Monday, October 23, 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 May – August 2017


C-SPAN.Wash.Jl.bmp
 
The following entries involve non-trivial references (direct or indirect) to Israel or Jews
 
Send your comments about C-SPAN's platform for the defamation of Israel and Jews to CAMERA:  c-span-watch@camera.org
 

August 27, 2017 – 8:14 a.m.

Host: KIMBERLY ATKINS, Boston Herald newspaper chief Washington reporter and columnist [journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org, @cspanwj, facebook.com/cspan].

Topic: Trump administration foreign policy.

Guests: David Adesnik, Director of Research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), and Phyllis Bennis, Director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies.
 
Note: Guest Bennis, self-identified as a Jew, has for many years campaigned against Israel's self-defense policies that are supported by a substantial majority of citizens of the Jewish state, the only Western style democracy in the region. Bennis' Institute for Policy Studies is a left-wing organization. Consistent with C-SPAN's Washington Journal journalistic malpractice pertaining to Jews and Israel, host Atkins, also a Fox News Channel contributor, indulges Bennis, allowing her propaganda barrages to dominate this segment. Is host Atkins impartial towards Israel? As Boston Herald columnist she has written of the Israel-U.S. relationship. For example, her Feb. 16, 2017 page 4 Herald column, “Bibi, Trump smile for cameras in sham of support,” in which she misleadingly and sarcastically criticized both the President and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu (documented in the C-SPAN Watch April 9, 2017 – 7:20 a.m. entry).

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

Note: Repeat anti-Israel caller Doug (with a distinctive British accent) is well-known to C-SPAN's Washington Journal (see below).

Caller: “I'm a big fan of Phyllis Bennis and that she predicted these events on the Phil Donahue [television] show. Perhaps Ms. Bennis could explain for the viewers how the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies is nothing more than a lobbying group for Israeli interests. Thanks very much and have a nice day.”
 
Note: If FDD is merely “a lobbying group for Israeli interests,” as the caller falsely charges, how is it that guest Adesnik, a high ranking official of FDD, here to represent alternative views to those of Bennis, provides (see below) only muted, limited responses to Bennis' anti-Israel propaganda barrages?
 
Guest Bennis: “This is not my business here to critique others [i.e. FDD]. There is a great deal of influence in U.S. foreign policy in defending right wing Israeli interests, in defending [Prime Minister] Netanyahu particularly right now when he's facing enormous potential of being indicted for corruption in Israel. The long standing bipartisan agreement in this country to continue to support Israeli interests at the expense of Palestinian rights in violation of international law supporting occupation, supporting apartheid according to international law. This is a huge problem.
 
The one thing I would recognize is that we have had enormous success in recent years because of important organizing because of groups like Jewish Voice for Peace of which I am honored to serve on the Board and many others. They have been working for Palestinian rights in this country and have had enormous impact in changing that the viewpoint so that it is no longer assumed that it is political suicide to criticize Israel. We had 60 members of Congress who skipped the speech when Netanyahu came to try to convince them to vote against their President to be against the Iran nuclear deal. That would have never happened a few years ago. We've had enormous success in this. I think those of us who have worked at this for a long time will change U.S. policy toward Israel.”
 
Note: Bennis' charge, “There is a great deal of influence in U.S. foreign policy in defending right wing Israeli interests” is propaganda. Haters of Israel like Bennis, routinely falsely claim a grossly exaggerated influence for those supporting strong U.S.-Israel ties. These haters typically charge that those supporters control 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.

Examples of Israel supporters defeating major U.S. government arms sales to Arab countries traditionally hostile to Israel are virtually non-existent. The best known single pro-Israel group is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Yet the key component of support is represented by continuing majority support among the American people for Israel especially among the sizable community of Christian Zionists.

Furthermore, much greater political clout is wielded by, for example, the American Association of Retired Persons, labor unions, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the dairy farmers' lobby or the National Rifle Association. A lobbying heavy-weight that is rarely if ever brought up in a C-SPAN Washington Journal discussion, is the petro-dollar funded anti-Israel pro-Arab lobby, whose influence is felt not only on Capitol Hill, the State Department and Pentagon, through multi-billion dollar weapons purchases but also in academia, with large-scale grants to prominent universities and think tanks, and in society in general through subsidies and material support to mosques, religious schools and advocacy groups.

Note: Bennis' Jewish Voice for Peace (mentioned above by Bennis) is a fanatical anti-Israel group that incessantly vilifies the Jewish state. As CAMERA has documented, the group disseminates the most vicious smears against the Jewish state, including blood libels. For example, in a guest editorial in the Detroit Free Press in 2008, Jewish Voice for Peace repeated a libelous charge that Israeli troops had committed a massacre in the village of Tantara during the 1948 war for Israeli independence. The individual who had fabricated the story, a graduate student under the tutelage of anti-Zionist professor Ilan Pappe, had admitted under oath in a libel suit brought against him that there was no evidence to support the charge of a massacre.

Guest Adesnik: “I just want to address the main contention. The truth is that we [FDD] have a policy. The Foundation for the Defense of Democracy does not take foreign money from government or corporations. We are supported by private individuals in the United States. We produce a fair amount of high quality scholarship on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For example, we did the first authoritative biography of Mahmoud Abbas and we reported on the state of corruption in the Palestinian Authority. We don't take money from any foreign interests and we produce scholarship that I am proud to defend.”

Host: “The President talked about the U.S. interest in India and Pakistan. Let's take a look at what he said…”

NOTE: It's not surprising that caller Doug is a “big fan of Phyllis Bennis” since they are birds of a feather. Each is obsessively anti-Israel. Doug is likely to impugn anyone – as he does here to guest Adesnik -- who disagrees with his obsessive anti-Israel, anti-U.S. foreign policy views. Doug has sided with Iran's fanatical leadership against America and Israel in calls to C-SPAN. Examples, July 23, 2017 (8:42 a.m.) (click here to view) and Feb. 4, 2017 (8:08 a.m.) (click here to view).

Doug's previous call-ins (all anti-Israel) include Aug. 14, 2016 – 9:01 a.m. (click here to view) in which he spouted his usual propagandistic spiel disparaging Israel and U.S. foreign policy; June 12, 2016 – 8:46 a.m. (“Why should Israel have a nuclear monopoly in the area?”) (click here to view); Jan, 25, 2015 – 9:20 a.m. ("... the power of these [Israeli lobbyists] and their ability to affect United States outcomes.") (Click here to view); In Doug's anti-Israel tirade on Nov. 8, 2015 ( 8:56 a.m.) – he insulted the guest, former U.S. Ambassador Marc Ginsberg (click here to view).
 
Doug's blame-Israel messages (routinely unchallenged by C-SPAN) include Aug. 23, 2015 (8:50 a.m.); Oct. 20, 2013 (9:55 a.m.); Sept. 15, 2013 (9:54 a.m.); March 20, 2013 (9:52 AM); Feb. 3, 2013 (8:21 AM); Oct 19, 2012 (8:15 AM); May 4, 2012 (9:14 AM); March 4, 2012 (9:18 AM); 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).

Bennis' numerous anti-Israel tirades have been documented in several CPaste from WordAMERA reports. Examples: [1] Dec. 6, 2006; [2] Jan. 8, 2012; [3] Nov.12, 2012; [4] Aug. 29, 2015.

