 1,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 3,500 2,500 11,500 34,294 59,693 4,500 4,050 4,500 2,500 4,500 12,000 30,200 8,500 6,500 5,000 4,000 6,000 3,660 2,500 2,500 1,000 $ 10,000 1,000 5,010 6,300 3,000 6,000 2,000 7,033 2,010 4,000 1,000 2,500 11,500 1,660 3,000 2,500 4,550 6,920 2,500 9,000 5,000 16,200 7,685 500 15,000 26,215 3,760 6,000 8,000 1,000 5,560 8,500 77,957

Career

$201,825 5,000 7,500 34,825 25,500 3,500 7,500 87,100 46,294 265,693 7,000 17,550 4,500 11,500 10,100 15,000 38,700 8,500 75,450 11,500 20,500 14,500 23,110 2,500 5,000 33,600 $ 10,000 1,000 5,010 11,300 11,000 30,000 29,000 31,533 12,760 12,750 18,150 7,500 32,500 1,660 3,000 2,500 4,550 23,570 4,500 102,917 13,600 122,630 13,335 500 16,100 84,147 8,760 6,000 19,550 1,000 9,060 34,950 130,907

Committees

A (D, HS) AS A AS, HS A (D) B I A (D, HS)

AS, HS AS, HS FO AS

A (FO)

AS, HS

AS W FO

AS, FO

A (FO), B AS, I I A

A I, W Maj. Ldr. AS I

FO AS B

W HS FO W FO

KEY: The “Career Total” column represents the total amount of pro-Israel PAC money received from Jan. 1, 2009 through Dec. 31, 2016. S=Senate, H=House of Representatives. Party affiliation: D=Democrat, R=Republican, Ref=Reform, DFL=Democratic Farmer Labor, Ind=Independent, Lib=Libertarian, WFP=Working Families Party. Status: C=Challenger, I=Incumbent, N=Not Running, O=Open Seat (no incumbent), P=Defeated in primary election. *=Senate election year, #=House member running for Senate seat, †=Special Election. Committees (at time of election): A=Appropriations (D=Defense subcommittee, FO=Foreign Operations subcommittee, HS=Homeland Security, NS=National Security subcommittee), AS=Armed Services, B=Budget, C=Commerce, FR=Foreign Relations (NE=Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs subcommittee), HS=Homeland Security, I=Intelligence, IR=International Relations, NS=National Security, W=Ways and Means. “–” indicates money returned by candidate, “0” that all money received was returned.

May 2017

85

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 11:01 AM Page 86

State California

Colorado

Connecticut Florida

Georgia

Hawaii Idaho Illinois

86

Office District H H H H H H H H S H H H H H H S H S S S S S H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H S S H H H H H H S H H S S S H H H H H H H

40 41 44 47 51 52 52 53 1 3 5 6 6 7

5

1 1 2 2 3 7 7 9 11 13 14 15 18 18 18 20 21 22 23 23 23 24 25 26 26 27 2 3 4 5 6 10 1 2

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Candidate

Roybal-Allard, Lucille Takano, Mark Hall, Isadore, III Lowenthal, Alan Vargas, Juan C. Peters, Scott Gitsham, Denise Davis, Susan A. Bennet, Michael F.* DeGette, Diana L. Schwartz, Gail Sheridan Lamborn, Douglas Carroll, Morgan Coffman, Mike Perlmutter, Edwin G. Blumenthal, Richard* Esty, Elizabeth DeSantis, Ronald D.*# Grayson, Alan M.*# Murphy, Patrick E.*# Lopez-Cantera, Carlos* Rubio, Marco* Miller, Jefferson B. Gaetz, Matt Graham, Gwen Thomas, Mary Yoho, Theodore S. (Ted) Mica, John L. Murphy, Stephanie Soto, Darren Grabelle, Justin M. Lynn, Eric Castor, Kathy Ross, Dennis A. Chane, Jonathan Kozell, Rick Mast, Brian Hastings, Alcee L. Deutch, Theodore E. Frankel, Lois J. Wasserman Schultz, Debbie Canova, Timothy A. Kaufman, Joe Hill, Randal Diaz-Balart, Mario Curbelo, Carlos Taddeo, Annette Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana Isakson, John H.* Perdue, David Bishop, Sanford D. Crane, Michael R. Johnson, Henry C. (Hank) Lewis, John R. Price, Thomas E. Collins, Michael A., Jr. Schatz, Brian* Hanabusa, Colleen W. Gabbard, Tulsi Crapo, Michael D.* Duckworth, L. Tammy*# Kirk, Mark S.* Kelly, Robin Lipinski, Daniel W. Gutierrez, Luis V. Quigley, Mike Roskam, Peter Davis, Danny K. Morris, Kirk

