War and politics from a left-Christian perspective

H.R. 4133: Binding America to the 'Lunatic Nation'

2012-05-27T03:15:00Z

I strongly encourage people to read this post in context with my previous one, Are We Supporting a Nation of Lunatics . You’ll note that the bill recently passed by the House even uses the words “shared values.” Here’s what I would suggest: go back and watch the video at Are We Supporting a Nation of Lunatics and ask yourself what “shared values” you have with the people screaming their racial slurs on the streets of Tel Aviv. Then come back to this page and read the two articles below.

The bill, H.R. 4133, or “The United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012," should it become law, will cost the U.S. an additional $1 billion, but beyond even the financial drain is what it reveals about the frightening level of power the Israeli lobby exerts in America and the extent to which it controls—not merely influences, but controls—our government. H.R. 4133 passed by a vote of 411-2. Should you wish to view the final vote tally, you can click here, but I’ll tell you right now the only two House representatives who summoned the nerve to vote against this monstrosity were Ron Paul of Texas and John Dingell of Michigan. An additional 9 members voted simply “present.”

Another thing to note about this bill is the timing. AIPAC held its annual policy conference in Washington this year on March 3-6. If you click here, you can see that the bill was introduced on March 5.

In the first article below, Susanne Posel makes a very important point, namely that with this law on the books, should Israel attack Iran, America would be almost legally obligated to become involved, or as Posel puts it: “The USIESC is a propaganda piece of legislation designed to set the stage for full military support of Israel when they launch an unprovoked strike against Iran.”

In the second article, Philip Giraldi warns that should Israel become a NATO member (the bill calls for an “expanded role” for Israel in NATO), this obligation to fight wars on the Jewish state’s behalf will become all that more firmly cemented, and make no mistake, it will be unambiguously designated a Jewish state, since the bill also requires us to “reaffirm the enduring commitment of the United States to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish state.” As Giraldi points out rather reasonably, “according to our Constitution, the policy of the United States government should be to protect the security of the United States, not to guarantee the religious, ethnic, or cultural composition of a foreign country.”

H.R. 4133 was introduced by Eric Cantor of Virginia.

House Passes HR 4133 Binding the US to Israel and Their War Agenda

By Susanne Posel

Source

Without any mainstream media coverage at all, the House of Representatives passed the United States – Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012 (USIESC).

The USIESC, written by Eric Cantor , claims there is a need to provide Israel with unlimited military and financial aid as a result of the disturbances caused by the Arab Spring.

Israel will have an essentially unlimited amount of funds allocated to them through the Federal Reserve Bank. The country will also enjoy an “expanded role of NATO” that consists of an “enhanced presence at NATO headquarters and exercises”.

The USIESC pledges the US government’s “commitment” to assist Israel in remaining a Jewish State; as well as protection from the UN if the UN Security Council resolves to hold Israel accountable to international laws.

The US government’s counter-terrorism unit will also aid Israel by any means.

This USIESC asserts that “supported by the American people” the US government will “repeatedly affirm the special bond between the United States and Israel” and that the two countries have “shared values and shared interests.”

If there were ever language to suppose that there were a merging of these two nations, the USIESC fits that bill.

The Executive Summary of USIESC says that “the following actions to assist in the defense of Israel” are:

(1) Provide Israel such support as may be necessary to increase development and production of joint missile defense systems, particularly such systems that defend the urgent threat posed to Israel and United States forces in the region.

(2) Provide Israel assistance specifically for the production and procurement of the Iron Dome defense system for purposes of intercepting short-range missiles, rockets, and projectiles launched against Israel.

(3) Provide Israel defense articles and defense services through such mechanisms as appropriate, to include air refueling tankers, missile defense capabilities, and specialized munitions.

(4) Allocate additional weaponry and munitions for the forward-deployed United States stockpile in Israel.

(5) Provide Israel additional surplus defense articles and defense services, as appropriate, in the wake of the withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq.

(6) Strengthen efforts to prevent weapons smuggling into Gaza pursuant to the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access following the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and to protect against weapons smuggling and terrorist threats from the Sinai Peninsula.

(7) Offer the Israeli Air Force additional training and exercise opportunities in the United States to compensate for Israel’s limited air space.

(8) Expand Israel’s authority to make purchases under the Foreign Military Financing program on a commercial basis.

(9) Seek to enhance the capabilities of the United States and Israel to address emerging common threats, increase security cooperation, and expand joint military exercises.

(10) Encourage an expanded role for Israel within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), including an enhanced presence at NATO headquarters and exercises.

(11) Support extension of the long-standing loan guarantee program for Israel, recognizing Israel’s unbroken record of repaying its loans on time and in full.

(12) Expand already-close intelligence cooperation, including satellite intelligence, with Israel.

USIESC goes on to claim that: “Iran, (3) which has long sought to foment instability and promote extremism in the Middle East, is now seeking to (4) exploit the dramatic political transition underway in the region to undermine governments traditionally aligned with the United States and support extremist political movements in these countries.”

On the contrary, Israel and the US have been the biggest proponents of violence toward unprovoked nations in recent times. The collaboration of the US, Israel and NATO, with help from CIA operatives al-Qaeda and other US funded terrorist groups, have synthesized fake revolutions (i.e. the Arab Spring) to destabilize foreign governments and force regime changes.

Right now, al-Qaeda is being used by the Obama administration to force the Syrian President out of office through repeated attacks and massive killing of innocent Syrians.

In Africa, specifically the south Sudan region, Obama has teamed up with Israel to create the new nation of South Sudan by using terrorism to force their current government out.

USIESC continues its assault on Iran: “At the same time, (5) Iran may soon attain a nuclear weapons capability, a development that would fundamentally threaten vital American interests, destabilize the region, encourage regional nuclear proliferation, further empower and embolden Iran, (6) the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, and (7) provide it the tools to threaten its neighbors, including Israel”.

Although publicly, both the Obama administration and the Israeli government have admitted that Iran has absolutely no intention of building nuclear weapons. Both governments assume that by using words like “they may” or “they might” denotes a definite intention to do so.

The Mullahs that have ultimate authority in Iran have stated numerous times that the acquisition and use of nuclear weapons goes against the law of Islam. Independent studies, outside of the US and Israeli reach, have also confirmed that not only does Iran not have nuclear weapons at present, but are not perusing their allocation.

To justify the fabricated “need” to assist Israel in remaining “safe” the USIESC states : “As a result, (8) the strategic environment that has kept Israel secure and safeguarded United States national interests for the past 35 years has eroded.”

At the present time, Israel is in possession of an estimated 200 – 300 nuclear weapons. They are the covert superpower of the world. Israel also enjoys one of the most intensive and explicit armies in the world. While Israel continues to invade the sovereign nations that surround them, they are not being invaded themselves.

The USIESC is a propaganda piece of legislation designed to set the stage for full military support of Israel when they launch an unprovoked strike against Iran. While now, there are campaigns to coerce a fake grassroots effort to force a regime change in Iran, the inevitability of war declarations are looming in the distance.

China and Russia have made it clear that they have absolutely no intention of ending their relations with Iran.

The distractions in the mainstream media concerning Obama are just that. The sudden inflation of gay rights in the political arena and other nonsensical and unimportant social memes are being touted as if they will define our nation.

The USIESC has clearly set a precedent and definition of who America is.

The Obama administration, under careful control of the global Elite, is consolidating powers with Israel in a joint effort to take over the world . . . by toppling one government at a time.

***

House Passes Stealth Legislation

By Philip Giraldi

Go to Google and type in “H.R. 4133.” You will discover that, apart from a handful of blogs and alternative news sites, not a single mainstream medium has reported the story of a congressional bill that might well have major impact on the conduct of United States foreign policy. H.R. 4133, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012, was introduced into the House of Representatives of the 112th Congress on March 5 “to express the sense of Congress regarding the United States-Israel strategic relationship, to direct the president to submit to Congress reports on United States actions to enhance this relationship and to assist in the defense of Israel, and for other purposes.” The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) reportedly helped draft the bill, and its co-sponsors include Republicans Eric Cantor and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Democrats Howard Berman and Steny Hoyer. Hoyer is the Democratic whip in the House of Representatives, where Cantor is majority leader. Ros-Lehtinen heads the Foreign Affairs Committee.

The House bill basically provides Israel with a blank check drawn on the U.S. taxpayer to maintain its “qualitative military edge” over all of its neighbors combined. It requires the White House to prepare an annual report on how that superiority is being maintained. The resolution passed on May 9 by a vote of 411–2 on a “suspension of the rules,” which is intended for non-controversial legislation requiring little debate and a quick vote.

A number of congressmen spoke on the bill, affirming their undying dedication to the cause of Israel. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas was the only one who spoke out against it, describing it as “one-sided and counterproductive foreign policy legislation. This bill’s real intent seems to be more saber-rattling against Iran and Syria.” Paul also observed that “this bill states that it is the policy of the United States to ‘reaffirm the enduring commitment of the United States to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish state.’ However, according to our Constitution, the policy of the United States government should be to protect the security of the United States, not to guarantee the religious, ethnic, or cultural composition of a foreign country.” Paul voted “no” and was joined by only one other representative, John Dingell of Michigan, who represents a large Muslim constituency.

It is interesting to note what exactly the bill pledges the American people to do on behalf of Israel. It obligates the United States to veto resolutions critical of Israel, to provide such military support “as is necessary,” to pay for the building of an anti-missile system, to provide advanced “defense” equipment (including refueling tankers, which are offensive), to give Israel special munitions (i.e., bunker-busters, which are also offensive), to forward deploy more U.S. military equipment to Israel, to offer the Israeli air force more training and facilities in the U.S., to increase security- and advanced-technology-program cooperation, and to extend loan guarantees and expand intelligence-sharing (including highly sensitive satellite imagery). Actually, there’s even more included, and I may have missed the kitchen sink. But the objective is to provide Israel with the resources to attack Iran, if it chooses to do so, while tying the U.S. and Israel so closely together that whatever Benjamin Netanyahu does, the U.S. “will always be there,” as our president has so aptly put it.