Bennis has for years spouted the myths of Israeli “occupation” and “apartheid.” If other peoples have a right to live securely in their homelands, then the Jewish people certainly have a right to live securely in their homeland. This includes Jewish communities (“settlements”) in the West Bank (see below). The 20th century restoration of the nation of Israel was never intended to be at the expense of anyone. In 1948, the Jews accepted the U.N. partition plan but the Arabs initiated their genocidal campaign aimed at cleansing the land of all Jews.

A key element of the “occupation” myth is the claim that West Bank Jewish settlements are illegal as well as a hindrance to peace. A “hindrance to peace”? Yes – for a society brainwashed by a steady stream of antisemitic, anti-Israel incitement from Palestinian media, mosques and schools in violation of Article 26 (2) of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as in violation of Israeli-Palestinian agreements. On the other hand, there is nothing in mainstream Jewish society relating to Arabs (or any ethnic/religious/racial group) that is remotely analogous to that found chronically in official Palestinian sources aimed at the destruction of Israel and Jews. Thus it is that Palestinian Arabs (and not surprisingly – their anti-Israel supporters elsewhere) demand a Jew-free apartheid in the West Bank.

Can the settlements be considered illegal? 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.

The term “apartheid” originated in South Africa to describe the country's system of enforced separation between blacks and whites. There has never been anything comparable to this in Israel as between any groups. The assertion that Israel is an apartheid state is a slander. Israeli Arabs enjoy greater political, social and economic rights, not to mention personal safety, than their brethren in virtually all Arab countries. While Bennis, like most of her ilk, routinely falsely accuses Israel of “apartheid,” rarely, if ever, is there criticism of those who genuinely practice or advocate apartheid. For example, she ignores Palestinian leaders' advocacy of apartheid in insisting on “not a single Jew” in any new “Palestine.” Most Arab societies practice apartheid of women, apartheid of homosexuals, apartheid of Christians, of Jews, of democracy. In Saudi Arabia, they hang homosexuals; in Sudan, genocide has taken place; women all over the Arab world get murdered if they don't wear the hijab or if they fall in love with the wrong man. But Bennis is disinterested in this, she has bigger fish to fry – “apartheid Israel.”

A factor that generates claims of apartheid is Israel's security barrier, the main purpose of which 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 27, 2017 – 8:21 a.m.

Host: KIMBERLY ATKINS, Boston Herald newspaper chief Washington reporter and columnist [journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org, @cspanwj, facebook.com/cspan].

Topic: Trump administration foreign policy.

Guests: David Adesnik, Director of Research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and Phyllis Bennis, Director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies.

Caller: Bruce from Columbia, South Carolina (click here to view).

Note: Caller friendly to Bennis prompts more Bennis anti-Israel propaganda barrages.

Caller: “Thank you C-SPAN. It is great to see David and Phyllis. I support the work you do. I'm actually holding in my hand a book called from ‘Stones to Statehood.' I think Phyllis will recognize the title because she is the author. I'm also friends with Michelle and Gabby from Brooklyn [Bennis smiles widely in acknowledgement]. So, anyway, I wanted to ask about the foreign policy in the Palestinian issue. What do you think is going to be accomplished with Jared Kushner [Trump advisor] going to meet with the Israeli officials and Mr. Abbas and I appreciate your answer.”

Guest Adesnik: “I regret to say that I'm not all that optimistic because the fundamental conditions have not changed. Around four years ago [U.S. Secretary of State] John Kerry made a tremendous push to try and get an agreement. He didn't make a lot of progress. The underlying situation is as follows: there is really a deep and violent divide between the Fatah faction of Mahmoud Abbas [ruler of the West Bank Palestinian Arabs] and Hamas that controls the Gaza Strip. Abbas is increasingly marginalized and less popular as he tries to restore his popularity with moves at the United Nations. But really, he is seen as too soft on Israel. Most of his people feel that he has no done enough to resist. To some degree it depends on his record as a peacemaker. He could have made a deal in the 1990s but his position is too precarious. He seems to be more and more becoming autocratic like clamping down on dissent. Even if he could agree to a peace plan, what could he do in terms of controlling … I don't see much.”

Guest Bennis: “I don't disagree with much of that assessment about Abbas. He's never been a serious leader in the sense that he had popular support. But what is true is that he has not changed U.S. support for Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem. The occupation of Gaza is a military siege rather than on the ground troops. But when you have about 650,000 illegal settlers between the West bank and east Jerusalem, there's not going to be a two-state solution. Whatever one might have thought about it 20 years ago … it just doesn't matter now. It's too late for that. You're not going to uproot 650,000 armed wealthy settlers from that territory. And without that you're not going to have the possibility of a viable, contiguous independent Palestinian state. So, what else is the option? Right just now, it's an apartheid state.
 
There is one territory ruled by one power which is the Israeli military and governing officials. The Palestinian Authority and Hamas have virtually no power. They govern … to pay the teachers and how pick up the garbage. They don't have strategic power in the region. So, the question of negotiations does not take into account the vast disparity of power. You don't take an occupied population with no military control or independence and sit it down across from one of the strongest militaries in the world and one of the only the only nuclear powers in the region backed by the United States and say, ‘well, now you can negotiate as equals.' There is going to have to be an entirely different approach by the United States. When there's a stop to supporting Israeli apartheid, then we will see the possibility of real change.”

Guest Adesnik: “I think it's important to stay away from inflammatory language like calling Israel an apartheid state…”

Guest Bennis interrupts, objecting to the above reply.

Guest Adesnik: “Please let me complete this point. If we have Palestinians coming in with butcher knives to stab Israeli civilians and rockets coming from Gaza – Is that what South Africans were doing? Is that why we had a divided South Africa?”

Guest Bennis: “It's a different form, but it falls under the definition of apartheid under the international convention during the time of apartheid which was passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations. It's not about comparing to South Africa. It's a very different scenario. But it is one territory with two populations and to separate legal systems. If you are a 12-year old kid in Gaza or the West Bank and you throw stones, if you are a Palestinian you will be tried in a military court and face prison time. Your parents will not be allowed to be with you. You will be taken out of your home and taken away. If you are an Israeli kid,, you will be treated as a child as you should be – the way a child in this country is supposed to be treated.”

Host: “We are going to go on to our next caller…”

NOTE: Bennis' above diatribe conveniently omits the fact that Arab children are generally not detained for throwing stones but rather for throwing life threatening large rocks and bricks, even from roofs, that have in fact seriously injured and even killed Israelis. The propaganda about “apartheid,” "occupation" and settlers is addressed in the Note for the 8:14 a.m. entry above.

August 11, 2017 – 7:47 a.m.

Host: STEVE SCULLY is C-SPAN's political editor and senior executive producer [sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org, @SteveScully, @cspanwj, facebook.com/cspan ].

Guest: Erik Prince, co-founder and chair of Frontier Services Group, founder of Blackwater USA.

Topic: Proposal to privatize U.S. military effort in Afghanistan.

Caller: Chris from Wisconsin (click here to view).

NOTE: Typically for C-SPAN's Washington Journal, neither host nor guest corrects a caller's erroneous disparaging comment about Israel. Caller falsely groups Israel with the problematic countries of Iran, Syria and Lebanon. Iran is controlled by fanatical doomsday Shiite Islamists; Syria is controlled by an offshoot of Shiite Islamists at war with Sunni Islamists; Lebanon is dominated by the Hezbullah Shiite Islamist terrorist entity. Meanwhile, Israel is a Western style democracy. Yet again, the “public service” network facilitated defamation of Israel misleading viewers about the Jewish state.

