Monday, December 18, 2017
  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
Privacy Policy
 
Media Analyses





C-SPAN July – September 2015


 
 
Send your comments about C-SPAN's platform for the defamation of Israel and Jews to CAMERA:  c-span-watch@camera.org
 

September 30, 2015 – 8:12 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: XAVIER BECERRA, U.S. Representative [D] California.

Topic: House Republican Leadership Elections and Government Funding.

Caller: Noreen from Indiana (click here to view).

Caller: “I would like to know if the Republicans, Democrats, or Independents, whoever, is truly for stopping abortions or, you know, going to shut all the government down for -- for the reason of Planned Parenthood. Now, if they are serious about this problem, why are we sending our tax dollars to people overseas? An example, Israel. They have abortions up to eight months. Our tax money is going to these countries that have abortions that are legal, and if these Christians, evangelicals ...”

Host (interrupting): “Can I jump in? I have heard this line of argument from several callers. Where did you hear about money being sent to Israel and Israel allows abortions and that argument? Where did you first hear it?”

Note: Host appropriately asks for caller's information source but fails to follow-up.

Caller: “Well, I hear it on the news. I listen to cable news every day.”

Host: “Okay. Congressman?”

Note: Specifically, what cable news? The question is not asked. An online search of cable and broadcast network news facilities for the year 2015 to date indicates that, with the exception of a single obscure mention (see below), the only news entity mentioning Israel, abortions and U.S. financial aid in the same context – are those done by C-SPAN Washington Journal like-minded callers on August 3, September 16, 17, 28, 29. The one other exception is left-leaning MSNBC on Jan. 30, 2015 at 5:28 p.m. (“They [Israel] have free abortion. I guess Republicans don't mind paying for it if the money is going to Israel.” The speaker here is unidentifiable). But MSNBC's skewed perspective in 2015 (at least) on Israel has been exemplified by (at least) commentator Ayman Mohyeldin. The allegations are false since no U.S. taxpayer dollars go to Israel for abortion since the only financial aid is military aid and none of that is spent on abortions.

Guest (failing to address the spurious bashing involving Israel): “Probably the most important thing in something like this discussion about Planned Parenthood is -- check your sources. Because it is tough to have a really deep dive into a debate when you're dealing with information that is not accurate. I will say something that I thought was very important. The fact that we are discussing Planned Parenthood and the possibility of shutting down the entire operations of government simply because Republicans have this obsession with Planned Parenthood is obscene …”

NOTE: As to abortion in Israel, Israel's government medical system provides funding for abortions under limitations similar to those in U.S. law. Moreover, the relationship between Israel and the United States – including the aid – military aid dollars only – is a mutually beneficial one as CAMERA's "C-SPAN Watch" feature has documented in detail (see, for example, Sept. 16, 2015 8:27 a.m. entry below).

September 30, 2015 – 9:41 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Deadline for Congress to pass a continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown.

Host: Joe from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (click here to view).

Caller: “Give me just a little bit of time before I get cut off. I have a couple of important points that I want all of your viewers to listen to. If men in our country or men around the world, if men carried the baby, you could get an abortion at a Walmart in under three hours for $150… This is one critique [of Washington Journal] I have, and I will then be off the air. I think you do an excellent job but I do think when some viewers call in and have some opinions about Israel or Jewish issues, I think that is the one time that you come out and show a little bit of bias, because you kind of go after them -- ‘Where did you get your information?' Well, that is not your role on the show and you never do it on other issues.”

Host (interrupting): “That is not true, Joe. I think that whoever sits in this chair, the one thing you do is balance when language and tone start to go into a territory that could be viewed -- in that case, it could be antisemitic and it's the responsibility of whoever is in this chair to try to decide when that line has been crossed. If so, you need to ask the caller where they are learning this, or what evidence they have of it so that all of you out there can decide if their source is credible or find out where they are getting their information. We are here to talk this morning about the government funding deadline ...”

NOTE: Caller “Joe from Oklahoma City” erroneously charges that C-SPAN hosts (generally) challenge callers who have “some [negative] opinions about Israel or Jewish issues.” But in fact, the opposite is true. The falsity of caller's charge is confirmed in CAMERA's C-SPAN Watch documentation (since November 2008).

September 29, 2015 – 8:06 a.m.

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmcardle@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: TOM McCLINTOCK, U.S. Representative [R] California, member of Budget Committee.

Topic: Future of House Republican Leadership.

Caller: Serge from Germantown, Maryland (click here to view).

Note: Caller's detached-from-reality complaint is nearly identical to previous such complaints aired by Washington Journal on August. 3, September 16, and September 28. What is this caller's "information source"? Typically, the question is not asked. Perhaps the source for caller "Serge" is a previous propaganda purveyor heard on C-SPAN that misinformed Washington Journal viewers in its intellectual vacuum that is so often filled by chronic journalistic malpractice at the supposed public-service network.

Caller: "I wanted to ask the Congressman as a Republican – I wish I could understand Republican logic here. We know that Israel is a state sponsor of abortion. Would the Republicans be voting to stop aid to Israel – and trying to stop aid to [indiscernible]?"

[Note: The clever, mendacious wording selected by the caller, "Israel is a state sponsor of abortion," is clearly intended to vilify Israel by bringing to mind the commonly used characterization, "Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism."]

Guest: "I don't know Israel's position on public funding of abortions which is the issue here. It is irrelevant to the question of peace in the Middle East. I don't think there's any question that Israel is our only reliable ally in that troubled region. The survival of Israel is absolutely essential o the security of the United States. This is because it's essential to ultimate civility being restored to that region – and civilization being restored to that region. So, I think our support of Israel is very important and shouldn't hinge on policy differences between our two countries on domestic issues."

NOTE: As to abortion in Israel, Israel's government medical system provides funding for abortions under limitations similar to those in U.S. law. Moreover, the relationship between Israel and the United States – including the aid – military aid dollars only – is a mutually beneficial one as CAMERA's "C-SPAN Watch" feature has documented in detail (see, for example, Sept. 16, 2015 8:27 a.m. entry below).

September 28, 2015 – 7:53 a.m.

Host: PEDRO ECHEVARRIA (pechevarria@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: PAUL SINGER, USA Today Washington correspondent.

Topic: Possible U.S. government [partial] shutdown October 1.

Caller: Rick from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (click here to view).

Note: Typically, Washington Journal indulges a caller defaming Israel during an unrelated discussion.

Caller: "My question for your guest is: The Republicans want to shut down Planned Parenthood in our country while in our foreign aid package, say to Israel, who gets about 50 percent of our foreign aid, they have some of the most lax abortion policies in the world. A teenage girl in Israel does not need parental consent. She can get an abortion at any time during the pregnancy and the kicker is – the government pays 100 percent for these abortions. You're talking about $16 billion or $17 billion a year that we send over to Israel. I would like to hear the Republicans explain why they are against it here, yet support it around the world."

Guest: "I do not know anything about the policy, although I will tell you that I do know that in a number of bills, the United States Congress has limited the use of any U.S. money for abortions overseas. There has been a whole series of orders on whether or not you can use foreign aid money to counsel women on abortion, whether doctors who are funded by U.S. dollars is an option for abortion patients. I don't know whether there is any direct U.S. funding to Israel that can then be used for abortion services. I honestly don't know."

[No additional response.]

NOTE: Characteristically, C-SPAN is either unwilling to inform – or incapable of informing – viewers that U.S. aid to Israel – approximately $3 billion yearly (not the caller's grossly exaggerated unchallenged figure) is military aid only – and certainly no U.S. aid money is provided to pay for abortions for anyone in Israel. The user asserts that Israel "gets about 50 percent of our foreign aid" but that isn't quite correct. Israel receives approximately 50 percent of our foreign military financial assistance. The distinction is important. Moreover, the relationship between Israel and the United States – including the military aid dollars – is a mutually beneficial one as CAMERA's "C-SPAN Watch" feature has documented in detail numerous times (see, for example, Sept. 16, 2015 8:27 a.m. entry below). C-SPAN perpetually misleads viewers in this respect.

As to abortion in Israel, C-SPAN again cooperates in misleading viewers. Israel's government medical system provides funding for abortions under limitations similar to those in U.S. law. C-SPAN's viewers are accustomed to hearing hosts indulge callers who primarily condemn only one foreign country – Israel – on Washington Journal.

September 27, 2015 – 7:07 a.m.

Host: BILL SCANLAN (bscanlan@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: John Boehner's (R-OH) resignation as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Caller: Kathleen from Chicago, Illinois (click here to view).

Note: Caller, of C-SPAN's legion of anti-Israel repeat callers, is allowed here to violate C-SPAN's ostensible one-call-per-30-days rule having called Sept. 6, 2015 (8:33 a.m.) (see Note below). Host tolerates caller's lengthy diatribe (which includes wild, angry, false accusations) apparently considering it informative to viewers in keeping with C-SPAN's status as a (supposed) public service network.

Caller: “Two things. John Boehner. When he invited the prime minister over here with his Iran deal, to try to undermine President Obama. Hear me out. That was his undoing then. God does not like ugly. All of these people talk about how they are Christian, but you do not go and invite someone from another country to embarrass your leader. John Boehner and some of these other Republicans stepping out like Rick Perry and Scott Walker. Why don't they go over to Israel and ask Bibi [Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] for a job? No one likes a traitor. People look at us with disdain. If you do not pledge allegiance to your leader and country, how in the world are you going to treat me? This country has got to straighten itself out. You know what I am saying? We are the world's leading country, but we are the most hated country that there is. We have Donald Trump now. The same thing that people say President Obama was doing, dictator. All he hollers about is ‘I, I, I, I, I, I.' The GOP, you are on your way out. You have been very unfavorable in this country. God don't like ugly. Thank you for letting me speak.”

[Host has no comment.]

NOTE: This repeat caller most recently phoned on Sept. 6, 2015 (click here to view) to condemn Israel, the United States, the Republican Party and to express sympathy for Iran.

September 27, 2015 – 7:37 a.m.

Host: BILL SCANLAN (bscanlan@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: John Boehner's (R-OH) resignation as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Caller: Don from California (click here to view).

Note: Typically, a C-SPAN host indulges a caller spewing antisemitic, racist mythology.

Caller: “I'm telling you, this GOP leadership ain't nothing but an extension of Rome. They are the academy of the Roman Empire. They want to keep their white supremacy in order. That is all it is. They don't want to work with any negroes, no other race of people, nothing. All they want is the white man to stay on top. The only way they can do that is keep all of the money in their pocket, and keep everybody else on the bottom. These white folks, voting for the Republicans, y'all are going through the same thing that black people are going through. They will all of a sudden put us all back in one big hole, one big ship, and kill us all.”

Host (interrupting): “What do you think of African-Americans like [U.S. Senator] Tim Scott or Ben Carson who are members of the Republican Party?”

Caller: “All of these people who affiliate themselves with the white community, they are just confused Israelite people. They are Jews from Israel, and they do not even know it. The blacks in America, the Hispanics, the Indians, they do not know that they are the real Jews. The white folks will not tell them that.”

[Host has no further comment.]

NOTE: Repeat caller Don's familiar message echoes the antisemitic, racist myths propagated by Rev. Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam. The myths are easily refuted by the facts. There is a continuous Jewish diaspora history, from the Roman expulsions to the rebirth of Israel as a Jewish state, and modern DNA testing that strongly indicates both Jewish genealogical continuity and Middle Eastern origins. Washington Journal's chronic failure to refute such myths allows antisemitic fallacies to be repeatedly disseminated to millions of potential viewers.

Don's prior calls, containing nearly identical such messages essentially neither interrupted nor challenged by Washington Journal, include, June 17, 2015 – 7:35 a.m. (click here to view), May 2, 2015 – 8:29 a.m.(click here to view), April 11, 2015 – 7:23 a.m. (click here to view), and Sept. 21, 2014 (click here to view).

September 22, 2015 – 9:54 a.m.

Host: PEDRO ECHEVARRIA (pechevarria@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Pope Francis begins U.S. visit today.

Caller: Anthony from Fort Lauderdale, Florida (click here to view).

Caller: “The reason why the Pope is coming here, is because in his last visit to Israel and over to the Gaza Strip, he promised the Palestinians that he would bring that land back to them. So, when you listen to him in the U.N., listen to how the world is going to come against Israel. This man has more power than people give him credit for. I believe, like the lady said before, he is like the (indiscernible) of the Catholic Church. He is supposed to get these things accomplished in his lifetime. Thank you for taking my call.”

NOTE: Characteristically, a Washington Journal host, through silence, tacitly accepts a caller's anti-Israel message. Caller's claims are clearly erroneous and without merit with respect to the Pope and the Arab-Israeli conflict. As to “that land,” is caller referring to the Gaza Strip? If so, his assertion is clearly false since the Strip is populated by Palestinian Arabs ruled over by the terrorist Hamas group which is sworn to destroy Israel.
 
If “that land” refers to Israel's land or the land in the so-called “West Bank,” then the facts are these: Basic international law in this case, the League of Nations' Palestine Mandate, Article 6, calls for "close Jewish settlement" on the land west of the Jordan River. Article 6 is incorporated by Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, sometimes referred to as "the Palestine article." The United States endorsed the mandate, including Article 6, in the 1924 Anglo-American Convention. The West Bank is not sovereign territory of any country, but rather land disputed by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. It was illegally occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967, when Israel took control as a result of successful self-defense in the 1967 Six-Day War. As Eugene Rostow – a co-author of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 (1967), the keystone of all subsequent successful Arab-Israeli negotiations pointed out – 242 does not require complete Israeli withdrawal. Rather, the status of the territory, to which Jews as well as Arabs have legitimate claims, is to be resolved in negotiations as called for in the resolution and by U.N. Security Council Resolution 338 (1973). Meanwhile, Jewish villages and towns built in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria, the ancient homeland of the Jewish people) since 1967 are no more deserving of condemnation than are Arab villages built since then in previously existing Arab villages and towns.

September 18, 2015 – 7:00 a.m.

Host: PETER SLEN (pslen@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Texas ninth grader's suspension over a homemade clock he brought to school.

Note: On September 16 in Texas, a 14-year old American Muslim, Ahmed Mohamed, was briefly arrested and then temporarily suspended from school after bringing in a mysterious electronic device, supposedly a clock, feared to be a bomb. It was determined later not to be a bomb. The Texas authorities were prudent in acting as they did since, in fact, it could have been a time-bomb (or part of a time-bomb) which is an explosive device that detonates either through a digital electronic clock (or conventional alarm clock) wired or wireless remote attachment. Moreover, terrorists, including Muslim terrorists, have been known to do no-load, dry-run tests in advance of terrorist acts.

Click here to view the 7-7:46 a.m. segment.

Note: Out of a total of exactly 25 callers in this first segment of C-SPAN's Washington Journal, only one caller – the very first (at 7:05 a.m.) – used this opportunity to vilify and condemn Islam and Muslims and warn about alleged dangers therein. One other caller (7:40 a.m.) warned about dangers from Muslim terrorists. The other 23 callers limited their messages mainly to condemning Texas authorities and/or expressing sympathy for Ahmed Mohamed.

Washington Journal is solicitous to every minority ethnic/religious/national group except for one – Jews/Israel. A recent example, out of more than a thousand such instances monitored and documented since November 2008 in CAMERA's C-SPAN Watch online feature, is the September 16 Journal broadcast. A segment on that that day provided five (mainly unchallenged) callers (out of a total of approximately 20 in the segment) who used the topic “News review [mainly of Iran nuclear deal or politics]” to defame and condemn Israel and sometimes Jews. Another segment on that day, “Republican presidential campaign and the budget,” provided an unchallenged caller that condemned Israel. No other callers in the September 16 three-hour broadcast mentioned Israel or Jews. This group-distinction journalistic malpractice would seem to be a function of C-SPAN policy reflected through call-screeners and hosts.

Caller on September 18  at 7:05 a.m., Blake from Alabama: “I don't know a whole lot about what this kid said to police and why they arrested him. But, I have seen the picture of the clock. To me, it does not look like any clock. I easily would have thought maybe it is some kind of bomb. Let me tell you why people are so sensitive about the name of any Muslim living anywhere in the world. It is a fact that come in today's day, 2015, people are being beheaded because they are not Muslim. The whole Muslim community all over the world, they are just watching. 30,000 ISIS [Islamic state] people now controlling a large part of the Middle East where there are millions of people living there. That is unbelievable. To me, Islam is a hate group. That's what it is. But nobody wants to come out and say it. I dare anybody to say what is the difference between any other hate group and Islam. Islam should be banned. It should not be treated like any other religion. It has dehumanized an entire population of the world under their influence. Whether it's the Middle East or any Muslim country, you look at before …”

Host: (interrupting): “Where are you from originally?”

Caller: “I'm originally from India.”

Host (terminating caller): “Blake on the Republican line.”
 
Note: Since none of the next 20 callers were heard to disparage Islam or Muslims (in a situation seemingly ready made for it), is it not likely, at this point, that the call-screener was alerted (in accord with presumed C-SPAN policy) to make every effort to exclude callers like Blake? On the other hand, there's no evidence of this sort of thing when the target group is Jews/Israel since this group routinely suffers from a deluge of disparaging (unchallenged) calls in any of numerous particular Washington Journal broadcasts.
 