But the scariest bit of the bill is its call for “an expanded role for Israel within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), including an enhanced presence at NATO headquarters and exercises.” If Israel becomes part of NATO, which is clearly Congress’s intent, the U.S. and other members will be obligated to come to the aid of a nation that is expanding its borders and is currently engaged in hostilities with three of its neighbors. Israel has also initiated a series of regional wars. Whether NATO membership for Israel would benefit anyone is questionable, but it is something the neocons have been seeking for years, to turn Israel’s wars into a new crusade against the Muslim world.

And then there is the congressional propensity to conceal additional spending in legislation that is normally passed without a great deal of debate. It is perhaps no coincidence that on May 7 the Republican spokesman, the redoubtable Howard “Buck” McKeon, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, released his party’s proposal for increased defense spending (yes, increased) for 2013. McKeon, who has never served in the military and who was holds a bachelor of science degree in animal husbandry from Brigham Young University, is an uber-hawk who relies heavily on campaign contributions from the defense industry. Perhaps “Buck” should consider changing his sobriquet to “Warbucks,” but as he probably lacks a sense of humor, it would be wasted on him.

Included in the proposed defense bill is a cool $1 billion for Israel to upgrade its missile defenses. Money for Israel inserted in the U.S. defense budget suggests that Congress believes that defense of the U.S. and defense of Israel are pretty much conjoined at the hip. That’s on top of the $3 billion Tel Aviv already receives and the numerous defense co-production programs that it benefits from, which will clearly be expanded if 4133 is any indication. The media predictably underreported the largesse for Israel with a couple of lines hidden away in a story in The Washington Post about overall defense spending.

Many who follow the issue have known for some time that Congress, generally speaking, will unhesitatingly do anything to benefit Israel and its supporters, be damned the consequences for the rest of us. That they do it without any public scrutiny is unforgivable and is as much the fault of the media as it is of the devious ways of America’s legislature. If Congress wants to give Israel the type of guarantees that would require Washington to support Tel Aviv’s foreign and security policy, there should be a free and open debate with the American people understanding clearly what such a commitment means in terms of costs and consequences, not a “suspension of rules” stealth legislative package. If Buck McKeon and his friends on the House Armed Services Committee want to give Israel a billion dollars and actually believe it serves the U.S. national interest, why do they hide it in a procurement bill for the defense of the United States? If historians 100 years from now seek to explain how a great power committed seemingly intentional national suicide, they will have to look no further than the voting record of the U.S. Congress.

Are We Supporting a Nation of Lunatics?

2012-05-27T00:55:29Z

This video was recently posted by Gilad Atzmon (see here and here ), and I thought it would be enormously useful for Americans to see just exactly what it is we're supporting when we send $3 billion a year to Israel. I have heard many of our AIPAC-owned politicians talk about the "shared values" Israel supposedly has with America, but for the life of me, I can't imagine a mob scene like this, with this sort of racist hatred spewed out, on any street anywhere in America in the year 2012.

***

Welcome to Racist Israel

At a demonstration in south Tel Aviv demanding the (immediate) expulsion of all non-Jewish African asylum-seekers, a lone Israeli woman who does not agree with the rest of the crowd is shouted down with ferocity and told that she deserves to be raped.

Watching this video kind of makes you wonder whether we might be supporting a nation of lunatics.

Zuckerstein

2012-05-26T02:10:03Z

By Richard Edmondson

The much-ballyhooed Facebook IPO—how surprised should we be now to hear charges that the whole thing was pretty much an insider trading scam from the get-go? As we learn here:

Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JP Morgan Chase & Co. and other underwriters along with Facebook Inc. were sued by investors who claimed they were misled in the purchase of the social network firm’s stock.

The plaintiffs, who are seeking to proceed on behalf of a class of Facebook investors, said the company and the banks didn’t disclose lower revenue estimates before the share sale. The members of the proposed class have lost more than $2.5 billion since the initial public offering last week, according to a complaint filed today in Manhattan federal court.

But while small investors lost upwards of $2.5 billion, by contrast, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg pocketed $1.1 billion from the IPO, as reported here , while Goldman Sachs didn’t fare too badly either, profiting to the tune of $235 million. Facebook went public at $38 a share, but sadly the IPO was plagued by trading errors and a 16 percent drop in the share price, and the small, so-called “retail” investors, aren’t too happy.

“The true facts at the time of the IPO were that Facebook was then experiencing a severe and pronounced reduction in revenue growth,” the plaintiffs said in the complaint.

This growth is declining because the majority of Facebook’s newer users log on through mobile devices. This is a problem because mobile applications don’t display the advertisements, and 85 percent of Facebook’s revenue reportedly comes from advertising. According to the complaint, in the hype and hoopla leading up to the IPO, the banks named in the lawsuit reduced their estimates of Facebook’s earning prospects for the year 2012, but failed to inform potential investors.

“The underwriters took down their earnings estimates dramatically during the road show and only told a select group of investors,” said Samuel Rudman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.

Rudman made those comments on Wednesday, May 23. Now, however, comes a report that not only did the banks fail to share what should have been public information, but that Goldman and JP Morgan may have actually been making bets behind the scenes that the share prices would drop. “While both banks helped manage the IPO, they also reportedly helped hedge funds bet that the new stock would fall through a process known as shorting,” we read here. “Investors who shorted Facebook made millions as the company’s value dropped 11 percent on Monday and a further 9 percent on Tuesday before rebounding.”

So the bottom line is that the small investors suffered heavy losses on the IPO—while the inside traders made out like, well, bandits. After all we’ve heard over the past several years about criminality on Wall Street, why is it there are still gullible Americans who get suckered into pouring their hard-earned money into this “market,” an institution that today has become little more than legalized thievery (assuming it ever was anything but that). Speculation now has it that the Facebook IPO “will push more individual investors out of a stock market they already distrust after the financial crisis,” but if the marks haven’t learned by now that Wall Street is a massive Ponzi scheme, you have to wonder if they ever will. Click here to watch a cartoon animation on the Facebook IPO that someone uploaded to YouTube. “Insiders found no shortage of investors to fleece,” the video says at one point.

The question arises, of course, as to how much of a role Jewish identity and tribal loyalty play in all of this. We should keep in mind that according to the Talmud it is quite permissible for Jews to cheat or steal from Gentiles—as in Sanhedrin 57a, where it states: “When a Jew murders a gentile (Cuthean), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.” One of Israel’s chief objectives right now is regime change in Syria. Think about that as you watch the following report on “Facebook terrorism” and the role it is playing in the deadly events now playing out in Syria. The whole report is quite fascinating, but I would call your attention especially to comments at approximately 3:40 into the video: “While Facebook’s administration has previously blocked pages that openly support Bashar Assad, it has so far failed to do anything to stop the calls for the killing of his supporters.”

Now consider a report here that Goldman Sachs, following last week’s Facebook IPO, is now “ramping up investments in Web startups,” including a firm called AnchorFree. As the report states, the company “provides a so-called proxy service, which lets users connect to the Internet via remote servers so that they can’t be tracked and so residents of countries like China and Iran can skirt censors enforced by governments.” AnchorFree CEO David Gorodyansky has high praise for Goldman Sachs, calling them “very savvy product people,” and says the cash infusion will enable his company to buy servers and hire engineers to help with its push into mobile Web browsing.

So let’s see…Facebook is blocking pro-Assad pages, but allows pages that openly call for the killing of Syrians who support their government…while in the meantime, we find Goldman investing heavily in a company whose services will ultimately benefit USAID-funded dissidents in Iran. Yes, it does sound a bit like Jewish tribal loyalty.

Or perhaps we might refer to it simply as “Zuckerstein.”

Kucinich Speaks the 'Unspeakable' Truth About Israel

2012-05-23T22:44:18Z

It seems to be a rule of thumb that prominent American statesmen never dare speak the truth until after they retire from politics. It wasn’t until long after he had left the White House that Jimmy Carter linked the word “apartheid” to the state of Israel, and now Dennis Kucinich, too, seems to be following this same path. Having lost the Ohio primary in March, Kucinich, barring unforeseen circumstances, will be leaving Congress in January. This is not to say he might not run for public office again at some point, but as of January, his 12-year span as the representative from Ohio’s 10th congressional district will be up.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Kucinich, in an interview with RT (see below), has let slip some candid comments about Israel, as well as about his colleagues and their inclination to succumb to “war fever.” He doesn’t come right out and say that Israel is not our friend—but he sure does strongly imply it. In response to the interviewer’s question about possible war with Iran, Kucinich comments:

The American people are not prepared for this country to get into another war. If Mr. Netanyahu wants to pay for a war, that’s up to him. I would advise against it, because I think Israel’s security would actually be undermined by an attack on Iran, but the United States, should not, cannot, and must not be dragged into a war by any other country, which calls itself our friends. If you’re a friend with someone, your friends don’t get you into trouble. Your friends help you stay out of trouble, and unfortunately we have some friends that want to get us into trouble.

I get the distinct impression that had the RT interviewer pressed the issue, Kucinich may have gone even further. Unfortunately, the interviewer moved onto another question, but even so, what we have here is a rather extraordinary statement about Israel, extraordinary that is by Washington beltway standards, and extraordinary certainly coming from the mouth of any sitting U.S. politician. Not only has Kucinich issued a somber warning about Israel dragging us into an unnecessary war, but he has also essentially come right out and stated that the Jewish state is not America’s friend. There really is no other way his comments can be interpreted.