Caller: “I am [indiscernible] the story about $1 trillion. From the facts I have gained, it's $6 trillion [costs thus far to U.S. resulting from the effort in Afghanistan]. I've got three points. That's the first one. The other one is Korea, UNK – that is a scary situation. I think that we need to -- I do not know exactly what to say about that other than, we cannot let them loose. The third point is that Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Israel – all of those factors – it is trouble.”

Host: “Thank you Chris.”

Guest: “Look, I agree, the United States has been spending an enormous amount of money in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and all the rest. I have been wanting the United States to stop spending all that the money. I would like to cauterize [stop] this bleeding wound we have in Afghanistan. Americans were killed as recently as last week. Two kids in their twenties driving back from a meeting with a provincial governor were blown up on the way back to the base and the Taliban [terrorists] will continue to do that. They know how to fight the United States. They know how to … The United States is largely on the defense in Afghanistan and it's time to bring that to an end while not giving the terrorists sanctuary. On the issue of $1 trillion versus $6 trillion dollars, I said $1 trillion is the health care costs [related to American servicemen]. I do not disagree with you that we have already spent more than $6 trillion.”

Host: “Alexandria, Louisiana, independent line …”

NOTE: When Israel is vilified on C-SPAN, which is often, viewers are left misinformed. Host Scully has never informed viewers that Israel is a valuable ally and here, guest Prince muddies the waters. Importantly, no American troops are or have ever been casualties fighting for Israel because Israel completely defends itself against all aggression (which has been plentiful).

Several points are relevant about the America-Israel relationship. First, financial (it is military only) aid to Israel continues to constitute only a tiny portion of the federal budget (less than 0.1 percent). Further, the aid dollars must be completely used to purchase military materials in the United States 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-Israel Arab and Islamic radicals.

It's not surprising that former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen called the relationship with Israel “absolutely critical” to U.S. national security. Additionally, Israel, with less than nine million people, is America's 20th largest customer (larger than Russia or Spain). Consider votes in the United Nations over the last several years that coincided with U.S. votes – Israel sided with the United States 90 percent of the time, all other recipients of U.S. support stood at less than 20 percent – Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Philippines and others.

Moreover, an extensive real-cost study published February 2017 explodes the myth that Israel is the largest beneficiary of U.S. military aid money by showing that Israel ranks below Japan, Germany, South Korea and Italy.

Consistent with Washington Journal's chronic journalistic malpractice, C-SPAN consistently fails to provide to its viewers any of the foregoing information.

August 7, 2017 – 9:34 a.m.

Host: PAUL ORGEL [porgel@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org, @PaulLOrgel, @cspanwj, facebook.com/cspan ].

Topic: Viewers' comments on news of the day.

Caller: Mitch from Memphis, Tennessee (click here to view).

Note: Host Orgel indulges this conspiracy mongering, anti-Israel, antisemitic caller.

Caller: “I have a comment on your recent [previous segment] guest. Since all wars are bankers' wars, all you have you to do is turn down the TV and watch the guy's eyes to tell that he's lying and he was squirming around on some of the calls. So, when ISIS – which also stands for ‘Israeli Secret Intelligence Service' [Sic. No such entity exists] is what it really should be spelled out as – attacks Tel Aviv, the Vatican, or Washington D.C., that's when you'll know it's real and not ‘green screen terrorism’ [fake terrorism]. And the only reason they are talking about North Korea is because that war never actually ended. And that is the only card they have left to play where they don't have to go to Congress and declare war. That is why they are pumping that up. That is all I have to say.”

Note: The previous segment referred to by caller “Mitch from Memphis” was “The cost of combating ISIS [Islamic State terrorist entity].” The guest was Charles Johnson, managing director of international affairs and trade issues at the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Host: “Thanks for calling, Mitch. Sherry, calling from Florida ...”

NOTE: Orgel, thanking the lunatic fringe caller, characteristically fails to repudiate an anti-Israel charge and an anti-Jewish canard ("all wars are bankers' wars").
 
In a previous instance of host Orgel's frequent unprofessional performance (at least as it pertains to Israel or Jews) as Washington Journal host, he indulged a lunatic fringe caller's identical inflammatory views defaming Israel twice only 22 hours apart in January 2010. The caller used two different names and claimed two separate (distant) locations, saying virtually the same thing each time and in the same distinctive voice. Click here for a report on Orgel indulging "Janet from Birmingham, Alabama" on January 1, 2010 at 9:51 AM and then (the same individual again) on January 2 at 7:50 AM indulging "Carol from Scottsville, Arizona." The session can also be viewed

July 30, 2017 – 8:19 a.m.

Host: BILL SCANLAN [bscanlan@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org, @bscanlanCSPAN, @cspanwj, facebook.com/cspan ].

Guest: Dan Pickard, an attorney with Wiley Rein, LLP, specializes in the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Topic: Foreign Agents Registration Act [FARA] and its relevance in the Russia investigation.

Caller: Teresa from Bolingbrook, Illinois (click here to view).

Note: Repeat anti-Israel, anti-U.S. caller (more below about prior calls to C-SPAN's Washington Journal) tries to mislead viewers regarding a lobbying group (AIPAC) that advocates pro-Israel policies.

Caller: “First, just a comment. It is a lot of hypocrisy going on with this Russia thing because what is going on with the U.S. interfering in Venezuelan politics, and the Syria thing. So, I just think it is a lot of hypocrisy. My question is, is AIPAC included [indiscernible] because it is a political organization? Are they registered under this Foreign Agents Act?”

Host: “That [AIPAC] is the American Israel Political Action Committee (sic).”

Note: Host, possibly hoping to reinforce caller's point, misidentifies AIPAC. It is not a political action committee. AIPAC is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (more below).

Guest: “I personally don't know if they are registered under the Act. If you are curious, you can go to the FARA Web page and they've got a searchable database. It is important to recognize it is not just political activities, even if they have sympathies to foreign governments, there has to be a agency relationship. They actually have to be under the direction, control, or request. They have to be tasked by the foreign government with these activities. It is a good question. To find out who is registered, you can go to the FARA website and search.”

NOTE: AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is a lobbying group that advocates pro-Israel policies to the Congress and Executive Branch of the United States. Its stated mission "is to strengthen, protect and promote the U.S.-Israel relationship in ways that enhance the security of Israel and the United States." It is not an arm of the government of Israel or any Israeli organizations.

AIPAC is not required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.There is nothing nefarious about this group despite caller's attempt to mislead viewers.

C-SPAN's numerous 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.

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 greater 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. Washington Journal's 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.

U.S. aid and cooperation with Israel has been a long-standing U.S. policy, due at least as much as to Congress as to American Presidents. This in turn, has been related to continuing majority support among the American people for Israel especially among the sizable community of Christian Zionists. Financial aid (it's military only) requires that 100 percent of it has to be spent in the United States to purchase military materials which helps create or sustain thousands of American jobs. 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-Israel Arab and Islamic radicals.