Party D D D D D D R D D D D R D R D D D R D D R R R R D R R R D D R D D R D R R D D D D D R D R R D R R R D R D D R R D D D R D R D D D D R D R

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

Status I I O I I I C I I I C I C I I I I N P C N I N O N P I I C O P O I I O P O I I I I P C P I I P I I I I P I I I N I O I I C I I I I I I I N

2015-2016 Contributions 2,500 2,680 4,000 6,500 15,000 11,800 500 2,010 41,930 3,010 18,186 11,500 11,850 3,000 3,000 24,300 60 2,500 4,500 43,881 0 38,500 10,000 500 4,000 500 5,000 2,500 3,000 12,000 4,000 5,500 1,000 7,500 1,500 1,000 12,000 17,200 33,700 19,800 14,000 5,000 1,000 8,000 7,500 30,500 1,500 45,500 31,500 3,000 5,010 0 7,000 4,000 2,500 1,000 5,070 4,000 20,000 8,738 38,230 143,620 3,850 10,200 4,000 16,650 20,032 6,260 15,000

Career

10,000 8,680 4,000 21,200 15,100 14,450 500 21,173 54,430 10,510 18,186 22,000 11,850 7,750 13,224 49,800 2,560 6,000 12,500 67,381 0 54,100 23,500 500 11,550 500 10,500 16,650 3,000 12,000 4,000 5,500 28,600 24,000 1,500 1,000 12,000 120,050 117,050 32,800 88,300 5,000 1,000 8,000 75,750 41,000 1,500 339,740 73,000 23,000 7,510 0 50,200 81,250 14,000 1,000 40,270 27,000 21,500 65,238 59,204 493,106 5,950 22,600 41,561 19,400 49,532 21,510 15,000

Committees A (HS)

A (FO) AS

AS

AS

AS

AS, C

FO (NE) FO (NE) I

C, FO (NE), I AS, I AS

FO (NE)

B

FO (NE) FO (NE) A (FO) A (D, FO), B FO (NE), I FO B, FO (NE) A

AS W B, W

A (D), C AS, FO B AS A (FO) AS

I A, I W W

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 11:01 AM Page 87

State

Office District

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

H H H H H H H H H H H S S S H H H S H H H H S S H H H H H S S S S H H H H H H S H H H S H H H H H H H H H H H H S H H H H H H H H H H S H

8 9 10 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 4 6 7

1 1 2 3 2 3 4 3 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 2

5 7 8 8 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 1 2 5 7 7 9 12 13 14 1