Human Genes in Kansas Rice Crop

2012-05-23T00:42:38Z

Not only does the US government not require labeling of genetically modified foods, but now it apparently has given approval to the growing of an experimental rice crop in Kansas that has been engineered with human genes. This is not a new story. It dates back to 2007. However, it got some recently renewed attention from NaturalNews.com, in an article which has since been picked up and re-posed at a number of sites on the Internet. So why would anybody want to engineer human genes into rice?

"We can really help children with diarrhea get better faster. That is the idea," says Scott E. Deeter, an official with Ventria Bioscience, as quoted in a 2007 Washington Post article.

Do I need to say that this is unnatural? That it is insane? Is there anyone (other than perhaps Ventria stockholders) who would dispute that?

Ventria's "Frankenrice" crop, modified with genes from the human liver, is located on 3200 acres of land in Junction City, Kansas.

Human Genes Engineered into Experimental GMO Rice Being Grown in Kansas

By Ethan Huff

Source: Pakalert Press

(NaturalNews) Unless the rice you buy is certified organic, or comes specifically from a farm that tests its rice crops for genetically modified (GM) traits, you could be eating rice tainted with actual human genes. The only known GMO with inbred human traits in cultivation today, a GM rice product made by biotechnology company Ventria Bioscience is currently being grown on 3,200 acres in Junction City, Kansas -- and possibly elsewhere -- and most people have no idea about it.

Since about 2006, Ventria has been quietly cultivating rice that has been genetically modified (GM) with genes from the human liver for the purpose of taking the artificial proteins produced by this "Frankenrice" and using them in pharmaceuticals. With approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Ventria has taken one of the most widely cultivated grain crops in the world today, and essentially turned it into a catalyst for producing new drugs.

Originally, the cultivation of this GM rice, which comes in three approved varieties (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/biotech_ea_permits.html), was limited to the laboratory setting. But in 2007, Ventria decided to bring the rice outdoors. The company initially tried to plant the crops in Missouri, but met resistance from Anheuser-Busch and others, which threatened to boycott all rice from the state in the event that Ventria began planting its rice within state borders (http://todayyesterdayandtomorrow.wordpress.com).

So Ventria's GM rice eventually ended up in Kansas, where it is presumably still being grown for the purpose of manufacturing drugs on 3,200 acres in Junction City. And while this GM rice with added human traits has never been approved for human consumption, it is now being cultivated in open fields where the potential for unrestrained contamination and spread of its unwanted, dangerous GM traits is virtually a given.

"This is not a product that everyone would want to consume," said Jane Rissler from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) to the Washington Post back in 2007. "It is unwise to produce drugs in plants outdoors."

Though receiving tens of thousands of public comments of opposition, many rightly concerned about the spread of GM traits, the USDA approved open cultivation of Ventria's GM rice anyway. This, of course, occurred after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had refused approval for Ventria's GM rice back in 2003 (http://www.kansasruralcenter.org/publications/PharmaRice.pdf).

GM 'pharmaceutical' rice could cause more disease, suggests report

Besides the threat of contamination and wild spread, Ventria's GM rice, which is purportedly being grown to help third-world children overcome chronic diarrhea, may conversely cause other chronic diseases.

"These genetically engineered drugs could exacerbate certain infections, or cause dangerous allergic or immune system reactions," said Bill Freese, Science Policy Analyst at the Center for Food Safety (CFS), who published a report back in 2007 about the dangers of Ventria's GM rice.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035745_GMO_rice_human_genes_Kansas.html#ixzz1veBqIRAC

The following video makes reference to the Natural News story, but also gives a bit of additional background:

A 2007 interview with a Kansas organic farmer:

"Remember kids, GMOs are an unknown!" Excellent piece from RT:

Palestine BDS Movement Notches Up a Couple of Wins

2012-05-22T22:51:37Z

In what could perhaps be viewed as an achievement for the BDS movement, both Denmark and South Africa have taken concrete steps recently to impose labeling restrictions on products originating in the West Bank. Under policies recently announced by the foreign ministers of both countries, the marketing of such goods under the label "Made in Israel" will be prohibited. The response from Israel has been about what you would expect, and the way the story is being treated by some bloggers and news outlets has taken on humorous tones: "Racist! Liable to result in the death of Jews! Reprimand the South African ambassador!" begins one writer's post on the matter. She goes on to add:

Israel’s government, ruling coalition and right-wing are competing over which can propose the most extreme reaction to South Africa’s decision to ban the marketing of products made in Israeli settlements in the West Bank with the label “Made in Israel”.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry announced that the South African ambassador in Tel Aviv would be called in for a reprimand today, adding that “this is not political opposition to settlements but negatively tagging a state through a special marking, according to national-political criteria. Accordingly, this is a racist measure”.

Knesset Member Arieh Eldad of the far-right Yechud Leumi goes further, calling on the government to mark all products imported from South Africa with a prominent label of “Warning! Product of South Africa. The history determines: anti-Semitism is liable to result in the death of Jews!”

The government directive concerning the labeling of settlement products, issued by South Africa’s Department of Trade and Industry, notes that "consumers in South Africa should not be misled into believing that products originating from the (occupied Palestinian territory) are products originating from Israel.

"The government of South Africa recognizes the state of Israel only within the borders demarcated by the United Nations in 1948," not including occupied Palestinian territory, the notice continues. (Read more )

Of course the usual Zionist pressure tactics are being launched to reverse the decision. The following comes from Haaretz:

Israel will try in the coming months to cancel the decision. According to the South African law, the fact that the decision is a government directive and not a law passed in parliament means that citizens can lodge objections with 60 days.

"Pro-Israel groups are organizing in South Africa in order to present objections in an orderly manner to try to cancel the directive or change it," an official in Israel's Foreign Ministry told Haaretz on Saturday.

A story in the Irish Times quotes Israel Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor as saying, “This is essentially a racist measure. It is shocking to know that, of all the countries, South Africa is acting so callously.” Let’s see—a nation that formally ended apartheid 18 years ago is now being accused of “racism” by a government that practices apartheid today? Right.

It gets even more humorous. Another story quotes Danny Dayan, head of an umbrella group representing the settlements, as fulminating, “This proves again that Jews from the extreme left are conducting with great joy a propaganda campaign against Israel.” (The South African foreign minister who made the announcement is Jewish.)

And finally we have a writer at deLiberation who describes the Israeli response as a “tantrum” (good description), and who also supplies us with a link to a rather bizarre op-ed piece in the Jerusalem Post which postulates that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism (seriously!), and which likens the Jewish state’s critics to “pachyderms” (who seek attention while sitting in their parlors):

All criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic because of the specific historical circumstances under which we currently live. That is to say, the historical circumstances under which Israel and the Jews exist in the world today render any non-anti-Semitic criticism of Israel impossible. And, ironically, these are circumstances that Israel’s opponents have themselves created.

To hold that this is not the case requires acting – and demanding that others act – as if these circumstances do not exist, even as they sit as patiently as a pachyderm in the parlor waiting for us to notice them and, sometimes, when our self-willed ignorance grows too infuriating, murder our children and set off bombs in our streets.

I’ve never heard of a bomb-throwing pachyderm, but quite possibly they have some of those in South Africa.

All of which demonstrates to me how panicked Israeli officials and are becoming, and the more panicked they grow, the more disconnected from reality it seems they get.

As I said above, Denmark, too, is taking a step similar to South Africa’s.

“This is a step that clearly shows consumers that the products are produced under conditions that not only the Danish government, but also European governments, do not approve of,” Foreign Minister Villy Søvndal Søvndal told Politiken newspaper. “It will then be up to consumers whether they choose to buy the products or not.

A source in Brussels familiar with the matter told Haaretz that it is still unclear whether the move is a recommendation or a new directive.

Which of course opens the door to more panic and an even further ramped up campaign of Zionist pressure. I’m not a gambler, but even if I were, I wouldn’t be placing any bets on the foreign ministers of either South Africa or Denmark being able to successfully stand their ground. Expect a frenzied fusillade of hasbara attacks against both governments in the coming weeks.

A U.S. Envoy's Arrogance in Lebanon

2012-05-19T21:52:15Z

American officials like Jeffrey Feltman would be wise to tone down the arrogance. It obviously isn't playing well on the world stage.

US Envoys: Losing Lebanon—Visit by Visit?

By Franklin Lamb

source: Al Manar

It might require a semanticist with Noam Chomsky’s erudition to explain to some of us more obtuse the meanings, context and policy nuances of two similar and repeated phases heard in Lebanon earlier this month by two well listened to guests . During over-lapping visits of top US and Iranian officials to Lebanon; one warned and threatened Lebanon, while the second praised Lebanon’s “achievements”. Admittedly, divining these Lebanese ‘achievements” is no mean task.

Making the front page lead paragraph in a number of Beirut and Middle East dailies last Friday were nearly simultaneous summations by the two visitors as they articulated their country’s policy toward Lebanon.

One visitor was Jeffrey Feltman, the long serving US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, who for all intents and purposes in still US Ambassador to Lebanon and elsewhere in the Levant. Mr. Feltman is well known in Lebanon and many here actually view him as a too frequent visitor, who rather like the Li'l Abner comic strip character Joe Btfsplk, personifies the World’s worst jinx who always travels with a dark cloud over his head. Assistant Secretary Feltman repeated his seven year mantra during a meeting with Prime Minister Najib Mikati, of warnings for the Lebanese government and citizens to break with Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran.

On the arguably more positive side, as he had so many times in the past, Assistant Secretary Feltman renewed the United States’ commitment to “a stable, sovereign and independent Lebanon”. And he repeated these words to the President of the Chamber of Deputies Speaker Nabih Berri, Progressive Socialist Party Leader MP Walid Jumblatt, Lebanese Forces Party President Samir Geagea, Maronite Bishop of Beirut Boulous Matar, and March 14 politicians. All of whom presumably hear the words in their sleep by now as all visiting US officials repeat Feltman’s buzz words.