A May 14, 2017 (9:44 a.m.) call from “Teresa from Bolingbrook, Illinois” (click here to view)was monitored by CAMERA. It condemned the United States and Israel while justifying North Korea's right to employ nuclear weaponry. In a previous call, Teresa's racist, anti-Israel, anti-U.S. polemical tirade was accepted without challenge by the C-SPAN host and monitored by CAMERA (Aug. 14, 2016 – 9:22 a.m.). Click here to view.

In another falsehood-filled Teresa tirade (Nov. 8, 2015 at 9:12 a.m.) monitored by CAMERA (and viewable). In the call, typically unchallenged by the C-SPAN host, Steve Scully, Teresa condemned Israel, charging it with racism. This charge is obscene because Israel is the very antithesis of a country practicing racism. 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.

July 23, 2017 – 8:42 a.m.

Host: STEVE SCULLY is C-SPAN's political editor and senior executive producer [sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org, @SteveScully, @cspanwj, facebook.com/cspan ].

Guest: Patrick Clawson, research director for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Topic: Iran nuclear deal.

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

Note: Repeat anti-Israel caller Doug (with a distinctive British accent) is well-known to C-SPAN's Washington Journal and Steve Scully. Typically, Doug's characteristic diatribe is indulged. This is symptomatic of C-SPAN's chronic journalistic malpractice when Israel is concerned.

Caller: “Anybody who knows anything at all about the Washington Institute for Near East policy knows that they are lobbyists masquerading as a think tank. I would like to draw your attention to an article in Business Insider from Sept. 26, 2012. The headline is 'Lobbyist says Israel should create a false flag to start a war with Iran.' That is a reference to your guest who suggests that the United States should provoke Iran into a war with the United States so we will have an excuse for this ally to drop nuclear weapons on them. One thing that should be known is that your guest promotes the interests of the state of Israel like every other think tank out there like the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the American Enterprise Institute. I would just like to say to your guest that we are not all as stupid as you think we are. Steve, you have a good day. Thanks.”

Note: The article referred to by the caller in Business Insider, a sensationalist and unreliable Website, is authored by Geoffrey Ingersoll and Michael B Kelley. These writers have co-authored numerous inaccurate pieces disparaging and defaming Israel (more below).

Host: “Doug from Massachusetts. Patrick Clawson, your response.”

Guest: “There are about a quarter million people out there who have seen a Youtube video in which a 9/11 truther accuses me of trying to provoke a war with Iran. A number of publications have written about that. What I said was that I certainly hope there is no military confrontation with Iran and if things get worse get worse with Iran, I think the United States should wait to see whether Iran initiates military action rather than the United States ever initiating military action. My point, that I still hold to, is that there are no circumstances under which the United States should initiate military action with Iran. We hope they do not initiate military action against us but unfortunately they have seized American sailors and marines and have gotten allies to attack U.S. ships. We cannot be 100 percent certain the Iranians will follow the wise course of staying with diplomacy rather than military force. “

NOTE: A fuller explanation is warranted concerning the danger posed by Iran. 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. The Lebanon-based Hezbullah terrorist group is mainly supported by Iran's fanatical leadership. Iran seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held and abused 52 American diplomats for more than a year. In 1983, its agents blew up the American embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 American soldiers and marines. In 1996, it blew up Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, murdering 19 American soldiers. Iran via its Islamic Revolutionary Guards and Hezbullah is believed to have been behind the infamous 1994 attack on the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, Argentina. In 2011, senior Iranian officials plotted to blow up a busy Washington, D.C. restaurant to kill the Saudi ambassador. Iran is a brutal police state (it tortures and executes its own citizens in large numbers) controlled by Shi'ite Muslim clerics with an apocalyptic world-view. These clerics tout the necessity of a war of destruction with Israel and the West in order to hasten the return of a messianic "twelfth imam."

Caller is likely to impugn anyone who disagrees with his obsessive anti-Israel, anti-U.S. foreign policy views. Siding with Iran's fanatical leadership is nothing new for caller Doug; for example, his call to C-SPAN on Feb. 4, 2017 (8:08 a.m.) (click here to view). Doug's previous call-ins include Aug. 14, 2016 – 9:01 a.m. (click here to view) in which he spouted his usual propagandistic spiel disparaging Israel and U.S. foreign policy; June 12, 2016 – 8:46 a.m. (“Why should Israel have a nuclear monopoly in the area?”) (click here to view); Jan, 25, 2015 – 9:20 a.m. ("... the power of these [Israeli lobbyists] and their ability to affect United States outcomes.") (Click here to view).

In Doug's anti-Israel tirade on Nov. 8, 2015 ( 8:56 a.m.) – he freely insulted the Jewish guest, former ambassador Marc Ginsberg (click here to view). Doug's blame-Israel messages (routinely unchallenged by C-SPAN) include Aug. 23, 2015 (8:50 a.m.); Oct. 20, 2013 (9:55 a.m.); Sept. 15, 2013 (9:54 a.m.); March 20, 2013 (9:52 AM); Feb. 3, 2013 (8:21 AM); Oct 19, 2012 (8:15 AM); May 4, 2012 (9:14 AM); March 4, 2012 (9:18 AM); 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).

July 5, 2017 – 7:14 a.m.

Host: JOHN MCARDLE [jmcardle@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org, @cspanMcArdle, @cspanwj, facebook.com/cspan ].

Topic: How should the U.S. deal with North Korea?

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

Note: Middle Eastern accented caller “Majid” charges that the U.S. is an aggressor in wars – and that U.S. shouldn't oppose North Korea “self-defense” nuclear weapon activities since U.S. supports Israel's right to its (purported) self-defensive nuclear program. Characteristically a C-SPAN host is silent to caller's false reasoning.

Host: “We have a caller, Majid, in Alexandria, Virginia on the line for further negotiations. Why do you think negotiations would work?”

Caller: “Actually, generally speaking, to behave in an aggressive way, we can enter two wars and paid the consequences. The other way is to negotiate and let the other powers like Japan and China or others take up the issue. The other thing is if they claim, the North Koreans, that they are doing this for the sake of self-defense and it is to prevent preemptive wars, what can we say? You see countries like the Israelis; they have nuclear weapons and nobody objects to them in the Middle East. They say they are under attack in propaganda by the U.S., so we are somehow trying to have some sort of defense, nuclear or otherwise. So, negotiations with the powers in the area like China, Japan, other countries in the region, it should help to alleviate the crisis and let the Koreans face the problem because most of Korea is in a very bad economic situation.”

Host: “Majid in Alexandria, Virginia.”

NOTE: The equating of the justification for the weaponry programs of North Korea to those of Israel is clearly not valid. North Korea is a persistently belligerent nation threatening other countries with attack and destruction. But Israel does not threaten other countries with destruction and is perceived as highly unlikely to share any nuclear weaponry knowledge with any other country. Israel's purported nuclear weapons role is for deterrence in the volatile Middle East and is analogous to the role of America's nuclear weapons role in keeping the Cold War with the Soviet Union from turning hot. Israel, a close ally, consults with the United States on defense matters, including threats from Iran, Hezbullah or Hamas. Israel has not participated in the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology to other countries as have Pakistan, China, North Korea and, reportedly, Iran.

C-SPAN Washington Journal's chronic journalistic malpractice is evident again here in its silence.

June 28, 2017 – 9:57 a.m.

Host: JOHN MCARDLE [jmcardle@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org, @cspanMcArdle, @cspanwj, facebook.com/cspan ].

Topic: Health care.

