Thursday, July 31, 2014
  Home
RSS Feed
Facebook
Twitter
Search:
Media Analyses
Journalists
Middle East Issues
Christian Issues
Names In The News
CAMERA Authors
Headlines & Photos
Errors & Corrections
Film Reviews
CAMERA Publications
Film Suggestions
Be An Activist
Adopt A Library
History of CAMERA
About CAMERA
Join/Contribute
Contact CAMERA
Contact The Media
Links
Privacy Policy
 
Media Analyses





C-SPAN September – October 2011


October 30, 2011 – 9:02 AM

Host: STEVE SCULLY.

Guest: BUDDY ROEMER, presidential candidate. Mr. Roemer served four terms in the United States Congress from 1981 to 1988 and was Louisiana Governor from 1988 to 1992 as both a Democrat and Republican.

Topic: Campaign 2012.

Caller: (no name given) from Waterloo, Iowa.
Both host and guest are silent to caller's anti-Israel, defamatory falsehood.

Caller: “Sir, I would love to donate a hundred dollars to you. It's great to hear the truth realizing that it's always big businesses or corporations that buy off all of these politicians. They all get up there on the podium and they all speak acting like they care about the people but we know that whether it's big oil, or whatever agenda, is behind them. Israel pays billions of dollars for these politicians to speak great about Israel. And I just want to donate a hundred dollars to you and my one quick question is: I think the least corrupt out of all of these bums that I have heard is Ron Paul. I don't know who he's bought into but he seems to speak from the heart and it just infuriates the elite and I just wanted you to comment on that. God bless you brother.”

Guest: “God bless you. Ron Paul is a very decent guy. I served in Congress with him before I became governor of Louisiana thirty-five years ago. He's still there. He has been very consistent in his issue of the Federal Reserve and it's a valuable one. I would even go further. We need a full public audit. We need to annually renew the Federal Reserve to not do two things. Right now it tries to do two things, full employment and protect the value of our currency. It ought to be currency devaluation and that's it. Ron Paul is a decent guy but I noted with sorrow that Ron Paul, a month or so ago, allowed a super PAC [for campaign fund-raising] to be formed on his behalf. They all have them, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney…”

NOTE: <Pending>

October 23, 2011 – 8:28 AM

Host: STEVE SCULLY.

Guest: DANIEL SERWER, Johns Hopkins University professor, Middle East Institute scholar.

Topic: Libya after Gadhafi's death.

Caller: Ernest from Baltimore, Maryland.
 
Caller: "I have a problem with the attack on Libya orchestrated by the United States and our president. Look, they had a black delegation go to Libya – [former Congresswoman] Cynthia McKinney, Rev. Fauntroy and other African-Americans – was able to go to Libya and move around the country uninhibited. They are not saying the things that this man [guest Serwer] is saying. There is a lot of propaganda coming out of this. When you say the international community, that is the white countries that (indistinct). When Bahrain – and Saudi Arabia – went into Bahrain and slaughtered people – nothing was said about it. If something happens – in occupied Palestine and in Gaza they said it was war crimes and I just think [indistinct] bomb them back into the stone age …"
 
SCULLY: “Let me jump in. Can you put this in the form of a question?”
 
Caller: "My sentiment is this. I do not believe because they reported in the New York Times that Gadhafi was this big boogeyman. We just saw a picture last night on Bill Maher [TV program] where President Barack Obama was shaking his [Gadhafi's] hand and now all of a sudden, I think the reason why – and this is my opinion – the reason for the attacks on Libya is because they' re [United States and allies] being forced out of Iraq . Our main consideration is oil and gold and minerals. So, we had to find another place to go."

Guest: “I do not believe that at all. I think the caller is right that we were quite friendly with Gadhafi at one point as he gave up on his programs of weapons of mass destruction and partly accepted responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing. But he also threatened to do a massacre in Benghazi. I do not think we need any place to go to after we withdraw from Iraq. We can bring our troops home to the United States and back from their bases in Europe. I do not think that oil accounts for much, with respect to Libya because we were not getting much oil from Libya, and never will because their oil can be exported to closer places much more profitably. My view is that the entire oil thing has been exaggerated. The caller is correct in that he is suggesting that there is a black-white split on Gadhafi. Certainly Gadhafi's very active diplomacy with many black African countries and assistance to black African countries gave him a good deal of support in the Sahara. The new Libyan regime is going to somehow have to reconstruct those relationships with the sub-Sahara countries.”

NOTE: This caller does not believe that Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi, whose interventions in Lebanon, Chad and elsewhere led to the deaths of thousands of Arabs and black Africans, who attempted to assassinate Egyptian leaders and sink a Mediterranean cruise ship, killed hundreds of American and French civilians with attacks on airliners and tortured and murdered thousands of his own people "was this big boogeyman." He assigns unwarranted significance to a visit by prominent African Americans orchestrated by the Libyan regime. He makes a racial if not racist claim regarding Western intervention in Libya, omitting that the Arab League supported NATO action to protect rebellious civilians from Gadhafi's regime. He alleges, confusingly, "war crimes" in "occupied Palestine". Instead of cutting off such fact-free nonsense, C-SPAN's host encourages the caller to put his meanderings in question form.

The guest rejects some of the caller's allegations but typically for C-SPAN's Washington Journal, the caller's anti-Israel sound byte mentioning "occupied Palestine" and Gaza "war crimes" goes un-repudiated. And the guest's affirmation of a white-black split over Gadhafi, without mentioning the Libyan leader's depredations in black Africa or the suspicion with which many black African rulers regarded him, could be misleading. So too the unchallenged implication that Israel committed "war crimes" in "occupied Palestine" (no such place exists and Hamas rules the Gaza Strip, the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority the West Bank, both as autocracies).

Just another typical morning for C-SPAN's Washington Journal, a platform for conspiracy theorists and blame-Israel oddballs.

October 21, 2011 – 8:11 AM

Host: SUSAN SWAIN.

Guest: U.S. Representative FRANK WOLF (R-VA).

Topic: Representative Wolf discussed his new memoir, Prisoner of Conscience: One Man's Crusade for Global Human and Religious Rights.

Caller: Tyrone from Baton Rouge, Louisiana. This caller is an anti-Israel frequent caller, aired here in violation of C-SPAN's ostensible “one-call-per-30-days” rule since he was previously aired (bashing Israel) on Sept. 26, 2011 at 7:57 AM.

Caller:
“Look. I am not going to discuss foreign politics with you across the board – that would be like discussing mathematics with Einstein – that's not going to happen. I'd like just to point out two quick points. First, I disagree with what you've got about China, I think the Federal Reserve is digging this hole for us. There is only one candidate, and Ron Paul has been saying for decades about how genocidal these people are. I mean literally they are destroying this country.
 
The second point I want to make is about the Mid Eastern policy concerning the Palestinians and the Israelis. Now, there's a gentleman named Gideon Levy and I don't know his – I think Ha'aretz is the Israeli newspaper he writes for – and he wrote a brilliant book, article after article in how difficult it is and case after case of these violations of the Palestinians' human rights and it's almost nonexistent in America because it's so top heavy with the Israeli pro-Zionists that it's so hard to get the information out there. There's more open debate – in fact in Israel than it is in America about the discrepancy that I believe is between the Israelis and the Palestinians when it comes to the policies concerning that.
 
Those are two key points that I think, if we want to fix some of these problems internationally, we have to first deal with Federal Reserve and right on the heels of that – deal with the discrepancy which I believe exists between our policies in the Mideast between the Israelis and the Palestinians and I thank you for taking my question. Bye-bye.”

Guest: “Thank you. Well, on the first – Israel is our friend and I have not read the book and what the gentleman said. But Israel is our friend in the Middle East. On the other issue you raised with regard to China, China is stealing secrets from us ...”