A few hours earlier, another visitor, the Iranian First Vice President, Mohammad Rida Rahimi, having arrived in Lebanon in a bid to implement agreements signed between both countries, some since 1996, pledged Iran’s commitment to Lebanon’s “freedom, independence and sovereignty”.

The two gentlemen used 67% of the same key words but their meanings appear vastly different and that’s why some of us, certainly this observer, could use some help from a serious student of the subject.

Feltman told his interlocutors that he came to Lebanon to express his country’s “grave concern" on a number of issues including Hezbollah and its links with Iran and Syria. He also gave instructions on next year’s parliamentary elections which his team, the March 14 opposition, has threatened to boycott. If they do, according to some analysts here, their decision will have resulted from Feltman’s instructions.

The Beirut Daily, As-Safir, reported that Feltman's sole purpose was to lash out at Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah.

And he did.

Feltman repeatedly warned that "if some sides in Lebanon seek to circumvent the sanctions on Iran then the Lebanese government will face “very serious complicated problems with the international community. The IC is increasing defined as US allies.

During his meeting at the obsequious and literally genuflecting pro-Saudi MP Boutros Harb's house, whose front page photograph showed the MP bowing deeply to Feltman, threatened that “the United States is keen not to allow any exploitation of the bank secrecy in Lebanon, in order to bypass the sanctions on Iran, Hezbollah, and Syria. This enters deep into US strategy."

Feltman’s threats continued as he sought to pressure businessmen in Syria and Lebanon: "Not abiding by the US and International sanctions will have dangerous repercussions on the Lebanese banking sector." More than once Feltman warned the Lebanese, with reference to the recent unilateral sanctions imposed on the Central Bank of Iran, not to underestimate the American capacity to monitor and trace deposits and transfers. Most Lebanese are generally aware that US Treasury officials have been swarming Lebanon the past two years in order to intimidate Lebanon’s banking sector and shore up the failing US sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

While Feltman was busy so was Iranian First Vice-President Rahimi who signed three memorandums of understanding agreed upon in previous meetings.

During his meetings, the Iranian first Vice President stressed his country's “total support for Lebanon on the political, economic, and development levels.”

According to sources attending the Joint Lebanese-Iranian Higher Committee meeting, Rahimi discussed Iranian support to Lebanon on the oil, electricity, economic, trade, and agricultural levels, in addition to Iran's interest in constructing water dams.

To give credence to his words, Rahimi presented a $40 million grant Iranian to Lebanon to finance a dam in the Batroun region. He further announced that as the agreement's executive program has been signed in both Tehran and Beirut, Iranian engineers will soon arrive in Lebanon to begin a project that the American government has discussed since the late 1970’s but has always conditioned US help to Lebanon on “better relations” with Israel.

On the subject of Israel, which is said to deeply concern Feltman, one American stringer for a major US daily who was covering the two envoys visit noted that Embassy sources advised that Feltman was in a bad mood during part of his visit for a few reasons. One was because he was not advised of the Iranian Vice-Presidents simultaneous visit. Another was because he not told about the May 12th celebrations organized by Hezbollah and Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah speech that were sure to dominate a news cycle. The Hezbollah mass event was to acknowledge the success of its building and construction unit, WAAD (‘promise), in completing after nearly four years of nearly 24/7 rebuilding, 275 high rise apartment buildings housing more than ten thousand citizens in South Beirut. The destruction was caused by American weapons in the hands of Zionist forces and destroyed with carpet bombing of Dahiyeh/Haret Hreik neighborhoods during the 33 days of the July 2006 aggression against Lebanon. Feltman complained that there were American citizens who were tenets in some of the recently completed buildings that cost more than $ 450 million to rebuild, despite both Hezbollah and its construction company, Jihad al Binna being put on US terrorism lists at his initiative. He reportedly demanded an investigation.

According to the same sources, Assistant Secretary Feltman was grousing over discouraging reports that another one of his projects, this one to salvage Camp David, was experiencing turbulence. Specifically, he was briefed that the current front runner in the May 23-24 Egyptian Presidential election, Abdel Moneim Abul Fotouh, has branded Israel a "racist state" and repeated to cheering crowds that the 1979 peace treaty with Israel was "a national security threat" that had to be scrapped and added that Israel and its supporters were “enemies of the Egyptian people.”

To make matters and his mood worse, the American Assistant Secretary was informed that another strong Egyptian presidential candidate, Ahmed Shafiq is exciting crowds with his campaign claim that the former air force chief had shot down two Israeli planes during the War of Attrition which Egypt declared between 1969 and 1970. "General Ahmed Shafiq has a great military record and career," his campaign statement said.

Priding himself on being an adherent of realpolitik, Feltman is observing Israel being rejected by Arabs, Muslims and increasingly by the grounding swelling movement by people of good will including his own countrymen. He reportedly told one interviewer recently that he sees his role as “trying to staunch the coming tsunami of global rejection and delegitimization of Israel, and it’s not going to be easy.”

Meanwhile, Iran’s Vice-President Rahimi’s program included a meeting with Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, and a visit to the hugely popular with many Lebanese families, "Iran" Gardens in the southern village of Maroun al-Ras located on Lebanon's borders with occupied Palestine. From this hillside vantage point, on a clear day one can see Akka and other ethnically cleansed areas.

Similar words from Washington and Tehran to Beirut via experienced envoys. But fundamentally different approaches and deeds as has so often has been the case over the past decade.

Washington has, in important strategic respects, handed Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and soon more of the Persian Gulf countries to Iran’s rising presence and influence.

Next is likely Lebanon.

Can Palestine be far behind?

Franklin Lamb volunteers with the Sabra-Shatila Foundation and the Palestine Civil Rights Campaign. He is reachable c/o fplamb@gmail.com

He is the author of The Price We Pay: A Quarter-Century of Israel’s Use of American Weapons Against Civilians in Lebanon.

'Two Kinds of Power': Transcript of an AIPAC Discussion

2012-05-19T03:18:53Z

HAIM KATZ: My father was a rich man in Poland, and he says, he says, “Economic power is very good. You have to have money, but if you just have economic power and you don’t have political power. . .”

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: “You’ve got nothing.”

HAIM KATZ: You’ve got nothing.

What you’re about to read is a transcript of a conversation which took place back in 1992 between David Steiner, then president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and a New York real estate developer by the name of Haim Katz. In it Steiner talks about buying and influencing politicians, as well as maintaining unwavering support to those elected officials who have proven their loyalty to Israel, no matter whether they be Democrats or Republicans or what their positions might be on other issues. “From a Jewish point of view, I believe in political loyalty,” Steiner says at one point. “And if someone has been good for Israel, no matter who, if my brother would run against them, I would support them because they’d been good to Israel because that’s an important message to people.”

Steiner didn’t know it at the time, but Katz was secretly recording their conversation, and subsequently he turned the tape over to the Washington Times, which published the story on Nov. 4, 1992. So yes, it’s an old story, but it was posted a couple of days ago on the blog of MJ Rosenberg . (Thanks again Miriam.) A former AIPAC staffer himself, Rosenberg is now one of the organization’s more vocal critics, and in posting the transcript he commented, “Remember, this is how AIPAC operated then and how it operates now.”

I myself have previously discussed how AIPAC’s corrosive impact on our foreign policy also has implications in the domestic arena:

Those inclined to feel sympathy or compassion for Palestinians are the very same public leaders most likely to place a high value on social justice. One would expect such officials to probably also cast votes in favor of taxing the rich or reining in the power of corporations. When AIPAC systematically weeds out such people from the political process, eliminating them from serving in Congress, the effect we see over time becomes quite dramatic. We end up with a more degraded and debased government, eventually becoming in the process a nation of dishonor.

Degraded and debased because AIPAC runs Washington, as the transcript below so graphically demonstrates.

At the time Steiner and Katz had their little talk, AIPAC was backing Bill Clinton for president, the lobby having grown furious with George H.W. Bush over the former president’s attempt to pressure Israel over its illegal settlement activities by delaying loan guarantees. After the revelations appeared in the Washington Times in 1992, Steiner resigned as AIPAC president, claiming that his comments to Katz were full of boasts and exaggerations. I don’t believe it. Neither does Rosenberg (who is in a better position than any of us to know). And neither should you. For more background on the elder Bush’s battles with AIPAC, click here. For background on Steiner’s resignation from AIPAC click here and here. The full transcript of the Steiner-Katz conversation is below…

***

David Steiner AIPAC: Haim.

Haim Katz: Hello, how are you?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Where are you located?

HAIM KATZ: I’m located in Queens, New York.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Queens.. .Far Rockaway?

HAIM KATZ: Belle Harbor.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Belle Harbor. I’m trying to get this list together. Would you ever get into the city?

HAIM KATZ: Sure, I do. Sure, you come frequently?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Well I come in from time to time. I have an office there, at AIPAC in the city. You know, I want you to understand . . . where did you get my name and phone number?

HAIM KATZ: Oh, I, um, I called AIPAC. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Yeah.

HAIM KATZ: And ahh. . .I know you’re the president of AIPAC…

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: You should understand that, the political information that I gave you, those are personal choices . . .

HAIM KATZ: Sure, I understand.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: AIPAC does not rate or endorse candidates, does not solicit money. . .

HAIM KATZ: Yeah, look.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I want you to understand that the choices I would give you are personal choices.

HAIM KATZ: I understand.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I wonder if before . . . I want to get together with you next week.

HAIM KATZ: Next week would be fine.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: But in the meantime, I wonder if I can have one of my people get together with you and talk to you about it . . . They’ll want to meet you and know who you are and all this. I have a.. . maybe if I can have Seth Buchwald call you, my New York director.

HAIM KATZ: That would be terrific.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: And we have a guy out there, Joel Schnur. And, are you orthodox?