Caller: Chris from Middletown, Indiana (click here to view).

Note: Female caller, speaking in a Germanic accent, favors national health insurance run by the government for all residents. To support her point, she singles out Israel as having such insurance [but] “We [Americans] are [paying for it].” Typically, a false derogatory assertion about the Jewish state is accepted by C-SPAN's Washington Journal again exhibiting its chronic journalistic malpractice.

Caller: “I am a little bit nervous but I had to call in to reply to the lady from Ohio. I was born and raised in Germany. They have national health-insurance. They do not call it ‘socialized medicine,' they call it ‘national health insurance.' It works. I had a mother who was 96 who was so well taken care of, who had a triple bypass, with that outcome was good. And this lady was talking about somebody from Canada. U.S. and Canadian people who live in the United States, you ask whether they don't give up their citizenship in Canada? Because they have to go back to Canada if they have a medical problem and they have it taken care of. I am so sick of people saying they are waiting in lines and they don't get the doctors they want to see. This is all not true. Health insurance works, national health insurance works. I would vote on that and try to get it into this country also.

One more thing, you find out in Israel all of their medical what is over there is free and who is paying for it? We are. So, they all have free medical insurance, we do not. Thank you so much and have a wonderful day.”

Host: “That is going to be our last call to we end our program today. The House is getting ready to come in for the day, to gavel in. Live coverage begins in just a minute and we will see you tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. Eastern and 4:00 a.m. Pacific.”

NOTE: Caller falsely claims that the United States is paying for the health insurance of Israelis. Typically for C-SPAN, Israel is singled out for disapproval from among the many nations (all providing free medical care for its citizens) having financial aid arrangements with the United States.

Here the facts: Is the America-Israel relationship a mutually beneficial one? Several points are relevant. First, financial (it is military only) aid to Israel continues to constitute only a tiny portion of the federal budget (less than 0.1 percent). Further, the aid dollars must be used to purchase military materials in the United States 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-Israel Arab and Islamic radicals.

It's not surprising that former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen called the relationship with Israel “absolutely critical” to U.S. national security. Additionally, Israel, with less than nine million people, is America's 20th largest customer (larger than Russia or Spain). Consider votes in the United Nations over the last several years that coincided with U.S. votes – Israel sided with the United States 90 percent of the time, all other recipients of U.S. support stood at less than 20 percent – Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Philippines and others.

Moreover, an extensive real-cost study published February 2017 explodes the myth that Israel is the largest beneficiary of U.S. military aid money by showing that Israel ranks below Japan, Germany, South Korea and Italy. Furthermore, realistic cost analysis would show that while America has spent trillions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the blood of U.S. troops – Israel does not require U.S. troops while it battles the same enemy – the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Lebanon components of the world wide Islamist militancy.

Obviously, Israel is the best bargain the American taxpayer has in terms of U.S. aid to any nation.

June 18, 2017 – 9:53 a.m.

 

Host: Host: STEVE SCULLY is C-SPAN's political editor and senior executive producer [sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org, @SteveScully, @cspanwj, facebook.com/cspan ].

 

Guest: Edward Luce, Financial Times chief columnist.

 

Topic: Recent shifts in U.S. political culture and its effect on liberalism and Western values.

 

Caller: Dan from Vienna, Virginia (click here to view).

 
Note: Caller is an apologist for Russia’s aggressive foreign policies and his obviously untruthful anti-Israel allegation is not disputed by either guest or host. Guest even seems to affirm caller’s claims.  

 

Caller: “I have lived through 14 Presidents also. I grew up in Washington and Georgetown and Chevy Chase. I’m a Marine combat veteran of Vietnam. I studied politics and the past 14 Presidents have made a mess. I voted for Trump for one thing -- to solve problems. The people in Washington, the elite on both sides, are not solving problems. We have a lot of problems especially in the Middle East. The number one problem in the Middle East that all 14 Presidents had is keeping Israel from attacking our allies there in the Arab states. The second thing is, since the 1950's Russia had a warm water port in Syria when it was the United Arab Republic united with [Egypt’s] Nasser. They need that port. That is why they are in Syria. They are in Syria because the Gulf states led by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other guys have put their proxy Sunnis in there fighting [Syria’s] Assad. And then, basically the big problem with our country is facts and history are not reported correctly. Thank you and I’ll wait for a response.”

 

Guest: “Yes, I understand the frustration with politics as normal in both parties and I think that is a big reason that Trump benefited and won the election. He was about as far as you could get as politics is normal as you had. And that is part of the reason he won. I fear that he's a cure worse than the disease particularly when it comes to the Middle East. Particularly when it comes to the Middle East. This is a combustible region and it is sort of a pre-1914 moment here with the Archduke Ferdinand assassination and we could have a very big war in the Middle East. I see Trump as a guy walking around striking matches in the middle of sort of a petroleum infused hangar. The guy doesn't understand the region. He is making no effort to do so and he is not a cure to the problem of meddling in the Middle East. He is arguably a dramatic deterioration.”

 

Host: “One final point from the book on another subject …”

 

NOTE:  Consistent with C-SPAN’s Washington Journal journalistic malpractice, is the failure to question caller’s allegation, “The number one problem that all 14 presidents had is keeping Israel from attacking our allies there in the Arab states.”  First is the obvious inaccuracy that starting with President Trump – 14 Presidents back takes us to FDR. Starting with President Obama – 14 Presidents back is Hoover. There was no state of Israel in existence during the terms of either FDR or Hoover. Second, Following FDR was Truman and while the Presidents from Truman onward were concerned about the Arab-Israeli conflict, the caller’s allegation is certainly a gross distortion if not an outrageous falsehood. Furthermore, what are the caller’s information sources? Typically, the question is not asked.

•  June 14, 2017 – 7:04 a.m.

Host: JOHN MCARDLE [jmcardle@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org, @cspanMcArdle, @cspanwj, facebook.com/cspan ].

Topic: Attorney General Sessions denies collusion with Russia.

Caller: Jack from Providence, Rhode Island (click here to view).

Note: Conspiracy theorist caller seems to be afflicted with the blame-the-Jews-for-everything derangement syndrome. Characteristically for C-SPAN's Washington Journal “public service” program, another antisemitic caller is not merely indulged – but also encouraged – and then finally bid farewell by host McArdle with a friendly, “Alright Jack.”

Caller: “Thank you for taking my call. I actually believe that they already know already there is no collusion. You know, [Soviet Union's] Lavrenty Beria [dictator Stalin's depraved executioner] said to Joe Stalin, ‘find me the man and I will find you the crime.' What they are attempting to do is create an obstruction of justice charge. What happened is here they never expected [President] Trump to win. This is a shock to the system and they want him out. They want him out. We will see what happens, but they want him out of there. I'm talking about the elites that control this country. They want him out. They want him out. They can deal with [Vice President] Pence. That's why. They feel they can deal with him.”

Host: “How do you define ‘the elites,' Jack?”

Caller: “The elites are located in the [Washington] D.C. area, in Manhattan [New York City], and in parts of Los Angeles. Now, don't call me an anti-Semite, but they are primarily, most of them, left-wing Jews. Financially very wealthy, and they control Wall Street, they control Hollywood and they control the banking here in the United States. But you have to give them credit. They did it. They did it.”

Host: “So Jack, you think religion has a role to play in whether someone is an elite or not?”

