Friday, December 15, 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 September – October 2013


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

October 30, 2013 – 9:49 AM

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

Guest: DAVID WISE, Smithsonian contributor, author of an Oct. 2013 Smithsonian Magazine article, "When the FBI Spent Decades Hunting for a Soviet Spy on Its Staff."

Topic: Smithsonian exclusive – first mole hunt in FBI history.

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

[Nations spy on each other. This is not news but this conspiracy mongering caller obsesses only on Israel after only briefly mentioning the "Chinese" and the "Soviets" and then, when asked, he names his information source – a completely unreliable, fringe Web site.]

CALLER: "I just wanted to ask, given his [guest's] experience in getting files on Soviet spies, behind the Chinese and behind the Soviets, you have Israeli spies ... who are involved in nuclear spying on the United States. The FBI will not release a single file of the investigations of these Israeli nuclear spies who have targeted the United States. It seems as though there is a pattern of not allowing Americans to review those investigations to see whether they were bona fide and actually rolled up the entire network. There is a story ... about Israel that goes on and on."

Host (interrupting): "And where was that? Where did you find that?"

Caller: "That was published on Information Clearinghouse which is kind of a blog online news source for unpopular news."

Host: "Okay. Alright."

[Yes there does exist an online blog "news" entity known as "Information Clearinghouse" but alas, it's a completely unreliable, fringe site whose "information" about the Middle East and Israel consists virtually entirely of anti-Israel, anti-American falsehoods and distortions.]

Guest: "Well, it's interesting. I had not heard that. I think that in the present climate where there is sensitivity about spying on allies or vice versa, it would be understandable why not much is being said. I do not know if what you are saying is accurate. I have not seen that story. There' s a lot of information out there on the Internet but not all of it is accurate. This may be, I just have no knowledge of it."

NOTE: Host and guest have no further comment on this call. Caller exemplifies, however, the anti-Israel, often anti-Jewish fringe which finds C-SPAN's Washington Journal an attractive platform.
 
October 26, 2013 – 7:26 AM

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

Topic: U.S. spying on allies: Your thoughts?

Caller: Maria from Westville, New Jersey (click here to view).

[Conspiracy monger, repeat caller “Maria,” manages to include Israel again in her jabs during her lengthy scripted monotone rant.]

Caller: “I just have a few points. I feel that it is hypocrisy on part of the Europeans to be complaining because if anybody wants to they can Google [names a conspiracy mongering Web site] which tells of an agreement from World War II still in effect [indistinct]. It includes Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States – and gives them more access to the private workings of our citizens that even the NSA. And the Israelis supplied the Brits so we have a nice little network there. I want to also say that if this results in hampering our trade agreements, I say hurray for that because we have in our president someone who is not using his power to abrogate unfavorable trade agreements. We have somebody who does not protect our borders. I think we ought to bring all of our troops home and take care of the United States first.”

Host: “Is there a little bit of everybody does this in terms of spying on their allies?”

Caller: “Yes. What shocks me the most, John, is that our government has consented to this to let all these foreigners in. We have to go back to our founding fathers, who warned against this [indistinct]. We have to be independent. All of this partnership thing has brought us bankruptcy and hatred. I fear for our country. We have to come home and take care of our own. Thank you so much.”

Host: “That is Maria this morning.”

NOTE: This scripted rant is a follow-up to Maria's previous call to Washington Journal on March 27, 2013 as “Maria from Woodbury, New Jersey” (click here to view) at which time she bizarrely charged that "foreign agents, including the Mossad [Israeli intelligence]” have penetrated the U.S. government but no one has "the guts to actually go after" them.” Journal's numerous conspiracy mongers keep calling in and keep getting indulged by whoever is the host.

October 20, 2013 – 9:40 AM

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

Guest: ROBIN WRIGHT, journalist, author, joint fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace and the Woodrow Wilson International Center.

Topic: International Meeting on Iran's Nuclear Program.

Caller: Edward from London, England (click here to view).

[While caller claims to "have Jewish in his blood," his two-minute monologue mainly jabs at Israel and its Jewish supporters. ]

Caller: "I am going to try and be very, very careful here. Some people do get a little bit upset when they bring these sorts of things up. But I really think that – I' m definitely sure that we need to stop Iran from ever developing a nuclear weapon. We need to make sure they've got nothing else in the pipeline including chemical weapons, or – God forbid – a biological weapon, the trouble being is that I think we are – as Westerners, we/I am wise, I am Christian and I have no sort of leanings in the Islamist way, in any, shape or form.