HAIM KATZ: Ah, yes.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Okay, Joel is orthodox too. I am not.

HAIM KATZ: You’re reform or?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I’m reform.

HAIM KATZ: Okay, let me just say. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I was raised orthodox but I’m reform.

HAIM KATZ: Okay, let me just tell you that, I’ll just hold you a minute. I’ll be happy to meet with them, I know, I’ve heard the names, I’d be happy to meet with them, as a matter of fact I could, when I’m in Manhattan…Are you ever in Manhattan?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Sure, today I’m going to be there, but I can’t. I’m meeting with the ambassador.

HAIM KATZ: Okay, I’ll just ask you very very quickly. You know, like, in New York, you know, this is your own personal opinion, like in New York we have Abrams against D’Amato.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Well, let me tell you what my personal position is. Okay?

HAIM KATZ: Yeah.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: From a Jewish point of view, I believe in political loyalty.

HAIM KATZ: Right.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: And if someone has been good for Israel, no matter who, if my brother would run against them, I would support them because they’d been good to Israel because that’s an important message to people.

HAIM KATZ: Right.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: What I’m going to be doing for you. . .

HAIM KATZ: Now D’Amato, has he been good for Israel?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: You couldn’t have a better . . . listen I think Abrams would be good too, but that’s not the message.

HAIM KATZ: Yeah.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Ah…

HAIM KATZ: So the message, so the message is that ah…I agree with you all the way, that if somebody’s been good for Israel, I’ll take D’Amato. But you have no complaints with D’Amato?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I have no complaints with D’Amato.

HAIM KATZ: Uh huh, so and ah, you know, let me tell you, Abrams might be, might be too liberal. I don’t know if Abrams supported, let’s say the ah, the war against Iraq.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Yeah, I don’t know, and ah, I don’t know. But all I know is if I have a guy who is there and he’s doing it, then I don’t want to change, you know?

HAIM KATZ: Right. Let me ask you this very quickly and then I will. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I’m going to have Seth call you because in the meantime I’m going to be preparing this list, what I’m doing is, I’ve asked my friends AIPAC in the various campaigns, I’ve made about 30 calls, what I’m trying to put together who needs AIPAC it the most, you know? Because you could dissipate a million dollars, but the point is to put it where it’s going to do the most, I know Bob Kasten, who’s been an outstanding friend and needs AIPAC it I know. . .

HAIM KATZ: Excuse my ignorance. Bob Kasten is what state?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: From Wisconsin. . .

HAIM KATZ: Okay, is he Jewish?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: . . .He’s for loan guarantees, he happens to be a Republican.

HAIM KATZ: Okay, and but, he’s good? He’s. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: You couldn’t have better.

HAIM KATZ: Is Kasten, Kasten’s been very, very good and he’s in trouble?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: He’s in big trouble. Les Aspin, who’s the Chairman of the Military Appropriations, a Democrat also from Wisconsin is really [unintelligible].

HAIM KATZ: You mean, Les Aspin is in trouble?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: In big trouble.

HAIM KATZ: I can’t believe it. I mean, I don’t, I don’t follow . . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Well see, what happened was, you know ah, when you get to know me, I’ll put you on my list and I’ll be sending all these things. A wealthy businessman decided to run, using all his own money. Aspin, ’cause they sit on the finance committee for Aspin. . .

HAIM KATZ: Right.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: . ..programmed the last two weeks of, well the last month of the campaign, for TV. This guy came in two months early and we didn’t have the money budgeted, so we’re out scratching around to raise money for him. So we, heck, I told him, I said that I’d go, I’ll sign on the bank on a loan for you, you know, that’s how important it is.

HAIM KATZ: Unbelievable. You know I read, I won’t hold you long, but I’d just tell you this. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: That’s okay.

HAIM KATZ: . . .I’ll just tell you this, I read the New York Post, and I don’t even read the papers too much, I don’t follow politics . . . are you ready for this?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Yeah.

HAIM KATZ: Get ready for this. I read in the papers this morning, I think it was the (NY) Post, Barbara Boxer, in California. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Yeah.

HAIM KATZ: . ..do you know who she is?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I know who…

HAIM KATZ: She’s originally from, ah. . . New York I think. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: A friend of yours?

HAIM KATZ: No, no, no. She’s not a friend of mine, but she, ah, I think she’s in trouble.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Yean, that’s ah, in that race we’re okay either way, ’cause Bruce Herschensohn, who she’s running against, is Jewish, and he’s very strong on our issues.

HAIM KATZ: Okay, but Herschensohn.. .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Herschensohn’s a very conservative Republican.

HAIM KATZ: You know, he’s come out of nowhere. He was like 30 points behind.. .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Right.

HAIM KATZ: He’s come out of nowhere with it.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Because the truth of the matter is, she didn’t always vote for foreign aid. We had a big meeting, I had a program in L.A. I had all four senatorial candidates there, and he ripped her apart. She has always voted against foreign and.

HAIM KATZ: What about the one, in ah, the one in. . . um, what’s his name? I read it in the paper, it’s just a shocker, politics is a crazy game. The black woman in Chicago. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Carol Moseley Braun?

HAIM KATZ: She was going to win by 50 points. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Oh it’s down, she took the money, it’s a big problem.

HAIM KATZ: It’s a big problem with her. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: And we have a problem with another good friend. You know Daniel Inouye, from Hawaii he’s one of our best friends AIPAC. It was Kasten-Inouye on the loan guarantees, Kasten-Inouye and Leahy.. .

HAIM KATZ: I heard, I saw it on, I know Inouye’s in trouble because of, he sexually harassed his hairdresser. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: We commissioned a poll and got some people, and I’ve got to raise $27,000 to pay for the poll . . . so I have, so what I’m trying to do is make a priority list, because I don’t know how far you want to go. . . how old are your kids AIPAC by the way? . . . You had three children that could write checks, do they have their own checking accounts?

HAIM KATZ: Yes.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Oh, so that’s not going to be. . .

HAIM KATZ: How old do they have to be?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: They can’t be one year old.

HAIM KATZ: I mean, could they be 18, 17?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Sure, no problem, so they could make, nobody’s going to bother you, but if you had infants, a four-year-old, let’s say, it’s not a contest.

HAIM KATZ: Let me tell you, I was planning, I was planning to, to . . . Inouye, by the way, is in real trouble? He’s been there forever. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Yeah! Well, we might lose him. There’s been such a sea change, such trouble this year, I can’t believe all our friends AIPAC that are in trouble. Because there’s an anti-incumbency mood, and foreign aid has not been popular. You know what I got for, I met with [U.S. Secretary of State] Jim Baker and I cut a deal with him. I got, besides the $3 billion, you know they’re looking for the Jewish votes, and I’ll tell him whatever he wants to hear. . .

HAIM KATZ: Right.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Besides the $10 billion in loan guarantees which was a fabulous thing, $3 billion in foreign, in military aid, and I got almost a billion dollars in other goodies that people don’t even know about.

HAIM KATZ: Such as?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: $700 million in military draw-down, from equipment that the United States Army’s going to give to Israel; $200 million the U.S. government is going to preposition materials in Israel, which Israel can draw upon; put them in the global warning protection system; so when if there’s a missile fired, they’ll get the same advanced notification that the U.S., is notified, joint military exercises—I’ve got a whole shopping list of things.

HAIM KATZ: So this is from Baker?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: From Baker and from the Pentagon.

HAIM KATZ: So, not so, not.. .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Why did he do it, you know, why did he do it? Last year I was a bum. This year I said look Jim, we’re going to fight on the F-l5s. Israel doesn’t want to fight, I said, but some people on it are going to come up on the floor of the Senate and the House and they’re going to fight. If you’ll do this, I think I can hold them back. But you’ve got to do it right away. They didn’t want to fight. I said, “You don’t want a fight before the election. It’s going to hurt Bush. We don’t want a fight before the election. We don’t want to fight at all. Why can’t we work something out?” So we cut a deal. You can’t repeat this.

HAIM KATZ: You’re right. But you met with Baker. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Personally.

HAIM KATZ: Personally. Because you know, he’s the one who cursed, who cursed the Jews.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Of course, do you think I’m ever going to forgive him for that?

HAIM KATZ: Unbelievable. I said…

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Do you think I could ever forgive Bush for what he did September 12th a year ago? What he said about the Jews for lobbying in Washington?

HAIM KATZ: Do you think that Baker has a legitimate concern for the Jews? From what I hear, do you think he’s anti-Semitic?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I wouldn’t go so far as to say that. He’s a pragmatic businessman, he’s a very tough lawyer. He does whatever it takes.

HAIM KATZ: And that’s why.. .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: If we didn’t have an election this year, you would get [unintelligible] from him.

HAIM KATZ: Let me ask you a quick question. Just a quick question here. You know Perot, you know, I’m telling you this is scary. I don’t know what you think of Perot, but if Perot hadn’t backed out, I watched the debates. I thought Perot did marvelous in the debates.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: He doesn’t know how to govern. He’s not going to make it. And there was an incident where his daughter was going out with a Jewish professor at school and he said, “I wouldn’t have my daughter marry a Jew.”

HAIM KATZ: So Perot, they say that if Perot hadn’t backed out in July, and if he would have gotten himself a good running mate, you know . . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: He wouldn’t win, but it would go to the House of Representatives. The Democrats would win in the House of Representatives.

HAIM KATZ: So if it goes to the House, the Democrats would win for sure.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: For sure.

HAIM KATZ: Okay let me ask you, last question and then I’ll be happy to meet with your New York people. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: You know, you sound like my kind of guy. How old are you?

HAIM KATZ: Forty-two.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: You’re a kid.

HAIM KATZ: I’m not a kid, I’m 42. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I’m 63, you’re a kid.