Caller: “Religion? Well, Jewish people – who I now – some of them consider themselves religious. But some orthodox Jews that I know – but a lot of them do not consider themselves religious. They consider themselves just secular in their ways. Like we'll say for example, who is a liberal, Alan Dershowitz [indiscernible]. He is a secular man.”

Note: Alan Dershowitz is a famous author, lawyer, and scholar on United States constitutional and criminal law.

Host: “Alright Jack.”

NOTE: Here, in a segment dealing with U.S. Attorney General Sessions' testimony about collusion with Russia, a caller is tolerated and encouraged by the host as caller defames the American Jewish community. Would the host be similarly receptive to the racist ranting of, say, a caller who defamed African Americans? Doubtful. C-SPAN's handling of callers like “Jack” adds to CAMERA's substantial C-SPAN Watch dossier showing that the network's flag-ship Washington Journal daily program is chronically guilty of journalistic malpractice pertaining to Jews (and Israel).

CAMERA monitored a previous call from this “Jack” on Dec. 23, 2015 (8:46 a.m.) also charging that Jews control U.S. banking. This occurred in the segment, “Inequality in the U.S. banking system.” At that time neither host Scully nor guest (four-minute response) included any comment on the stereotypical anti-Jewish charge (an echo from the standard catalog of antisemitic hate literature and speech), “the Jewish people control world banks.”

The conspiracy theorizing of individuals like Jack can be summarized as: The Jews control America (and much of the world) through control of the media and international banking. Media domination allows them to promote the interests of Israel over those of the United States. Their control of international banking, and thus great financial wealth, provides for Jewish control of political leaders. Likewise, a Jewish cabal in the government controls U.S. foreign policy. So, that doesn't seem to leave that much for non-Jews to control.

The caller here includes Hollywood in his list of aspects allegedly controlled by “the Jews.” The Hollywood political dynamic is clearly a function of liberal groupthink rather than Jewish influence. Where is the evidence that it is otherwise? Typically, the question is not asked.

Like most conspiracy theories, there is little substance and a great deal of exaggeration and falsehood. There are many individuals of Jewish heritage who are prominent in American public life. But there is no credible evidence that they act together in a conspiratorial way. Their political views and associations span the spectrum of American politics and civic associations.

Regarding banking, while Goldman Sach's name reflects the Jewish heritage of its founders, its employees, including executives, represent a diverse group of Americans. Furthermore, the large majority of investment banks, for example, JP Morgan, Citigroup, AIG, US Bancorp, Wells Fargo, Bank of America are not controlled or led by Jews.

The old canard can be traced back centuries to a time when Jews often served as money-lenders in Europe due to Church doctrine prohibiting Christians from engaging in the practice of charging interest when lending money (a practice which is essential to the success of Capitalism) and a ban on Jews owning land. The infamous Czarist-era forgery, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, disseminated in the early 1900s popularized this old canard.

While many of the executives at major media conglomerates in the United States are of Jewish heritage there is no evidence that they conspire together. The proliferation of programming critical of Israel and Israeli policy on many networks refutes charges of media favoritism toward Israel or Jewish interests.

Among major TV news networks, Fox's Rupert Murdoch is not Jewish. He is an Australian descended from English, Scotch and Irish ancestors. NBC Universal CEO Steven Burke – is not Jewish – he is Irish Catholic. NBC News president Andrew Lack is Jewish. CBS President David Rhodes is the son of an Episcopalian father and a Jewish mother. President of Disney-ABC Television Group, Ben Sherwood, is Jewish. CNN President Virginia Moseley is not Jewish.

These major TV news networks – with one exception – are continuously critical of Israel while basically giving the Palestinians a pass on fostering hatred and terrorism (much of it Islamist based) against Jews and Israel. The one exception is Fox News Channel whose foreign correspondents in Israel tend to be neutral. However, the only Fox staff commentator that regularly supports Israel's position is Sean Hannity. In this, he is alone among all major network staff commentators.

When Jack of Rhode Island and his ilk cite examples of "Jewish control" of the media they typically name The New York Times and The Washington Post newspapers. While both newspapers were founded by individuals of Jewish origin in the 1800s, their descendants have long-since shed their Jewish identification. Neither of these newspapers has a reputation for promoting Jewish causes or concerns. The Times is run by Arthur Sulzberger half-Jewish (on his father's side) who is an Episcopalian Christian. The Times was derelict in reporting on the Holocaust and generally opposed the establishment of Israel. In fact, it has been shown that The Times is and has been quite biased against Israel. Likewise, The Post, published by non-Jews since 1946, owned currently by Jeff Bezos, a non-Jew, is critical of many current Israeli policies.

June 11, 2017 – 7:25 a.m.

Host: STEVE SCULLY is C-SPAN's political editor and senior executive producer [sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org, @SteveScully, @cspanwj, facebook.com/cspan ].

Topic: Attorney General Jeff Sessions' agreement to testify before the Senate.

Caller: Joe from Suwanee, Georgia (click here to view).

Note: Off-topic caller "Joe" exhibits the blame-Israel-for-everything derangement syndrome. Typically, host Scully accepts a lengthy, preposterous anti-Israel, antisemitic tirade.

Caller: "My statement is – my confusion is that why the special fuss about Russia? There is not – any of these issues, any of these claims – I have watched them pretty closely – that have been made about Russian influence, about any of the meddling so far. You can replace the word ‘Russia' with ‘Israel' and it would still be true. If you look at the Websites for AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] or ZOA, Zionist Organization of America, they brag, they boast, about their successes in winning policy and funding support from the United States. They explicitly control and meddle in our elections. Why the fuss about Russia? There is nothing that Russia could have done that would even remotely compare in this last election with a single AIPAC meeting. And there are very few federal people running for federal office, Senate and President in particular, who do not begin their campaigns with an obligatory trip over to Israel to meet with the prime minister and people over there and promise support for policy and funding. What is the difference with Russia? If you open up the door so wide for one country, why are you surprised when another walks through it? That's my comment."

NOTE: Typically, host Scully remains silent, failing to comment when Israel is defamed. He has no problem with a preposterous condemnation of the Jewish state even when the segment's topic has nothing to do with Israel. Characteristically Scully neglects to ask what the basis is of the caller's charges. When callers defame the Jewish state they can be certain that they won't be challenged by Scully.

First, trips to Israel by state governors and others are typically in connection with commercial arrangements. Israel is a modern advanced technological country – for example, much of Microsoft's technology was developed by Israelis in Israel. Second, AIPAC is a lobbying group that advocates pro-Israel policies to the Congress and Executive Branch of the United States. Its stated mission "is to strengthen, protect and promote the U.S.-Israel relationship in ways that enhance the security of Israel and the United States." It is not an arm of the government of Israel or any Israeli organizations. ZOA informs members of Congress on issues of vital interest to Israel's security. There is nothing nefarious about these two groups.

C-SPAN's numerous 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. There 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 greater 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.

U.S. aid and cooperation with Israel has been a long-standing U.S. policy, due at least as much as to Congress as to American Presidents. This in turn, has been related to continuing majority support among the American people for Israel especially among the sizable community of Christian Zionists. Financial aid (it's military only) requires that 100 percent of it has to be spent in the United States to purchase military materials which helps create or sustain thousands of American jobs. 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-Israel Arab and Islamic radicals.