NOTE: The caller, a Federal Reserve conspiracy theorist allowed to speak at length without challenge, refers approvingly to a book authored by Gideon Levy (columnist for the Israeli daily paper Ha'aretz) that bashes Israel. However, Gideon Levy is an unreliable source. The CAMERA Web site provides a list containing links to several articles that expose numerous Levy anti-Israel falsehoods and distortions. Presumably, the book referred to is The Punishment of Gaza, a collection of Levy's columns written for Ha'aretz from 2005 to 2009. Concerning this book, a Jerusalem Post article reported on Levy's book tour of the United Kingdom:

"Jewish community organizations in the UK have criticized Ha'aretz columnist Gideon Levy for a series of book launch events across the country with a number of notorious anti-Israel groups…The Zionist Federation of the UK accused Levy of spreading hatred about Israel. ‘It is no surprise that anti-Israel Ha'aretz columnist Gideon Levy is touring the UK to spread his hatred and misinformation about Israel,' said Joy Wolfe, ZF co-president. ‘The enemy within is always the most dangerous and Levy is no exception.'"

This is a teachable moment. Washington Journal host and C-SPAN President and Co-CEO Susan Swain, even if unfamiliar with Levy's bias, could point out that only in Israel, of Middle Eastern countries, is a columnist like he free to promulgate his anti-state falsehoods and distortions in support of an unrepresentative viewpoint and from the pages of a national newspaper. Such a renegade in Palestinian Arab society and most other Arab societies would be unable to speak out safely. But when it comes to putting the Arab conflict with Israel into perspective, Swain, like other Washington Journal hosts, virtually always fails to seize the moment.

October 12, 2011 – 7:13 AM

Host: GRETA BRAWNER.

Topic: U.S. accuses Iran in terrorist plot.

Caller: Mark from Pennsylvania.

Caller: “Basically, the Saudi Arabians have blood on their hands just as the Iranians do. I feel that we should cut off all ties with the Saudis. I have no sympathy for Adel al-Jubeir [Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States]. He has Hamas terrorist blood on his hands. Saudi Arabia is anti-Israel, anti-America, anti-woman, anti-19th century, let alone 21st century. This is an awful plot because it shows how fearsome and dangerous Iran is and it is. But we should not just dismiss this and say – well, they were attacking our friend, al-Jubeir. He is not our friend. The Saudis are not our friend. As far as I am concerned, Sunni and Shia, there is no difference. They are evil and they want to ruin the Israelis and the Americans.”

Host: “Mark, why do you make that statement about all Muslims?”

Caller: “I did not quite mean to say that about all Muslims. I may have misstated my thoughts. My point was just to highlight these two countries as rivals in the region. Sunni and Shia tensions. But I will respectfully retract any blanket statement about the entire religion. That is not my intention…”

Host (interrupting): “We will leave it there.”

NOTE: Journal hosts essentially never critically question, let alone challenge anti-Jewish or anti-Israel callers. But they do challenge callers who seem to cast doubt on or impugn other ethnic/religious/national groups, such as – in this case – Muslims, or African-Americans.

October 12, 2011 – 7:13 AM

Host: GRETA BRAWNER.

Topic: U.S. accuses Iran in terrorist plot.

Caller: Eric from Benson, Arizona.

Caller: “I was just wondering if anyone realized the impact of this story? It is tremendous. It seems kind of hard to believe that a country like this [Iran] would, for one, choose a drug cartel who is usually not very adept at this sort of thing. Assassination? For a major country, it borders on incredibility. I think that within a week, Israel may attack.”

Host: “Based on this?”

Caller: “Yes. Yes, I really do. Because they look for no excuse whatsoever. They do not need very much provocation. I am not an antisemite but this is how it is.”

Host: “Okay. Alright.”

NOTE: Typically, for a C-SPAN host, the host here only weakly challenges the anti-Israel caller who is or pretends to be incredulous that Iran would try to assassinate its perceived enemies, even though the regime of the ayatollahs has done so since ousting the Shah in 1979. The host should have noted that Iran has been implicated in various assassination plots in the past. According to a recent statement by the Connecticut-based Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, the Islamic Republic of Iran has assassinated at least 162 political opponents outside its own borders since taking power. Yet, the C-SPAN host fails to note that the historical record refutes the caller's charge, "Because they [Israel] look for no excuse whatsoever. They do not need very much provocation." Does the caller refer to Israel's bombing actions to prevent international outlaw countries – Saddam Hussein's Iraq or Syria – from acquiring nuclear-weapon capability that would threaten not only itself but the entire Middle East and beyond? The host doesn't ask. Rather than "needing no excuse" to strike at enemies threatening it with annihilation – in contravention of their U.N. membership obligation to be "peace-loving" states and in violation of international law against incitement – Israel has shown notable restraint, whether the threat has been the resumption of Palestinian mortar and rocket fire, or Iran's continued illicit drive for nuclear weapons, of which the Jewish state has been warning for at least a decade. But the Washington Journal host seems unable to marshal the relevant facts for either a pertinent question of the caller or a statement of her own.

And there is the obvious self-incrimination by the caller: "I'm an not an antisemite, but ...." This formulation, a transparent attempt at self-inoculation, almost always precedes an anti-Jewish allegation.

October 12, 2011 – 7:19 AM

Host: GRETA BRAWNER.

Topic: U.S. accuses Iran in terrorist plot.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER.

Topic: U.S. accuses Iran in terrorist plot.

Caller: Bill from St. Louis, Missouri (anti-Israel frequent caller).
 
Caller: “It seems like to me that after 9/11 and after the slaughter in Iraq – all based on lies – that how anybody could believe anything that comes out of this government's mouth, is crazy. Everyone knows that the number one terrorist in the Middle East is the nuclear-armed Israel.”

Host: “Why do you call them terrorists?”

Caller: “Because they are. They assassinate people all the time. Don't you know anything about Mossad [Israel's external intelligence agency] and what they do? Our whole problem in the Middle East is because we're flunkies for Israel.”

Host: “Alright. Well, that's Bill's opinion in St. Louis, Missouri.”
 
NOTE: In typical C-SPAN style, host Brawner only weakly questions the anti-Israel propagandist, a frequent caller. She fails to make the elemental distinction between Israeli counter-terrorist killings and the terrorist murders of Israeli civilians, fails to note their obvious similarity to U.S. slayings of Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and numerous other Islamic extremists, and fails to mention the equally obvious and relevant point – that unrest in the Arab world, including that which has overthrown former U.S. allies in Tunisia and Egypt, threatens pro-American King Abdullah in Jordan, and undermines the U.S.-allied minority Sunni rulers of Bahrain – have nothing to do with Israel.

This caller invariably charges that all Middle East conflicts are caused by Israel and the United States. Such blanket accusations of global responsibility are typical of antisemitic attitudes and behavior: "It's all, and always, the Jews' fault." But this apparently is not sufficient disqualification for airing the call even though it violates C-SPAN's ostensible "one-call-per-30-days" rule.

This caller's familiar voice and familiar anti-Israel, propagandistic message should be well known to Washington Journal hosts and screeners. But his rants continue to be aired and normally go unchallenged, at most they are only weakly questioned. In this call, the Journal again permitted “Bill” to violate the “one-call-per-30-days” rule. Notice that this same host, Brawner, was also host for Bill's Sept. 21 and May 2 calls. Previous 2011 rants from “Bill” aka "Darrell" or "Bob":
 
*Sept. 21, 2011 – 7:06 AM, Bill from Saint Louis, Missouri.  Host: GRETA BRAWNER.
*May 19, 2011 – 7:15 AM, Darrell from St. Louis, Missouri. Host: PETER SLEN.
*May 2, 2011 – 9:18 AM, Bill from Defiance, Ohio.  Host: GRETA BRAWNER.
*March 18, 2011 – 7:30 AM, Bob from St. Louis. Host: SUSAN SWAIN.
*Feb. 26, 2011 – 7:16 AM, Bill from St. Louis. Host: ROB HARLESTON.
*Feb. 1, 2011 – 7:21 AM, Darrell from St. Charles, Missouri. Host: PAUL ORGEL.
 
October 12, 2011 – 7:19 AM

Host: GRETA BRAWNER.

Topic: U.S. accuses Iran in terrorist plot.

Caller: Mary from Atlanta, Georgia.

Caller (heavily accented): “Yes, I agree with all these three callers who called before. This is just a plot from Israel. Israel is the troublemaker.”

Host: “Mary, what is your evidence of that?”

Caller: “Well, madam, I am not a young girl, like you are. I have a long experience. I am not young, but I am wiser than you are. I understand C-SPAN. I am going to call some authority that regulates these television broadcasts about the role that you are playing in the problems with the Israel, okay? You are going to hear from me, sometime soon.”