Candidate

Krishnamoorthi, S. Raja Schakowsky, Janice D. Dold, Robert J., Jr. Schneider, Bradley S. Foster, G. William (Bill) Bost, Michael Davis, Rodney L. Hultgren, Randy Kinzinger, Adam Bustos, Cheri LaHood, Darin McKay Bayh, Evan* Stutzman, Marlin A.*# Young, Todd C.*# Rokita, Theodore E. Messer, Allen L. Carson, AndrĂŠ Grassley, Charles E. (Chuck)* Blum, Rodney Vernon, Monica W. Loebsack, David W. Young, David Moran, Jerry* Roberts, Pat Jenkins, Lynn Yoder, Kevin Pompeo, Michael R. Yarmuth, John A. Barr, Garland A. (Andy) Cassidy, William M. Boustany, Charles W., Jr.*# Fleming, John C., Jr.*# Kennedy, John N.* Scalise, Steve Green, Eugene J., Jr. Angelle, Scott Johnson, James M. (Mike) Abraham, Ralph L., Jr. Graves, Garret Collins, Susan M. Pingree, Chellie M. Cain, Emily Poliquin, Bruce L. Van Hollen, Chris*# Hoyer, Steny Cummings, Elijah E. Anderson, David M. Matthews, Kathleen Raskin, Jamie Neal, Richard E. McGovern, James P. Tsongas, Nicola S. (Niki) Kennedy, Joseph P., III Clark, Katherine Moulton, Seth Capuano, Michael E. Stabenow, Debbie Johnson, Lonnie B. (Lon) Bergman, John Huizenga, William P. Kildee, Daniel T. Driskell, Gretchen Walberg, Timothy L. Levin, Sander M. Dingell, Debbie Conyers, John, Jr. Lawrence, Brenda Lulenar Klobuchar, Amy Walz, Timothy J.

Party

D D R D D R R R R D R D R R R R D R R D D R R R R R R D R R R R R R D R R R R R D D R D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D R R D D R D D D D DFL DFL

Status O I I C I I I I I I I O P O I I I I I C I I I I I I I I I I O O O I N O O I I I I C I O I I P P O I I I I I I I I O O I I C I I I I I I I

2015-2016 Contributions 500 2,750 24,290 24,750 5,350 1,500 2,500 7,450 11,750 7,860 2,450 22,700 0 25,500 3,000 3,500 5,010 32,200 6,500 10,885 11,380 2,500 15,000 1,000 10,000 2,500 500 4,500 5,500 -5,000 4,000 9,500 18,000 7,500 4,000 4,500 4,500 3,000 5,000 3,000 5,000 27,314 2,500 32,306 16,000 4,510 2,000 1,000 3,550 5,000 4,000 2,000 5,600 4,115 2,750 5,010 2,700 10,421 2,500 500 2,175 1,500 2,500 2,000 5,010 5,010 5,000 500 5,000

May 2017

Career

500 40,145 54,790 57,700 29,050 4,000 4,300 10,950 22,000 17,860 2,450 105,200 0 28,000 9,500 4,500 8,110 193,523 6,500 10,885 32,380 5,000 30,700 93,300 12,500 3,000 3,500 25,020 5,500 22,000 17,500 23,500 18,000 48,000 4,000 4,500 4,500 6,000 8,000 148,900 15,676 27,314 2,500 36,306 304,025 29,010 2,000 1,000 3,550 21,750 18,075 14,000 6,600 4,115 2,850 14,010 171,606 10,421 2,500 1,000 34,675 1,500 7,500 136,827 5,010 15,010 5,000 82,335 12,000

Committees W

W B I B B

A (HS) A (D, FO), C

W A C, I B

A (HS) W AS

A (D), I A B

W

AS

AS, B B

W B C AS 87

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 12:51 PM Page 88

State

Office District

H H H H H H H H H Mississippi H Missouri S S H H H Montana H Nebraska H H Nevada S S H H H H New Hampshire S S New Hampshire S H H New Jersey S H H H H H H H H H H H New Mexico H H New York S H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H

Minnesota

88

2 2 2 3 3 4 5 8 8 3

1 5 7 At-L. 2 2 3 3 4 4 1 2

1 2 3 4 5 5 6 8 9 10 12 1 3

1 1 3 3 4 4 5 6 7 9 10 10 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 19 20 21 22 22 23