Regarding the accusation by defamers of Israel that it meddles in U.S. elections, it is often related to the baseless charge that Israel manipulates U.S. elections through, allegedly, manufacture and control of the voting machines. Where's the evidence? C-SPAN never asks the question of the accusers. Washington Journal invariably welcomes fake news and fake accusations particularly those defaming Israel. Such is Journal's chronic journalistic malpractice potentially misleading millions of viewers.

June 7, 2017 – 9:52 a.m.

Host: PEDRO ECHEVARRIA [pechevarria@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org, @PLEchevarria, @cspanwj, facebook.com/cspan ].

Guest: Farhana Khera, President and Executive Director of Muslim Advocates.

Topic: Muslims in the U.S. and President Trump's travel ban.

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

Note: Allowed a two-minute diatribe here, repeat caller "Kathleen" (of many aliases), obsessively condemns U.S. foreign policy and Israel. Guest Khera's activities are often aimed at weakening legitimate U.S. policies to thwart Islamic terrorists (more below). Here, as is often the case, C-SPAN's audience of potentially millions of weekly viewers is subjected to unscrutinized polemics.

Caller: “One of the things that your guest just said reminded me of reading Ron Suskind's book, "The Price of Loyalty" right after 9/11 [the Islamic terrorists' attacks on America on Sept. 11, 2001]. He describes the Secretary of The Treasury, Paul O'Neill, under Bush 43 [President George W. Bush], that when he started investigating the Saud family money believed possibly donated to some of the 9/11 terrorists – that the investigation basically – O'Neill was shown the back door by [Vice President] Cheney because he began to investigate the connection early on. I want to encourage people to read the 9/11 Commission's report. I'm not making excuses for any type of violence – any type of violence. But our violence in Syria, supporting – sending arms to the rebels in Syria. But can you talk about – in the 9/11 Commission report, they talk about so much anger -- the anger toward the U.S. based on our military bases in their countries, our support for dictators and our support for Israel no matter what they do. So, again I hope people don't misinterpret what I'm saying and that I am making any excuse for violence, but can you talk about some of the reasons that Islamic terrorists believe that there's a …”

Host: “We will let the guest respond. Thanks.”

Guest: “I think the caller is trying to ask is why particular individuals engage in terrorist acts. I think the reasons are very multipronged and varied not only from country to country but even incident to incident. It's hard to generalize across the board. In fact, law enforcement experts say it is actually not the case that religion is the driving factor for these people. The common thread for these people who engage in these acts of violence is that they are essentially vulnerable people who are looking for a sense of purpose in their life. And that's not just me saying that – people like John Miller the head of intelligence for the NYPD and Philip Mudd a former CIA/FBI official – but people who have been immersed in this have made this very clear. It's hard to make specific generalizations about it.”

[Host fails to comment.]

NOTE: In another of numerous instances of Washington Journal's journalistic malpractice, the host fails to challenge guest Khera's dubious claim that the Islamic religion is not the “driving factor” in the terrorism. Never mind that, for example, prior to perpetrating a violent act, typically the Muslim terrorist screams out "Allahu akbar." Lane's Lexicon, the respected Arabic-English dictionary, states that “‘Allahu Akbar' refers to Allah being greater” (than the object of worship of all others including Christians and Jews). Host should have asked the guest to provide source for her claims of assertions by “law enforcement experts” and Mudd and Miller.

Furthermore, concerning Khera's Muslim Advocates, it often criticizes U.S. counterterrorism strategies that use sting operations and informants as discriminatory. According to Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, Muslim Advocates opposes discussion on reform within the Muslim community and supports those who have theocratic tendencies.

As for caller's claims about the 9/11 Commission's Report targeting Israel, the blame-Israel crowd typically makes much of the mention about Israel on page 147 (chapter 5). This reference to Israel describes a self-serving, post-capture explanation by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the self-proclaimed mastermind of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. By his own self-serving account, KSM's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel. This sentence is one of the two references to Israel in Chapter 5 (pages 145 to 173 of the Report). The second reference (page 154) states that KSM had intended to land a hijacked plane at a U.S. airport, kill all the male passengers, and publicly excoriate "U.S. support for Israel, the Philippines, and repressive governments in the Arab world." There is no mention of Palestinian Arabs on page 147 or anywhere else in Chapter 5. Elsewhere in the Report, there are only three references to Palestinian Arabs, none of which are in connection with alleged Israeli "oppression" or any such synonym. So, while the Report did mention Israel as a factor in the attacks, it certainly did not point to Israel as a major factor in provoking the attacks.

CAMERA's C-SPAN Watch online feature has documented the Washington Journal program and network's indulgence of callers like “Kathleen” and occasionally guests, going back to 2008 (more than a thousand entries).

May 14, 2017 – 9:44 a.m.

Host: STEVE SCULLY is C-SPAN's political editor and senior executive producer [sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org, @SteveScully, @cspanwj, facebook.com/cspan ].

Topic: Overnight North Korea missile test.

Caller: Teresa from Bolingbrook, Illinois (click here to view).

Note: “Teresa,” a repeat anti-U.S, anti-Israel caller, defends North Korea here. Host Scully (only) gently remonstrates with this caller unlike previous Scully interchanges with “Teresa” when her false charges were accepted.   

Caller: “I would just like to say, based on U.S. history – what happened on the African continent [indiscernible], if I was North Korea I wouldn't give up my nukes either because the United States does not want other countries to have nukes or self-determination. They want to control everything and I also want to …”

Host (interrupting): “Teresa, let me just step in on this point. Do you want President Kim Jong-un of North Korea … to be able to nuke the United States …?”

Caller: “Absolutely not but the United States has caused all the problems … If Israel can have nukes, then North Korea should be able to have nukes. If China, India, Pakistan, United States have nukes, then North Korea can have nukes …”

NOTE: In a previous “Teresa from Bolingbrook, Illinois” call to Washington Journal, caller's racist, anti-Israel, anti-U.S. polemical tirade was accepted without challenge by this same host Scully and monitored by CAMERA (Aug. 14, 2016 – 9:22 a.m.). At that time, Teresa's tirade included this: “The U.S. starts most of the conflicts in the world, but they blame everybody else…Israel … killed a bunch of Arabs and Muslims and took their men and put the rest of them in refugee camps.”

In another falsehood-filled Teresa tirade (Nov. 8, 2015 at 9:12 a.m.) unchallenged by Scully, she condemned Israel, charging it with racism. This charge is obscene because Israel is the very antithesis of a country practicing racism. 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.

May 13, 2017 – 9:18 a.m.

Host: GEOFF BENNETT, political reporter for Time Warner Cable News [geoffb.tv@gmail.com, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org, @cspanwj, facebook.com/cspan].

Topic: Open phones.

Caller: Linda from Pensacola, Florida (click here to view).

Caller: “I just wanted to share some information. The American Indians are truly one of the tribes of Israel. They are called the tribe of Gad. And that is your history and your Bible. So they were the original people here. They were part of the tribes of Israel. I can't go into all the details because I don't want to take up all your time on the broadcast but that's who the American Indians are. They are one of the lost tribes of Israel. Do your research and you can find this out. They are of the tribe of Gad. And that's all I wanted to share with you. Thank you.”

[Host has no comment.]