Host: “Because I was questioning the evidence?”

Caller: “Your station is always in favor of Israel.”

Host: “Alright.”

Caller: I do not know if they pay you, but you are always in favor…”

Host: “Okay Mary, we are going to leave it there.”

NOTE: The caller is allowed to voice a conspiracy-theory delusion that manages, with no evidence, and only weak questioning by host Brawner, to falsely blame Israel for a conspiracy generated by Iran according to evidence uncovered by federal authorities. As if that isn't enough to warrant a timely cut-off, the caller absurdly charges C-SPAN with supporting Israel, perhaps with accepting bribes to do so, when in fact C-SPAN's Washington Journal has been for more than three years an accommodating platform for antisemites and anti-Zionists. This is documented by CAMERA's C-SPAN Watch. The caller's threat to expose C-SPAN to "some authority that regulates these television broadcasts about the role that you are playing in the problems with the Israel" suggests a mind indoctrinated in the belief of hidden powers acting to suppress her views. Does the host probe? No. Does the host cut off the caller in a timely fashion? No. Another typical performance for a C-SPAN host confronted by an anti-Israel bigot.

October 12, 2011 – 7:27 AM

Host: GRETA BRAWNER.

Topic: U.S. accuses Iran in terrorist plot.

Caller: Dixie from Pendleton, South Carolina.

Caller: “My first comment was about the Muslim lady [probably referring to ‘Mary from Atlanta, Georgia'] who was very upset that C-SPAN was against everybody. I even commented to the person [screener] who took my call that, that's funny because all I heard for the last six or seven calls from Independents and Democrats, they were on her side. You just simply told her something to think about by reading those things.
 
Now, I do think that there is a possibility that the administration was trying to focus us away from what they are doing. It is also viable that the Mexicans could be involved. But to say that C-SPAN and the media in general is anti-Muslim is ridiculous. We see nothing, almost nothing, anywhere, about the Christians being assassinated everywhere. Look at Egypt and what is going on. Look at so many other places. You never say anything pro-Israel to the degree that you say things that are pro-Muslim. It bothers me not only that they do not show both sides in the media, and they only do it very rarely – and I do not say that Israel is always correct or anything, but I am saying that they are the ones who are exposed from all sides. The fact that they have a nuclear weapon is a defensive thing.”
 
Host: “Alright.”

NOTE: Host Brawner is either unable or unwilling to offer a comment on the caller's observations that are mildly critical of the previous anti-Israel caller and of C-SPAN.

October 12, 2011 – 9:41 AM

Host: GRETA BRAWNER.

Guest: JESSE ELLISON, Newsweek magazine writer.

Topic: Newsweek: Best and worst countries for women (Ellison's article on Web site).

Caller: Rob from New York, New York.

Caller: “I always like to see it when I see a woman in New York city who buys the New York Times or whatnot. But besides that, I want to know the status of women in Israel. Would you be able to tell me something about that?”

Guest: “I don't actually have that offhand. If you go to our Web site, there is a whole ranking of the whole world. We ranked 155 countries (actually 165). It is there, and you could see the breakdown, but I can't – I'm not sure offhand how Israel is ranked.”

Host: ”No problem. We do not expect you to be a walking encyclopedia of all the countries.”

NOTE: A visit to Newsweek's current Web site, the Daily Beast, shows the (guest) Ellison article's list of 165 countries rated from best to worst with Iceland number 1 as best for women. Israel, a Western country, is ranked only 51, and for example, Arab Egypt is ranked much worse for women at 120 and Arab Lebanon is 121. Number 165 is the African nation of Chad. Western countries such as Norway, Denmark, Sweden, America and Canada are ranked much higher than Israel by Newsweek's Website article. Earlier in the segment, Ellison had mentioned some of the factors effecting the ratings such as war, economic problems, electoral opportunities for women, and business and professional opportunities for women. The article as seen on the Website shows the ranking categories as: Justice, Health, Education, Economics and Politics.

Compare the Newsweek ratings for the U.S. (ranked 8) and Israel (ranked 51):
Overall score (out of 100): U.S. 89.8, Israel 78.0
Justice: U.S. is 82.9, Israel is 73.1
Health: U.S. is 92.8, Israel is 81.6
Education: U.S. is 97.3, Israel is 97.2
Economics: U.S. is 83.9, Israel is 80.5
Politics: U.S. is 68.6, Israel is 41.0

Concerning the "Politics" category, note that Israel has had a female prime minister, Gola Meir, and Tzipi Livni is second, after Meir, to head a major party, and has been deputy prime minister. Ironically, Newsweek/Daily Beast rated Livni among the "150 Women who shake the world" this year. The position of prime minister is roughly equivalent to the U.S. president. The U.S. has never had a female president. This category is just one indication of a possibly misleading rating by Newsweek.

Ellison doesn't have the ranking information at her fingertips that would enable her to respond to the caller's question as to Israel's ranking. Host Brawner hastens to absolve Ellison's lack of knowledge although it could have been resolved easily if the guest had in her possession a summary sheet containing the ranking numbers. Either that or a visit to the Newsweek Website during the broadcast would have solved the problem.

It remains to be explored as to whether Ellison's article in Newsweek has rated Israel fairly since Newsweek's record is suspect with respect to accurate, balanced coverage of the Jewish state. Israeli society and law has a long tradition of egalitarianism regarding men and women, certainly outside of some Orthodox Jewish and Muslim traditionalist neighborhoods.

Over the years Newsweek magazine has contained numerous errors and much commentary not only unfair but also erroneous to Israel including writings of both Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, and Christopher Dickey, Middle East regional editor for Newsweek. CAMERA has documented Newsweek's questionable record on Israel here and here.

October 6, 2011 – 8:52 AM

Host: SUSAN SWAIN.

Guest: Representative BARBARA LEE (D-California).

Topic: The progressive agenda in Congress.

Caller: Chris from Palmyra, New York.

Caller: “Representative, we want to thank you for voting against the war. As a Democrat, I support the President especially what he has done in the unification of Vietnam and ending the ah – censuring Israel to the 1967 borders. One subject I want to talk about which I feel is important and most Democrats completely avoid it, and you are from California where you have medical cannabis [marijuana]. When will cannabis be a 50-state legalization proposition? It is very important as a medicine. It's amazing that the Federal Reserve and the 1914 Harrison narcotics act dates to about the same time. Unfortunately, if hard drugs could be socialized and take the profit out of them, we wouldn't have the problems we have internationally and cannabis should be legalized. It's a recreant, it's safe. It's been proven in the 1972 (indistinct) commission report …”

SWAIN (interrupting): “Okay, we got your point on this. Let's get a response.”

NOTE: <Pending>

September 26, 2011 – 7:57 AM

Host: ROBB HARLESTON.

Guest: JOSHUA KEATING, Foreign Policy magazine associate editor.

Topic: 2012 GOP presidential candidates' foreign policy.

Caller: Tyrone from Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
 
Host: “What are your thoughts, Tyrone, regarding the Republican presidential candidates and their stand on foreign policy?”

Caller: “Several things very quickly to Mr. Keating. First, [Texas Congressman] Ron Paul didn't want a fence. He was the one who said that if you put a fence up, it only not keeps people out, but it also keeps those who are in from leaving. Second point I want to make is about the Israeli foreign policy in the Middle East. I think Ron Paul is the only candidate that just don't want to give Israelis an open key to the candy shop, and we're just not going on with anything that they do. I'm for Israelis. I recognize Israel, and I recognize them as a country. But he is the only one, when he mentioned the rights of the Palestinians, he got booed by his own Republican counterparts. My thing is, if you just – if you don't address this and have a broader mind set about, you know, a more fair and balanced approach to how we deal, that's never, ever going to get solved. I'd like his comments on that. Thank you C-SPAN.”

Guest: “Yes, that's true, and Ron Paul does have a very different policy, especially on aid to Israel. We've seen the other candidates trying to position themselves very pro-Israel, particularly after last week, you know, Mitt Romney said that there should be no daylight between the U.S. and its allies. Now, of course, all countries have, you know, somewhat differing interests, as there's pretty much – daylight between them. But we're going to continue to see Israel as major factor in this campaign. It's interesting to see President Obama at the U.N., last week, addressing Palestinian statehood and taking a very – much more pro-Israeli line in the speech than he has in the past, and, of course, the U.S. is planning to probably veto the Palestinian statehood bid. It's interesting to consider how much of what's driving his considerations are campaign issues and to what extent that his address to the U.N. was partly a campaign speech as well.”