Caller (the 22nd) at 7:40 a.m. from North Carolina: “… The Democrats, you guys ought to think twice – you consider the enemy in this country white people. Instead of looking at the true problem, ISIS. They are going to send people to this country to carry out acts of terror. That's what real ignorance is to me. The school did the right thing. That thing looks like a bomb. To anybody that doesn't think that … the kid's parents should be punished just as much as he. Inviting him to the white house? What about the parents of the girl who got shot by the illegal alien? Obama has not called them. That's why people think he is a Muslim and a traitor.”

September 16, 2015 – 8:27 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: THOMAS A. COBURN, M.D., U.S. Senator (Former) [R] Oklahoma.

Topic: Republican presidential campaign and the budget.

Caller: Cindy from Palm Bay, Florida (click here to view).

Caller: “I am pro-life, and I started -- something about Planned Parenthood came out. Even though the Republicans are wanting to cut the money to them, they are giving, like, millions a year to Israel. And I looked this up because I couldn't believe it. They have the most liberal abortion laws in the world. A teenager does not even have to notify a parent. They can abort up until birth. The government pays for it. And it concerns me – because why are we sending money to countries that are doing something we are trying to fight against?”

Guest: “That is a great question. I don't have an answer for that.”

Host: “Why don't I bring up another issue, and that is the execution that is planted at 3:00 p.m. today in the state of Oklahoma ... ”

NOTE: The caller opposes U.S. aid to Israel because “They have the most liberal abortion laws in the world...” But Israel's government medical system provides funding for abortions under limitations similar to those in U.S. law. C-SPAN's viewers are accustomed to hearing hosts indulge callers who primarily condemn only one foreign country – Israel – on Washington Journal.

Moreover, there are at least four relevant points about the mutually beneficial relationship between America and Israel. First, financial (military only) aid to Israel constitutes only a tiny portion of the federal budget (less than 0.1 percent). Second, Israel is required by U.S. law to spend most (74 percent) of the U.S. aid ($3 billion per year) in the United States for the purchase of military materials which helps create or sustain thousands of American jobs. Third, cooperative arrangements with Israel provide technology benefits to America related to unmanned aircraft, anti-missile defenses, battlefield medical techniques – and intelligence on anti-U.S. as well as anti-Israeli Arab and Islamic radicals. Fourth and perhaps most important in the long run, Israel, the only Western-style democracy in the Middle East, is a technologically advanced open society with equal rights for Christians and Muslims as well as Jews. Israel has women's equality, an independent judiciary, free press and is the only country in the region where Americans could live as freely as they do at home and one that, absent religious and ethnic prejudice, ought to be an example for the Middle East's many countries now in intra-communal upheaval.

September 16, 2015 – 8:43 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: GERALD CONNOLLY, U.S. Congressman (D-VA.)

Topic: News review.

Caller: Anthony from St. Paul, Minnesota (click here to view).

Note: Caller falsely singles out Israel for criticism and C-SPAN host obligingly reinforces caller's message.

Caller: “My take on this situation with the foreign and domestic policies is that we need to start thinking – what I keep hearing – and don't cut me off on it – but the United States seems to have this issue with the Arabs or Persians, whoever, over in the Middle East – are stupid enough to blow up everyone and will shoot off a [nuclear] bomb. But we all have to understand that one dead nation means mutual destruction. But another thing, I'd like to say is, we give a lot of money to Israel and we don't get anything back. The whole argument has been in the Middle East about them – that it is their land and they won't give it back. We should demand something for what we give, and that is basically it. Thank you very much.”

Guest: “I heard that as an opinion. I'm not sure I need to comment on that.”

Host: “What would you say to him about we are not demanding something in return for the aid to Israel and Egypt and other countries in that area?”

Guest: “The United States and Israel have had a deep and abiding relationship. It is a strong ally. I think that is going to continue. I think Israel remains an island of stability in a sea of instability in the region. And I think that relationship matters now more than ever given what we are witnessing with these neighboring states. That is not a relationship I think we should abandon. As to the question of, do we demand enough of Israel – it is a very complex relationship. There is give and take. We receive as well as we give. I don't think it is as simple as the caller presented it at all. It is a very valuable and important relationship. Critical right now in terms of stability in the region.”

Host: “But they [Israel] are against the Iran nuclear agreement.”

Guest: “The government of Israel.”

Host: “The government of Israel is against it. Given that clarification that you just made – and you voted for approval [of the nuclear agreement with Iran.”

Guest: “I think the prime minister of Israel and his ambassador here in Washington are dead wrong. Everything they fear is legitimate. But their solution would guarantee those fears would be realized. The only way to roll back the nuclear capability of Iran right now is this agreement. There is no alternative – nor has Prime Minister Netanyahu offered an alternative. People I respect, like former Senator Joe Lieberman, has said say we just cannot sell it. Let's go back to the negotiating table and come back with another idea. Now, they have never specified what a better deal would entail. Furthermore, to me, it is hard to believe – if not delusional – that the United States having taken the lead in these negotiations could say to its his negotiating partners in Iran, we've changed our mind about our own agreement. We are going to renounce it...”

NOTE: Caller scoffs at the notion that the “Arabs or Persians ... are stupid enough to blow up everyone and will shoot off a [nuclear] bomb” because that “means mutual destruction.” But the caller's reasoning is faulty. The Iranian (Persian) Islamist leadership has a unique (for any nuclear capable nation) preoccupation with the end of days that leads to actions to hasten, including by acts of destruction and chaos, the coming of the mahdi, Shiite Islam's messiah (the 12th Imam). The false narrative referred to by the caller about Israel and the land – has been addressed at length by CAMERA elsewhere and often, for example – (C-SPAN Watch entry for Aug. 7, 2014 – 8:46 a.m.). The caller's charge that “We should demand something for what we give ...” is addressed in the previous (8:27 a.m.) entry above concerning relevant points about the mutually beneficial relationship between America and Israel.

September 16, 2015 – 8:51 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: GERALD CONNOLLY, U.S. Congressman (D-VA.)

Topic: News review.

Caller: Mark from Atkinson, New Hampshire (click here to view).

Guest: “How are things up in New Hampshire?”

Caller: “Nice and cool this morning. What happens if this deal falls apart with Iran? Second of all, you say Israel is our ally, but you forget in 1950 they tried to start a war between us and Egypt and in 1967 they tried to blow up our boat, the U.S.S. Liberty. They were trying to start a war between us and Egypt. I will leave you with that thought.”

Guest: “I think you meant in 1956, the Suez Crisis, not 1950. Yes, look, we have our differences with Israel, but we agree on a lot more than we disagree. Obviously the Obama administration has been pushing the Netanyahu government, the current government of Israel, to be more forthcoming about settlements, more forthcoming about a two state solution, more forthcoming about engaging with the Palestinians to achieve that. We also have been prodding the Palestinians who unfortunately pulled back at the last moment in terms of sitting down and having real negotiations with the state of Israel. That is a challenge as well. No relationship is without problems. Every family has its differences. Sometimes they are pretty severe. That does not mean we are not family and that does not mean we do not share a lot more in common than not. I think that characterizes the relationship we have with Israel.”

NOTE: What is the caller's evidence for the accusation about “they tried to start a war”? The caller's false accusation, regarding the U.S.S. Liberty, is a favorite of Israel-hating conspiracy mongers. Multiple U.S. and Israeli investigations determined that Israel's attack on the Navy's U.S.S. Liberty during the 1967 Six-Day War was indeed a tragic "fog of war" mistake:
 
• C.I.A. report – June 13, 1967 – No malice; attack a mistake.
• U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry – June 18, 1967 – Mistaken identity.
• Report by presidential advisor Clark Clifford – July 18, 1967 – No evidence ship was known to be American.
• Senate Select Committee on Intelligence – 1979/1981 – No merit to claims attack was intentional. • National Security Agency – 1981 – Mistaken identity.
• House Armed Services Committee – 1991/1992 – No support for claims attack was intentional.

Captain Jay Cristol, USN (Ret.), a decorated Navy aviator and Navy lawyer (member of Judge Advocate General's Corps) in his book The Liberty Incident definitively refutes allegations of an intentional Israeli attack. But C-SPAN watchers would never know it.

September 16, 2015 – 8:54 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: GERALD CONNOLLY, U.S. Congressman (D-VA.)

Topic: News review.

Host: Eddie from Los Angeles, California (click here to view).

Caller: “I have a couple questions to ask. One is about the Israeli thing. They receive the largest amount of our foreign money, but they are also the largest contributor to our government. Isn't that like a kickback? You speak of the humanitarian thing -- what is going on in Syria, but they did not have a problem with the Europeans about blowing the boats up with the Libyans coming over. So, could you tell me the difference with that? Is it race, or what? As a Vietnam vet – the Israelis with what they did to the U.S.S. Liberty, I can't see them being an ally. Could you explain that please?”

Guest: “The Liberty incident occurred in the midst of a war. Accidents happen. Look at for example ourselves when people are killed with friendly fire because we called in a bomb strike -- got the wrong coordinates. And so, that is the official version of what happened with the Liberty, and obviously people can draw their own conclusions… But with respect to aid to Israel, we do provide a lot of military aid to Israel. Over the years we have provided economic stability funds as well. It is an investment in technology and in self-defense for Israel that, I think, is a very important investment for the United States with an ally and an important partner in the region. Some of the technology, like “Iron Dome,” for example, that we have used and has protected Israeli citizens and communities from rocket attacks from the Gaza or from other parts of the region potentially. And it has worked. It is technology that actually has a lot of promise in terms of self-defense technology. So, I think it is a two-way street. I think we benefit from it, and clearly the Israelis do as well. It is a relationship that is not without problems, but it is a relationship that I think we need to undergird.”

NOTE: Caller's accusation concerning the U.S.S. liberty incident is refuted in the Note for the previous (8:51 a.m.) entry.

September 16, 2015 – 9:09 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: GERALD CONNOLLY, U.S. Congressman (D-VA.)

Topic: News review.

Caller: Harry from Dallas, Pennsylvania (click here to view).

Note: Caller, obsessed with defaming and belittling Israel and Jews, makes false incendiary allegations.

Caller: “Congressman, I would like to thank you for your support of the Iran deal. I think that was the proper thing to do.”

Guest: “Thank you.”

Caller: “This idea that [U.S. Defense Secretary] Ashton Carter went over to Israel and gave them $1.8 billion in military aid on top of the 10 and a half-million we give them every day. Considering that we have to borrow money from China, it really perturbs me. When a previous caller confronted this, you said that Israel does plenty for us. I would like to know what Israel does for us. It's ridiculous. Because the way I see it with both the Iraqi Freedom and Desert Storm wars, not one Israeli soldier served in either war. Now take this refugee thing. What this refugee problem is all about – all these dictatorships have been knocked out of the box by the American military. Now, is it not a fact that the Israeli lobby controls the American military? …”

Host (interrupting): “Harry, well, where did you get that? What evidence do you have of that? That is a big assertion you are making that one group controls the U.S. military. You have to have evidence of that.”

Note: Host Brawner commendably challenges caller's preposterous incendiary falsehood. Caller then proceeds to his next false antisemitic charge.

Caller: “Let me ask you, Congressman. Do you take money from the Jewish lobby? That's right… you're cutting me off.”

Host: “You are still on the air Harry.”

Guest: “I'm not aware of a Jewish lobby that …”

Host (interrupting): “He is referring to AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee].”
 
NOTE: AIPAC does not give money to individual members of Congress. AIPAC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational organization not a political action committee therefore it is prohibited by law from giving money to individual members of Congress.

Guest: “Well, I don't think AIPAC gives money to congressman. If they do, I'm not one of them. I am aware of them, I am aware of J street. And I know others that advocate for Israel. Obviously, Harry, on the question of Iran, the Jewish community is as split on Iran as anybody else. The relationship with Israel, we have economic ties with Israel. We have cultural ties with Israel. We have technology bonds between a very vibrant technology community in Israel and here in the United States. My home county of Fairfax has been very active in dealing with technology in Israel. In terms of military cooperation, you cited the fact that no Israeli soldier fought in the Gulf wars. Well that was because we did not want them to. You may recall, take the first Gulf War when President George H.W. Bush was president, we went to great lengths to try to provide defensive protection to Israel when Saddam Hussein was shooting scuds [missiles] into Israel proper to provoke Israel to get into the war so that he could get the sympathy and support of other Arab states. We needed to make sure that did not happen or it … and to Israel's credit, they did exercise enormous self restraint while they were under attack.

So, that relationship of cooperation is deep. Technology, the economy, military and strategic and intelligence. It is, I think, a relationship for stability in a sea of instability in the region. We need to find a path towards these. It's been a rough process, frankly, with the Netanyahu government. We have spent a lot of time on that process with the Netanyahu government. His commitment to peace was certainly in question during his reelection campaign because he denounced a two-state solution, in his reelection campaign, which is the official policy of our government and his. That created some real problems. I hope over time we are going to be able to work this out now that this Iran agreement is behind us.”

NOTE: The caller claims that “[U.S. Defense Secretary] Ashton Carter went over to Israel and gave them $1.8 billion …” The problem with this claim is that rather than being a grant for $1.8 billion, as caller alleges, it is, in fact, a $1.9 billion arms sale. This was reported in the Military Times. In a version of the infamous anti-Jewish canard, "the Jews control everything" (echoing Europe during and before the Holocaust – and the lead-up to genocidal Nazi Germany), the caller alleges that Israel “controls the United States military." Guest appropriately refutes the false charge that Israel refused to provide soldiers to the U.S. led coalition in recent Middle East wars. The caller's demand that he “would like to know what Israel does for us” is answered in the Note for the 8:27 a.m. call entry above.

While the guest generally responds appropriately to the caller's charges, more can be said about the bad rap Prime Minister Netanyahu has gotten regarding his attitude toward the two-state solution -- it has been based on an reelection eve statement to supporters – and it overlooks the substantial Palestinian Arab obstructionism including refusal to come to the negotiating table without insistence on refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The Palestinians also insist on full right of return for millions of Arab refugees (and their descendants) from 1948-49 having mostly fled at the insistence of Arab leaders. This is a non-starter since such a return would mean the end of the only Jewish state in a world which already has 22 Arab Muslim states.

Additionally, as far as AIPAC is concerned, C-SPAN's anti-Israel conspiracy mongers repeatedly falsely claim a grossly exaggerated influence for AIPAC, such that it supposedly controls congressional Republicans and Democrats. As should be obvious, the two large parties, with tens of thousands of activists and millions of supporters, are "controlled" by no one, not even their top elected leaders. They are umbrella groups representing and speaking for often internally divergent, sometimes competing interests. Examples of AIPAC opposition defeating a major American Middle East policy initiative are virtually non-existent. The organization's influence primarily is due to its presentation of facts to political leaders and the fact that a large majority of the American public, according to numerous polls, sides with Israel in its conflict with Arab neighbors. AIPAC may be one of the most influential foreign policy lobbies, but bigger groups with clout on broader legislation would include, for example, the American Association of Retired Persons, the Catholic Church in America, labor unions and the dairy lobby or the National Rifle Association. The anti-Israel phoners, while routinely condemning AIPAC, never mention the considerable influence of the petro-dollar funded pro-Arab lobby which influences Capitol Hill, the State Department, Pentagon and academia.

September 16, 2015 – 9:13 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: GERALD CONNOLLY, U.S. Congressman (D-VA.)

Topic: News review.

Caller: Leah from Rosenberg, Texas (click here to view).

Caller: “My question is this. Why does Israel wants to attack Iran? Think about it. [Prime Minister] Netanyahu never saw the treaty. He said that is not good, not good. He will never think any treaty is good enough. He has only one thing in mind. He wants to go and destroy Iran and that is a fact…”

Host (interrupting): “That sounds more like opinion than fact.”

Guest: “I think what you are referring to is the belief of Prime Minister Netanyahu has already decided a priority -- a military solution. I must confess that there have been times I have had that impression as well. When the interim agreement was negotiated with Iran, that has been in place there for two years and has worked, Prime Minister Netanyahu criticized it, called it an existential threat to Israel, it wasn't worth the paper or the ink it was signed with …”

NOTE: Caller falsely charges that “They [Israel] want to destroy Iran.” Where is the evidence for this? Typically for C-SPAN, the question is not asked. Israel's responsible critics have charged at the most that Israel wants to destroy Iran's nuclear weaponry facilities. These facilities pose an existential threat to Israel since Iran is under the control of a fanatical religious dictatorship believing in a doomsday scenario and one that repeatedly shouts “Death to Israel.”

September 14, 2015 – 9:48 a.m.

Host: PAUL ORGEL (porgel@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: DAVID A. MARTIN, University of Virginia professor of International Law.

Topic: Assistance for [Arab] refugees in the U.S.

Caller: Elektra from New York City (click here to view).