NOTE: Instead of failing to either reply or comment on the caller's baseless claim and thus allowing viewers to be misinformed, host should have noted that there is not a scintilla of evidence that the American Indian natives are one of the lost tribes of Israel. This myth is similar, but not nearly as incendiary, to the one often heard on C-SPAN's Washington Journal which is promulgated by Rev. Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam claiming that the black people are the true Israelites thus dispossessing the Jews of the right to the land of Israel. This anti-Israel myth conveyed by callers and never refuted on Journal ignores 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 of the vast majority of Jews including the current Israeli and American Jewish populations.

May 13, 2017 – 9:25 a.m.

Topic: Open phones.

Host: GEOFF BENNETT, political reporter for Time Warner Cable News [geoffb.tv@gmail.com, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org, @cspanwj, facebook.com/cspan].

Caller: Jesse from Michigan (click here to view).

Caller: “Our problems are great but we can send $40 billion to Israel. Our cities are crumbling, and there are no jobs, not much hope, and that is one thing that really …”

[Host has no comment.]

NOTE: When Washington Journal callers complain about sending financial aid to another country because the money is needed for communities in the United States, the only country mentioned is Israel and typically viewers are not informed of the realities involved.

First, less than one percent of the nearly $4 trillion annual federal budget goes to foreign aid. Second, the aid to Israel (it is military only) amounts to less than 0.1 percent of the budget. Furthermore, only Israel, of all U.S. allies, is under continual siege and it is the only Western-style democracy in the Middle East. The implication is that a conspiracy is involved. Caller is wrong. Invariably, C-SPAN fails to inform viewers of the mutual benefits of such aid. Israel is required by U.S. law to spend 100 percent of the U.S. aid in the United States for the purchase of military materials which helps create or sustain thousands of American jobs.

Moreover, cooperative arrangements with Israel provide technology benefits to America related to unmanned aircraft, anti-missile defenses, battlefield medical techniques. For example, Israeli-developed technologies include unmanned aerial vehicles, decoys to confuse enemy radars, tank armor to repel fire and armored tiles to protect from improvised explosive devices (IEDs)—all of which save U.S. lives. A U.S. Secretary of State, Al Haig, once said, "Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier and is located in a critical region for American national security." Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen called the relationship with Israel "absolutely critical" to U.S. national security. Additionally, Israel, with less than nine million people, is America's 20th largest customer (larger than Russia or Spain). Consider votes in the United Nations over the last several years that coincided with U.S. votes – Israel is 90 percent, all other recipients of U.S. support are under 20 percent – Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Philippines and so-on. It should be obvious, except to the most biased individuals, that Israel is an exceptionally valuable American ally.

Finally, in the context of caller's complaint, viewers could have been informed about where federal funding might be found for various community projects. For example, a 2015 report cited only a few of the numerous instances of wasteful U.S. federal spending: $500,000 for a cricket league in Afghanistan, $375,000 to study the dating habits of America's seniors, $500,000 to foster butterfly farming on an Indian reservation, $15,000 to sponsor a Miami conference on hair restoration and so on.

The skewed world view of numerous Journal callers – with silver bullet solutions, conspiratorial cause-and-effect, and frequent default to anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish innuendo or assertion – seems not to matter to C-SPAN hosts. The result is less public affairs broadcasting than public pandering to an unseemly fringe mentality.

May 10, 2017 – 9:14 a.m.

Host: JOHN MCARDLE [jmcardle@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org, @cspanMcArdle, @cspanwj, facebook.com/cspan ].

Guest: MISSY RYAN, Pentagon correspondent for Washington Post.

Topic: Potential increase of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Caller: Dennis from Hot Springs, South Dakota (click here to view).

Note: Caller voices several misconceptions about Israel while negatively portraying the Jewish state. Typically for C-SPAN's Washington Journal, the caller is neither challenged nor asked what his opinions are based on. Caller's detachment from reality is such that he believes that "we are in like a proactive war for Israel" explains U.S. missions in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. What are the caller's sources of information? Is the caller not aware of the Islamist drive to control more and more land and peoples as exemplified by ISIS (Islamic State) and Iran? The questions are not asked on the supposed "public service" program.

Caller: "I feel that the U.S. should stop intervening in other countries' civil wars. What if some other country would have intervened in our civil war? And then also, I agree with the previous caller that the cost of bringing the country down to its knees, our country, and that basically what we're doing over there in the Middle East is taking Israel – we are in like a proactive war for Israel. They do absolutely nothing as far as the Coalition is concerned and we give them money and arms and they still don't help us. But they want more help, I'm not necessarily against Israel, but I am against [Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu]. He just preys and preys and wants more and more and more."

Host: "Alright, Dennis – Got your point. Missy Ryan, the caller brings up the cost of war. This plan to expand the troops footprint in Afghanistan – is there a dollar sign we can put on it?"

Guest: "There isn't, not yet that I've seen. The United States is already spending $23 billion a year on Afghanistan and so this would represent some increase to that, obviously. And as far as we understand, the cost factor is something that is said to weigh heavily on President Trump's consideration of this proposal. He is somebody who, you know, is a businessman, wants to make sure that the United States fiscal situation is not out of control and I think that is a lens through which he sees this potential expansion in Afghanistan. So, I mean, the United States has already spent untold billions of dollars in Afghanistan, it is hard to know when that kind of investment could end. Many people make the argument, ‘look, the United States has had forces in Germany, South Korea for decades, this could be a situation that would be similar to that."

Host: "The caller also brings up Israel – can you talk about Israel's involvement in either Afghanistan or the Syrian mission?"

Guest: "Well, there is no direct Israeli role in the Afghanistan mission. Syria – obviously they are neighbors and they have their own defensive interests to think about. There have been occasional Israeli fores into Syria where the Israeli government sees a threat, but they are not an active part of the military coalition."

NOTE: Caller complains, "They [Israel] do absolutely nothing as far as the Coalition is concerned." The response that Journal should have provided here is something like this: While Israel is prepared to do what's needed, Arab regimes supporting United States Middle East policy don't want to be seen by their publics working with the Jewish state. This, even though reports of covert intelligence cooperation are not uncommon. The anti-Israel passion widespread among Arab countries both undermines their own strategic interests and reflects a deep-seated prejudice.

As to the America-Israel relationship criticized by the caller in defamatory claims, is it a mutually beneficial one? Several points are relevant. First, financial (it is military only) aid to Israel continues to constitute only a tiny portion of the federal budget (less than 0.1 percent). Further, all the aid dollars must be used to purchase military materials in the United States 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-Israel Arab and Islamic radicals.

It's not surprising that former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen called the relationship with Israel "absolutely critical" to U.S. national security. Additionally, Israel, with less than nine million people, is America's 20th largest customer (larger than Russia or Spain). Consider votes in the United Nations over the last several years that coincided with U.S. votes – Israel sided with the United States 90 percent of the time, all other recipients of U.S. support stood at less than 20 percent – Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Philippines and others.

Moreover, an extensive real-cost study published February 2017 explodes the myth that Israel is the largest beneficiary of U.S. military aid money by showing that Israel ranks below  Japan, Germany, South Korea and Italy. Furthermore, a realistic analysis would show that while America has spent trillions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the blood of U.S. troops – Israel does not require U.S. troops while it battles the same enemy – the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Lebanon components of the world wide Islamist militancy, the deadly enemy of the West.

Obviously, Israel is the best bargain the American taxpayer has in terms of U.S. aid to any nation.


Bookmark and Share