But I think it is hypocritical that we keep going after countries like Iran when we seem to be quite happy with having an unregulated nuclear state, or at least a potentially unregulated nuclear state, such as Israel. In order to get a ‘two-state solution' and create Middle East peace overall, you need to deal with all parties with an even hand – which means that – you know, I'm not antisemitic. I have Jewish in my blood but at the same time I am a realist and a man of science and reason. I think we need to deal with the Israeli situation, definitely create the two-state solution regardless of the Jewish lobbies that we have in various Western countries, that push for a very pro-Israeli as opposed to pro-Palestinian perspective. We need to basically create a peace process in the entirety of the Middle East."

SCULLY: "Edward, I'll stop you at that point. Israel is one of the countries with nuclear capacities in the region. So, to Edward's point?"

Guest: "Well, Edward is looking really far down the road. The United States is taking it step by step. The Arab-Israeli peace process, which Secretary of State Kerry is trying to revive, so far with very limited success. He is putting a lot of energy and leverage behind it to try and see if something can happen. There is the separate process of trying to engage with Iran and get a deal on the nuclear program. Down the road, I think everyone hopes that there is a nuclear-free world. President Obama has talked about that. That is something that is not part of the current framework of discussions. There is no linkage between the two Middle East hot spots at the moment. I think only if you began to get a peace process and a deal with Iran, then the world can generally look at some of these bigger questions. There is such fear that until you deal with the fear factor, it is really hard to build the kind of confidence that would enable leaders, with the backing of their people, to surrender their biggest form of defense."

NOTE: One could deal with the "technicalities" of the caller's comments – his apprehensiveness about Israel's purported nuclear capability and his support of a "two-state solution," by pointing out that the former begs the question about what countries, if any (there are none), Israel has threatened with annihilation the way Iran has threatened it and that the latter may not be realistic given its repeated rejection by Palestinian leadership.

Mention could have made of the role of American nuclear weapons in keeping the Cold War with the Soviet Union from turning hot – Israel's purported nuclear capability has served a similar purpose in a region containing belligerent, sometimes fanatical Islamic countries. The guest or host likewise could have pointed out that it has been Israel and the United States that, in 2000, 2001 and 2008 offered Palestinian leaders the West Bank and Gaza Strip state in exchange for peace only to have been met with rejection, violently so in the first two cases.

But rather than take the caller seriously, as the guest, and, by silent assent, the host did, why not challenge the caller immediately on his pre-emptive self-protection – "I am not antisemitic." When someone denies antisemitism before being accused of it, that's a warning flag. Or why not question his irrelevant, peculiar "I have Jewish in my blood"? What does he mean by that, how does it relate to his claim of being "a man of science and reason"?

If the host did not habitually give a pass to such anti-Israel, anti-Jewish callers, he might well have contradicted "Edward's" false equivalence that Israel's possession of nuclear weapons would threaten its neighbors if not the world the way Iran's would, so long as it is ruled by Islamic extremists, or his inversion of Israeli-Palestinian history to blame Israel for the absence of a peaceful settlement Palestinian Arabs have shown no inclination to accept. But in the rabbit hole of C-SPAN's Washington Journal, Israel and its supporters – "the Jewish lobbies" ostensibly opposed to a peace agreement in the caller's imagination – get the same treatment Alice received from the Red Queen in Wonderland.

October 20, 2013 – 9:47 AM

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

Guest: ROBIN WRIGHT, journalist, author, joint fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace and the Woodrow Wilson International Center.

Topic: International Meeting on Iran's Nuclear Program.

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

[Typically, Washington Journal fails to refute anti-Israel caller's palpably irrational charge that "Israel is a threat to the Middle East, not Iran."]

Caller: "I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to have my word. I think that other countries should not be prevented from having nuclear power. It is the Iranian right to have nuclear energy for their country. Taking military action and setting sanctions is [indiscernible]. This is something I want to share with you, and I want to have your comments. I have mentioned in two or three previous calls about it. I think the U.S.A. actions taken against Iran [indiscernible] because of [indiscernible] pressure on Obama administration."

SCULLY: "We missed the last part, it was because of what?"

Caller: "Because of Israel' s pressure on Obama administration to put sanctions and pressure on Iran. [Indiscernible] from having nuclear bomb. I think Israel is a threat to the Middle East, not Iran."