Note: Callers from C-SPAN's legion of anti-Israel phoners are routinely welcomed by hosts and call-screeners. This one uses topic concerning refugees as an opportunity to bash Israel. Typically for Washington Journal, neither host nor guest replies.

Caller: “I made a comment [to the call-screener] and I want to repeat it about Israel's attitude. Isn't it interesting that the minute that Israelis are safe, they don't want anybody else in there. [Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu said there isn't enough room. I'm also appalled by the Americans, particularly the man from Tennessee. I don't think they [Tennessee] have acknowledged evolution. They just want to keep people out. So much for tribalism. I do not even like the idea of borders.”

Host: “Alright.”

NOTE: In response to caller's rant, viewers could have been informed that more than a thousand injured Syrians, victims of bloody internecine conflict among Arabs, have been compassionately brought into Israeli hospitals to be treated free of charge. Further, according to a 2013 study published in The Guardian of London, Israel already has one of the largest immigrant populations per capita. And Israel is dealing with some five million Arabs who still claim to be refugees from Israel after 67 years. The natural states to take in Sunni Muslim (at least) refugees mainly from Syria (but also from Iraq, Libya and elsewhere) are the Sunni Muslim states of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and UAE – which dwarf Israel in land size and other resources. But those countries so far have shown no intention to bring in refugees.

The Times of Israel reported on Israel's position on the recent refugee controversy: “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday rejected the possibility of Israel taking in refugees from war-torn Syria, saying that while the Jewish state was not unsympathetic to the suffering of citizens across its border, it simply did not have the capacity to absorb masses of people. ‘Israel is not indifferent to human tragedy; we conscientiously handled a thousand [people] who were wounded in the fighting in Syria and we have helped them rebuild their lives,' Netanyahu said during the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem. ‘However, Israel is a very small country. It has no demographic depth and has no geographic breadth,' the prime minister continued. ‘We must protect our borders against illegal immigrants and against the perpetrators of terrorism. We cannot allow Israel to be flooded with infiltrators.' He added that Israel was contemplating sending aid packages to countries in Africa in an attempt to ensure that local residents do not find it necessary to migrate from their homes.”

Washington Journal host Paul Orgel is an old hand at indulging anti-Israel callers. His most notorious such performance took place in 2010. He indulged the same female caller twice only 22 hours apart (violating C-SPAN's ostensible one-call-per-30-days rule) in January 2010 when she devoted each call  to anti-Israel rhetoric. Click here to view a 3.5 minute video clip of Orgel indulging "Janet from Birmingham, Alabama” on January 1, 2010 at 9:51 a.m. and then again on January 2 at 7:50 a.m. when she was "Carol from Scottsville, Arizona.”

September 12, 2015 – 7:36 a.m.

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmccardle@c-span.org,journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Iran nuclear agreement.

Caller: Darrell from Defiance, Missouri (click here to view).

Note: Serial anti-Israel caller “Darrell” (see Note below for previous calls) basically only has one thing on his mind – damning Israel. But C-SPAN always welcomes him with open arms. Allowed by hosts (and presumably by call-in screeners), it's always open season on Jews and Israel at C-SPAN's Washington Journal. Hosts permit no other country or religious or ethnic minority to be vilified repeatedly as are Jews and the Jewish state. C-SPAN officials decline to acknowledge the problem.

Caller (sarcastically): “I think Iran should have to go through the same tough scrutiny and oversight that Israel had to go through to get their nuclear weapons. Oh, that's right, Israel didn't have to go through any tough scrutiny. They lied, cheated and stole their way to nuclear weapons, and not a peep out of the cowards in this [U.S.] government. What do you think about that? Why is nothing ever said about their nuclear weapons, and how they acquired them, and how they never had to do anything including inspections, on-site visits, or anything else having to do with their nuclear weapons?”

Host: “Okay, Darrell. You may want to stick around for Daryl Kimball, joining us in the next segment, he is executive director of the Arms Control Association, and we will talk about nuclear proliferation around the world…Stick around for that.”

NOTE: Typically, a Washington Journal host is either unable or unwilling to challenge this mendacious caller (or others of his ilk). There is absolutely no basis for the anti Israel charge, “They lied and stole their way to nuclear weapons.” The point regarding Israel's purported nuclear program is that in keeping with an understanding reached with the Nixon administration, Israel has held that it "will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons" into the Middle East. Unlike Iran, it has not threatened nuclear genocide against another country, as the Islamic extremists in power in Tehran have threatened against Israel.

In an April 15, 2012 (7:36 a.m.) call, Darrell viciously charged that Israel had assassinated President John F. Kennedy. Typically, host Steve Scully's response at that time was only, “Okay. Thanks for the call.” On Dec. 5, 2009 (8:13 a.m.), Darrell accused Israel, “They have lied about everything …” and he voiced support for the Iranian Islamist rulers. This caller's previous calls (most condemning United States policies, all defamatory/condemning Israel including thinly veiled antisemitic jargon) monitored and posted on CAMERA's C-SPAN Watch include: July 8, 2015 (7:22 a.m.) (click here to view); March 16, 2015 (7:34 a.m.) (Click here to view); Dec. 8, 2014 (7:04 AM); Sept. 11, 2014 (7:31 AM); July 18, 2014 (7:16 AM), Dec. 10, 2013 (7:20 AM), June 16, 2013 (7:19 AM); April 16, 2013 (7:04 AM); Jan. 13, 2013 (8:40 AM), Jan. 8, 2013 (7:04 AM); Nov. 21, 2012 (7:34 AM); April 15, 2012 (7:36 AM); Feb. 5, 2012 (7:19 AM) as Bill from Defiance, Missouri; Oct. 21, 2011 (7:16 AM) as Bill from St. Louis; Oct. 12, 2011 (7:19 AM) as Bill; Sept. 21, 2011 (7:06 AM) as Bill; May 19, 2011 (7:15 AM); May 2, 2011 (9:18 AM) as Bill; March 18, 2011 (7:30 AM) as Bob; Feb. 26, 2011 (7:16 AM) as Bill; Feb. 1, 2011 (7:21 AM) and so on back to Sept. 30, 2009 (8:21 AM) as Darrell from St. Louis.

September 12, 2015 – 8:04 a.m.

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmccardle@c-span.org,journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: DARYL KIMBALL, Executive Director of Arms Control Association

Topic: Iran nuclear agreement and the state of global non-proliferation efforts. 

Caller: Raymond from Clinton, Pennsylvania (click here to view).

Note: Concerning the threat of a nuclear attack, seemingly detached-from-reality caller charges that the danger is only from Israel. Host, referring to a viewer's tweet, actually seems to reinforce the lunatic charge. In response to the caller, when guest finally gets around to discussing the Israel situation, he does so only tepidly.

Caller: “I would like to jog people's memory. In the 1970's, Pakistan was in pursuit of a nuclear weapon. There were also characterized as terrorists, backing terrorist organizations, and if they got a nuclear weapon, there may be a nuclear war or they would use it. They now have somewhere around 180, 200 very potent warheads and delivery systems. Pakistan, have they used them? No. Now, the same rhetoric is being used on Iran. I think it is all about Israel. Israel got their nuclear weapons and nothing was said. This country said nothing about it. They are the ones who are willing to use it at the drop of a hat. They are willing to use a nuclear weapon on anybody who opposes them in the Middle East. They are the wild card. They are the ones who should not have a nuclear weapon.”

Host: “Thanks, Raymond from Clinton, Pennsylvania. And on twitter … a similar line of questioning. ‘Why does the Israeli government not have to submit to inspections or sign on to the NPT [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty]. Why the double standard?'”

Guest: “Let's back up and talk about who has nuclear weapons. I can talk about Pakistan and Israel in particular. There are nine countries today that have nuclear weapons. The U.S. and Russia by far have the largest number of combined such weapons. The U.S. and Russia currently have about 1600 nuclear warheads. Each of which can be delivered over intercontinental distances. Next is China and France. They have around 300 or so each. Then there is the U.K. They have around 100. Then there are the countries that never joined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty [NPT] but are states with nuclear weapons.

Those countries are India, Pakistan, and Israel, and as I said before, North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 1993 because they were violating it. Pakistan is a country that has pursued nuclear weapons outside the nuclear proliferation system. They did so in response to India, when India conducted its first test in 1974. A slow moving arms race has been taking place there. There is a great deal of danger involving Pakistan's nuclear weapons, both in terms of the security of those weapons in Pakistan, which has its terrorist organizations operating on their soil. And there is a risk that there could be conflict between India and Pakistan that escalates into a nuclear conflict.

Israel is a country that was pursuing nuclear technology in the 1960's. They used a reactor at a site called Dimona to produce plutonium for their first nuclear weapon around 1968 or 1969. The United States has not acknowledged that Israel has nuclear weapons, in part because of the diplomatic problems that the U.S. government felt that would create if we acknowledged it. So, whether we like it or not, the fact is the United States has not acknowledged the presence of nuclear weapons in Israel. Israel has not officially acknowledged the fact it has nuclear weapons. But because it never joined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, it is not subject to the same kinds of safeguards against the misuse of civilian technology for military purposes, like we see with Iran, which has been a signatory and a member of the [NPT] treaty since the beginning. So the system -- there are double standards in the global system in all sorts of areas. You could say this is one of them.

Israel is not a country that is willing to use its nuclear weapons lightly. None of the countries that possess nuclear weapons, except maybe North Korea, think of it that way. But there is a risk that these weapons can be used in a conflict. It is in everyone's interest that all of these countries reduce the role in the sale of these weapons and military policy and reduce the numbers that exist and prevent new countries from having nuclear weapons like Iran.”

NOTE: Whenever a caller assails Israel on this basis (which is often), C-SPAN viewers are rarely if ever reminded that there is little reason to fear Israel's presumed nuclear capability since Israel does not threaten other countries with destruction and is perceived as highly unlikely to share any nuclear weaponry knowledge with any other country. This is not the case with Iran, an NPT signatory, which not only continuously threatens other nations especially Israel – it is considered likely to proliferate its nuclear weaponry knowledge to terrorist entities. Viewers should have been reminded of Iranian obstruction of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors. C-SPAN never informs viewers that the Iranian leadership has a unique (for any nuclear capable nation) preoccupation with the end of days that leads to actions to hasten, including by acts of destruction and chaos, the coming of the mahdi, Shiite Islam's messiah (the 12th Imam.). Moreover, it is clear that Israel's presumed nuclear capability is a factor only in terms of its perceived deterrence against concerted attacks by Iran and/or various Arab nations.

September 6, 2015 – 8:30 a.m.

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmcardle@c-span.org,@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: ARSHAD MOHAMMED, Reuters U.S. foreign policy correspondent.

Topic: Iran Nuclear Agreement.

Caller: Marilyn from Hazel Crest, Illinois (click here to view).
 
Note: Caller, typical C-SPAN apologist for Iran, aims her barbs at Israel.

Caller: “I would like to find out why news media like Reuters would not make sure that they report that $150 billion that Iran will get – it is their money. It is there frozen assets. But all you hear about is oh, the amount of money and Iran will use it to sponsor more terrorism. It is their money. My second point is, I know Israel has nuclear facilities but we can just trust Israel? When is the last time they had their nuclear facilities checked? Those are my two concerns.”

Host: “Arshad Mohammed, do you want to start with the money? Have you been covering where this money would be coming from?”

Guest: “The caller is absolutely right. The money is the Iranians' money. The administration argues that the $150 billion figure is kind of an urban legend. That in fact the real figure is much lower, like $56 billion. Still, that is a lot of money, but the caller is right. This is a lot of money. This is essentially money that Iran has earned by selling its oil. That money has gone into accounts that are essentially frozen. The big purchasers of Iranian oil, like China and India, when they have paid Iranians for that oil it goes into an account in India, in China. That account is unfrozen and Iranians are only able to use it for very specific purposes, like humanitarian goods… I guess the concern that some people have about this deal and about the Iranians getting access to that money is, what will they do with that money? Will they use it to try to prop up [Syria's] Assad? Will they use it to funnel money to Hezbollah, or will they use it to meet the needs of their own people? …”

Host: “The second question, about Israel.”

Guest: “Well, about Israel's inspections. Inspections depend on a country having signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty [NPT]. If you are a signatory to that treaty, the central bargain of the treaty is that you can pursue civil nuclear power and civil nuclear uses of nuclear power. However, an exchange, you have to commit not to seek nuclear weapons and you have to commit to allow inspection. Israel is not a signatory, so the legal basis for going in and doing inspections simply is not there.”

NOTE: Caller casts aspersions on Israel regarding the NPT. In fact, Israel, like some other Middle Eastern countries but unlike Iran, is a non-signatory to the NPT the purpose of which is to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weaponry capability. Therefore Israel, cannot avail itself of certain nuclear assistance from other NPT countries but at the same time it is not legally required to submit to NPT requirements such as inspection of presumed nuclear facilities.

Whenever Israel is assailed, viewers are rarely if ever reminded that there is little reason to fear Israel's presumed nuclear capability since Israel does not threaten other countries with destruction and is perceived as highly unlikely to share any nuclear weaponry knowledge with any other country. This is not the case with Iran, an NPT signatory, which not only continuously threatens other nations (especially Israel) – it is considered likely to proliferate its nuclear weaponry knowledge to terrorist entities. Furthermore, it is clear that Israel's presumed nuclear capability is a factor only in terms of its perceived deterrence against concerted attacks by Iran and/or various Arab nations. Viewers should have been reminded of Iranian obstruction of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors.

September 6, 2015 – 8:33 a.m.

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmcardle@c-span.org,@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: ARSHAD MOHAMMED, Reuters U.S. foreign policy correspondent.

Topic: Iran Nuclear Agreement.

Caller: Kathleen from South Holland, Illinois (click here to view).

Note: This caller, a typical Washington Journal apologist for Iran, condemns Israel and the United States especially Republicans.

Caller: “Let me ask you something, I need to get these points out. The only reason why this deal is so bad in this country is because president Obama is signing onto it. If any other president signed onto this it would not be a bad deal. We keep talking about Israel as our strongest ally. What has Israel done to help the United States? Are they helping us with ISIS? What has Israel done? When have they ever stood with us? And with Iran -- please let me finish this. When those other countries came to the bargaining table today say, if you want us to strip naked and give up all those nuclear weapons, you also. Since you can't trust us what makes you think we can trust you? The United States has done some stuff. Like when the Republicans stood in the chamber [of Congress] and disrespected the President, sent a letter over there and said don't trust President Obama. How can you trust people? The United States is not trustworthy.”

Host: “A couple of questions there.”

Guest: “Well, Israel is a long-standing ally of the United States. Successive U.S. governments have felt that there is a genuine affinity between the United States and Israel in terms of democratic principles and values. That I guess partly addresses the first part of the question.”

NOTE In characterizing the U.S.-Israel relationship, as the guest has, this should be added: Cooperative arrangements with Israel provide technology benefits to America related to unmanned aircraft, anti-missile defenses, battlefield medical techniques – and intelligence on anti-U.S. as well as anti-Israeli Arab and Islamic radicals. Additionally, and perhaps most important in the long run, Israel, the only Western-style democracy in the Middle East, is a technologically advanced open society with equal rights for Christians and Muslims as well as Jews. Israel has women's equality, an independent judiciary, free press and is the only country in the region where Americans could live as freely as they do at home and one that, absent religious and ethnic prejudice, ought to be an example for the Middle East's many countries now in intra-communal upheaval.

September 5, 2015 – 8:25 a.m.

Host: PEDRO ECHEVARRIA (pechevarria@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: TRITA PARSI, National Iranian American Council (NIAC) president.

Guest: MATTHEW MCINNIS, American Enterprise Institute resident fellow in defense policy studies.

Topic: Iran Nuclear Agreement.

Caller: Owen from Ohio (click here to view).

Note: Caller takes aim at Israel. Guest Parsi unsurprisingly obliges with at best an incomplete, inadequate response. Guest's organization, NIAC, purportedly the largest Iranian-American group, is by far the closest of such groups to being an apologist for Iran's Islamist regime that frequently threatens America and Israel. The Note below has a rundown on Parsi's problematic prior Washington Journal appearances. Journal seems not to have previously provided a guest from any of the other Iranian-American groups.

Caller: “I have a few questions. Regarding the deal, I have heard on this broadcast before, previous guest, that on this deal, Americans would be sponsoring conventional arms for Iran. My understanding, otherwise, is we are releasing 100 plus billion dollars. Secondly, if we're talking about a nuclear-free Middle East, it should be the Middle East in its entirety. So, my question is does Israel have a nuclear program? The third question is regarding the art of war, and your guest Mr. Parsi just addressed it, it seems the Republicans in Congress and Israel are in contrast to the rest of the world. Israel and the Republicans will not accept a deal acceptable to the countries. I thought negotiations basically means you do not get everything that you need from it. You give a little to get back something.”

Host: “Okay, thanks caller. Mr. Parsi, do you want to start?”