Host: “Any telegraphing either officially or unofficially from officials in Israel as to who they'd like to see as the Republican candidates, or would they prefer to just continue dealing with President Obama?”

Guest: “Well, I think that Prime Minister Netanyahu has definitely been closer to the Republican Party in the past. In his visits to Washington, he's had very sort of warm meetings with Republican leaders. It's obviously not been quite as close with President Obama. As for which candidate, I don't know to what extent they're really taking a position. But, you know, several of the candidates have visited Israel and are definitely all trying to position themselves as the most pro-Israel candidates.”

NOTE: The Washington Journal host's response seems to be that elected American political leaders support Israel due to political considerations rather than anything based on principle. A well-informed host would have pointed out not only that opinion polls of Americans consistently show a majority favoring Israel and a small minority backing the Palestinian Arabs in particular or Arab states in general. Such a host would have noted that supporting Israel, the only Western-style democracy in the Middle East, a country with deep, mutually beneficial defense and intelligence ties with the United States, obviously is in America's self-interest.

September 26, 2011 – 8:12 AM

Host: ROBB HARLESTON.

Guest: JOSHUA KEATING, Foreign Policy magazine associate editor.

Topic: 2012 GOP presidential candidates' foreign policy.

Caller: Ken from New York, New York.
 
Caller: “My question is: Could we ever have peace in the Middle East if, we, like Rick Perry advocates, give unquestioned support to Israel? I would like to see peace on both sides of Israel. But when ever we seem to get close to peace, there always seems to be something that Israel does. For example, the time that we were so close to peace and Ariel Sharon launched into Jerusalem to humiliate the Palestinians. I don't see any reasons why we criticized Obama for trying to negotiate from the 1967 borders while the Israelis seemed to put settlements into the Palestinian territories.”

Guest: “I think that Israel is a very potent political issue in the U.S. and is something the candidates can continue to stake out the strongest possible position in order to criticize the President. How much daylight there really is between how Democrats and Republicans have approached Israel over the year – I' m not sure there's really that much difference – but in terms of rhetoric, I certainly agree that the two parties are miles apart.”

NOTE: Host Harleston fails to challenge the caller's one-side assertions regarding Israel. Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon "launched into Jerusalem?" When, how? If the caller refers to Sharon's 2000 walk on Temple Mount, okayed at the time by Palestinian Authority officials but used ex post facto by Palestinian leaders to justify the start of the second intifada, failure to specify may leave a false, anti-Israel impression with viewers. The caller implies that absence of Arab-Israeli peace is solely Israel's fault. The host fails to point out Palestinian rejection of "two-state solution" offers by Israel in 2000, 2001 and 2008. Neither does he remind the caller and viewers that according to U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, borders remain to be negotiated and that the so-called "1967 borders" are actually the 1949 Israeli-Jordanian armistice line, which did not prejudge Israeli claims in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). Similarly, Israeli settlements are in disputed territory; "Palestinian territories," like borders, are yet to be negotiated.

September 26, 2011 – 8:31 AM

Host: ROBB HARLESTON.

Guest: JOSHUA KEATING, Foreign Policy magazine associate editor.

Topic: 2012 GOP presidential candidates' foreign policy.

Caller: Tom from Madison, Wisconsin.

Caller: “I think Palestine should become a state. Do you think the candidates agree?”

Guest: “I think if you press them, the majority of the candidates would say that eventually they favor a Palestinian state and that they are committed to the two-state solution. I think there are several steps between here and then and perhaps they differ on (indistinct). But just saying you support a Palestinian state is one thing – but actually it does not mean much if U.S. policy in the Middle East does not change.”

Host: “Joshua Keating from Foreign Policy magazine has been our guest. Thank you for being on the program.”

NOTE: A journalistically curious host would have asked the caller what his reasons are for thinking "Palestine should become a state." Reasons opposing this move could have been offered. As a CAMERA report  noted:

The charters of both wings of the Palestinians -- Fatah and Hamas -- call for the elimination of Israel. This puts them on the wrong side of the U.N. charter since they vow enmity toward a member of the U.N. But the U.N. cares not about this.

Secondly, ethnic cleansing is specifically forbidden by the U.N. General Assembly but the Palestinians openly demand a Jew-free state which of course entails ethnic cleansing of Jews residing in parts of ancient Israel known as the West Bank and claimed by the Palestinians and in the parts of Israel's capital of Jerusalem claimed by the Palestinians.

Thirdly, Palestinian incitement to hatred and violence against Israel and Jews, continues in violation of U.N. decrees. Article 26 (2) of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights implicitly condemns incitement to hatred/violence against other ethnic/religious groups in textbooks but Palestinian textbooks previously and currently have continued to contain incitement against Jews and Israel. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights resolution 2003/37 (No. 4) "Condemns incitement of ethnic hatred, violence and terrorism" but the P.A. seems to be doing all it can to demonstrate their hate-indoctrination causing even the U.S. State Department to take notice.

U.S. policy favors a two-state solution, as both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama have said publicly. Washington strongly backed Israeli proposals of a West Bank and Gaza Strip state, with eastern Jerusalem as its capital, in exchange for peace in 2000 and 2001. It was the Palestinian side that rejected, violently, the offers. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas rejected a similar Israeli offer in 2008. Yet the Washington Journal host let pass the guest's assertion that U.S., rather than Palestinian, policy must change before there can be Arab-Israeli peace. Washington Journal hosts handle Arab-Israeli subjects in such a manner that Israel virtually always is portrayed as a problem for the United States, the Palestinian Arabs as passive victims.

September 26, 2011 – 8:40 AM

Host: ROBB HARLESTON.

Topic: Open phones (no topic).

Caller: William from Palm Bay, Florida.

Caller: “Our ignorance of history has made us susceptible to a lot of misinformation. On the issue of a Palestinian state – a two-state solution to the problem in the Middle East – the Romans were the ones that first called Israel – Palestine. You have to remember this point too, the Palestinians may point out to a Jew that the capital of Palestine was Jerusalem. Now, eventually the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and scattered the Jews throughout the world. The disenfranchised Arabs went into a virtual no-mans land. Eventually, the British took it over (indistinct) Palestine. But there is no such thing as a Palestinian people group. If you want a two-state solution, I would suggest that you have a country like Jordan offer up some land that they are not using anyway.”
 
September 22, 2011– 8:47 AM

Host: LIBBY CASEY.

Guest: Congressman STEVE CHABOT (R-Ohio).

Topic: Possible U.N. vote on Palestinian statehood.

Caller: Meigan from Washington, D.C.

Caller: "The Palestinians haven't received results from the United States in the last several years and the fact hat the United States also hasn't ben able to get the Israelis to stop building settlements for peace. I think it is very reasonable that at this point the Palestinians with the support of the rest of the world would go to the U.N. with the support of the rest of the world and these issue that are already withstanding should make a difference."

Guest: "I appreciate the comment and it's certainly a point of view. I think the United States at this time is trying to push the parties. We cannot put a lot of pressure on Israel alone. It has to be on both the parties to negotiate. That's the only way ultimately you're going to have a peace agreement that will last. Unfortunately the Palestinians have taken a number of steps recently which are not particularly helpful. The most significant of which would be when the Palestinian Authority came to a reconciliation with Hamas and Hamas is a terrorist organization that controls the Gaza Strip right now. They have been particularly unhelpful. They are supporters of terrorism. They themselves in many ways are a terrorist organization. I think if you look at what their leader, Ismail Haniya, said when President Obama and the United States finally got Osama bin Laden, the person who was behind the killing of approximately 3000 Americans on September 11 – not just Americans but others from other countries - people who were in the Twin Towers. We finally got Osama bin Laden and what does the leader of Hamas say? His comment was condemning the United States for killing Osama bin Laden and calling bin Laden a holy warrior. This is an organization that's now going to be part of the Palestinian Authority that is now going to the U.N. to get a state and the Israelis are going to trust that mind set – or the United States is going to trust that mind set? I think not."

NOTE: <Pending>

September 22, 2011 – 8:51 AM

Host: LIBBY CASEY.