HAIM KATZ: I wish I was…

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: We’ll have to get you involved. I like you, we have a lot to talk about, about real estate, you know, I have so many great activities going on at AIPAC, you ought to think about coming to some of these things. I’ll have a dinner this fall. I’ll have 18-20 senators there. I run programs in Washington. We just had a, I had at Ted Kennedy’s house last month kosher dinner. I brought foremost caterers down. I had 60 people on the couch for dinner. Last year, I did it in Al Gore’s house.

HAIM KATZ: Right.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Those are the things you should be getting involved in and knowing what’s going on. . .

HAIM KATZ: Let me just ask you about Clinton. I want to tell you, you may not believe this, but I think that if Perot. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Yeah, he would’ve given us a hard time. What’s the name of your company, what do you do business as?

HAIM KATZ: We do business as HAIM KATZ, Inc.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: HAIM KATZ, Inc.?

HAIM KATZ: Right.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Do you have a street address?

HAIM KATZ: Sure. 621 Beach 129th Street, Belle Harbor, Queens, New York, 11694.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Yeah, because on my computer you only show a post office box. This is your house? You work out of your house?

HAIM KATZ: Yeah, out of an office in the house. . . Look, Mr. Steiner…

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: David. My father’s Mr. Steiner.

HAIM KATZ: David, let me just ask you about Clinton. Honestly, what do you feel about Clinton?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Well, I’ve known Bill Clinton for seven eight years. I think he’s got to be a lot better than George Bush. . . we have a lot of people in there. But he doesn’t need money, he really doesn’t need money. I’m a trustee of the Democratic National Committee. We collected $63 million for him so far.

HAIM KATZ: Who’s collected $63 million?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: The Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign have raised $63 million.

HAIM KATZ: So they’ve already raised $63 million, so they don’t need money.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: No, we need money, like we got a guy, Byron Dorgan, in North Dakota, who’s going to be very good for us and we need money to make sure that he gets in. We’ve got people like that, because [unintelligible], whatever you give them would be a tickle on the elephant’s behind. But when you give $5,000 or $10,000 to Bob Kasten, that’s very meaningful.

HAIM KATZ: Let me ask you, I understand what you’re saying. Clinton, when Clinton first started running a year ago, did he need money at that time?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Yes he did.

HAIM KATZ: I mean, did you help him out, ’cause that’s the time. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I personally am not allowed, as president of AIPAC, to get involved in the presidential campaign, because I have to deal with whoever wins. You know, I’ve got to go see Bush if he’s there, but I helped him, we raised over a million dollars for him in New Jersey.

HAIM KATZ: For Clinton?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: For Clinton.

HAIM KATZ: And this was when, in the beginning?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: In the beginning, yes. After he won, before the convention.

HAIM KATZ: This is before the convention?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Oh sure.

HAIM KATZ: Okay, let me ask you, you know, T

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: We’ve also raised for other guys who are running too, because they’re friends AIPAC. Harkin, the senator, you know you have to be with everybody.

HAIM KATZ: Let me ask you, [talks about getting cheated in business by Gentiles]. Let me ask you, Clinton, if he becomes, I mean what will he do for Israel, better than Bush, if he becomes, I know Bush gave you a hard time, this and that. ..

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I’II tell you, I have frienDavid Steiner AIPAC on the Clinton campaign, close associates. Gore is very committed to us.

HAIM KATZ: Right. Clinton if he, have you spoken to him?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I’ve known Bill for seven, eight years from the National Governors Association. I know him on a personal basis. I have friends AIPAC. One of my friends AIPAC is Hillary Clinton’s scheduler, one of my officer’s daughters works there. We gave two employees from AIPAC leave of absences to work on the campaign. I mean, we have a dozen people in that campaign, in the headquarters.

HAIM KATZ: You mean in Little Rock?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: In Little Rock, and they’re all going to get big jobs. We have friends AIPAC. I also work with a think tank, the Washington Institute. I have Michael Mandelbaum and Martin Indyk being foreign policy advisers. Steve Speigel—we’ve got frienDavid Steiner AIPAC—this is my business.

HAIM KATZ: I understand, David.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: It’s very complicated and the more you get into it, you’ll love it. You sound like a smart guy.

HAIM KATZ: I’m a smart guy, but I have a, maybe because I’m more orthodox than you are, I’ve had bad experiences with Gentiles. Let me ask you, you know what “tachlis” means?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Yeah, sure.

HAIM KATZ: From a practical point of view, if Clinton wins the presidency, and I’m sure he will, I hope so at least, what will be the benefits to Israel better than Bush? From a very practical point . . . I mean, you just told me that Bush gave you everything you wanted. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Only, not everything, at the end, when we didn’t want the F-l5s, that’s a terrible thing.

HAIM KATZ: Selling the F-l5s? If Clinton is elected. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Let me tell you the problem with the $10 billion in loan guarantees, right? We only have the first year. We have authorization from Congress, but it’s at the discretion of the president every year thereafter, so if Bush is there, he could say, you know, use it as a club, you know. ‘If you don’t give up Syria, I won’t give you the money. If you don’t give up the Golan Heights.’ It’s at the discretion of the president. And that’s why we need a friendly president and we have Bill Clinton’s ear. I talked to Bill Clinton.

HAIM KATZ: And Bill Clinton has made a commitment that if he’s elected . . . ?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: He’s going to be very good for us.

HAIM KATZ: And he’ll go ahead with the loan guarantees?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: We didn’t talk about that specifically, listen, I didn’t ask him that, but I have full confidence that we’re going to have a much better situation. He’s got Jewish friends AIPAC. A girl who worked for me at AIPAC stood up for them at their wedding. Hillary lived with her. I mean we have those relationships. We have never had that with Bush. Susan Thomases, who’s in there, worked with me on the Bradley campaign. We worked together for 13 years. She’s In there with the family. They stay with her when they come to New York. One of my officers, Monte Friedkin, is one of the biggest fund-raisers for them. I mean, I have people like that all over the country.

HAIM KATZ: So, I mean from a practical point of view. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: He’s going to be with us.

HAIM KATZ: I don’t say, this business, you say, Bush only went ahead with the loan guarantees for one year.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: We only have. It’s mandatory they give us the $2 billion for one year. After that it’s subject to the discretion of the president.

HAIM KATZ: You mean the other $8 billion?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: That’s correct. On an annualized basis.

HAIM KATZ: Also, I heard that. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: They don’t have to give it to us.

HAIM KATZ: But if Clinton is elected. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC:… feel reasonably certain we’re gonna get It.

HAIM KATZ: He’s made that commitment?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Well, he said he’s going to help us. He’s got something in his heart for the Jews, he has Jewish friends AIPAC. Bush has no Jewish friends AIPAC.

HAIM KATZ: Right.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Reagan had something . . . meshuga, but at least he had a commitment. He knew Jews from the film industry, he was one of the best guys for us. He had an emotional thing for the Jews. Bush doesn’t have it. That’s what it is really, if you have a feeling for our people, for what we believe in. Bush is, there’s a man with no principles. Absolutely no principles.

HAIM KATZ: I heard something about, but I never really understood it, with the scoring. One of my frienDavid Steiner AIPAC told me there’s a difference in the scoring, but I don’t understand. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Scoring is like points that you pay.

HAIM KATZ: So let’s say, if Bush is elected on the loans . . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: No, we’ve got the scoring arranged, it’s four and a half percent. It’s all done.

HAIM KATZ: That’s all done, even with Bush?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Even with Bush. I’ve got that worked out.

HAIM KATZ: So that’s all done.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: It’s in the bill. It’s all passed. He signed the bill. It’s a matter of law.

HAIM KATZ: So it’s already four and a half percent?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: We could’ve had it less, but then we couldn’t. . .

HAIM KATZ: And Clinton, if he was president, he would give…?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: He could not change it, you cannot change it.

HAIM KATZ: No, but I’m saying, if he was president now, before the bill was signed, he would’ve given you the four and a half percent. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I would’ve gotten less.

HAIM KATZ: I’m sorry?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I would’ve gotten it cheaper.

HAIM KATZ: How much? Even two percent?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Yeah, we thought we were going to get two percent. But Rabin gave it away.

HAIM KATZ: You mean Rabin didn’t bargain as good as he could have?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: That’s right.

HAIM KATZ: Unbelievable. So, if Clinton is elected, that will be the best. ..

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I think that will be the best we could do.

HAIM KATZ: You know, I just want to tell you one last thing. Do you have parents that come from Europe?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Yeah, of course, from Glolitzano, near Krakow. ,

HAIM KATZ: You’re kidding, your parents are from Krakow?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Near Krakow.

HAIM KATZ: Guess what?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: You too?

HAIM KATZ: My parents are from Krakow.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Well, we’re not from Krakow, but from near Krakow. My mother’s from Rudnick, my father from Gruns, near Tano. Do you know where Tano is?

HAIM KATZ: Yes. Let me tell you. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC .. don’t have many left. Everybody got

HAIM KATZ: Let me tell you. The same with me. Let me tell you, my parents were the only ones who came out. Let me tell you, my. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: You’re a Holocaust survivor?

HAIM KATZ: Yeah, no, not me, my parents.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: That’s some experience, I’ve got two cousins, I’ve got one in Israel and one in France that came out of Mauthausen, I’ll tell you, and everybody else dead on my father’s side, in Russia. I just brought six of them from KosHaim Katzent to Israel last year.

HAIM KATZ: Right. Let me tell you that, you know what my father always says? My father was a rich man in Poland, and he says, he says, “Economic power is very good. You have to have money, but if you just have economic power and you don’t have political power. . .”

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: “You’ve got nothing.”

HAIM KATZ: You’ve got nothing.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: If we had AIPAC in the ’30s and ’40s, we would have saved millions of Jews. We would have the political power. But Jews were afraid to open their mouths. They didn’t know how. HAIM KATZ: AIPAC started after WWII?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Oh, sure.