Guest Parsi: “Okay, if I understand the first question, no, there are no conventional weapons going to Iran from the United States. Now, Iran can buy weapons themselves. There is a Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). You essentially pledge not to pursue nuclear weapons, but that does not mean you do not have the right to pursue other types of weapons, and Iran certainly does have that. Despite that, there will be an arms embargo for eight years, something the United States was lucky in getting, mindful that the missile component of the resolution was connected to potential weaponization in Iran. When the weaponization has been canceled out, so should the missile embargo, if you read it from the legal perspective. Still, the United States managed, with the consensus of the other P5 states that they have the arms embargo for another eight years. That is a major achievement that one should be surprised the U.S. Could get in this area. Yes, the Israelis do have a nuclear program and they are believed to have 100 to 200 nuclear warheads. There are no inspections over there and that is in stark contrast here. We almost went to war with Iran over a program that was not weaponized since 2003. Ultimately, the goal should be to have a nuclear weapons-free Middle East…”

NOTE: C-SPAN characteristically completely fails here to inform viewers about the circumstances of Israel's purported nuclear capability. Israel, like some other Middle Eastern countries but unlike Iran, is a non-signatory to the NPT the purpose of which is to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weaponry capability. Therefore Israel, cannot avail itself of certain nuclear assistance from other NPT countries but at the same time it is not legally required to submit to NPT requirements such as inspection of presumed nuclear facilities.

Whenever Israel is assailed, viewers are rarely if ever reminded that there is little reason to fear Israel's presumed nuclear capability since Israel does not threaten other countries with destruction and is perceived as highly unlikely to share any nuclear weaponry knowledge with any other country. This is not the case with Iran, an NPT signatory, which not only continuously threatens other nations (especially Israel) – it is considered likely to proliferate its nuclear weaponry knowledge to terrorist entities. Furthermore, it is clear that Israel's presumed nuclear capability is a factor only in terms of its perceived deterrence against concerted attacks by Iran and/or various Arab nations. Viewers should have been reminded of Iranian obstruction of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors.

Guest Trita Parsi, a resident alien born in Iran who claims to speak on behalf of Americans of Iranian descent, has problematic prior Washington Journal appearances including Nov. 25, 2013 (click here to view) in which Parsi failed to reply to an 8:07 a.m. caller's wildly negative portrayal of Israel's influence pertaining to America's view of the Iranian Islamist leadership. Replying to an 6:11 a.m. caller, Parsi, NIAC's president, rationalized the Iranian government's anti-Israel rhetoric and conflict with Israel – claiming it is driven by strategic rivalry rather than ideology. In reality, Israel and Iran were de facto allies for years; this relationship became impossible only when Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the Shah and led Iran's Islamic revolutionary government. At 8:20 a.m. on Nov. 25, 2013, Parsi avoided answering a question – about comparing Nazi Germany and Israel -- instead voicing another apologia for Iranian policies.

In fact, the historical record shows that the actions of Trita Parsi (and his NIAC organization) are often those of an apologist for the extremist Islamist Iranian regime.

September 4, 2015 – 7:44 a.m.

Host: PAUL ORGEL (porgel@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Should Donald Trump [Republican presidential candidate] have signed the Republican loyalty pledge?

Host: Greg from Chattanooga, Tennessee (click here to view).

Note: Antisemitic caller, apparently fiscal conservative, likes Trump and “loves” U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, conservative Republican presidential candidate, until Cruz voices his support for Israel. Caller defames Israel without challenge or questioning by Washington Journal host Orgel although Orgel, in this broadcast, routinely asked follow up questions of other callers – even multiple follow up questions – including the very next caller.

Host: “Greg, what do you think about all this [Republican presidential candidate Trump and so-on]?”

Caller: “I'm getting real interested in it. I like what the last caller just said [previous caller said he will vote for Trump because he's not “owned by special interest donors who have supported his campaign”]. The only thing I see possible for taking back the country at this point is to cut our ties to – you know who – the country that we support that is pretty much wiping out Palestinians over there. Until we get [U.S. Senator] Ted Cruz [candidate for Republican presidential nomination] – I love him to death – until he opens his mouth about Israel and then it is all over. In [indiscernible] dot com, there was a very interesting conversation a couple days ago with David Duke and Alex Jones [Duke, notorious racist who preaches white supremacism and charges that Jews have inordinate power in the United States, was interviewed on the Jones National Public Radio show in August] and it really opened a lot of people across this country's eyes. Alex Jones – he opened more eyes to what's happened to this country – more than C-SPAN, CNN, MSNBC – all the false propaganda. C-SPAN is about the best channel, period. I support you all the way. Until we get out from under this debt burden, we have no reason to be supporting them people [Israel] over there like that. Thank you.”

Host: “Alright Greg.”

NOTE: C-SPAN, ostensibly a public-service network, has little interest in either the facts or informing Washington Journal viewers when Jews and Israel are concerned. Host is disinterested in the false charge, by this caller who praises C-SPAN, that Israel is “wiping out Palestinians.” A journalistically professional host would have asked the anti-Israel caller if he'd “like” Trump, if Trump, like Cruz, was a strong Israel supporter of Israel (since Trump is in fact such a supporter)? Likewise, such a host might well have pointed out – regarding caller's demand that the U.S. “debt burden” requires stoppage of support for Israel – that the financial aid (military only) to Israel constitutes only a tiny portion of the federal budget (less than 0.1 percent). Additionally, Israel is required by U.S. law to spend most (74 percent) of the U.S. aid (which totals $3 billion per year) in the United States for the purchase of military materials which helps create or sustain thousands of American jobs. Additionally, cooperative arrangements with Israel provide technology benefits to America related to unmanned aircraft, anti-missile defenses, battlefield medical techniques – and intelligence on anti-U.S. as well as anti-Israeli Arab and Islamic radicals.

Numerous C-SPAN Washington Journal callers routinely defame Jews and Israel. Occasionally, guest speakers – journalists, authors, academics, government officials – offer information that counters these distortions and falsehoods. But C-SPAN hosts themselves almost invariably sit mute or even, at times, reinforce the bigoted rants. It's left to the rare pro-Israel caller, sometimes self-identified Christians, to provide moments of rationality. No other ethnic or religious group has been subjected to such continuous and virulent defamation on the network. Meanwhile, C-SPAN has stonewalled all efforts to discuss this problem, while the hate-filled calls continue.

August 31, 2015 – 9:43 a.m.

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmcardle@eenews.net, c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: What do you want to hear from 2016 presidential candidates on climate change?

Caller: Sean from Florida Keys, Florida (click here to view).

Note: Caller's four-minute monologue, interrupted only once by host to ask caller's opinion about former Florida governor Jeb Bush, included a short misinformation (or worse) "gem" about Israel's security barrier conflating it with the Berlin Wall and America's barrier to illegal immigration at the southern border.

Host: "What do you want to hear from the 2016 candidates on the issue of climate change? Sean is up next from Florida on the line for Independents."

Caller: "As lay people, we are not qualified to talk about climb change test climate change per se. We are qualified to talk about good stewardship of our world, and primarily – we have trashed everything to the nth degree ... Mr. Trump is indicating that he wants to build a fence across the southern border. What a disgrace. Those people who live on our southern border, the Mexican people, are very wonderful people. For us to make the kind of comment that the Russians made in the Berlin Wall [situation] is an absurdity – or [about the barrier] that the Israelis are building – we need to tear that down. We need to have economic sanctions against people who employ undocumented aliens and put a stop to that very simply..."

NOTE: Caller's comment, "For us to make the kind of comment that the Russians made in the Berlin Wall [situation] is an absurdity – or [about the barrier] that the Israelis are building – we need to tear that down," merits a challenge that cannot be expected given C-SPAN's Washington Journal chronic journalistic malpractice.

The basic purpose of Israel's security barrier is to prevent Palestinian terrorists from murdering Israelis. It is misleadingly referred to as a "wall" since less than 5 percent of the barrier can be considered a "wall." Originally planned to encompass approximately 12 percent of the disputed West Bank, it has been re-routed by the Israeli military in response to Israeli Supreme Court decisions in cases brought by Palestinian Arabs. It now includes less than eight percent of the West Bank on the Israeli side of the barrier. The barrier was constructed in response to the "al-Aqsa intifada," the 2000 - 2004 Palestinian terror war in which more than 1,000 Israelis – Jewish and Arabs, more than three-fourths of them non-combatants – and foreign visitors were murdered, most by Palestinian terrorists crossing unimpeded from the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). The barrier's completion has contributed significantly to the roughly 95 percent decrease in lethal attacks from the area.

August 23, 2015 – 8:50 a.m.

Host: STEVE SCULLY (sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: OMRI CEREN, Israel Project senior advisor for strategy.

Topic: Iran nuclear deal.

Caller: Doug from Brookline, Massachusetts (click here to view).

Note: British accented “Doug” is a repeat (see NOTE below) obsessive anti-Israel, antisemitic caller invariably welcomed to the program (since at least December 2009) to recite his message and to be indulged. As the first caller of this segment with Omri Ceren, he evidently cued up early in order to ensure that he'd not lose an opportunity to defame Israel.

Caller: “I think your guest's concerns are less to do with the Iranian nuclear weapons program and more to do with the rapprochement between Iran and the United States. Because as soon as this deal is concluded, the focus will shift to Israel's treatment of Palestinians and will probably affect Israel's undeclared 200 thermonuclear devices that they claim not to have. I think that is where the conflict lies. Thank you.”

Host: “Thank you Doug.

Note: Caller falsely states that Israel claims not to have nuclear weaponry – Israel doesn't comment on the matter and caller's claim regarding the number (200) of the purported devices is unverifiable. Israel, unlike Iran, does not threaten any country with destruction. Caller's messages about relations between Israel and Palestinians have always been blame-Israel-only ones.

Guest: “On the merits of what the caller said, I do not think there is much there…There is an underlying issue, which is that this deal is about a greater rapprochement between the United States and Iran. There is a real debate over this, whether or not the Obama administration is pursuing a kind of realignment in the region. The administration will tell you, no it isn't…”

[Guest's lengthy commentary contains nothing about caller's “treatment of Palestinians” or “200” devices.]

NOTE: Doug's prior calls monitored by C-SPAN Watch (all anti-Israel): Jan. 25, 2015 (9:20 a.m.) (click here to view); Oct. 20, 2013 (9:55 a.m.) (click here to view); Sept. 15, 2013 (9:54 a.m.) (click here to view); March 20, 2013 (9:52 AM) (click here to view); Feb. 3, 2013 (8:21 AM) (click here to view); Oct 19, 2012 (8:15 AM) (click here to view); May 4, 2012 (9:14 AM) (click here to view); March 4, 2012 (9:18 AM) (click here to view); Jan. 8, 2012 (9:06 AM), Nov. 25, 2011 (9:06 AM), April 24, 2011 (9:32 AM), Feb. 19, 2011 (8:45 AM), Dec. 27, 2010 (7:50 AM), Nov. 24, 2010 (9:10 AM), April 11, 2010 (8:51 AM), Jan.1, 2010 (9:13 AM), Dec 20, 2009 (9:09 AM).

August 23, 2015 – 9:01 a.m.

Host: STEVE SCULLY (sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: OMRI CEREN, Israel Project senior advisor for strategy.

Topic: Iran nuclear deal.

Caller: Lydia from Upper Marlboro, Maryland (click here to view).

Note: Anger is clearly discernible in caller's voice – anger at the Jewish state. How dare close ally Israel warn about deadly threat to its existence from a country led by religious fanatics that also threatens United States.

Caller: “I approve the agreement. I am for the agreement. The gentleman, I cannot pronounce his name, from the Israel Project, he is talking about ‘we.' This is about the United States. This has nothing to do with Israel. I am a little sick and tired of Israel inserting themselves into our foreign policy without invitation. Israel is not in on this agreement. The Security Council voted on the agreement. John Kerry voted for it, so whoever in the Senate or House or in Israel approves the agreement or not, it is going to be implemented. The foreign minister of Iran was in Moscow two weeks ago, so Iran is going to abide by the agreement. They are going to implement it and if the United States wants to be on the outside looking in, that would be fine.”

Host: “Lydia, thank you. We will get a response.”

Guest: “By the way, we are not an Israeli organization. We are working in Washington, D.C. on issues related to the Middle East, Israel, Iran, Turkey, Jordan and Egypt. By the way, there are countries that are terrified of this agreement and hopefully we can get a chance to talk about that. But she [caller] brought up a good point that it is the administration's point. This deal will likely be implemented in parts, even if the United States walks away, which is another way of saying that the Iranians have plenty of incentive to continue implementing this deal, even if the United States walks away, which is another way of saying that this is not going to collapse even if Congress decides to keep our name off this agreement. But if they do decide to do that, then we avoid a whole host of problems. We have talked about the two big ones which is that it disables us from opposing Iran's conventional military adventurism and it puts us in the position of sponsoring their nuclear program. There are other ones…”

NOTE: Neither host nor guest comments on caller's angry criticism of Israel.

August 13, 2015 – 9:22 a.m.

Host: STEVE SCULLY (sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org)

Guest: KIRSTEN POWERS, journalist for USA Today and the Daily Beast.

Topic: Kirsten Powers talked about her book, The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech.

Caller: Scott from Fitchburg, Massachusetts (click here to view).

NOTE: Typically, C-SPAN fails to refute a caller's defamation of Israel.

Caller: “I think a lot of people are voting for Donald Trump because they are sick of politicians but they're also sick of the news media. They think the news media is corrupt. Like for instance, I got on [radical-left] Ring of Fire Radio. Every body should go to that site. They showed that Comcast had MSNBC fire Ed Schultz for talking about [opposing] the TPP [The Trans-Pacific Partnership] trade agreement. And you watch MSNBC and they don't even talk about it. They just got rid of his [indistinct], they come on at 5 o'clock. And then you got the state of Israel. They will not let any African Black Jews become citizens in their country and they [media] don't talk about that. I think the whole system is corrupt. We need public news paid by the people.”

Note: Consistent with Washington Journal's chronic journalistic malpractice pertaining to Israel and the Jewish people, there is no challenge to caller's defamatory falsehood, “They [Israel] will not let any African Black Jews become citizens in their country.” Any informed person would know that the refutation of this accusation is the presence in Israel of thousands of dark-skinned fully assimilated Israeli Jewish citizens from Ethiopia, Yemen and India. As the late New York Times columnist William Safire memorably wrote on Jan. 7, 1985 after “Operation Moses,” the rescue of Ethiopian black Jews, was revealed, “For the first time in history, thousands of black people are being brought to a country not in chains but in dignity, not as slaves but as citizens.” The policy that gave rise to that event is most certainly still in effect.

Host (laughing): “Scott, we thank you for paying your cable bill and watching C-SPAN. Do you want to respond?”

Guest (laughing): “I don't now about this. It sounds like a little conspiracy theory type stuff. But I do think it's true that people have lost trust in the media. I was watching a documentary over the weekend about the famous debate between Gore Vidal and Bill Buckley, the best of enemies. In it they talked about how at the time they did this, in 1968, the media was the most respected institution in the country. They really trusted the media to give them information to make decisions. Now we are at the very bottom when it comes to institutions that are trusted. I think it is a real problem. People are as mad at the media almost as much as at Congress.”

August 13, 2015 – 9:52 a.m.

Host: STEVE SCULLY (sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org)

Topic: Open phones – your top news story of the week.

Caller: Peter from Highland Park, New Jersey (click here to view).

Caller engages in character assassination of Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in order to discredit Netanyahu's opposition to the Iran nuclear agreement. The Washington Journal ostensible public-service program characteristically accepts caller's lengthy rant without challenge or coment.

Caller: “I want to mention [Donald] Trump. I'm glad he is making chaos in the Republican Party. But I want to say something that is really important here about [Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and this [Iran nuclear] peace [sic.] deal. When Netanyahu was in there, he was part of the administration selling arms to Iran. When [in 1995] the prime minister of Israel [Yitzhak Rabin] was assassinated, his wife came on Larry King [CNN show] and she blamed him [Netanyahu] for the assassination of Mr. Rabin. Because what he did is what he is doing now. He is riling these people up. He said there is going to be another Holocaust if he [Rabin] gets what he wants. Well he riled his party members up so much that he, Mr. Rabin, was assassinated. Now, in this last election when he thought he was losing, there was going to be another Holocaust if this goes through, and now he's doing it with this peace [sic.] deal. So, we are going to have to get ready for war if this [Iran nuclear agreement] doesn't go through. The head of Mossad [intelligence agency], who used to be – and the head of Shin Bet [Secret Service like]-- responsible for the security of Israel – they are for this deal -- they said he's crazy. But nobody wants to listen. I wish Rabin could come on and talk about this with him.”

Host: “That was Peter from Highland Park, New Jersey.”

NOTE: Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by Jewish extremist Yigal Amir on Nov. 4, 1995 at the end of a rally in Tel Aviv, Israel calling for support of the Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. The Likud Party leader (and future prime minister) Benjamin Netanyahu had campaigned against the Accords. In some of these rallies protestors held inflammatory anti-Rabin posters. Netanyahu vehemently denied provoking violence at these rallies. Netanyahu had predicted that the Palestinians could not be trusted to act in good faith because of their obsessive need to destroy Israel. So, he argued, the Oslo Accords would be harmful to Israel. Grief-stricken Mrs. Rabin accused Netanyahu of creating a climate of brainwashing and incitement leading up to the assassination.