Guest: Congressman STEVE CHABOT (R-Ohio).

Topic: Possible U.N. vote on Palestinian statehood.

Caller: Tony from Portsmouth, Rhode Island.

Caller: "As a Republican, I'm one of the proud Ron Paul supporters that believes – you know – . Israel has been a lot harder than Palestine. Then, you know, you let up. I mean, you keep defending them and it's like – what they're doing on an everyday basis in the area – they are not some meek little country hiding. They have enough nukes to take care of themselves which we financed – which we built their weapons – which their industry basically relies on the weapons industry. So, you have General Electric and all these other boys and that is not going to change. But, as a Republican, you know, there's a lot of us are going to be changing the neocon attitude that we need to be around the world. I just want to leave you with that – and the previous caller [Meigan from Washington, D.C.] hit it right on the head."

Guest: "Thank you and I happen to know Ron Paul very well – he's a very good friend. I don' t necessarily agree with him on a lot of his international affairs policies. I agree with him on a lot of his domestic stuff. But relative to Israel – they are one of our strongest allies in Middle East. It's a nation that is a democracy that certainly isn't always right in everything and we need to work with Israel to make sure they are moving in the right direction as well. But ultimately I think they are a force for good in the region. I would like to see a lot of the other countries in the region become more like Israel where people actually have the right to vote. They pick their own leadership and they are not suppressing their own people. I think the United States-Israeli relationship over the years has been a very positive one. Yes it often puts the United States in a position where other countries around the world, who don't like Israel, may then take that hatred on the United States but I think we should be there for those countries that have been with us there over the years."

NOTE: <Pending>

September 22, 2011 – 9:01 AM

Host: LIBBY CASEY.

Guest: Congressman STEVE CHABOT (R-Ohio).

Topic: Possible U.N. vote on Palestinian statehood.

Caller: Anna from Lakeland, Florida.

Caller: "My question and comment is – my question is – does anybody know how the Arabs ended up occupying Palestine? My comment is – everybody needs to get educated and look to Britain as to why they allowed the Arabs to occupy it back in the 1930' s and this is how the Palestinians now claim Palestine that originally belonged to the Jews. That is my question and comment."

Guest: "It depends on how far one goes back. You are referring to colonial times basically. And Great Britain and Germany and France and other nations, and the United States to some degree, but much less so, exercised their power all over the world in the 19th and the early 20th-centuries and you had colonization of a whole range of areas including the Middle East. Maps were redrawn. We see that throughout Africa. Rather than going along historic tribal lines, countries that don' t make any sense were thrown together. We see that in Iraq with the Sunni and Shia fighting back and forth. So, a lot of the problems we have – you could go back to colonial times. And of course, we could go back even further thousands of years to biblical times where the Jews were and where other people s were. But we are where we are now and both sides feel very strongly about where they are at and ultimately I think the answer is the parties themselves sitting down in good faith putting all the cards on the table, deciding what makes sense, and then ultimately having a peace agreement everybody can live with. They came pretty close at the end of President Bill Clinton' s administration, and Arafat was the leader of the Palestinians at the time. They came very close and my understanding is that Arafat pulled out at the last minute and would not go along with it and was getting virtually everything they wanted. Since then we have not been that close again and unfortunately I don' t think going to the U.N. will solve the problem."

September 22, 2011 – 9:06 AM

Host: LIBBY CASEY.

Guest: Congressman STEVE CHABOT (R-Ohio).

Topic: Possible U.N. vote on Palestinian statehood.

Caller: Patrick from Minnesota.

Caller: "I am originally from South Africa. I grew up in South Africa during the 1980 s and I have been in the United States for 12 years now. I am a black South African. I am now a U.S. citizen. We were fighting the same struggles the Palestinians are fighting. Unfortunately for us, the president in the white house in the 1980' s was Ronald Reagan. He was very hostile to our cause. He went to Berlin and said, ‘Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," and then he turned his back on us, openly supporting the apartheid regime through his policy of constructive engagement. We see the same thing with the Republican party. Historically they have always been hostile to freedom movements around the world. Historically in the 1960' s and the civil rights movement , their presidential candidate voted against the civil rights act, Barry Goldwater, and now they are trying to claim credit for it. It is very unfortunate. I mean, listening to Rick Perry two days ago made my stomach turn. And that guy wants to be president of the United States. Unfortunate. It sickens me. It is unfortunate."

Host: "Let us get the thoughts from our guests. Congressman, one of the things that the caller may be talking about is Governor Rick Perry accusing the President of a policy of appeasement the other day when it comes to the Palestinians."

Guest: "Relative to that, I can' t necessarily speak for the presidential candidates. You will see a lot of rhetoric that it on both sides and the people have to ultimately see through that and make an informed decision but what the gentleman said about the Republican Party being against civil rights around the world or in the United States is just not true. If you look at the voting rights act, the civil rights act here in the United States, for example, it was Democrats who overwhelmingly voted against their passage. Many more Republicans voted for passage of the civil rights act than did the Democrats. So, it is just not true. And we have folks that are more active in civil rights issues in the Republican Party and the Democratic Party on an individual basis. But it is just not true historically to say Republicans in some way are against freedom around the world. I mean, look at how many – under President Bush, for example, you had a number of examples of Muslims being ultimately benefitted. They were under Saddam Hussein and now they essentially have a chance for freedom in Iraq. In Afghanistan you had a very oppressive Taliban regime where women couldn't exit their homes without an adult male relative to going with them or they would be beaten. They could not go to school. Now you have at least a chance for freedom in Afghanistan. And a whole range of other examples like that. I just think it is just not true at all to say that Republicans are against freedom around the world or in the United States. That's just not true."

Host: "What do you make of Governor Perry's comments accusing the President of a policy of appeasement?"

Guest: "Too some degree, there's campaign rhetoric involved. I have not reached a decision relative to what candidate I will support."

Host: "Did you agree with him on that? Is that language appropriate for you? Did you feel that it was the right wording. What we are talking about is the President speaking to the General Assembly, last year, urged the supporters of a two-state solution to reach out and come up with a (indistinct)."

Guest: "It is not terminology that I personally would use. However, in a campaign, etc."

NOTE: <Pending>

September 22, 2011 – 9:12 AM

Host: LIBBY CASEY.

Guest: Congressman STEVE CHABOT (R-Ohio).

Topic: Possible U.N. vote on Palestinian statehood.

Caller: Danny from Paris, Louisiana.

Caller: "I want to speak to this representative that you have in front of you about mankind. We sophisticated animals have developed ways to kill millions of people in seconds, instead of wielding the sword where you could only kill people who you see. The Palestinians and the Israelis and all the countries around Israel each other. You can' t stop hate. Unfortunately this nut that runs Iran right now was even feared by the Ayatollah Khomeini. These individuals are developing nuclear weapons and the have already said what they want to do to the West and Israel. Israel has had the capacity – I am former military and I dealt with a nuclear weapons. Israel has had the capability to destroy all of their neighbors in a matter of minutes since the late 1970's. Are you are going to let this guy in Iran support Hamas and other terrorist organizations whose sole meaning in life is to destroy every Israeli not only in Israel but on the face of the Earth. It is a planned policy. Iran is going to have to be dealt with."

Guest: "I think the gentleman raises one of the more important issues in the Middle East right now and that is Iran and the fact that Ahmadinejad, the leader of Iran, has stated quite clearly that his goal is to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. Not only does he not recognize Israel as a country but he wants to wipe them off the earth and that is he went to nuclear weapons and they are bound and determined to get them. Now, the United States and our allies have had sanctions and have tried to put pressure on Iran for years now to back off of this program, but they are continuing to include more and more centrifuges and getting the materials that are necessary and within probably a few short years they are likely to become a nuclear nation. With that mind-set, that they want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, it has to be dealt with. The only way to deal with it non-militarily is to have our allies step and actually blockade Iran with very, very tough sanctions. Unfortunately, China and Russia, in particular, have been thwarting our efforts to do that etc."

September 21, 2011 – 7:06 AM

Host: GRETA BRAWNER.

Topic: Role of United Nations in world affairs.

Caller: Bill from Saint Louis, Missouri. “Bill” is a frequent anti-Israel, anti-U.S. caller using mainly three different names – Darrell, Bill or Bob with origin as Missouri city of St. Louis, St. Charles or Defiance.