SCULLY: "I will stop you there only because we could not hear very well. Your connection wasn't clear. You might have been calling on a cell phone. I think we got the essence of it."

Guest: "Two points. First, Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear energy. It faces, just like Saudi Arabia, the prospect of within 25, 35 years, not having much oil to export. The United Nations approved 22 nuclear reactors for Iran. It still only has one. I think there has been a recognition that Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear energy. No one is disputing that. The question is should it have a right to enrichment because that fuel can be used for other purposes, including military purposes. In terms of the motivation, the United States in its own right, because it has often been, whether it wants to or not, the policeman of the Middle East, including during the Iran-Iraq war, it ends up getting involved in disputes in that part of the world and does not want to see instability, does not want to see more conflict, and does not want to see Iran developing nuclear weapons capability. President Obama did hold a large meeting of the world' s major powers to talk about the issue of disarmament, nuclear disarmament."

October 20, 2013 – 9:51 AM

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

Guest: ROBIN WRIGHT, journalist, author, joint fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace and the Woodrow Wilson International Center.

Topic: International Meeting on Iran's Nuclear Program.

Tweet from Shayna (click here to view).

Scully: "In response to Alex' s call from New York, this [Tweet] is from Shayna who says, 'Israel is the safest country in the Middle East. The Arabs who live within its borders are lucky. They could be in Syria.'"

[Characteristically, Scully blocks out any potential affirmative reply to Shayna's commendation of Israel by changing the subject:]

SCULLY: "In this [Wright's] book, it recounts what happened between President Carter and the Iranian government. We all know what happened in April of 1980 when the U.S. tried to use a military operation to free those American hostages. The essence of this chapter is that, at every turn, the Iranians pulled the rug out from the U.S. negotiators. Based on that history, are there lessons we can apply today?"

[Guest's lengthy comment ignores the Tweet and deals only with Scully's question].

October 20, 2013 – 9:55 AM

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

Guest: ROBIN WRIGHT, journalist, author, joint fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace and the Woodrow Wilson International Center.

Topic: International Meeting on Iran's Nuclear Program.

Caller: Doug from Boston (click here to view).

[Frequent caller – British accented "Doug" – is C-SPAN's obsessive Boston basher of Israel.]

Caller: "Any rapprochement between United States and Iran is anathema to Israel and you don't need a Ph.D. in geopolitics to understand the dynamic."

Guest: "One of the big questions is who are the countries or players who don't want an agreement between Iran and the United States. And I think that includes Saudi Arabia. Other Gulf monarchies are also very nervous. There are Sunni, Shiite, sectarian – and security issues. They have always felt like rivals. The Gulf states are small if populous. Congress is suspicious about whether you could ever deal with Iran. Israel is not the only player out there. Remember that each of these countries has diverse voices. Israel is a democracy. It has people who are deeply suspicious of Iran. But there are those who know the alternative to some kind of diplomatic outcome is the potential for a military confrontation that might not be in Israel's long-term interests either. I understand your points, but there are a lot of different factors playing into this with a lot of different opinions."

NOTE: British accented "Doug from Boston" has been obsessed with bashing Israel in each of his numerous calls during which C-SPAN hosts indulge his tendentious monologues. Washington Journal has provided phoner Doug a platform on at least these 15 previous occasions: Sept. 15, 2013 – 9:54 AM (click here to view), March 20, 2013 – 9:52 AM (click here to view), 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). And yet, he still gets through call screeners, he still is accommodated by Washington Journal hosts, so C-SPAN viewers continue to hear his one-note, prejudiced charge regarding Israel and its supporters.

October 12, 2013 – 9:21 AM

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

Topic: Open phones discussing government shutdown and other domestic matters.

Caller: Michael from Detroit, Michigan.

[Typically, a C-SPAN host accepts a pernicious anti-Israel falsehood.]

Caller: “I think the quarrel which is Democrats and Republicans [indiscernible]. I see people dying in poverty but they are arguing with each other and causing government to shutdown. And I think, another side – sending our money outside of the United States is not good. We are helping Israel, a country that is killing the children and babies. So, we have to keep the money in our country. And thank you for your program and my friend wants to join the program if you do not mind. His name is Alex.”

[Host, failing to reply, goes to the next caller.]

NOTE: Washington Journal's chronic journalistic malpractice was yet again on display as host Echevarria in silence accepted off-topic caller's obviously false anti-Israel allegation but for the very next caller, Echevarria repeatedly interrupted and questioned and challenged her about her views on domestic matters. Owing to C-SPAN's habitual failure to challenge haters of Israel, the inflammatory lie that Israel, a Western style democracy, “is killing the children and babies,” is likely to take root in the minds of some C-SPAN viewers (C-SPAN claims 28.5 million weekly viewers).