August 13, 2015 – 9:57 a.m.

Host: STEVE SCULLY (sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org)

Topic: Open phones – your top news story of the week.

Host: Joe from Louisiana (click here to view).

NOTE: Indulged caller, falsely re-stating history trying to reconcile it with his support of the Iran nuclear agreement says, “Germany tried to destroy Israel.” Likewise, caller defames Israel, “… all those people that they killed in Palestine [sic.].”

Caller: “I want to talk about the Iran nuclear agreement. What are we going to do without this? This is what I'm trying to figure out. Are we going to war? We are going to war. There ain't no ifs or buts. We're going back to the same old thing with President Bush.”

Host: “Going to war with whom?”

Caller: “Iran because of Israel. Because they say Iran wants to destroy Israel. Alright, Germany damn near did it. You don't here them saying nothing about the Germans. Germany tried to destroy Israel. Tried to wipe them off the face of the map. But all this propaganda about Iran and we pump all this money into Israel. Nobody says nothing about all those people that they killed in Palestine [sic.]. But here we go again because of words, ‘They want to wipe us of the face of the Earth.”

Host: “Alright.”

NOTE: Host Scully typically accepts caller's out-of-kilter rant defaming Israel.

August 10, 2015 – 9:12 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: ERIC BOEHLERT, senior fellow at the liberal media watchdog group Media Matters.

Topic: Media coverage of the 2016 presidential campaigns.

Caller: Robert from Rochester, New York (click here to view).

Note: During a Washington Journal segment on presidential politics, focusing mainly on media coverage of presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, off-topic caller charges that the media is covering up for Israel in failing to report news about the likely release from prison in November of Jonathan Pollard, an American Jew. Pollard had been working as a civilian Navy intelligence analyst in the 1980s when he was apprehended, convicted and imprisoned for providing Israel with classified information.

Caller: "Why isn't there any coverage of Jonathan Pollard, the Israeli spy, in the news?"

Host: "And why do you ask that? There was a headline recently about him getting out of prison around November."

Caller: "Yes, but – there's nothing – that's the only coverage there was on it – any news channel."

Host. "Okay."

Caller: "Why is it that he is given a pass? Why is Israel always given a pass when it comes to the news?"

Host: "Okay. Eric Boehlert – do you have any thoughts on that? Do you think there is a bias there?"

Guest: "I don't know about bias in this case. I was surprised it didn't get more headlines – the debate about him being released has been going on for decades I think. I think what happened was that it was kind of overshadowed by the larger debate about the Iran nuclear agreement. It certainly got overshadowed by Trump mania and lots of other things. I saw bigger headlines when it was just being debated. I think probably it was under covered a little bit."

Host: "Molly, California ..."

NOTE: CAMERA's C-SPAN Watch online feature clearly documents the Washington Journal chronic Israel/Jewish problem that would have encouraged someone like "Robert from Rochester" to call in and make irresponsible allegations regarding Israel – absurdly charging a media coverup ("Why is Israel always given a pass when it comes to the news?") when, in fact, nearly every imperfection, most of which would be overlooked for any other country, is magnified in the mainstream media where Israel is concerned. The Pollard affair has long been a staple of anti-Israel propaganda. While Pollard's actions were reprehensible, some important points should be noted:

•Pollard is the only person in U.S. history to receive a life sentence for spying for an American ally.

•According to the sentencing laws at the time of his conviction, Pollard has served enough prison time (after 30 years) to be released in November 2015 in accord with parole regulations.

•The three-member Parole Commission decided unanimously to grant parole at this time.

•Pollard's failing health was cited as a humanitarian factor in his release.

•Had the parole been denied, Pollard would have been imprisoned for a maximum of 15 more years.

•Pollard's original plea agreement in the 1980s with the government called for a sentence not to exceed 10 years but due to subsequent intervention by then Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, the plea agreement was overturned and Pollard received a life sentence. Weinberger may have erroneously blamed Pollard for the extensive damage to American intelligence networks caused by other spies such as the CIA's Aldrich Ames.

•Pollard had argued that he only supplied Israel with information critical to its security – Syrian, Iraqi, Libyan and Iranian nuclear, chemical, biological warfare capabilities, ballistic missile development – and information about planned terrorist attacks against Israel by these countries. Further, he argued that Israel should have received this information in accord with a 1983 U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding.

August 5, 2015 – 8:23 a.m.

Host: PEDRO ECHEVARRIA (pechevarria@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: STEPHEN DINAN, Washington Times politics editor.

Topic: How productive has the 114th Congress been so far?

Host: Derek from Pensacola, Florida (click here to view).

Note: Typically for Washington Journal, an off-topic caller is indulged as he misleads viewers and disparages Israel. Guest surprisingly reinforces caller's misinformation.

Caller: "I wanted to make a few points. Why doesn't the American news media tell the American people that this is not an American/Obama deal, that this is a multi-nation deal? And why don't they tell the American people that Iran is fighting along with us in Iraq? And why do we care so much about what Israel thinks when it is not in our interest?"
 
[Caller implies that the U.S. alliance with Israel is of no value. Viewers to this program are never informed of the beneficial relationship – see Aug. 3 entry below.]

Note: Caller misleads viewers ("Iran is fighting along with us in Iraq") without challenge by either host or guest. But Iran is certainly not fighting alongside America in Iraq. The reality in the Middle East is that the extremists in both major wings of Islam – Shia (mainly Hezbullah terrorist group and its benefactor, Iran's fanatical leadership) and Sunni (mainly ISIS and Al-Qaeda) – are major adversaries of America and the West (including Israel) as well as adversaries of each other.

Guest: "There are certainly a number of Members of Congress who are making those points, and that is part of the reason why they support the deal, in addition to the fact they do think the inspection regime – that will be created to verify whether Iran is following through – is strong enough. There are a number of lawmakers on the other side who do not think the IAEA inspection regime is sufficient. It will be an interesting vote. I think probably the President will end up getting the support he needs."

August 3, 2015 – 9:57 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Open phones – your topic in the news of the day.

Caller: Philip from Columbus, Ohio (click here to view).

Note: Caller uses government funding controversies and the current Planned Parenthood abortions related controversy as opportunity to take a swipe at Israel. Host Brawner is "Okay" with that.

Caller: "I just wanted to make a comment. I think that there is a lot of hypocrisy, especially with Republicans. They want to defund Planned Parenthood but no one is speaking about Israel. They have legalized their abortions and we send Israel billions of dollars. Taxpayers spend billions of dollars supporting Israel. And I just think that – if we're having this discussion about cutting funds – let's cut funds going out for foreign aid for countries that support abortion."

Host: "Okay."

NOTE: Unsurprisingly (since it's C-SPAN's Washington Journal), the day's only criticism of a foreign country – during a three-hour broadcast whose discussion topics are "Should Congress cut funding for Planned Parenthood?," "50th Anniversary of Medicare," "Funding Alzheimer's research" and "Open phones – your topic in news of the day" – is of Israel. Ostensibly as a carryover from one or more previous segments, the caller voices outrage because U.S. aid goes to Israel since "they have legalized their abortions." Israel's government medical system does provide funding for abortions under limitations similar to those in U.S. law. C-SPAN's viewers are accustomed to hearing hosts indulge callers who primarily condemn only one foreign country – Israel – and one ethnic/religious group – Jews. No other such groups are routinely criticized and worse on Washington Journal.

Typically, Washington Journal hosts do not mention advantages of American aid to Israel in response to hostile callers. The mutually beneficial aid connection has at least four relevant points. First, financial (military only) aid to Israel constitutes only a tiny portion of the federal budget (less than 0.1 percent). Second, Israel is required by U.S. law to spend most (74 percent) of the U.S. aid ($3 billion per year) in the United States for the purchase of military materiel which helps create or sustain thousands of American jobs. Third, cooperative arrangements with Israel provide technology benefits to America related to unmanned aircraft, anti-missile defenses, battlefield medical techniques – and intelligence on anti-U.S. as well as anti-Israeli Arab and Islamic radicals. So Israel indirectly helps strengthen the United States' ability to fight and defeat Islamic extremists, which also aids Arab states dependent upon U.S. support like Saudi Arabia.

Fourth and perhaps most important in the long run, Israel, the only Western-style democracy in the Middle East, is a technologically advanced, open society with equal rights for Christians and Muslims as well as Jews. Israel has women's equality, an independent judiciary, free press and is the only country in the region where Americans could live as freely as they do at home and one that, if not for religious and ethnic prejudice in neighboring states, ought to be an example for the Middle East's many countries now in intra-communal upheaval.

But Washington Journal virtually always keeps its viewers in the dark about this.

July 24, 2015 – 7:32 a.m.

Host: PETER SLEN (pslen@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: Governor GARY HERBERT (Republican) of Utah, the incoming chair of the National Governors Association.

Topic: National Governors Association (NGA) summer meeting.

Caller: Mike is calling from Springfield, Virginia (click here to view).

Note: Off-topic Caller's misconceptions (or malevolence) in negatively portraying Israel are typically unaddressed by C-SPAN host, leaving the guest to reply. Governor Herbert refutes caller in general terms. Host should have at least asked for caller's source of information (misinformation).

Caller: “Thank you for giving me the time with the Governor to ask a question. Relating to the peace talks [sic.] with Iran, I would like to know if the governor supports it. Isn't it good for this country to ask Israel to stop opposition to it and to not suspend all the peace talks between them and the Palestinians? I think it will bring great peace to the Middle East. I t will go down [indistinct] Israel has opposed all the peace talks. They should stop taking Palestinian land. I would love for Palestinians to have their own state and capital.”

Host: “Alright, we've got the point Mile. Governor Gary Herbert, is that anything you would like to address?”

Guest: “Well, the international aspects of our relationships really are addressed best by the President of the United States and by the Congress and I expect they will. I have been to Israel and I appreciate the challenges that they face over there. When I was in Israel, I understood the phrase that they said to me. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that we live in a very dangerous neighborhood. I think Israel is a stabilizing force there. There are significant challenges. The deal with Iran has certainly got some concerns. Certainly the people involved from a Utah perspective are very concerned about the Iranian deal. But it is not something the National Governors Association can really address. It is a federal issue. We are in fact involved in international trade…”

NOTE: The main opposition to the Iran nuclear deal is based on the belief that it amounts to merely slowing down Iran's nuclear development rather than halting or reversing it. Furthermore, verification that Iran is abiding by the deal will be based on IAEA inspections which the deal enables Iran to cheat on. Israel, whose existence is repeatedly threatened by Iran, is not the only country that fears the deal (mischaracterized by caller as “peace talks with Iran”). Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, among others, have strongly voiced their concerns as have supporters of Israel in the United States – including the largest pro-Israel organization in America, Christians United For Israel (CUFI). As far as the caller's falsehood, “Israel has opposed all the peace talks” (with the West Bank Palestinian Arabs) is concerned, the Palestinians have refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state (this is a non-starter) and insists on several preconditions. Additionally, Israel objects to the planned consolidation of the West Bank Palestinians with the terrorist Hamas Gaza Strip rulers sworn to destroy Israel. Moreover, Israel objects to the Palestinian chronic mind-warping indoctrination (via media, mosques, and schools) of its people aimed at the destruction of Israel and the Jews. This has inevitably led to violence against Jews perpetrated by Palestinian Arabs.

The false narrative that Israel has been “taking Palestinian land” has been addressed at length by CAMERA elsewhere, for example – here (C-SPAN Watch entry for Aug. 7, 2014 – 8:46 a.m.).

July 23, 2015 – 8:25 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: U.S. Representative Carlos Curbelo (R-FL).

Topic: The latest in the congressional debate over highway and transit funding legislation, as well as U.S.-Cuba relations.

Caller: Bill from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina (click here to view).

Note: Anti-Israel, anti-Jewish caller is typically enabled by C-SPAN to misinform viewers.

Caller: “This guy [Congressman Curbelo], I don't know how old he is, but I was hearing him earlier what he was talking about Cuba shooting down the Cessna. Let me tell you something -- in 1967, and I didn't know this until I learned it from C-SPAN and then researched it further – in 1967, Israel shot up one of our battleships in lieu of being able to blame it on Egypt. And there was a whole big scandal right there. And ss far as these big spy networks, hell – the Mossad [Israeli spy agency] has blanketed the United States. Every beachwear store on the coastline is run by the Mossad.”

Host: “Bill, how do know that?”

Caller: “Well, my son growing up here at the beach, used to date a couple of Israeli girls and that is who owns all the beachwear stores. And there was a big deal here when they were not paying into the system, but sending all the money over to Israel. And I don't understand or know how but I know there was a big scandal over that.”

Note: Here, typically, Washington Journal enables caller to misinform viewers with worthless hearsay gossip that echoes the world's oldest hatred. Here it's a version of the Jews-own-everything, the Jews-control-everything antisemitic propaganda. And since it's a favorite accusation of the many C-SPAN Israel-hating conspiracy monger callers, CAMERA has previously debunked what this caller characterizes as “Israel shot up one of our battleships” (example – C-SPAN Watch entry of May 22, 2015 7:40 a.m.).

Host: “Okay, Bill talking about just Myrtle Beach, but then saying it is in the entire East Coast. What do you make of that?”

Guest: “I think what he [caller] is trying to do is criticize my position on Cuba policy. Look, I just think we should treat the Cuban government for what it is, which is an enemy of this country. The Cuban government -- the list of what it has done to hurt American interests throughout the years is quite long. And what I told the President in a very respectful way when I spent some time with him in April was, you know, do we want to go back to the days where the Cuban government was cash-rich and had a robust military deployed throughout the world? It was aggressively exporting revolutions, training guerrilla forces in our hemisphere and sending them to a number of Latin American countries? That is what these men do when they have money. And the men who did that back then, the same men who had nuclear missiles installed in Cuba pointed at us, they are the same men in power. You cannot even make the argument that there is a new generation. It is 89-year-old Fidel Castro and 85-year-old Raul Castro that are running Cuba. So I don't expect men of that age to all of a sudden become enlightened and become pro-American dictators.”

July 23, 2015 – 8:27 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: U.S. Representative Carlos Curbelo (R-FL).

Topic: The latest in the congressional debate over highway and transit funding legislation, as well as U.S.-Cuba relations.

Caller: Phil from Centerville, Massachusetts (click here to view).

Note: Rare C-SPAN guest forthrightly challenges typical Washington Journal anti-Israel call defending Iran. Guest corrects seemingly uninformed host.

Caller: “I have two questions, Representative. Who used the nuclear bomb before? And two, you said that Iran is our enemy. Well, I consider Israel our enemy, as well as Saudi Arabia. They are big sponsors of terrorism themselves. And every time Israel does something to upset us with the Palestinians, wouldn't you say they go against our policies as well because we want them to stop building in the West Bank?”

Note: Detached-from-reality caller is seemingly unaware that the facts show that Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Designated by the U.S. State Department in 1984 as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism,” Iran remains today as the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Unsurprisingly, host Brawner does not seem to have even the vaguest idea of this.

Host: “Okay. Congressman.”

Guest: “Israel is this country's greatest ally. It is the only democracy in the Middle East that respects human rights. Everyone in Israel, whether you are an Israeli – I'm sorry, whether you are Jewish, Arab, whatever your race or ethnicity is, you have a vote, you have a voice. And your human rights are respected. That is not true of any other country in that part of the world. Israel votes with the United States almost lockstep in the United Nations. They support our interests all over the world. They are really one of our most important partners in the world. So I think the gentleman has it backwards. The Israelis are our friends. The Iranians are our enemies.”

Host: “His view is that he sees the conflict between Israel and Palestine [sic.] as terrorism.”

Note: Unsurprisingly, host, either out of ignorance or striving for misguided political-correctness, implies falsely that Israel, as well as neighboring Arabs, is guilty of terrorism. Host's lack of accuracy is also demonstrated by erroneous use of “Palestine” (there's no such place).

Guest: “Yes and there are other people that feel that way. And I do think there is some terrorism and it is the Palestinians that attack innocent Israelis. I have been to Israel. I have witnessed how hard it is for Israelis to live in their own country. There is no question that Israel is the ancestral home of the Jewish people. There is plenty of evidence in history and in the Bible that demonstrates that. You know, it is the Palestinians, unfortunately, and not all of them. They are misled by their leaders. That launch…”

Host (interrupting): “You are talking about Hamas?”

Guest: “I am talking about Hamas, but I'm also talking, if we look at historically, the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization]. There has been a lot of violence directed at Israel. Israel has had to build walls, literally, to protect its citizens. I have been there. I have seen it. I have been in east Jerusalem and it is really sad, what our Israeli brethren have to live with.”

July 23, 2015 – 9:04 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: BRAD SHERMAN, U.S. Representative [D] California (House Foreign Affairs Committee).

Topic: Congress debates the Iran nuclear deal.

Caller: Rick from Annapolis, Maryland (click here to view).