Caller: “Everything that the U.N. has done it has been a total failure. I mean, just look at Iraq. Where was the U.N. when everyone knew it was a lie and we're still there and we're still murdering Iraqis. This whole fiasco in Libya is just another lie and the U.N. does nothing. What about the people in Palestine that are being murdered by Israelis? Not a peep from the U.N. It's useless.

Host: “Alright.”

NOTE: <Pending>

September 21, 2011 – 7:21 AM

Host: GRETA BRAWNER.

Topic: Role of United Nations in world affairs.

Caller: Joy from Clearwater, Florida. As in this instance, the typical C-SPAN caller, commenting regarding the nation of Israel, is unreasonably hostile toward Israel – and the C-SPAN response normally is – at best – tacit acceptance of the caller's falsehoods and distortions.

Caller: “I do not hear many people talking about how the Jewish state was created. The British were in that area and they came to agreement with the Jews that they would have their land, but they were not allowed to invite – people -- Jews from all over the world. The Jews agreed with that but within two weeks or so, they had a ship from ah – ah- ah …”

Host (interrupting): “Joy, for those that are familiar with what you' re talking about, fast forward to the role of the U.N. in world affairs . What does that mean, the Middle East peace process, what does that mean about the U.N. and the role that it played?

Caller: “Well, as I said, no one talks about how the Jewish state got started. Everyone should understand it. The reason they did that was so that the Palestinians should have some land. The United Nations should bear this in mind and see that the Palestinians at least have their own land.”

Host: “Okay.”

NOTE: <Pending>

September 21, 2011 – 7:29 AM

Host: GRETA BRAWNER.

Topic: Role of United Nations in world affairs.

Caller: Bill from Campbellsville, Kentucky.

Caller: “I am a Vietnam vet and ever since Vietnam, I have been watching the United Nations. If they don't have us do the dirty work and they come in and walk the ground and do the peaceful stuff, there wouldn't be a United Nations. As far as going back to the Israeli and Palestinian thing, they have been fighting for 4000 years and you're not going to stop these people. Even when you get them settled down, they will decide to go on and start fighting and killing each other. They are just nuts over there.”

Host: “Grand Rapids, Michigan. Steve, Republican, Good Morning.”

NOTE: <Pending>

September 21, 2011 – 7:32 AM

Host: GRETA BRAWNER.

Topic: Role of United Nations in world affairs.

Caller: Kevin from Baltimore, Maryland.

Caller: “Personally, I think the U.N. is completely useless. Looking at Iraq, North Korea, they passed resolution after resolution that says – hey, stop doing what ever you are doing that we do not like. They just keep doing it, U.N. does do not do anything to stop it. They are a complete joke. You have got the U.N. Human Rights Council [Commission] that's now being chaired by – I want to say North Korea. I'm not exactly sure – I think it's North Korea (actually Libya). You have the U.N. panel on racism that turned into nothing more than a format for anyone who wanted to take a cheap shot at Israel. I genuinely question what purpose the U.N. serves and I am a veteran. I've been in the military for 14 years – in the army – and I have deployed numerous times on U.N. supposed missions. Every time I was in a foreign country, I cannot count the number of times when people said, "what are you doing here?" We were not just American soldiers. It's French and British and Australian. Every one of them are like, "Why are we here?" These guys did not do anything to us.”

Host: “Alright, alright.”

NOTE: <Pending>

September 21, 2011 – 7:40 AM

Host: GRETA BRAWNER.

Topic: Role of United Nations in world affairs.

Caller: (No name given) From Catonsville, Maryland.

Caller: “I have been to the U.N. I just wanted to correct earlier callers. The conflict in Palestine started 63 years ago when the British decided to erase Palestine and make it a Jewish state so they moved a lot of Europeans there. It was similar to the South African apartheid idea except for the South Africans got their (indistinct) but the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed and now live in refugee camps…“

Host (interrupting): “What did you – ah – what's the context of your comment?”

Caller: “Well, this week' s vote on Palestine will tell us what the direction of the United Nations, whether it needs to be disbanded, whether the third world needs to make its own U.N. because the way the U.N. serves as a tool of the imperialist powers to maintain this global apartheid where – going back to this South Africa example – where the blacks did not have weapons and the whites did have weapons – the U.N. says if you have brown skin or tanned skin, you cannot have nuclear weapons – like Iran with U.N. sanctions against them – and if you are white, you can have all the weapons – hundreds you want -- nuclear weapons in Iraq Israel.”

Host: “Okay, that's the caller's thought.”

NOTE: <Pending>

September 21, 2011 – 7:45 AM

Host: GRETA BRAWNER.

Topic: Role of United Nations in world affairs.

Caller: Mike from Texas.

Caller: “Wasn't it the U.N. that established the Israeli state or authorized the Israeli state? If I remember correctly, [President Harry] Truman was the first person in the world to recognize Israel. I do not see how, if the U.N. could do that for Israel, why on earth we would fight the fact that they want to do that for the Palestinians and maybe solve that conflict once and for all.”

Host: “Alright.”

NOTE: <Pending>

September 21, 2011 – 9:05 AM

Host: (Greta Brawner temporarily replaced by unidentified man).

Guest: CHARLES RANGEL, U.S. Congressman (D-NY).

Topic: President Obama's deficit reduction plan.

Caller: Jules from Louisville, Kentucky.

Caller: “I'd like to comment – first – I just like Democrats and Republicans – people –equally. I want to talk about Israel, because I' a Jew. I dislike the way this president has handled Israel. Let me tell you one of the reasons I think he's doing it. When he became the president, he removed the bust of Winston Churchill from the oval office. That was the first thing he did. Why did he do that? Mr. Churchill was instrumental in the [British] Victorian government when he drew the lines for the Middle East states that exist today. I submit to you today that Mr. Obama views Israel as a colonial entity exactly the way his father viewed it.”

Guest: “I really think that Israel – who is the citadel of democracy in this world – and the United States, economically, and for national security, are joined at the hip. I really would have hoped that diplomatically, that they can work out the differences of Palestine and Israel in the United Nations. There's no winning if the U.N. does something and the U.S. vetoes it. The truth of the matter is, I have no idea what Winston Churchill has to do with this issue. But once the President has said that there's no way that we as Americans can afford to sacrifice or put in jeopardy the survival of Israel. He means it with all of his heart. There' evidence to dispute it. America is Israel's best friend and Israel is certainly the best partner we have in this part of the world.”

September 17, 2011 – 7:29 AM

Host: ROBB HARLESTON.

Topic: Significance of the Constitution in your daily life.

Caller: Kelvin from Grand Rapids, Michigan (erroneously claims lack of news media coverage of recent economic protests in Israel).

Caller: “Well, the significance of the Constitution in my daily life comes down to two things: freedom of speech and my personal preference, freedom of the press. I like the idea that the press really does do a good coverage of things but certain parts – it's very select. Certain things don't get covered. There needs to be more clarity in the press and everything because certain topics that people find really interesting and care about are simply ignored from time to time. And the second thing …”

Host (interrupting): “Kelvin, hold on. Let's stay there for a second. Give me an example of a topic that you think is not getting covered in the press and why you think it may have to do with constitutional restrictions rather than editorial choices made by the various news agencies.”

Caller: “Well, certain editorial choices are rather select at times. One reference I would like to use is, well, the Israeli protests that were occurring about a month ago when 100,000 protesters or so started their own protest every Saturday and everything. There was hardly any coverage in the United States. We speak for the Constitution itself. And there was really none of this. And with all the interest in the Arab Spring and everything, I figured, well, America should get into this a little bit. But it was rather ignored in the media. But the other thing, in honor of Constitution day and in honor of our Libertarian candidate for president, Ron Paul, I make a shout out to him – good luck in 2012, sir.”

Host: “We'll leave it there. Kelvin in Grand Rapids, Michigan.”

NOTE: <Pending>

September 11, 2011 – 7:03 AM

Host: STEVE SCULLY.

Topic: Tenth anniversary of 9/11 attacks.

Caller: Caller: Ron from Miami, Florida (anti-Israel repeat caller).