Candidate

Kline, John P., Jr. Craig, Angela Dawn Miller, Darlene Bonoff, Terri Paulsen, Erik McCollum, Betty Ellison, Keith M. Nolan, Richard M. Mills, Stewart Harper, Gregg Blunt, Roy* Kander, Jason* Clay, William L., Jr. (Lacy) Cleaver, Emanuel, II Long, Billy Zinke, Ryan K. Ashford, Brad Bacon, Donald Masto, Catherine Cortez* Heck, Joe*# Rosen, Jacky Tarkanian, Danny Hardy, Cresent Kihuen, Ruben Ayotte, Kelly A.* Hassan, Margaret Wood* Shaheen, Jeanne Shea-Porter, Carol Kuster, Ann McLane Menendez, Robert Norcross, Donald W. LoBiondo, Frank A. MacArthur, Thomas Smith, Christopher H. Garrett, Scott Gottheimer, Josh Pallone, Frank, Jr. Sires, Albio Pascrell, William J. Payne, Donald M., Jr. Coleman, Bonnie Watson Lujan Grisham, Michelle Luján, Ben R. Schumer, Charles E.* Zeldin, Lee M. Throne-Holst, Anna Martins, Jack Suozzi, Thomas Rice, Kathleen Gurfein, David Meeks, Gregory W. Meng, Grace Velazquez, Nydia M. Clarke, Yvette D. Nadler, Jerrold L. Rosenthal, Philip J. Maloney, Carolyn B. Gallagher, Michael Serrano, José E. Engel, Eliot L. Lowey, Nita M. Maloney, Sean P. Faso, John J. Teachout, Zephyr Tonko, Paul D. Stefanik, Elise M. Tenney, Claudia Wells, Steven M. Plumb, John

Party

R DFL R DFL R DFL DFL DFL R R R D D D R R D R D R D R R D R D D D D D D R R R R D D D D D D D D D R D R D D R D D D D D R D D D D D D R D D R R R D

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

Status N O P C I I I I C I I C I I I I I C O O O O I C I C I C I I I I I I I C I I I I I I I I I C O O I C I I I I I C I P I I I I O O I I O P C

2015-2016 Contributions 4,000 9,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 5,000 3,610 14,168 2,500 1,000 57,000 17,500 4,510 5,010 5,000 6,500 22,700 2,500 45,105 21,200 15,500 3,000 2,500 6,473 62,055 52,136 50 12,019 6,460 4,000 12,500 10,500 3,500 12,000 1,250 3,500 2,000 1,500 2,000 5,000 15,035 6,500 7,500 52,400 32,000 29,546 5,000 5,000 4,500 1,000 2,500 6,925 1,000 3,510 2,000 3,000 10,000 2,000 2,500 52,000 23,235 3,000 20,700 1,000 5,000 2,500 500 2,000 21,286

Career

Committees

31,500 AS 9,000 2,500 2,500 20,500 W 17,750 A (D) 11,110 17,668 2,500 5,500 135,350 A (D, FO), C, I 17,500 27,010 23,010 17,500 11,000 AS 22,700 AS 2,500 45,105 25,200 AS, I 15,500 6,000 2,500 6,473 79,555 AS, B, C, HS 52,136 94,225 A(FO,HS),AS,FO(NE) 25,019 13,460 215,318 FO 12,500 AS, B 46,250 AS, I 7,000 AS 77,750 42,450 B 3,500 109,050 C 12,500 FO 19,853 B, W 41,250 HS 23,035 HS 8,500 B 12,000 138,285 37,000 FO (NE) 29,546 5,000 5,000 5,500 HS 1,000 2,000 FO 9,425 FO (NE) 1,500 3,510 C 34,500 3,000 40,970 2,000 9,250 A (FO) 404,418 FO 247,123 A (FO 15,500 20,700 1,000 14,000 5,000 AS 500 2,000 21,286

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 11:02 AM Page 89

State

Office District

H H H H North Carolina S S S S H H H H H H H H North Dakota S Ohio S S H H H H Ohio H H H Oklahoma S S H Oregon S S H H H Pennsylvania S S S H H H H H H H H H H H Rhode Island S H H H South Carolina S S H H H South Dakota S Tennessee H H Texas S H H H H H H H H

New York

23 24 24 25

1 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 1 3 4 7 9 11 14 1 1 3 4 4 6 8 8 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1 1 2 2 3 6