Note: Guest, Jewish U.S. Congressman, endures verbal abuse from mocking, sarcastic anti-Israel caller. Guest politely refutes caller's misinformation.

Caller: “Congressman Sherman, I am so proud of your unwavering support for Israel. I am just a little perplexed when [Israel's Prime Minister] Mr. Netanyahu came to Congress and the entire Congress stood up and class and clapped and carried on like they should. And everyone, Democrat, Republican, were 100 percent for Mr. Netanyahu. Here's what – I just can't believe it – that the President of the United States, for the last 50 years, has been 100 percent for Israel. And now this President [Obama] and [Secretary of State] Mr. Kerry, and Wendy Sherman [Under Secretary for Political Affairs in U.S. Department of State; a leading negotiator with Iran] – I don't know if she's any relation…”

Guest: “No relation.”

Caller: “I hope not. They have now stuck an ice pick in the eye of Mr. Netanyahu.”

Host: “Okay Rick. Congressman Sherman, why don't you go ahead.”

Guest: “I was part of the small committee that was given the honor of escorting the Prime Minister of Israel into the House chambers. It is not true that every member of Congress stood up and cheered everything the Prime Minister of Israel had to say. In fact there were about 50 of my colleagues who announced in advance they were boycotting and not showing up. The idea that every president has been pro-Israel is historically not true. It was Eisenhower that forced the Israelis to withdraw from Sinai [Peninsula] back in 1956. The last president, George W. Bush, had an absolutely terrible policy on Iran. For eight years he blocked every effort to pass new sanctions on Iran. People think this is genuine male pattern baldness [pointing to his own head], but this is from just banging my head against every wall in Washington trying to pass sanctions for eight years. President George Bush deliberately, intentionally, defied and refused to enforce the Iran sanctions act which had been passed in the early 1990's. The reason for that – I mean, George W. Bush doesn't love Iran and he wasn't shy. But the Iran sanctions act is sanctions on oil companies that can do business in Iran. George W. Bush was not willing to use the single most effective legislative tool that America had against Iran, which was to sanction those oil companies that do business there. This idea that all presidents have done what is in Israel's interest, is simply not true.”

July 23, 2015 – 9:07 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: BRAD SHERMAN, U.S. Representative [D] California (House Foreign Affairs Committee).

Topic: Congress debates the Iran nuclear deal.

Caller: Brett from Texas (click here to view).

Caller: “Yes ma'am. I appreciate you guys taking my call. I appreciate Mr. Sherman for his being able to articulate his views. Although he and I are on different ends of the spectrum, he knows more about this than I do. But my question for you, Mr. Sherman, is how can we trust Iran when they have pretty much broken every sanction. They have refused the IAEA access to their facilities in the past. They have a rampant record. Also, my second question is, how do we stomach a country that is run by the Ayatollah, that constantly leads a nation in cheers of ‘Death to America, death to Israel.' How can we fall asleep at night trusting that they are actually going to do what they say they're going to do? My last comment is, is our President willing to take the blame if in fact one day they do get a nuclear weapon? That is what I would like to know.”

Guest: “The President has announced he is willing to take the blame. We cannot fall asleep night or day. We cannot trust Iran. This deal is structured in a way that some of the most important elements can be verified and can be verified up front. The best parts of the deal are the first six months when we will observe them shipping their stockpile overseas and decommissioning two thirds of their centrifuges. That's verifiable. But when you go to their next decade which I call ugly, and that is when they are allowed to have a huge industrial enrichment facility, with maybe 100,000 or even more centrifuges. Not just the IR1s that they have now, but the IR8s that they will be working on. At that point it is impossible to verify. I analogize it to this – let's say you have a big bag of bread crumbs, and that's the amount of nuclear material you need to build a nuclear bomb. It's one thing to monitor my kitchen very carefully – nothing small – and make sure nobody cheats and nobody ever accumulates that much. But in years 11 to 15 of this deal, Iran is able to have a bakery bigger than anything (indiscernible) has and imagine someone operating an industrial bakery, a huge industrial bakery every day, and you are trying to prevent them from accumulating a huge bag full of bread crumbs. That would be impossible. Iran will be a threshold nuclear state in the next decade unless we renegotiate, or whatever, this deal in the next few years.”

July 23, 2015 – 9:10 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: BRAD SHERMAN, U.S. Representative [D] California (House Foreign Affairs Committee).

Topic: Congress debates the Iran nuclear deal.

Caller: Bob from Jacksonville, Florida (click here to view).

Caller: “I want to give you my theory of what's going to happen but first let me say there are holes in this. What I like is that there are 76 percent of the people support it. I like that, my theory is that it is going to pass. It is going to go to Congress and Hillary Clinton when she is elected -- she is going to support it. But in the Congress, all the Republicans will vote against it. Most of all the Democrats except for the Jewish Democrats are going to vote against it. But Senator Schumer especially, I think he is going to vote against it on the override. He will be running the Senate when [Senator] Harry [Reid] leaves. I just think that they have got their hands in this so soft. I think you are a Jewish Congressperson, and I want to guarantee you are going to vote against it and you are going to vote to override it. That's my theory.”

Guest: “I will say this. I'm probably more skeptical of the deal than many Democrats, in fact, many Jewish Democrats. I would suspect that when it comes to any vote to override the President's veto, a very substantial number of Jewish Democrats would vote against that. As to the polls, it depends on how you would question. J Street had a poll where they asked, ‘would you support a deal that would prevent Iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon,' and everybody said ‘yes.' Opponents of the deal ask a question that says, ‘can we trust Iran to follow a deal,' and everybody says ‘no.' Nobody trusts Iran. Everybody wants a deal with the purposes and outcome that's been described. Some are skeptical that this deal will lose either short-term or long-term. So, you can get any answer you want on a poll. But as for the idea that Jewish Democrats are a monolith and are all going to vote together – where there are three Jews there are four opinions.”

Host: “Politico has this story with the headline, ‘Iran lobbying-blitz targets Jewish Democrats. The Obama administration and Israel are lobbying hard. In the House, 18 Jewish Democrats are caught in the crossfire.' What do you make of that headline?”

Note: Host ignores other potent lobbying groups – Christian Zionists particularly Christians United For Israel (CUFI), the largest pro-Israel group in United States.

Guest: “If I did not want a chance to get the best information, talk to the most knowledgeable people, before casting a vote of some significance, I would not have run for Congress. So, I can't complain that the President wants to talk to, or that John Kerry wants to talk to us. I don't think that is cross fires. They are not throwing bombs that is, there are throwing position papers.”

NOTE: Washington Journal ignores other potent lobbying groups opposing the Iran nuclear deal – Christian Zionists particularly Christians United For Israel (CUFI), the largest pro-Israel group in United States.

July 20, 2015 – 7:56 a.m.

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmcardle@c-span.org,@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: ANNA PALMER, Politico senior correspondent.

Topic: Iran nuclear deal launches lobbying war.

Caller: Bernie from Howard Beach, New York (click here to view).

Caller: “Two points. First, Hitler and his [book] ‘Mein Kampf' expressed exactly what he was going to do to the Jews and to Russia. It was ignored. So when they were shouting ‘Kill the Jews,' it was ignored. And of course the Jews, six million people and 27 million Russians and on and on. The other point is – that with this deal – it acknowledges the right for Iran to have a [nuclear] weapon. After 15 years, they are free to manufacture a weapon. There are no holds barred and no one has mentioned what they are going to do and how they are going to stop them from creating a weapon. If someone could clue me in and explain to me that I'm wrong, I would be very happy. Thank you.”

Host: “Anna Palmer, talk a little bit about this. What is the White House saying is going to happen after the time line on this deal expires?”

Guest: “They are saying that this thing going forward – it is in the 15 year horizon of the deal, goes beyond that. It's put in a framework where if there isn't a deal, Iran is going to be able to have nuclear weapons much more quickly, this is going to allow for the U.S. and the world to inspect some of the places where there are the beginnings of the ability to create nuclear weapons, and it provides a framework for the world and Iran to move forward on this in a way that's more sustainable than saying we're not going to have any deal and then Iran will get nuclear weapons much more quickly and there's no oversight to nuclear weapons.”

[Neither host nor guest comments on caller's drawing of historical parallel of today's Iran with Nazi Germany.]

July 20, 2015 – 7:59 a.m.

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmcardle@c-span.org,@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: ANNA PALMER, Politico senior correspondent.

Topic: Iran nuclear deal launches lobbying war.

Caller: Ron from Florida (click here to view).

Note: “Ron” is a repeat “blame-Israel-for-all-wars” caller repeatedly indulged by C-SPAN's Washington Journal. Both host and guest imply that opposition to the Iran nuclear agreement is largely due to “Jewish money and power” – a classic antisemitic thesis. It ignores the opposition from Saudi Arabia, the Arab Gulf states, among others, and millions of Americans concerned about the potential of a nuclear armed, well financed Iran whose Islamist leaders proclaim “Death to America” as well as “Death to Israel.”

Caller: “Iran doesn't need to have weapons of mass destruction. They don't believe in it, never had. It's not about Iran, it's about Hezbollah and Hamas. This is about all the roads to Jerusalem which bin Laden, [Major] Hassan from Fort Hood [2009 shooting massacre at Fort Hood, Texas perpetrated by an Islamist inspired Army psychiatrist], the Marathon bombers from the Boston [Two Islamist inspired Chechen brothers perpetrated the Boston Marathon pressure cooker bombings in April 2013 that killed 3 people and injured more than 250 near the finish line of the race on Boylston Street] -- they all said it's because of the Palestinian conflict, if you want to stop the war on terrorism, solve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I've been saying this for years. Thank you.”

Note: Caller's preposterous thesis – Islamist terrorism in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and elsewhere is due to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict – and false claim that Major Hassan and the Chechen brothers had said that their violent attack on Americans was “because of the Palestinian conflict” are tacitly accepted (typically for Washington Journal) by host and guest. Likewise, caller's whitewashing of Iran's likely intentions is unchallenged. C-SPAN's ostensible public-service program should have reminded viewers that Iran, a worldwide sponsor of terror, is controlled by a fanatical Shiite Muslim religious dictatorship, members of which reportedly believe in a doomsday scenario requiring them to hasten the destruction of the West and Israel in order to speed the appearance of a messianic "twelfth imam." In the 1980s, Ayatollah Khomeini (predecessor of the current leader) pursued war with Iraq resulting in millions of casualties. So much for caller's flight of fantasy, “Iran doesn't need to have weapons of mass destruction. They don't believe in it, never had.”

Host: “That's Ron in Miami, Florida this morning. On this lobbying campaign for the nuclear deal, trust seems to be the big issue. The concern by those opposed to the deal saying Iran can't be trusted and those for it saying it's not about trust but there's verifying going on here. Which case are Members of Congress more susceptible to in your reporting so far?”

Guest: “I think you can really see a lot of skepticism about this deal. I think it's probably easier in some cases for them to be opposed to it than for it than for it, particularly in the political sense of it. And we really start to see this playing out really in the 2016 politics with a lot on the Republican side with those members. Senator Marco Rubio saying if he was president he'd work to disband this deal as it goes forward. You have a lot of skepticism. Obviously Lindsey Graham, a very big hawk, has been aggressively opposed to this. You see the battle lines already starting to really kind of be apparent. But then you see Senator Chuck Schumer, someone everybody is watching and has gotten a lot of money from the Israel lobby and gotten $260,000 from pro-Israel groups the last six years. But where he stands, he's going to be the next leader likely for the Senate and for Democrats. That is someone we'll keep a close eye on it.”

Host: “One of the questions on Twitter is how much per member of Congress will be spent on lobbying? It's not like they'll target every member equally, right? Who are the top targets – the ones to watch?”

Guest: “I was mentioning Senator Chuck Schumer who is by far somebody who will get a lot of attention and money spent not only because New York is a extensive media market but also is a huge population where they're very invested in and interested in what happens here... There's going to be a huge focus on Jewish members of Congress”

Host and [video clip]: “Here's the ad from Citizens for Nuclear Free Iran: The Iran nuclear deal, good deal or bad deal? Iran keeps their nuclear facilities. The military sites can go uninspected, restrictions end after 10 years. Then Iran could build a nuclear weapon in two months. Iran has violated 20 international agreements and is the leading state sponsor of terrorism. Congress should reject a bad deal. We need a better deal.”

Host: “That's an ad from Citizens for Nuclear Free Iran. Do we know who the group is?”

Guest: “AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] has been behind that ad so they have a lot of big name donors, you'll recognize, Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate from Las Vegas who is a staunch opponent to this deal, has been putting money behind that as well as some of the other big donors who are really opposed to this pact moving forward.”

NOTE: Guest emphasizes the Jewish opposition to the Iran nuclear deal as if Jewish Americans are united against the proposal, when J Street, for example, supports it, and as if American Jews are the only opposition to it when polls taken around the time of this program indicated opposition at roughly 50 percent. (Prior calls for blame-Israel-for-everything “Ron from Florida” include: June 22, 2011 (7:07 a.m.) when he advised about “all these wars going on [Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan] ... Israel has a lot to do with it ...” Host fails to comment. May 7, 2011 (7:11 a.m.) call, March 27, 2011 (8:00 a.m.) call, and Jan. 28, 2011 (7:03 a.m.) call.

July 20, 2015 – 8:03 a.m.

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmcardle@c-span.org,@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: ANNA PALMER, Politico senior correspondent.

Topic: Iran nuclear deal launches lobbying war.

Caller: Christina is from Augusta, Georgia (click here to view).

Caller: “Ms. Palmer, can you tell me, I'm listening and I understand -- I have Iranian friends who tell me both ways not to trust in everything and be very cautious. My question is, I keep hearing, even from Senator Kerry, now he's got his own position, but even he says that they have enough nuclear stuff to make 10 weapons right now. I don't know what they're talking about doing with that. But what happens if Iran does the same thing that North Korea did and just makes one after they made a deal? Then what is the American people's recourse if they just sneakily violate this deal? I mean, then we're stuck with them having a nuclear weapon. So how -- what is our recourse after that? Can you please tell me that? And I'll listen on the TV. Thank you very much. Bye, bye.”

Guest: “I think what we're talking about here and Obama as well as Secretary Kerry said yes, we have to trust but verify the situation that if Iran does violate the agreement or, you know, if they don't let in inspectors and they do try to go for it even after this agreement goes forward that then there will be recourse and that everything becomes null and void. What the reaction would be, I imagine would have to be -- I'm certainly not -- it would be a reaction that would be representative of what the infraction was. So I think the bigger issue and what I think a lot of people think is not just them going forward with nuclear weapons but ... other countries want to remove the sanctions and want to do business with Iran.”

July 20, 2015 – 8:06 a.m.

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmcardle@c-span.org,@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: ANNA PALMER, Politico senior correspondent.

Topic: Iran nuclear deal launches lobbying war.

Caller: Leonard from Dayton, Ohio (click here to view).

Note: Caller shifts the focus from Iran to Israel, implying that the U.S. problem is at least as much with Israel as it is Iran. That's okay with Washington Journal.

Caller: “Our military itself has been cut dramatically and they will keep cutting it so who is going to fight the war? My question here is, does Israel have a nuclear weapon, a weapon of mass destruction, and does Israel have a draft for people to fight in a war?”

Guest: “I'm definitely not an expert on Israel and their army. I do believe that they do have all of their young people fight, they're automatically put through some service. I think they have a strong kind of military situation. I think they are very concerned that, you know, if Iran was going to be able to get a nuclear weapon that it would be a huge problem for them and that's something they are vehemently opposed to.”

Host: “That concern being expressed by Prime Minister Netanyahu on the Sunday shows yesterday as well on [CBS'] ‘Face the Nation.' Here's a bit of his interview.”

Netanyahu: “This regime has just received a dream deal. It may get a deal that may block or delay Iran's pass to one or two nuclear bombs for the next few years, assuming they don't cheat, but pave their way to many, many bombs after a decade or so because they become a threshold state with full international legitimacy and to boot, they also get a cash bonanza to fund their terrorist and aggression against us, against the region, against America and the world. So, I think this is a very bad deal with a very bad regime.”

Host: “Anna Palmer of Politico. Can you talk about the role the prime minister plays from here over the course of the next 60 days.”

Guest: “He's already been up on Capitol Hill doing personal meetings. If you take a step back it's an interesting position for him because it was controversial when earlier this year [House] Speaker John Boehner invited him to speak to a joint session of Congress and a lot of Democrats were very upset with the remarks that he made and how aggressively he made them. So now he's having to come a little bit with hat in hand with some of those members and try to make the case why this is such a bad deal. You had some Democrats like Nancy Pelosi giving a full-throated endorsement as she threw her support behind it or you had others like the minority whip, Stenny Hoyer [D-Maryland], who has been a little bit more hesitant to go out so far on a limb on that.”

July 20, 2015 – 8:09 a.m.

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmcardle@c-span.org,@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: ANNA PALMER, Politico senior correspondent.

Topic: Iran nuclear deal launches lobbying war.

Caller: “Terry from Washington, D.C. (Click here to listen).