Caller: "Thank you so much for C-SPAN. My heart is so heavy with what happened. It has been 10 years. But we do have to go to the exact promise [premise] of what happened and that is as long as the Palestinians suffer, there' ll be more bin Ladens. We have to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict equally. This is really getting old. I think the American people need to stand up and address this issue and God bless America."

NOTE: Host Scully responded to Ron, the first caller of the broadcast (he was also the first caller in the June 22, 2011 broadcast), by simply thanking this particular repeat anti-Israel caller. Yet again a C-SPAN audience is left with an unchallenged defamation of Israel. In fact, bin Laden himself said it was the "defilement" of the holy Islamic land of Saudi Arabia by the presence of American troops, the alleged religious "corruption" of Arab rulers and a wish to re-establish the Sunni caliphate and Arab Muslim hegemony that primarily motivated al-Qaeda.

Palestinian Arab suffering – to the extent it exists – is essentially due to corrupt and oppressive rule by the Fatah (West Bank) and Hamas (Gaza Strip) movements and the former's rejection of "two-state" solutions in 2000, 2001 and 2008. Host Scully, in sharp contrast to his reaction to the 7:07 AM caller's fiction (see below), misses an opportunity to dismiss this caller's fiction concerning the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and its alleged wider impact.

Ron previously called June 22, 2011 at 7:07 AM. Excerpt from the NOTE for that call: The broadcast's first caller, "Ron from Miami," asserted that the cause of "these wars" is the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Every "Ron from Miami" call targets mainly or only Israel for blame – examples: May 7, 2011 (7:11 AM), March 27, 2011 (8:00 AM), and Jan. 28, 2011 (7:03 AM).

September 11, 2011 – 7:07 AM

Host: STEVE SCULLY.

Topic: Tenth anniversary of 9/11 attacks.

Caller: Brian from Sterling Heights, Michigan.

Caller: "This is Brian from Sterling Heights, Michigan and I'm calling about the 9/11 incident. I still believe, as that last caller mentioned – it was an inside job. Something went down and everybody knows it. I have been studying every piece of footage I could get my hands on for the last 10 years. My conclusion that I came up with out of my research is that it was a distraction. The buildings coming down, the two towers coming down was a distraction."

Host: "Okay, so what happened to the people on board those flights?"

Caller: "Hm - ah - there is a rumor that they were let off somewhere else. But the main distraction..."

Host (interrupting) : "I'm going to stop you there. We' re not going to spend the morning dealing with things that are completely fiction. We will deal with the facts and get your comments and your reflections."
 
NOTE: Host Scully responds appropriately to the obvious "truther" conspiracy fiction uttered by the caller. In contrast, Scully, as well as other Washington Journal hosts, repeatedly indulge obvious fictions asserted by antisemitic, anti-Israel callers. Why is Israel the only country, and Jews the only people whose slander is repeatedly aired, unchallenged on C-SPAN's Washington Journal?

September 11, 2011 – 7:13 AM

Host: STEVE SCULLY.

Topic: Tenth anniversary of 9/11 attacks.

Caller: Tim from Los Angeles, California. This caller is James Morris, anti-Israel frequent caller to Washington Journal. He is often aired, as here (he was aired yesterday), in violation of C-SPAN's stated policy of allowing no more than one call from a caller within a 30 day period.

Caller: "We were attacked because of our support of Israel. You can go to [caller states lengthy complete name of an anti-Israel, antisemitic Website]."

Host (diverting to New York for start of 9/11 ceremony): "I going to stop there. Let' s watch the scene from ground zero in New York City. We will continue to take you to the scene at ground zero as various events continue …"
 
NOTE: Again, as so often in the past, James Morris is aired despite his familiar voice and familiar script including the usual plug for an anti-Israel, anti-Jewish Web site. Propagandist Morris is presented approvingly as a "political commentator" on a video clip on the Web site of Iran's propaganda outlet, Press TV "You.S.Desk" page. Again, host Scully, in contrast to his reaction to the 7:07 AM caller (see above), fails to label the obsessively anti-Israel, conspiracy-monger's obvious fiction for what it is. This is par for the course for Washington Journal in facilitating, inadvertently or not, a widespread political assault against the state of Israel, which fundamentally is a struggle against the Jewish people and its right to self-determination.
 
September 10, 2011 – 8:49 AM

Host: ROBB HARLESTON.

Guest: MICHAEL SCHEUER, former CIA bin Laden unit chief, 1996-99. Scheuer, a repeat Washington Journal guest, is well-known for his obsessive anti-Israel views.

Topic: Possible al Qaeda plot against D.C., NYC.

Caller: Jim from Los Angeles, California. Caller is easily identifiable as James Morris, obsessive anti-Israel propagandist and frequent "Journal" caller.

Caller: "Thank you for taking my call. It's nice to be on the air with Mike Scheuer. I'd like to address the main motivation for 9/11. I f you look on page 147 of the 9/11 commission report and go to [caller states the lengthy complete name of one of his favorite anti-Israel Web sites]. That [motivation] is U.S. support for Israel. Michael Scheuer has addressed that in his book but we do not see that addressed anywhere in the U.S. media when it comes to talking about motivation for 9/11 and the earlier attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. You can look up [caller utters the name of an anti-Israel, propagandist book]. "

HARLESTON (belatedly terminating): "Jim, we will leave it there. Mr. Scheuer, your response please."

SCHEUER: "Yes. This cuts to the heart of an issue that Americans really need to consider if they do not want to fight this war forever. American lifestyle, democracy, women in the workplace, elections, liberty -- all of those things , the Islamists – al Qaeda and its allies – would never have in a country that they govern. That's very clear.
 
But the idea that has been pushed by President Clinton, President Bush, Mr. Dick Cheney, Barack Obama and Senator McCain, that America is being attacked because of those things – is a disservice to the population of the United States. This war is not against Americans because we are Americans. It is motivated by the activities of our government and allies in the Muslim world. Certainly, Israel is an enormous problem for the United States and an enormous motivator for the Islamists who are active around the world including in America, Canada, Britain.
 
But It's not only that. It's our support for the Saudi police state. It is our exploitation of the low prices, as the Islamists consider it, of Middle Eastern oil – Muslim oil. It's our presence on the Arabian peninsula and our military activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia and other places. None of that is to say those policies or actions are wrong. I would vote to change several of them very drastically but that's not the point. The point is – unless you understand the motivation of your enemy, you are never going to be able to understand his durability, his intentions, or his ability to recruit in the coming generations. And that's where we are at the moment. Certainly, you can argue about whether we should support the Israelis or not support the Israelis. That is a perfectly legitimate debate. But when you say that Israel is an enormous burden on U.S. interests and our relationship with the Israelis getting American soldiers killed overseas and threatening us at home, that's just the fact. You cannot get away from that fact and that's the fact that should form the basis of the conversation about whether we continue or not continue support for Israel."
 
NOTE: A discussion such as this invariably rouses anti-Jewish, anti-Israel conspiracy-theorists, many of whom find Washington Journal an hospitable platform. Compounding the problem is C-SPAN's recurrent presentation of Michael Scheuer as a guest expert on the Middle East and terrorism. Whatever his previous government experience, Scheuer has long since joined the ranks of anti-Israel, anti-Jewish ranters.  A CAMERA critique of Scheuer exposed his extremist, violent views:

Reviewing Scheuer's later work, Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam after Iraq, Joshua Sinai, program manager for counter-terrorism studies at the Analysis Corp., said the author's foreign policy view, “especially [toward] Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia tilts toward the jingoistic, propagandistic and one-sided.” Scheuer, who repeated that "I care not a whit whether or not Israel survives [or any other country except the United States]” recommended that after 9/11 America should have “fire-bombed Kabul and Kandahar, demolished whatever ruins were left, and sowed salt over the length and width of both sites.”

As [historian and syndicated columnist Victor Davis] Hanson noted, “Scheuer sounds goofier each time he gives an interview ...”  Except on C-SPAN, where he's treated with kid gloves by Washington Journal (his most recent appearance was his fifth) and where hosts, by frequent, impassive tolerance of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel bigotry encourage more of the same.

Scheuer was last presented as a C-SPAN Washington Journal guest on May 2, 2011 when he expounded on the topic, “Osama bin Laden killed.”