8 9

2 4 9 10 12 16 22 23

Candidate

Reed, Thomas W., II Deacon, Colleen Katko, John M. Slaughter, Louise Burr, Richard M.* Hagan, Kay R. Tillis, Thom R. Ross, Deborah K.* Butterfield, George K. Griffin, William T. (Taylor) Price, David E. Foxx, Virginia A. McHenry, Patrick T. Meadows, Mark R. Adams, Alma Shealey Holding, George E. Hoeven, John* Portman, Robert J.* Strickland, Ted* Chabot, Steve Beatty, Joyce Jordan, James D. Gibbs, Robert Kaptur, Marcy Goldstein, Beverly A. Joyce, David P. Inhofe, James M. Lankford, James P.* Bridenstine, James F. Wyden, Ronald L.* Merkley, Jeffrey A. Bonamici, Suzanne Blumenauer, Earl DeFazio, Peter A. Stern, Everett A.* Toomey, Patrick J.* McGinty, Kathleen A.* Perry, Scott Costello, Ryan A. Santarsiero, Steven J. Fitzpatrick, Brian Rothfus, Keith Boyle, Brendan F. Doyle, Michael Dent, Charles W. Hartman, Christina M. Cartwright, Matt Murphy, Timothy Whitehouse, Sheldon, II Cicilline, David N. Taub, H. Russell Langevin, James R. Graham, Lindsey O. Scott, Timothy E.* Wilson, Joe Duncan, Jeffrey D. Clyburn, James E. Thune, John* Kustoff, David Cohen, Stephen I. Cornyn, John Poe, Ted Ashford, Jerry D., Jr. Green, Alexander McCaul, Michael Granger, Kay O'Rourke, Robert B. Olson, Peter G. Hurd, William

Party R D R D R D R D D R D R R R D R R R D R D R R D R R R R R D D D D D I R D R R D R R D D R D D R D D R D R R R R D R R D R R D D R R D R R

Status I C I I I N I C I P I I I I I I I I C I I I I I C I I I I I I I I I C I C I I O O I I I I O I I I I C I I I I I I I O I I I C I I I I I I

2015-2016 Contributions 2,500 1,000 2,500 3,350 72,200 -2,500 4,500 45,109 7,710 2,500 5,500 10,000 7,000 8,000 3,010 7,500 11,500 54,000 20,490 16,170 2,500 500 2,500 5,050 1,000 8,500 2,000 7,700 2,500 17,500 1,000 5,260 4,510 5,010 -500 43,000 49,053 2,000 6,000 30,000 2,500 1,500 17,500 2,010 4,000 1,000 5,010 2,000 1,000 6,500 1,000 11,000 1,500 13,700 5,000 17,000 6,510 5,000 5,000 5,010 1,000 20,000 2,500 9,000 1,000 8,500 1,000 5,000 6,500

May 2017

Career

Committees

4,500 W 1,000 2,500 HS 70,230 106,450 I 66,300 9,500 AS 45,109 14,710 7,500 71,327 A (HS) 17,000 50,700 8,000 FO (NE) 3,010 7,500 W 41,000 A (HS) 70,500 B, HS 38,640 46,170 FO (NE) 2,500 500 5,000 7,300 A (D, HS) 1,000 14,500 A 137,800 AS 36,200 A, HS 2,500 AS 366,962 B, I 39,650 A, B 15,760 17,510 W 21,610 -500 75,250 B 49,053 2,000 FO, HS 9,000 30,000 2,500 1,500 17,500 FO (NE) 9,510 18,750 A (FO) 1,000 9,510 3,000 115,500 B 38,500 FO (NE) 1,000 50,500 AS, HS 120,000 A (D, FO, HS), AS, B 41,300 5,250 AS, FO (NE) 17,000 FO, HS 35,610 59,230 C 5,000 35,510 89,580 35,000 FO 2,500 9,000 13,000 FO, HS 48,500 A (D, FO) 1,000 AS 10,000 C 6,500 HS 89

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 11:02 AM Page 90

State

Office District H H H H H S H H H S H S H H H H H S H H H H H H H H S S S H H H H H H H H H

Texas

Utah

Vermont Virginia

Washington Washington

West Virginia Wisconsin

Wyoming

P P

Presidential

23 27 29 30 35 3 4 4

At-L.