Note: Caller favors a “money bonanza” for Iran while negatively casting Israel. Caller is not unusual for C-SPAN.

Caller: “At first I was going to ask about the year that all of this is due to take place but I do want to respond to what Netanyahu just said. He's saying that they're getting a money bonanza but what I'm understanding is that these were Iran's already frozen assets of their own money that had been frozen. So it's not like our government is giving those people – and I'm not on their side. But it's not like they're giving those people some of our money, so that's a distortion. But I wanted to know, I mean, what kind of time frame are we talking about, and I just don't even recall in my own history the time when -- what year was the vote made for Israel to have their nuclear weapons? I'm just trying to put it all together.”

Note: Caller is concerned with Israel's purported nuclear weapons, perhaps implying that such weapons were illicitly acquired in violation of the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But Israel's reported nuclear weapons program allegedly began before the NPT and Israel, unlike Iran, is not a party to the treaty in any case. Guest and host ignore the cue.

Host: “Terry, when you're talking about the time frame we're talking about, are you talking about the time frame of Congress' vote on the deal that was reached with Senator John Kerry?”

Caller: “Yes, exactly. What kind of time frame because it seems to me this thing can go on and on and on.”

Host: “Got you, Terry. Anna Palmer.”

Guest: “If I understand correctly, the time frame they have now is 60 days for them to -- for the Congress to debate this and they will have to take a vote before the U.S. can move forward with this agreement.”

July 20, 2015 – 8:11 a.m.

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmcardle@c-span.org,@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: ANNA PALMER, Politico senior correspondent.

Topic: Iran nuclear deal launches lobbying war.

Caller: Laura from Austin, Texas (click here to view).

Caller: “I have a couple comments and a question and I'll do the question first: Who stands to make the most money off this deal? This seems to be more of a business deal than a matter of statecraft. And the comments I want to make is why should we trust anybody in this administration when they failed so miserably with ISIS? They've not contained those people and they dropped some bombs on them but they're not effective at all. And that I consider a real threat to the Americans, to us, to this nation. Those people have vocalized their plans for this nation and we're doing a deal with Iran and ultimately with ISIS.”
 
Host: “Can I ask you, you're calling in for our line for Democrats. Is there a candidate right now in the Democratic primary field who you trust on foreign policy? It seems you're not happy with the Obama administration.”

Caller: “Oh, I'm not, I'm absolutely not happy with him. And if you want a shocker, I'd vote for [Donald] Trump in a heartbeat because I don't trust the Republicans and right now I do not trust the Democrats. I think we're being sold out.”

Host: “Laura from Austin, Texas. Can you address her question on it, a sort of follow the money type question.”

Guest: “Sure. One of the reasons why we're looking at -- you have all of these countries that are so supportive of and you have people leading negotiations in Iran now before the vote comes up is because I think there are a lot of countries who want to do be able to do business with them [Iran] and the sanctions not only hurt Iran but the economies in Europe and other countries who have helped negotiate this deal as well who I think are very excited and want to get in and want to do business and restart the trading there.”

July 20, 2015 – 8:13 a.m.

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmcardle@c-span.org,@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: ANNA PALMER, Politico senior correspondent.

Topic: Iran nuclear deal launches lobbying war.

Caller: Wesley from San Diego, California (click here to view).

Caller wants money to be “given back to the people of Iran.” This money bonanza, estimated at $100 billion or more, roughly a quarter of Iran's gross domestic product, for the Iranian dictatorship would likely result in additional arms for Iran's terrorist allies including Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi rebels in Yemen, the Assad regime in Syria and so on. Neither host nor guest mentions that.

Caller: “I just want to say I agree with the previous caller [Terry] regarding Iran's assets. If it belongs to them, then they should unfreeze it and give the money back to the people of Iran. Because it's their money. And regarding [Israel's Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu, I think he made a big mistake coming to the U.S. Congress, injecting himself into the political fray. He should just have stayed out and let the executive branch cover the deal. And it's an arms control deal, not a weapons -- everybody has weapons over there in the Middle East so I just think it should be -- he should stay out and not look for another Middle East war.”

Note: Caller has no concern about the bonanza of money for an expansionist regime (whose leadership proclaims “Death to America”) but does criticize Prime Minister Netanyahu for having accepted an invitation to address the Congress from the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The Congress has key review responsibilities under the U.S. Constitution for foreign agreements but C-SPAN fails to remind viewers of that here.

Host: “Anna Palmer, can you talk about the speech the prime minister gave before Congress and how that has influenced the debate since?”

Guest: “Absolutely. I agree. With I think you saw is Congress is usually pro-Israel has always been bipartisan, kind of the American – an ally of Israel and there has been a long-standing, strong relationship the country has used in the Middle East when there's been tensions and trying to find a peace deal which obviously has been elusive. But what happened was Speaker Boehner basically invited him and it was a really unusual thing, right before he was – his [Netanyahu's] election for re-election. He was running and it was a very tight race and seen as a political move and he also really castigated the U.S. He's obviously been very opposed to Obama and his deal, that Secretary Kerry was trying to forge at that time and you had a lot of members of Congress that were very upset, some who didn't decide to attend and some were so upset he decided to go forward with the speech as they say was particularly political. And there are great tensions that weren't there before.”

NOTE: Politico's Anna Palmer makes a curious, inaccurate characterization, “he [Netanyahu] also really castigated the U.S.” in his message to Congress. But a reasonably accurate characterization would be that Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu voiced great concern as to the ramifications of the Iran nuclear agreement sponsored by the Obama administration. Opinion polls of Israelis show strong agreement with Netanyahu's fears about the existential dangers to Israel posed by Iran as a nuclear threshold state, which the prime minister believes the deal would enable Iran to become. And, as mentioned above, polls completed around the time of this Washington Journal episode showed American public opinion against the deal growing toward the 50 percent mark.

July 20, 2015 – 8:19 a.m.

Caller: Helen from Hyattsville, Maryland (click here to view).

Note: Typical C-SPAN anti-Israel caller has criticism for United States and Israel but not for Iran.

Caller: “I have a couple of questions and statements. My statement is that this agreement is not only with the U.S.A. There are five other countries involved. Therefore, if Congress is able to vote the deal down, would the other five countries ever stand with us again? Well, [Israel's Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu escalates and antagonizes the Iranians so that he can go ahead with and use his nuclear weapon. People in the United States are just waiting to get contracts in Iran like Halliburton whose project would profit. No war, please. Drafts can be reinstated overnight for those who think there's no draft. I think that we are more threatened within the United States by our words. We here than any other place. We are an ally to Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu is one of the biggest problems standing there in front of Israel ready to start a war. Let's not have war. And those are my comments and thank you for taking my call.”

Host: “Helen in Hyattsville, Maryland. Can you speak to her first question on how the other members of the P5+1 [group of six nations] are watching and viewing this debate that will be happening on Capitol Hill?”

Guest: “They're watching it closely and you've seen a lot of these countries wanting to go in. There are delegations that will go and I believe there's a German delegation this week going into Iran. So I think you're going to see them try to push and say this is something that needs to happen – we all agreed upon it. But the role of Congress should not be diminished. Certainly in the role of the U.S., it's hard to see this going forward without the U.S. role.”

July 20, 2015 – 8:21 a.m.

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmcardle@c-span.org,@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: ANNA PALMER, Politico senior correspondent.

Topic: Iran nuclear deal launches lobbying war.

Caller: Robert from Newport, North Carolina (click here to view).

Caller: “With our dwindling dependence on Middle Eastern oil, how important is the Middle East to our national security? And isn't this really about protecting Israel?”

Note: Caller repeats the same old Washington Journal caller anti-Israel, detached-from-reality thesis that for the United States, all the worry about the Middle East is due to Israel.

Guest: “I would say the unrest in the Middle East is a huge issue. If there was a war the U.S. wasn't involved in, certainly with different factions. It's going to be a major issue in terms of how the role the U.S. does play. It's not just about oil but having war and factions fighting against each other is not something in the U.S.' interest.”

July 20, 2015 – 8:22 a.m.

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmcardle@c-span.org,@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: ANNA PALMER, Politico senior correspondent.

Topic: Iran nuclear deal launches lobbying war.

Caller: Sandra from Wilmington, North Carolina (click here to view).

Note: Typical C-SPAN anti-Israel caller is concerned about Israel's purported nuclear weapons (Israel doesn't threaten its neighbors and certainly not in the way Iran has threatened Israel) but apparently not with Iran's nuclear weapons program which is a potential threat to much of the world.

Caller: “Two previous callers asked a question regarding Israel as having nuclear weapons and where Congress stood and where was the bait when that was decided. Those comments were not addressed. I wanted you to address that.”

Guest: “I'm sorry.”

Host: “Are you still with us? I think we lost Sandra.”

July 20, 2015 – 8:22 a.m.

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmcardle@c-span.org,@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: ANNA PALMER, Politico senior correspondent.

Topic: Iran nuclear deal launches lobbying war.

Caller: Abbas from Beaverton, Oregon (click here to view).

Note: Another typical C-SPAN anti-Israel caller is less concerned with Iran which threatens “Death to America, Death to Israel” than with Israel which threatens no one who does not threaten it.

Caller: “A while back somebody asked a question about Ms. Palmer and she indicated she's not an expert on the Israeli situation and the policy and that's been a cop-out. It looks like some of the Congressmen, some of the people that know the system and all. I'm not a scientist and all. She's smart enough to know that the Israeli government has over 200 – at least over 200 bombs already in their capacity. And so how do we trust them and at the same time we cannot trust another people? You know, that's just – this is the situation. We always cop out and try to pass the story and that's my question.”

Guest: “Yeah, I think I was trying to say I'm certainly an expert on lobbying and what's happening in Washington on certain issues but am not an expert on Israeli policy.”

July 19, 2015 – 8:06 a.m.

Host: STEVE SCULLY (sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: LEO SHANE, Military Times congressional correspondent.

Topic: Security at U.S. Military Facilities.

Caller: James from Mobile, Alabama (click here to view).

Note: Neither C-SPAN host nor guest refutes the caller's lengthy apologia for Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez, the alleged jihadist murderer of five U.S. military recruiters (four U.S. Marines and one U.S. Navy sailor) in Chattanooga, Tenn. on July 16, 2014. Unfortunately, this is typical Washington Journal handling of anti-Israeli, anti-American diatribes.

Caller: "My comment is – you know – the shooting – I know they haven't entirely investigated the entire reason for it, but I think the American public is not really looking at this in a logical way. America has really changed over the last 20 or 30 years. The first thing here is, the U.S. military has been operating in the Middle East, in war, since I don't know, the last 10 or 15 years. The last two years they have been bombing those different countries. They have been droning. We don't see it in the news, all of the other people. The killing. What they do is show these pictures of these drones going in, bombing these different communities.

You say that young man – his parents are from Palestine. We know what happened in Palestine in the Gaza area – They have been bombed back to the Stone Age. He also visited Jordan. They have relatives in these different areas. They don't see the military like we do. We have this dreamy picture … Those people from that area, because the Middle East is really big because the media does not really show it. If you look at some of the pictures from Syria, from Yemen, from Palestine, from Gaza, you will see the damage of Iraq, Iran. You see the damage, and the only people from that area that people relate to is the U.S. military. So, they don't look at the military like we do."

Host: "James, thank you for making that point. We will get a response. Leo Shane."

Guest Shane: "We obviously don't know what the motivations were here, whether this was caused by some U.S. foreign policy. But the caller brings up a good point, which is we don't necessarily see our military facilities as targets. As you said, with that number of shootings they clearly are for a number of folks who are either biased against the military or have some view that the military is to blame for ... That's why the issue of securing these facilities comes with background. What are we going to do, how are we going to make sure that someone who is bent out of shape does not have access and can't do these kinds of massacres. These kind of multiple casualty events…"

Host: "And that is our topic. Especially if you are listening on C-SPAN radio, the security of these military facilities after shootings at military facilities, the latest in Chattanooga, Tennessee, resulting in five deaths…"

NOTE: Caller says, "You say that young man – his parents are from Palestine. We know what happened in Palestine in the Gaza area – They have been bombed back to the Stone Age. Neither caller nor guest refutes erroneous allegation that Arabs in the Gaza Strip "have been bombed back to the Stone Age."

As CAMERA has noted, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said Israel went to great lengths to avoid non-combatant casualties last summer in retaliating for the thousands of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups' mortars and rockets fired into the Jewish state Physical damage largely was confined to about five percent of the Strip, in neighborhoods where Hamas placed arsenals, command posts, bunkers and tunnel opening among civilian populations. In an uneven report that minimized Hamas' aggression and ignored Palestinian leadership's rejection of two-state deals in exchange for peace, Bloomberg News nevertheless acknowledged that rather being "bombed back to the Stone Age," conditions in the Gaza Strip surpass those in many parts of the developing and under-developed world ("Gaza's decade of misery," July 21). And, contrary to the caller, there is no country of "Palestine." One might emerge from Arab-Israeli negotiations, as called for by U.N. Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 and subsequent, related diplomatic initiatives, but one does not exist now – though Washington Journal viewers might not know.

July 19, 2015 – 8:54 a.m.

Host: STEVE SCULLY (sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: OLLI HEINONEN, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) former deputy director.

Guest: THOMAS SHEA, formerly of IAEA Department of Safeguards.

Topic: Iran Nuclear Inspections.

Caller: Joe from Alexandria, Virginia (click here to view).

Note: Typically for Washington Journal, both host and guests fail to refute caller who vilifies Israel for opposing the Iran nuclear deal.

Caller: "The problem is that I don't think anybody wants war anymore. We just go to work, they die. Some get wounded, they come home. They don't get the treatment they are supposed to. We allow Israel to come here and tell us what to do. Israel is not part of the United States. Israel is the problem. They can't come here and tell us what to do. We don't go there and tell them what to do. So, if the other world powers agreed with the problem, then let's go for it. Nobody wants war. I think it is a fair deal."

Host: "Joe from Alexandria, Virginia. The Israeli prime minister [Benjamin Netanyahu] calls this a historic mistake."

Guest Shea: "I can understand Mr. Netanyahu's position, both from a political point of view and trying to balance the status of forces in that region. And saying that this is not going to succeed as an attempt to poison the pool, of course. But I'm hopeful that the agreement will go forward and that it will have its opportunity to prove its worth. I am confident this is going to be a success.

NOTE: Guest Shea displays an invidious double standard with a negative portrayal of Netanyahu while there is no such portrayal of Iran's leaders who as recently as the week of this Washington Journal show led mass demonstrations calling for "death to America" and "death to Israel."

July 19, 2015 – 8:58 a.m.

Host: STEVE SCULLY (sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: OLLI HEINONEN, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) former deputy director.

Guest: THOMAS SHEA, formerly of IAEA Department of Safeguards.

Topic: Iran Nuclear Inspections.

Caller: Rob from Washington, D.C. (click here to view).

Note: Typically for C-SPAN, neither host Scully nor guests challenge caller's venomous defamation of Israel. Instead, Shea calls it "very colorful commentary," in which there's "a lot of truth," a characterization at which Scully broadly smiles. Another typical segment on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, in which anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish bigotry is frequently tolerated, sometimes considered amusing. This has been documented for the past six years by CAMERA's C-SPAN Watch.

Caller: "Thank you. Interesting discussion. What people are forgetting is that China and Russia are also involved. And with the media doesn't want to tell you is that China and Russia said, ‘Do not go, I repeat, do not go into Iran.' Russia is 60 miles away. China has huge amounts of U.S. debt. All Russia did during the Middle Eastern war many years ago when Israel was going to take over Egypt – they started shipping in nuclear weapons. So I don't think that, you know, 60 miles away, what happens when they ship in 40 or 50 tactical nuclear weapons?

I'm reading in The Washington Post today that the Israeli lobby and people on Capitol Hill act like a bunch of seals every time they talk about Israel. Israel lobby is going to spend hundreds of millions to persuade us not to sign the deal. You know, Israel has over 200 some nuclear weapons. They have nuclear tipped missiles and submarines, yet nobody talks about that. We should just tell Netanyahu to go home and shoot some Palestinian child in the back. In that way we won't have to listen to him anymore."

Guest Shea: "Very colorful commentary and there is a lot of truth to the substance of the opinions and trying to understand why the positions are being undertaken. I wanted to come back to the point of the director general having to provide a determination before Christmas on the status of what are allegedly possible military dimensions to Iran's program. Just to say that I am certain that Iran and the [IAEA] director general have agreed going into this – that this finding will be favorable because if it isn't, there is no sanctions relief and Iran would not sign an agreement without the guarantee of this coming about. My sense is that the [IAEA] director general will never point the finger but he will look forward to seeing that the agency works to sustain and implement fully the agreement as it stands in the future."