September 24, 2013 – 7:07 AM

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

Topic: Your opinion of U.N. role in international affairs.

[This segment included ten callers mentioning Israel. Five of the callers were indulged by host Echevarria as they mainly attributed problems to Israel and America's support of Israel. Only one caller (Bonita) was positive on Israel. Four were neutral. This lineup against Israel, typical of Washington Journal, is unrepresentative of the public at large as is indicated by public opinion surveys (like the December 2012 Pew poll) showing strong support of Israel against adversaries.]

Caller: Pat from Carnegie, Pennsylvania (click here to view).

[Caller is typically encouraged by C-SPAN host despite immediately exposing himself as an extremist conspiracy monger blaming Israel for problems with Iran and irrationally alleging that Israel is “in control of the United States.” Host's final response to the bizarre polemic: “That's Pat from Pennsylvania.”]

Caller: “The reason I am calling is to give a more realistic perspective of what the Iranians are looking to achieve. Because, when you look at the state of Israel, which is basically in control of the United States, there is absolutely no way whatsoever that the Israeli government is going to allow for any type of peaceful resolution with the Iranian issue. Our actions with the state of Israel have become so demonstrative, they are in such control of our country and they are doing everything possible to ensure that there is going to be a military confrontation. And I guarantee you that the American people are not going to support this.”

Host: “You started with specifics – talk about the larger role of the U.N. and what you think it plays in international affairs?”

Caller: “Well, look at how the United States and Israel are now being isolated. The United States and the state of Israel are now singular actors in a global environment and the world is turning on the United States with the fact that Israel is now in complete control of our country. You are seeing our nation being isolated like it has never been in our history.”

Host: “That's Pat from Pennsylvania.”

NOTE: Obsessive Israel-hater Pat and his ilk, massively exaggerating the extent of Israel's power and influence, are angry at Israel because it is cynical about trusting Iranian President Rouhani. But cynicism here is obviously prudent in view of Iran's deceitful record on its nuclear intentions as spearheaded by leaders like Rouhani as shown by John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations: “We know that Hassan Rouhani himself, ten years ago when he was the chief nuclear negotiator, used the appearance of negotiations and conciliation to buy time at that point for the Iranian program to overcome a number of scientific and technical glitches. So Rouhani has used this playbook before."

Washington Journal routinely tolerates callers' anti-Jewish racism and anti-Israel defamation including blaming Jews for problems throughout the world. No other ethnic or religious group has been subjected to such continuous and virulent defamation on the network. Israel is the only country defamed on a regular basis by a cadre of determined, indulged callers who are rarely challenged by hosts or guests.

September 24, 2013 – 7:14 AM

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

Topic: Your opinion of U.N. role in international affairs.

Caller: Earl from St. Louis, Missouri (click here to view).

[Caller equates Russia/Syria to America/Israel. Typically, C-SPAN host fails to question this false assertion.]

Caller: “I am watching your program this morning about the United Nations and the General Assembly, which I think is very important. What I thing happens at times, we as Americans have a tendency to look at things just from one side of the picture. You take this problem with Syria right now. Why can't we understand that if we are the allies of Israel in the Middle East and we are vetoing every resolution passed by the United Nations, why can't we understand that Russia as an ally to Syria, they have the same option. So, if we go and interfere on the side of Israel in the Middle East and Russia is on the side of Syria in the Middle East, we both are doing the same thing. So, I think the United Nations is important, but it all depends on whether we want to be one sided in the Middle East. Thank you.”

[Host has no reply to caller's problematic equivalence.]

September 24, 2013 – 7:16 AM

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

Topic: Your opinion of U.N. role in international affairs.

Caller: Dee from Indianapolis, Indiana (click here to view).

Caller: I want to comment about the U.N. today. First of all, I agree with the former caller about what he said about Israel and peace between us and Iran and the Israelis and things. I think it is good that President Obama is willing to talk to Iran and any country that want to, you know, become allies or make peace. Because he campaigned in 2008 saying that he would have a conversation with Iran or any country that wanted to make peace and get rid of chemical weapons, etc. and things. So, I think it is good. If he would have a conversation with Iran's leaders today on that, he is only doing what he campaigned on in 2008.”

Host: “What do you think the end result would be of discussions should they take place?”