Typically, host Harleston allowed this particular repeat caller, a compulsive anti-Israel propagandist, to complete his misrepresentation of the 9/11 Commission report: “I'd like to address the main motivation for 9/11. I f you look on page 147 of the 9/11 commission report ... That [motivation] is U.S. support for Israel.”

However, the commission report's page 147 (chapter 5) reference to Israel describes a self-serving, post-capture explanation by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the self-proclaimed mastermind of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001: "By his own account, KSM's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." This sentence is one of the two references to Israel in Chapter 5 [pages 145 to 173 of the report]. The second reference (page 154) states that KSM had intended to land a hijacked plane at a U.S. airport, kill all the male passengers, and publicly excoriate "U.S. support for Israel, the Philippines, and repressive governments in the Arab world."

Yet again, C-SPAN, failing in its primary responsibility to enhance public debate, does the opposite by indulging both an anti-Israel, falsifying, conspiracy-theory caller, and an extremist former official long out of government.

September 10, 2011 – 9:07 AM

Host: ROBB HARLESTON.

Guest: MICHAEL SCHEUER, former CIA bin Laden unit chief, 1996-99. Scheuer, a repeat Washington Journal guest, is well-known for his obsessive anti-Israel views.

Topic: Possible al Qaeda plot against D.C., NYC.

Caller: Ian from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Caller: "I had a question about the general efficacy of our intelligence gathering operations on a global level. Because how can we trust any of this intelligence when all of our most sensitive databases have been penetrated by friendly nations of the Israelis and especially considering that the prime beneficiary of these terrorist attacks is Israel."

SCHEUER: "Well, I'm not an expert at all, sir, on cyber warfare but increasingly we are facing threats from both nation-states and non-nation states – terrorist groups, organized crime groups to the security of our computer files. But that's got to be fixed. I don't know how to do it. I'm not a computer person at all. But certainly China, Israel, other nation-states, do try to raid our databases – our governmental databases, also our industrial databases – to get an advantage from surreptitiously gaining access to industrial plans or particular pieces of equipment etc."
 
NOTE: A competent host would have asked for evidence that Israel tries to “raid our data bases” (according to Scheuer). And who are these alleged “friendly nations of the Israelis” (according to the caller) who have penetrated “our most sensitive databases?” Chinese cyber warfare against U.S. military and industrial targets has been widely and recently reported, but the Washington Journal host does not mention it – or the absence of reports of such anti-U.S. cyber warfare by Israel. This is another example of C-SPAN allowing an unsubstantiated anti-Israel insinuation by Scheuer to go unchallenged.

September 10, 2011 – 9:13 AM

Host: ROBB HARLESTON.

Guest: MICHAEL SCHEUER, former CIA bin Laden unit chief, 1996-99. Scheuer, a repeat Washington Journal guest, is well-known for his obsessive anti-Israel views.

Topic: Possible al Qaeda plot against D.C., NYC.

Caller: Jan from Birmingham, Alabama.

Caller: "Thank you. I worked in Saudi Arabia for 12 years between 1977 and 1989. I worked with a lot of Saudis, I worked in the refinery as well as all different parts of the company because I was an independent consultant for ARAMCO and the Saudi government. In many cases I heard the Saudis tell me about our blind support for Israel. And I often wondered every time I saw us giving money to Israel something would happen that would keep that war going rather than diminish that war. And I don't know what Mr. Scheuer's involvement or his understanding of that or if you have ever had the chance to talk with Saudis, but I talked with them constantly every day and a lot of the guys – when I worked in the refinery – when they took their 30 day vacations – they went to Afghanistan to fight in war. As a matter of fact I saw many pictures, they took photos of helicopters they had shot down and people they had killed which were gruesome but they were working for me – I had to go along with them and sure I looked at them and I understood what they were saying."

HARLESTON: "We'll leave it there."

SCHEUER: "I think it's an important point, sir. Osama bin Laden was not an anomaly for the Saudi educational system. He was indeed the poster boy for its successes and next to other countries like Russia, China – Saudi Arabia is an enormous threat to the United States and the West generally because of the manner in which it exports a brand of Islam that is anti-Western, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, and certainly much more vicious in intolerance than anything that Osama bin Laden himself pushed ahead. The Saudis are like the Israelis, extraordinarily powerful in our Congress because of the influence and the money they have used to buy support from various congressmen. The Saudis in particular are very influential in our oil industry and in our arms industry. They're always buying billions of dollars of guns from us. And our presidents – Republican and Democrat – pretend that the Saudis are our best friends and are reliable allies and I think that's exactly wrong. They are a maligned [malignant] influence not only for the United States but for the Western community as a whole."
 
NOTE: Unquestioned by host Harleston, the caller paraphrases and echoes anti-Israel views of nameless Saudis he claims to have worked with more than 20 years ago. Also unchallenged by the host, the guest alleges congressional influence-buying – that is, the crime of bribery – by Saudis and Israelis. He offers no proof – what are the names of these congressmen, what sums did the Israelis allegedly provide, who was convicted or even charged, and when? Not withstanding Scheuer's ravings, the Congress, overwhelming majority of Republicans and Democrats alike, look upon Israel as a friend and valuable ally reflecting public opinion polls in contrast to congressional and public opinion regarding the oil-rich Saudis.
 
September 4, 2011 – 9:24 AM

Host: STEVE SCULLY.

Guest: VERNON LOEB, Washington Post's “local editor” and contributor to the writing of a 2011 book, King's Counsel: A Memoir of War, Espionage, and Diplomacy in the Middle East, authored by the late Jack O'Connell, a former CIA station chief and later [the nation of] Jordan's lawyer in Washington. O'Connell was a close confidante of Jordan's late King Hussein.

Topic: U.S. intelligence and diplomacy in the Mideast.

Caller: Ken from Boca Raton, Florida. In this rare type of Washington Journal call about the Arab–Israel conflict, the caller makes a positive contribution to the discussion. The Journal's response (or lack of response) here is typically problematic.
 
Caller: “Just, if I may, a little bit of history. Jordan was carved out of what had been promised to the Jews as part of the Balfour Declaration in 1923 [actually 1917]. They gave it to the Husseins [Hashemites] who had been kicked out of Saudi Arabia, if memory serves or Iraq – I forgot which [actually Saudi Arabia, early in the 20th century]. Also, if I might make the comment that the “little king” [Hussein] was a part of the famous “Three NOs” after the Six-Day War [of 1967] – no negotiations, no peace, no recognition of Israel. So, his consternation about what Israel wanted from him [Loeb had previously quoted King Hussein (pertaining to the 1967 War): “I just don't know what Israel wants of me.”] – prior to the Six-Day War they begged him not to participate [in the War], but he had already given over his army, his Arab legion to the Egyptians to control. However, it should be remarked that one of the few good things he did was, of course, to take out the PLO – the Black-September Movement [a Palestinian terrorist organization later to merge into or become the Fatah main Palestinian organization]. But very few people realize that the Israelis essentially saved Jordan by countering the Syrians who had started a tank battalion toward Jordan to unseat him [King Hussein] and the Israelis went to counter that move. So, this idea that the little king was somehow a great peacemaker does boggle the mind. He had been and was part of – he allowed the PLO, for many years before the Six-Day War, and afterwards, and of course the Black-September Movement, to go across his borders and commit acts of terrorism against Israel. One very famous thing is when the PLO killed seven little schoolgirls [a Jordanian soldier had shot and killed seven Israeli schoolgirls near the Jordanian border in 1997], he went [to the Israelis], you know, “wearing a hair shirt” [an idiom meaning to exhibit a sense of guilt] at that point, saying he was sorry for that tragedy, but …”

SCULLY (terminating the caller) : “Ken, I will stop you there. You have put a lot on the table. We'll give the guest a chance to respond. Thanks for your call and your perspective.”

LOEB: “I think that one point that Jack [O'Connell] makes very clearly is the one really big mistake that King Hussein made was deciding prior to the 1967 War to align his forces with the Egyptians and that directly resulted in the loss of the West Bank during that War [Jordan had illegally occupied the West Bank from 1948 to 1967] which, again, was something he tried to turn around for the rest of his life. Jack certainly saw King Hussein as a peacemaker rather than someone who ever supported terrorism and who in fact fought much of his life with the PLO and as the caller said, had to literally fight to get the PLO out of Amman [Jordan] in September 1970.”

NOTE: <Pending>


Bookmark and Share