NOTE: The theocratic Islamic Republic of Iran has been at war with the United States since its seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, supporting the destruction of the U.S. embassy and Marine Corps barracks in Beirut in the 1980s, bombing of the Khobar Towers military residence in Saudi Arabia in the '90s, backing anti-U.S. militia in Iraq in the past decade, supplying explosives responsible for the deaths of more than 1,000 GIs and conducting an illegal nuclear weapons program exposed not by the IAEA or U.S. intelligence but an Iranian opposition movement. None of this the Washington Journal host or guests mention. When a caller venomously pictures the Israeli prime minister shooting an Arab child in the back, the program characteristically fails to inform viewers that Israel's record at avoiding non-combatant casualties in the Gaza Strip has been rated, by the United Nations, in spite of itself, as better than that of American-led coalitions in Iraq and Afghanistan. But a guest finds the caller's comment as merely "colorful" and the host smiles. Ignorance, sloppy journalism, or shared bigotry?

July 18, 2015 – 9:30 a.m.

Host: Host: PEDRO ECHEVARRIA (pechevarria@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: ELLEN TAUSCHER, former undersecretary for arms control and international security at U.S. Dept. of State, former 10-term Member of Congress from California.

Topic: Iran nuclear deal.

Caller: Anthony from North Carolina (click here to view).

Note: Guest Tauscher nods in agreement with the blame-everything-on-Israel caller in support of the Iran nuclear deal. Open season on Israel is a constant at Washington Journal as CAMERA has documented since 2008.

Caller: "I have two points – or two questions. If the deal is so bad, why are China, Russia, France, Germany, and the EU and our greatest and oldest ally, whom we have been side-by-side with forever, Great Britain, for it? That's my first one. The second one is – the bottom line on [Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu – I think we should look behind the lines – he will not be happy with any deal. He wants America's sons and daughters on the battlefield in Iran. If they think that is going to be easy it will make Iraq look like a picnic."

Guest (smiling approvingly) : "Well, Anthony, I think you are a diplomat. I think you are smart and paying attention. I think you are somebody – you could have lived in my congressional district because you are reasonable. The sad truth about this is this is a tough deal because we do not have anything in common with the Iranians and frankly a lot of things they do we think are immoral and we are worried about what they do and why they do it. That's why this had to be a negotiated settlement and why we needed the world powers together. You're absolutely right.

This should not be America doing this alone. The reason this ended up being successful is because it was not head-to-head between the Iranians and the United States, because we could not do it. We had to populate the table with enough other significant players so we could exert economic pressure on the Iranians which was really material and really punishing and that we had partners that, on the other side of it, if they were found to be cheating, could put those punishing sanctions into place, because the sanctions that we have in the United States that are 110 percent, did not work over 35 years, not enough to influence. Frankly, the Iranians have learned to live without the United States – and that is a dangerous thing when you're trying to influence somebody. So, Anthony I think you are absolutely right ..."

NOTE: Both host and guest tacitly accept the caller's defamation of Israel, "He wants America's sons and daughters on the battlefield in Iran." Neither recognizes – or, if so, does not say – this is a variation on the accusation made by Pat Buchanan and other anti-Israel, anti-Jewish commentators in 1990 and 1991. They charged then that only Israel and its "amen corner" in the United States wanted American boys to fight Saddam Hussein's Iraqi army in Kuwait on behalf of Israel. Now anti-Israel – and anti-Jewish – callers to C-SPAN's Washington Journal like this one claim much the same and guest Tauscher terms his overall remarks "diplomatic" and "reasonable."

Neither guest nor host point out that the presence of Russia and China in the talks with Iran may have reinforced Iran's positions, not those of the United States, France, Great Britain and Germany. Neither reminded viewers that critics of the talks as they unfolded faulted American negotiators for, according to numerous reports, retreating from previous positions when faced with Iranian resistance, as on continued uranium enrichment in Iran and centrifuge improvements. And neither pointed out that Congress pushed the administration to adopt stronger economic sanctions on Iran and that then the United States pressured its negotiating partners to do likewise. In sum, rather than exemplifying C-SPAN's claim of public affairs programming in the public interest, this caller-guest exchange clouded an important issue while once again permitting a slander against the Jewish state to stand.

July 17, 2015 – 7:26 a.m.

Host: PETER SLEN (pslen@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Open phones – your news story of the week.

Caller: Cornell from New Jersey (click here to view).

Note: Typically for Washington Journal, host Slen accepts without comment, caller's blame-Israel-for-everything misinformation harangue.

Caller: "Wonderful show as always. I called to speak about the Iran deal. Haven't we learned a lesson through Iraq, Vietnam? How many lives have to be lost behind fear mongering, because even with Israel – Israel is our strongest ally – we give more aid to Israel than probably all of the other aid combined. But we are a friend to the Israel people and the Israel people are a friend to us. But the Israeli government – didn't we learned the lesson when Bibi [Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu preached the same thing about Iraq? And then they keep blaming it on President Obama. The only reason President Obama is president is because he was against the Iraq war. If he was not against the Iraq war, he would not be president today. And for us and for Israel to say that we're not bound by the deal we made – when was the last time Israel was bound by any deal? The amount of U.N. resolutions against Israel for decade – every time they charge Israel with – in the U.N., what happens is Israel tells them where to go – they are not bound by anything."

[Host fails to comment.]

NOTE: Caller misinforms about Israel. The proportion of U.S. military aid that goes to Israel is approximately 30 percent rather than the greater than 50 percent amount claimed by caller – and Israel is required by U.S. law to spend 74 percent of that aid in the United States thus helping to create or sustain thousands of American jobs. Very few, if any, Western leaders at the time opposed the war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which was believed by most of their intelligence agencies to be rebuilding its pre-Gulf War I weapons of mass destruction programs. Even earlier, during President Bill Clinton's second term, a number of leading U.S. politicians and foreign policy specialists from both major parties publicly urged Saddam Hussein's ouster. The United States did not invade Iraq in 2003 because of Israeli urging. The United Nations barrage of anti-Israel resolutions is , among other things, obsessive to the point of anti-Zionism and antisemitism, indefensible and politically based. But, as neither caller nor host notes, virtually all of them as the products of U.N. sub-agencies or the General Assembly, are merely expressions of opinion, not international law.

July 15, 2015 – 8:42 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: U.S. Senator Ben Cardin D-Maryland).

Topic: Senator Cardin on Iran Nuclear Agreement.

Caller: Eric from Georgia (click here to view).

Note: Brawner again indulges this antisemitic, racist caller, who has made at least three such prior calls handled by Brawner (see NOTE below). Brawner tolerates caller as he hurls the infamous double-loyalty accusation at a U.S. senator. Jews and Israel are the only ethnic/religious/national groups smeared routinely on Washington Journal.

Caller: "I have a comment and a question. I'd appreciate a little time – don't cut me off. Okay, so here's the point – Mr. Cardin looks like a regular white guy, nice guy, whatever. But in actuality, he is a Jewish white guy and if the public was informed of that by C-SPAN, I think they would take his comments differently."

Host: "Why does it matter, Eric, to you?"

Caller: "It doesn't mater to me but – anybody that gets on TV – journalism 101 – you're supposed to tell your audience that you supposedly care about whether or not they may have a conflict of interest with you. Because this guy is Jewish, that means that he is concerned about Israel, which is only right. But the point is – because ..."

Host (interrupting): "Eric, Eric, I want to give the Congressman a chance."

Guest: "I normally am pretty tolerant to people who have questions but I'm not to your assumption. I take great offense to that. Our loyalty is to America. Our concerns are to America. Our religion is our own personal business and should have nothing to do with an evaluation by anyone as to our objectivity on issues concerning America. Look at my record, look at what I've stood for. I stand by my record. I find your assumptions offensive."

[Host has no comment.]

NOTE: C-SPAN's Israel/Jewish problem extends to distinctive treatment of guests when the topic concerns the Middle East or other topics generating antisemitic accusations. Host Brawner entertained phoned-in comments from this same bigot on at least three previous occasions, each of which included false anti-Jewish or anti-Israel accusations. But only once did Brawner challenge the caller, and then belatedly:

* March 26, 2015 (7:13 a.m.) as “Eric from Cedartown, Georgia” (click here to view). C-SPAN Watch entry is here. On this occasion, typically a C-SPAN host failed to immediately rebuke and cut-off a caller when he plainly revealed antisemitism and unreasoning hatred of Israel. But also, in a rare exception for a C-SPAN host, Brawner subsequently rebuked caller, "Alright; I'll tell you what, Eric. When you make generalizations about an entire group of people, that is when the host in this chair jumps in, because you sound – and people who have made those charges in the past sound – antisemitic. That's not our topic this morning. Let's stick to it and continue on." So, the question arises, why isn't such a response the rule rather than the rare exception for Washington Journal?
* June 11, 2014 (7:13 a.m.) as “Eric from Petertown, Georgia” (click here to view). C-SPAN Watch entry is here.
* Aug. 20, 2013 (7:36 a.m.) as “Eric from Cedartown, Georgia” (click here to view). C-SPAN Watch entry is here.

July 8, 2015 – 7:22 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Your confidence in President Obama's foreign policy?

Caller: Darrell from Missouri (click here to view).

Note: Detached-from-reality, repeat caller "Darrell" – always indulged on Washington Journal – typically defends Iran while demonizing the United States and Israel.

Caller: "This is not a foreign-policy. We have been slaughtering those people for 40 years – Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria – all based on lies. Now we want to go into Iran, who have not done anything to anybody, just because they are thinking about doing what Israel has been doing illegally for 40 years. Why don't we talk about Israel – it has nuclear weapons, and they are not made to sign anything. Nobody can go over there and inspect anything they have got. Why is this?"

Host: "Okay, Darrell."

NOTE: This caller's previous calls (all condemning United States policies, all defamatory, all condemning Israel including thinly veiled antisemitic jargon) monitored and posted on CAMERA's C-SPAN Watch include: March 16, 2015 (7:34 a.m.) (Click here to view); Dec. 8, 2014 (7:04 AM); Sept. 11, 2014 (7:31 AM); July 18, 2014 (7:16 AM), Dec. 10, 2013 (7:20 AM), June 16, 2013 (7:19 AM); April 16, 2013 (7:04 AM); Jan. 13, 2013 (8:40 AM), Jan. 8, 2013 (7:04 AM); Nov. 21, 2012 (7:34 AM); April 15, 2012 (7:36 AM); Feb. 5, 2012 (7:19 AM) as Bill from Defiance, Missouri; Oct. 21, 2011 (7:16 AM) as Bill from St. Louis; Oct. 12, 2011 (7:19 AM) as Bill; Sept. 21, 2011 (7:06 AM) as Bill; May 19, 2011 (7:15 AM); May 2, 2011 (9:18 AM) as Bill; March 18, 2011 (7:30 AM) as Bob; Feb. 26, 2011 (7:16 AM) as Bill; Feb. 1, 2011 (7:21 AM) and so on back to Sept. 30, 2009 (8:21 AM) as Darrell from St. Louis.
 
July 4, 2015 – 7:49 a.m.

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmcardle@c-span.org,@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: What is the state of the American dream?

Caller: Latif from Santa Monica, California.

Note: The C-SPAN Washington Journal host, John McArdle, is impassive throughout caller's lengthy condemnation of the United States and Israel.

Caller: "I wanted to say that people are calling and talking about the American dream as if it is a living human being. It is not. It is just a concept. I wanted to say that it is not that I have something to eat in the morning, but that means American exceptionalism by (indiscernible). Let me give you some examples. People used to look on us in order to decide what is right and wrong. But nowadays, what do we do? We go around the world and we back every dictator in the world. People start killing each other and the thing we do is – we beg the killers to play ball with us. This is not being in a dream state.

Calling for governments that can govern and lead the world, that government does not look and watch for who would win and then beg them to play ball. Look at the reality in the world today. We cannot decide who should be our president, or anything else. We just have two parties, and we have had them for a very long time. Being free means that you are able to select the president. But today, we cannot do that. There are two parties, and they have a lot of money and support. We have to choose from one of them.

In our foreign policies, we go around the world and we see people we do not like, and we say they are a threat. Like we say in Iran, they might have nuclear bombs, when we see in fact, other countries have nuclear bombs, like Israel, and they have been on the verge of using them. They could overcome their fears and defeat (indiscernible), but they didn't. But we do not talk about them because they are our allies. By the way, they, Israel, refuse us what we want, and we have to grant them whatever they want."

Host: "That was Latif from Santa Monica, California. Speaking of Iran, the caller brings up that country. According to The Washington Post, Iran's envoy says negotiation completion has never been closer."

NOTE: Consistent with the norm at C-SPAN, a Washington Journal caller is indulged for an uninterrupted three-minute ramble involving extremist criticism of the United States and falsely equating Israel to Iran as a nuclear weapons threat. "Latif" claims Israel has been "on the verge of using" nuclear weapons. Journalistic curiosity should have prompted host McCardle to ask when, and for substantiation.

July 1, 2015 – 9:45 a.m.

Topic: Should the U.S. trust Iran in nuclear negotiations?

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmcardle@c-span.org,@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Caller: Tony from Georgia (click here to view).

Note: Caller, an apologist for international outlaw state Iran, delivers a two-minute unchallenged harangue condemning U.S. and U.S. ally Israel.

Caller: “I think the conversation is the wrong conversation. What you're seeing is this – Iran is a big country, Israel is a small country. Israel has nuclear weapons. Nobody inspects Israel's nuclear weapons. Nobody inspects Israel's nuclear bases. Their entire nuclear weapons arsenal is illegal [sic.], yet Israel is our friend. Pakistan's arsenal is illegal [sic.] – we trade with Pakistan. India's arsenal is illegal [sic.] but we trade with India. Why should Israel, who has an illegal arsenal [sic.] dictate our talking to somebody else who is a member of the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty]?
 
Mordechai Vanunu is under house arrest because he said they have nuclear weapons. So, we are creating a reality where our friends can violate NPT and we will still trade with them. But if you're not a friend of the United States, we will (indiscernible) and try to sink their economy. That is not fair. We overthrew the elected government of Iran of [Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad] Mossadegh in 1953. Then we installed the Shah, [Mohammad Reza Pahlavi] and then we backed Saddam Hussein. Why should Iran trust United States and Great Britain? Why?”

Host: “That was Tony in Georgia.”

NOTE: First, host McArdle fails to challenge the caller's falsehoods that India's and Pakistan's nuclear arsenals are illegal – and that Israel's (presumed) nuclear arsenal is illegal. McArdle seems either ignorant of the issues involved or unwilling to inform viewers. Israel, Pakistan and India have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] therefore they are not legally required to adhere to NPT requirements (including nonproliferation of nuclear know-how and materials) nor are they subject to international inspection of nuclear energy facilities. Of course, these three nations also cannot avail themselves of certain benefits accorded to NPT signatories.

Whenever Israel is assailed on this basis, viewers are rarely if ever reminded that Israel does not threaten other countries with destruction and is perceived as highly unlikely to share any nuclear weapons knowledge with any other country. This is not the case with Iran, an NPT signatory, which not only continuously threatens other nations (especially Israel) – it is considered likely to proliferate its nuclear weaponry knowledge to terrorist entities. Furthermore, most Western observers believe that Israel's presumed nuclear capability is a factor only in terms of its perceived deterrence against attacks by Iran and/or various Arab nations. While Israel's strikes against nuclear facilities in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007 have been praised, if long after the fact, for preventing dangerous proliferation, Arab states such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan have made clear they feel much more threatened by a nuclear-armed Iran than a nuclear-armed Israel. At the least, Washington Journal viewers should have been reminded of Iranian obstruction of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors.

Caller cites the Vanunu case in trying to denigrate Israel. “Mordechai Vanunu, former Israeli nuclear technician turned activist was jailed for 18 years after leaking information to the British press regarding Israel's nuclear weapons program … Strict travel restrictions placed on Vanunu since his release from prison in 2004 bar him from traveling outside of Israel …” Vanunu had been convicted of treason and espionage for revealing sensitive state secrets and distributing photographs of an Israeli military installation, in violation of his country's laws and an official contract he signed as condition of employment.

Finally, caller falsely argues, “Why should Iran trust United States and Great Britain?,” since “We overthrew the elected government of Iran … in 1953.” Here, caller depends upon the popular narrative about the supposed CIA overthrow of the nationalist Mossadegh Iranian regime in August 1953. But in 2013, Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote  that the CIA was a bit player at best: “The events of 1953 have been routinely depicted as a nefarious U.S. conspiracy that overthrew a nationalist politician who enjoyed enormous popular support. This narrative, assiduously cultivated by the Islamic Republic, was so readily endorsed by the American intellectual class that presidents and secretaries of state are now expected to commence any discussion of Iran by apologizing for the behavior of their malevolent predecessors. At this stage, the account has even seeped into American popular culture, featuring most recently in Ben Affleck's Oscar-winning blockbuster Argo. The only problem with this mythologized history is that the CIA's role in Mossadegh's demise was largely inconsequential. In the end, the 1953 coup was very much an Iranian affair.” Great Britain played a larger role than the United States in ousting Mossadegh – who both London and Washington suspected, perhaps correctly, of being both unstable and open to Soviet influence. Iran's Islamic revolutionary clergy now maintain a convenient silence on the fact that their predecessors often opposed Mossadegh, considering him too secular and perhaps prone to reduce their government subsidies.

Bookmark and Share