HAIM KATZ And if you would have had AIPAC in the

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I feel we would’ve saved a lot of Jews. HAIM KATZ: And Franklin Roosevelt, he could’ve done a lot better?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Sure, he could. The Jews never opened their mouths. They were afraid. We’re not afraid. They can curse me out, I don’t care if they hate me, just as long as I get what we need for our people.

HAIM KATZ: So if you had a little lamp, a wishing lamp and you could wish for either Bush, Clinton or Perot. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Clinton.

HAIM KATZ: Clinton all the way? And in terms of Israel having political power, between the three candidates, the one who will give us the most political power?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Clinton is the best guy for us.

HAIM KATZ: He’s the best one.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I hope you’re serious about what you told me.

HAIM KATZ: I am, I’ll tell you this [tells a long anecdote about David Souter promising to oppose abortion as a nominee and then reversing himself on the Supreme Court]. So I wish we had a Jewish candidate for president.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I don’t think the country’s ready.

HAIM KATZ: If the country was ready, is there any Jewish candidate…?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC:I wouldn’t venture to say anything.

HAIM KATZ: You know who? I don’t know him, I’ve never met him, Joe Lieberman.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Oh, I’m very friendly with Joe. I’m having dinner with him Monday night.

HAIM KATZ: Let me tell you, I think Joe Lieberman would have, uh, would have, if he wasn’t Jewish, that’s the only problem he has. He’s highly respected.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I’d like to see him on the Supreme Court.

HAIM KATZ: If Clinton is elected, has he told you who he’s going to put on the Supreme Court?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: We’re talking now. We don’t have no commitments yet. We’re just negotiating. We’re more interested right now, in the secretary of state and the secretary of National Security Agency. That’s more important to us.

HAIM KATZ: If Clinton is elected, who do you think will be secretary of state?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: We don’t know yet, we’re negotiating.

HAIM KATZ: Who are you hoping for?

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I’ve got a list. But I really can’t go through it. I’m not allowed to talk about it.

HAIM KATZ: But you figure, God willing, if Clinton’s elected . . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: We’ll have access.

HAIM KATZ: You’ll have access and you’ll have a good input into who’s secretary of state.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I do believe so.

HAIM KATZ: And the other position is. . .

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: National security adviser.

HAIM KATZ: Those are the two critical positions.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Right.

HAIM KATZ: Gotcha. Well, David, thanks for talking with me.

W: And we’re going to get together next week. I hope you’ll have your checkbook ready.

HAIM KATZ: Will do.

DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Okay, thanks.

HAIM KATZ: And let me ask you about the real estate. . .

***

AIPAC has used its two kinds of power—economic and political—to gain control over Washington, and, by extension, America. Which increases the likelihood we will soon be fighting yet another war for Israel. As it so happens, the House just a few days ago adopted a new resolution on Iran that seems to lay the groundwork for such a war. The resolution urges Obama to “reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear-weapons capability and opposition to any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.” The vagueness of the word “capability” is of course a tip-off to the agenda at play. As Rosenberg remarks, here, the resolution was the “centerpiece” of AIPAC’s annual policy conference held in March in Washington. “In fact, 13,000 AIPAC delegates were dispatched to Capitol Hill, on the last day of the conference, with instructions to tell the senators and representatives whom they met that supporting this resolution was #1 on AIPAC’s election year agenda.”

As it was in 1992, so it is today.

Propaganda Film from Israel

2012-05-18T01:38:50Z

“We’re not advocating war. On the contrary, we’re advocating peace.”

The two Israelis you see interviewed in the above video could easily pass for characters out of a George Orwell novel. War is peace and peace is war. It’s that simple.

Hat tip to Mr. Friend’s Blog for the above, as well as for the following feature on the growing death toll from US drone strikes. Toward the end of this one you’ll see Obama giving a speech before the White House Correspondents Dinner two years ago in which he cracks a joke about killing people with predator drones. What a sense of humor!

The U.S. and Israel...

It seems birds of a feather do indeed flock together.

Verdict to be Announced in Rachel Corrie Case in August

2012-05-18T00:22:27Z

Many thanks to Miriam for forwarding this. A verdict in the Corrie civil trial is long overdue, and if the Israeli judicial authorities were smart they would resolve this case in the family’s favor. Rachel has become a worldwide symbol of everything that’s wrong with the state of Israel, and failure to render a wrongful-death verdict here will serve no purpose other than to further “delegitimize” the Zionist state and its occupation of Palestinian lands. One might assume the nation’s leaders would be smart enough to figure this out. However, I’m not confident they are. Something about the timing here strikes me as curious. If a verdict has been reached, why wait three months to announce it? We should also remember that the identity of the soldier who drove the bulldozer has never been released. While he gave testimony at the trial, he was allowed to do so from behind a curtain. Members of the Corrie family who were present at the time were never allowed to see his face. For more on that, see my essay Rachel Corrie and Daniel Pearl—A Curious Comparison.

August 28 will represent for the Corrie family, of course, yet another trip to Israel in the long ordeal of pursuing justice in the death of their daughter—in a case which has dragged on for far too many years. That an American family would have to go through this—while at the same time their government has gone on giving billions each year to the same polity that protects her killer—is something every American should be outraged about.

From the Rachel Corrie Foundation

(Olympia, WA USA - May 16, 2012) - The verdict in the civil lawsuit against the State of Israel for the killing of peace activist Rachel Corrie more than nine years ago will be announced August 28, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. at the Haifa District Court.

Members of the Corrie family, including Rachel's parents, Craig and Cindy Corrie, and her sister, Sarah Corrie Simpson, plan to return to Israel in advance of the hearing and be present when the verdict is read.

Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old American peace activist and human rights defender from Olympia, Washington, was crushed to death on March 16, 2003, by an Israeli military Caterpillar D9-R bulldozer while nonviolently protesting the demolition of Palestinian civilian homes in Rafah, Gaza.

The lawsuit, filed in 2005 by attorney Hussein abu Hussein on behalf of the Corrie family, charges the State of Israel with responsibility for Rachel's killing and failure to conduct a full and credible investigation in the case. The State of Israel claims the driver of the bulldozer did not see Rachel, that she should not have been in a war zone, and that a military police investigation found no wrongdoing. Four eyewitnesses from the International Solidarity Movement testified that Rachel was visible to soldiers in the bulldozer as it approached. According to the U.S. State Department, a thorough, credible, and transparent investigation was never conducted.

Oral testimony in the case began March 10, 2010. Over the past two years, there have been 15 court hearings at which 23 witnesses testified, producing more than 2,000 pages of court transcripts.

Jesuit-run University Honors Government Official Implicated in Torture

2012-05-16T22:54:59Z

White House Counterterrorism Adviser John Brennan

When I wrote my novel The Memoirs of Saint John, it was largely with Daniel Berrigan in mind that I decided to make one of the central characters in the story a Jesuit priest. Long have I been an admirer of Berrigan’s activism on peace and social justice issues, going all the way back to the Vietnam War, and had always thought, or anyway hoped, that he exemplified the Jesuit order, at least to some degree. That’s why it’s especially sad for me that the Jesuit-run Fordham University has invited John Brennan, a man who justifies torture, to be the commencement speaker at its graduation ceremonies this Saturday.

I have long been of the belief that all religions are at present in a state of decay and corruption, as is modern society itself. So I was kind of surprised to read the quote from Berrigan’s autobiography that Ray McGovern supplies in the article below—in essence a prophecy come true—that the Jesuit university would end up “among those structures whose moral decline and political servitude signalize a larger falling away of the culture itself.” I couldn’t have said it better.

It is too bad the Jesuits who run Fordham University are apparently unable to live up to the high standards set by Daniel Berrigan as a follower of Christ.

Honoring a ‘Terror War’ Architect

Exclusive: In this season of graduations – and the rush to bestow honorary degrees on the “great and powerful” – one ironic moment will play out at Fordham University, where Jesuits are giving top billing among its honorees to White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan, notes Fordham grad (and ex-CIA analyst) Ray McGovern.

By Ray McGovern

source: Consortium News

Since even readers of the New York Times are aware of deputy national security adviser John Brennan’s open identification with torture, secret prisons and other abuses of national and international law, Fordham University’s invitation to him to give the commencement address on May 19 brought, well, shock and awe to many Fordham students, faculty and alumni.

It now turns out we didn’t know the half of it. Piling outrage upon indignity, Fordham announced this week that Brennan will enjoy pride of place among the “eight notables” on whom it will confer honorary degrees at commencement. The others receiving a Doctorate in Humane Letters, honoris causa, include Timothy Cardinal Dolan (Archbishop of New York), and Brooklyn congressman Edolphus Towns.

Unlike his co-recipients, Brennan is widely known for his advocacy of kidnapping-for-torture (aka “extraordinary rendition”) and killing “militants” (including U.S. citizens) with “Hellfire” missiles fired by “Predator” and “Reaper” drone aircraft.

These practices and “Special Forces” operations guarantee an indefinite supply of anti-U.S. militants for what is now known as the “new normal” in the kind of wars that former Gen. and now CIA Director David Petraeus has said our grandchildren will still be fighting.

The endless supply of “insurgents” engendered by the violent tactics so beloved of Brennan makes Americans less secure. But there is no sign that Brennan recognizes that — or cares. Not that some of Brennan’s co-honorees are all that great, either.

Cardinal Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, is best known for his outspokenness on pelvic issues, his stalwart defense of the first nine months of life, and his deafening silence on the taking of life in war. Since by all evidence he is far more interested in birth control than death control, it is impossible to know where Dolan or his fellow bishops stand on the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. He abjures any attempt to offer moral guidance on issues like war, preferring to defer — as the Fordham Jesuits do — to a good Jesuit-trained Catholic like Brennan to make decisions on such issues.