6 8 10 10 11

1 5 6 7 9 10 2 3

1 2 3 4 4 7 8 8 At-L.

Candidate

Gallego, Pete Farenthold, Randolph B. Green, Raymond E. (Gene) Johnson, Eddie Bernice Doggett, Lloyd Lee, Mike* Chaffetz, Jason Love, Mia Owens, H. Douglas Leahy, Patrick J.* Welch, Peter Kaine, Timothy M. Goodlatte, Robert W. Beyer, Donald S., Jr. Bennett, LuAnn Comstock, Barbara J. Connolly, Gerald E. Murray, Patty* DelBene, Suzan K. McMorris Rodgers, Cathy Kilmer, Derek McDermott, James Smith, D. Adam Heck, Dennis Mooney, Alexander X. Jenkins, Evan H. Feingold, Russell D.* Johnson, Ronald H.* Baldwin, Tammy Ryan, Paul Pocan, Mark Kind, Ronald J. Moore, Gwendolynne S. Boyle, Gerald H. Duffy, Sean Gallagher, Michael J. Nelson, Tom Cheney, Elizabeth Clinton, Hillary R. Cruz, Rafael E. (Ted)

Party D R D D D R R R D D D D R D D R D D D R D D D D R R D R D R D D D R R R D R

D R

Status C I I I I I I I C I I I I I C I I I I I I N I I I I C I I I I I I C I O O O

O O

2015-2016 Total Contributions: Total Contributions (1978-2016): Total No. of Recipients (1978-2016):

2015-2016 Contributions 1,000 2,500 12,000 6,000 4,310 29,700 15,000 6,000 3,000 6,570 3,500 3,500 10,000 7,110 3,000 2,500 10,010 30,230 5,010 5,000 5,000 4,000 5,000 3,500 10,500 1,500 15,136 55,350 515 17,000 6,500 3,500 2,500 4,000 4,500 8,250 7,050 12,500

10,000 2,500

Career

6,000 2,500 16,800 13,000 13,310 50,200 32,500 6,000 3,000 152,481 16,500 20,701 21,000 9,110 3,000 5,000 31,510 225,523 12,010 8,850 14,000 14,000 44,925 3,500 14,250 8,000 228,574 60,350 29,130 48,450 12,500 11,000 5,000 4,000 15,500 8,250 7,050 12,500

74,618 21,000

Committees

W AS A (D, FO, HS)

AS, B, FO (NE)

FO (NE) A (D, HS), B A B, W AS B A

B, C, FO (NE), HS A (HS), B, HS

B W B

AS, C

3,604,905 60,094,832 2,557

PRO-ARAB AMERICAN AND AMERICAN MUSLIM PAC CONTRIBUTIONS TO 2016 CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES State

Office District

Arizona Florida Illinois Minnesota New Hampshire Virginia Presidential

H H H H H H P P

2 2 18 5 1 10

Candidate Heinz, Matthew G. Graham, Gwen LaHood, Darin McK. Ellison, Keith M. Ashooh, Richard E. Bennett, LuAnn

Clinton, Hillary Rodham O'Malley, Martin J.

Party D D R DFL R D D D

2015-2016 Total Contributions: Total Contributions (1978-2016): Total No. of Recipients (1978-2016): 90

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

Status

2015-2016 Contributions

C N I I P C

1,000 500 2,000 1,500 1,000 550

O N

7,700 3,500

17,750 733,670 294

Career 1,000 500 2,000 8,250 1,000 550

7,700 3,500

Committees AS

MAY 2017 ralph 6_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 11:15 AM Page 91

MAY 2017 ralph 7_May 2017 Israel Conference issue 4/20/17 6:31 PM Page c4

American Educational Trust Washington Report on Middle East Affairs P.O. Box 53062 Washington, DC 20009

May 2017

Vol. XXXVI, No. 3