Edolphus Towns’s claim to distinction, in Fordham’s pre-commencement publicity, relates to his bringing “millions of dollars” to his district. Unmentioned is Towns’s membership in the Congressional Unmanned Systems (Drone) Caucus, which serves as a lobbying arm for drones — a new cash cow for the defense-industrial-congressional complex.

O Tempora, O Mores!

Since John Brennan has been accorded the dual honor of commencement speaker cum Doctorate of Humane Letters honoris causa, let’s try to piece together why Fordham’s Trustees decided to single him out for such glory. What, in other words, is the causa behind the honores? Why does George Orwell have a smirk on his face; and why are many past and present Jesuits holding their noses — Justice Jesuits like Rupert Mayer, Pedro Arupe, Dean Brackley and Dan Berrigan?

Could it be that Brennan is being honored for his role in serving up fraudulent intelligence to “justify” attacking Iraq in 2003? Or is it perhaps his open advocacy of kidnapping Muslim clerics off the streets of Milan (he calls it “extraordinary rendition”) and rendering them to “friendly” intelligence services more practiced at torture techniques than the CIA?

Is it the secret prisons he favored for “enhanced” interrogation techniques; or maybe his role in promoting illegal eavesdropping on Americans? Or could it be his stalwart defense of the intentional drone killing of American citizens without charge or judicial process? Or is it the aggregate set of abuses. And could intelligent Jesuits actually believe these approaches are okay because they are “keeping us safe?”

This would mean the teaching of moral theology at Fordham has changed markedly. Five decades ago, torture was very clearly put in the same category as slavery and rape — always “intrinsically evil” — no gray areas. I wonder where Fordham’s moral theologians now put remote-control drone killings of people on the hunch they are “militants.”

The causa of the honores could have a simpler explanation, one that risks damage to the mystique of Jesuit sophistication — no, not sophistry. Maybe the Fordham Jesuits and Trustees get their news from Fox. Perhaps their thought process was simply this: Brennan is a Fordham alumnus; he works in the White House; isn’t that enough?

Earlier Indignities

This is hardly the first time a Jesuit university has succumbed to the “prestige virus” and given a proven scoundrel high honors at a commencement. There are, sad to say, numerous examples, but one comes immediately to mind.

It is George W. Bush’s national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, who, according to ABC News, chaired White House deliberations in 2002 and 2003 at which CIA torture techniques were “almost choreographed” by the most senior national security officials. The objective was to determine which particular technique, or combination, might be most effectively applied to which “high-value detainee.”

Rice gave the commencement address at Boston College on May 22, 2006, and was awarded the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws (yes, George Orwell, that is ironic.).

An onlooker would be permitted the reasonable inference that one causa of the honores must be the promoting of torture that Rice and Brennan held in common. Maybe an objective history of the Inquisition, and the Jesuit role in it, was not included in the books available at Jesuit seminaries.

Or, worse still, maybe it is the case that ingrained habits — like jesuitically justifying torture — can apply for renewal after several centuries. Habits die slowly. Has torture and killing of innocents now entered some sort of gray area in moral theology because a Jesuit-trained, White House functionary now says these things are necessary to “keep us safe?”

O Tempora, O Morons!

It remains to be seen whether what happened when the hapless Jesuits of Boston College invited Rice turns out to be a harbinger of what is in store at Fordham next Saturday. Ten days before the commencement at BC, Steve Almond, adjunct professor of English, resigned in protest. Here are excerpts from his letter to BC’s president, Rev. William P. Leahy, S.J.:

“I am writing to resign … as a direct result of your decision to invite Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to be the commencement speaker at this year’s graduation.

“Many members of the faculty and student body already have voiced their objection to the invitation, arguing that Rice’s actions as secretary of state are inconsistent with the broader humanistic values of the university and the Catholic and Jesuit traditions from which those values derive.

“But I am not writing this letter simply because of an objection to the war against Iraq. My concern is more fundamental. Simply put, Rice is a liar. She has lied to the American people knowingly, repeatedly, often extravagantly over the past five years, in an effort to justify a pathologically misguided foreign policy. …

“This is the woman to whom you will be bestowing an honorary degree, along with the privilege of addressing the graduating class of 2006. … Honestly, Father Leahy, what lessons do you expect her to impart to impressionable seniors? … that it is acceptable to lie to the American people for political gain? …

“I cannot, in good conscience, exhort my students to pursue truth and knowledge, then collect a paycheck from an institution that displays such flagrant disregard for both. I would like to apologize to my students and prospective students. I would also urge them to investigate the words and actions of Rice, and to exercise their own First Amendment rights at her speech.”

Professor Almond was hardly alone. About a third of Boston College’s faculty members signed a letter objecting to Rice’s appearance. And here is how the New York Times reported the commencement event:

“Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice delivered the commencement address on Monday at Boston College to an audience that included dozens of students and professors who stood, turned their backs and held up signs to protest the war in Iraq.

“A small plane flew overhead twice, pulling a sign that said, in red letters, ‘Your War Brings Dishonor.’ Outside Alumni Stadium, where 3,234 students received diplomas, protesters marched up Beacon Street holding signs reading ‘No Blood For Oil’ and ‘We’re Patriotic Too.’”

“Inside, however, Ms. Rice received a standing ovation when she was introduced, and she drew applause throughout her address.”

Daniel Berrigan, S.J.’s Sad Prophecy

In his autobiography, To Dwell in Peace, Daniel Berrigan wrote of “the fall of a great enterprise” — the Jesuit university. He recorded his “hunch” that the university would end up “among those structures whose moral decline and political servitude signalize a larger falling away of the culture itself.”

Berrigan lamented “highly placed” churchmen and their approval of war, “uttered … with sublime confidence, from on high, from highly placed friendships, and White House connections.”

“Thus compromised,” warned Berrigan, “the Christian tradition of nonviolence, as well as the secular boast of disinterested pursuit of truth — these are reduced to bombast, hauled out for formal occasions, believed by no one, practiced by no one.”

The good news is that, despite an out-of-touch president, Rev. Joseph M. McShane, S.J., and his trustees, there remain people of strong conscience at Fordham — people immunized against the “prestige virus” infecting what some have come to call the Vichy Jesuits. There are students and alumni with a good sense of history; people aware not only of the Inquisition, but also of more recent history in Nazi Germany during the 1930s, when the Catholic and Lutheran churches could not find their voice.

Many Fordham people know they cannot in good conscience remain silent on such matters; they know that what is at stake is the very soul of our country. Justice-oriented students are now finalizing plans for specific actions at commencement. A new Facebook page briefly outlining the planning to date has already drawn intense interest — negative as well as positive. It appears that many students abhor the unpleasantness inevitably attached to witnessing to the abuses in which the main commencement speaker has had such a key role.

One post read: “I just wanted to say that as a recent Fordham graduate studying Islam and American foreign policy concerning Islam in graduate school, I am so proud of the people … who will stage this protest at commencement. I cannot overstate how much of an uphill battle it is to have kind, sensible and ethical voices like yours heard in this world, where monied and political interests stifle this kind of informed and humane dissent, in the public realm and in academia as well.”

Another read: “For the people complaining about their graduation being ‘ruined,’ it is as much your right to have a graduation free from protest as it is our right to have a graduation free of one of the most despicable propagators of violence in our era. I do not condone torture, I do not condone the indiscriminate use of drones, why should MY graduation be tainted with political ideology I do not support.”

In addition, many of the faculty are signing on to a letter to President McShane requesting a sit-down with Brennan before commencement. They want to ask him how he justifies his support for the kind of cruel, inhuman and degrading interrogation techniques (aka, torture) that are banned by domestic and international law.

Meanwhile, many supporters of justice-oriented students are also planning appropriate protest actions. One activity is “Stop the Drone Week at Fordham.”

It may not be an exaggeration to suggest that, as Saturday goes, so goes Fordham.

Ray McGovern received a B.A. summa cum laude (Phi Beta Kappa) and M.A. in Russian from Fordham University. He was also, briefly, an adjunct instructor there, but was deprived of the opportunity to resign in protest since it was not the practice, in those years, to honor scoundrels at commencement. McGovern was a CIA and Army Intelligence analyst for 30 years and now works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington.

The Profit-motivated Management of America's Wildlife

2012-05-15T00:43:52Z

“Wolf 527 was born into the Druid wolf pack of the Lamar Valley in Yellowstone National Park in 2002. She sported a fluffy black coat and startling amber eyes. She hunted elk, gave birth to numerous pups, and founded her own pack. A highly intelligent creature, Wolf 527 lived by her wits and maintained her pack in an area where four other packs had previously failed. She vigilantly avoided humans. But in 2009, while hunting outside of the Park’s boundary, she was felled by a gun. Wolf 527 was one of the first wolves taken during state-regulated wolf hunts in Montana and Idaho.”

Those words, along with the haunting photo of Wolf 527 that you see above, are taken from a just-released study entitled “Northern Rocky Mountain Wolves: A Public Policy Process Failure.” The study is authored by Wendy Keefover for Wild Earth Guardians, and documents how two special interest groups, the livestock industry and hunters, have basically hijacked wolf conservation in America.

Discussed are the role “apex carnivores” play in an ecosystem and how eradicating them can lead to “events not previously imagined, such as changes in fire regimes, exotic species invasions, carbon sequestration, and other calamities.” (In Yellowstone, for instance, it has been documented that in the absence of wolves—prior to their re-introduction back in 1995—large stands of Aspen trees were decimated due to overgrazing by elk.) But perhaps the most fascinating part of all comes in an appendix to the report where it narrates the life story of Wolf 527 and the poignant history of the Druid pack. “This report is dedicated to Wolf 527, whose courageous life inspired this telling of human events,” reads a dedication at the front.

The report is 46 pages, but includes a number of large, full color photos. Click here to access the entire document in PDF.