Caller: “The end result? I think if the president of Iran is serious, the end result would be they get rid of their chemical weapons program and let the U.N. come back into their country.

Host: “That is Dee from Indianapolis, Indiana.”

September 24, 2013 – 7:20 AM

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

Topic: Your opinion of U.N. role in international affairs.

Caller: Bonita from Lancaster, Pennsylvania (click here to view)

[Rare Washington Journal caller positive on Israel.]

Caller: “I simply think Israel serves as a peacekeeping country in the Middle East and …”

Host (interrupting): “What do you think about the role of the larger U.N.? What role does it play?”

Caller: “It is a peacekeeping country and I think the United States, it is a good thing that the United States is also helping Israel and that I think if we did not have Israel there, it will be a far more dangerous area than it is.”

[Host has no reply at this point.]

September 24, 2013 – 7:33 AM

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

Topic: Your opinion of U.N. role in international affairs.

Caller: Ali from Potomac, Maryland (click here to view).

[Accented Ali's anti-Israel polemic is indulged per C-SPAN's standard operating procedure.]

Caller: “So many countries achieve their territorial sovereignty and independence through the United Nations. If you think the U.N. is useless, then we delegitimize all those countries. Against the United Nations is mostly is in the U.S. and the debate is currently going on in the U.S. and it is mostly because of the Zionist lobby. There are resolutions against Israel to vacate the occupied areas, and just because the Zionist lobby wants to ignore those resolutions, they have these debates in the United Nations so that we have the role of the United Nations and the role of those resolutions.”

[Host is silent to caller's allegations.]

NOTE: At C-SPAN there is no one to counter caller Ali's (and his ilk's) demonization of the so-called “Zionist lobby” and it's exaggerated power (it's only one of many lobbies – more influential by far are the National Rifle Association, labor unions, environmental groups, education groups and so on) by explaining that Zionism, the modern expression of historic Jewish nationalism (supported by Jewish Zionists, Christian Zionists, agnostic Zionists) is the belief that the Jews are both a religious community and a people with unbroken, 3,000-year-old roots in Jerusalem and the land of Israel. Indeed, the most potent element of the “Zionist lobby” in America is arguably Christian evangelicals who define themselves as Christian Zionists.

The U.N. resolutions mentioned by caller Ali are mainly the product of a U.N. General Assembly dominated by adversaries of Israel (at one time the Soviet Union and now more by the third-world nations influenced by Arab and Muslim petro dollar power). Beginning in the 1960's, according to the watchdog organization UN Watch,

The campaign to demonize and delegitimize Israel in every UN and international forum was initiated by the Arab states together with the Soviet Union, and supported by what has become known as an automatic majority of Third World member states.

In 1975, […] the majority of the General Assembly adopted the “Zionism is Racism” resolution. At the same time, it instituted a series of related measures that together installed an infrastructure of anti-Israel propaganda throughout the UN. Years later, after strenuous efforts by democratic forces, the infamous resolution was repealed.

However, the legacy of 1975 remains fully intact: UN committees, annual UN resolutions, an entire UN bureaucratic division, permanent UN exhibits in New York and Geneva headquarters – all dedicated to a relentless and virulent propaganda war against the Jewish state. Together, they have made the UN into Ground Zero for today's new anti-Semitism, which is the irrational scapegoating of Israel with the true intended target being Jews. Not only do these anti-Israel measures incite hatred against Israelis and Jews everywhere, but they have done not a thing to help the Palestinian situation. On the contrary: they give strength and succor to extremists.
September 23, 2013 – 7:14 AM

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

Topic: Kenyan mall attack – concern for U.S. soft targets?

Caller: Mary from New York, New York (click here to view)

[Typically, a C-SPAN host encourages a caller who uses the word "Zionists" in a disparaging context. C-SPAN ranters, and other anti-Jewish/anti-Israel types, frequently use the word as a euphemism for Jews. The handling of this call contrasts with what took place only 27 minutes later in the broadcast when host cut off caller Tom immediately upon uttering the word "blacks" in disparaging black Americans.]

Caller: "I am just so tired of the bombs and the drones from America, the bombs from the Middle East or in Africa instead of the Middle East. But that's what that is. I look at Congressman Peter King [R-NY]. He speaks for his own culture. He doesn't care about anybody else. He is a warmonger. He speaks for the Zionists. I wish they all would stop the bombs, stop the drones. Let' s talk peace. Are we ever going to hear peace again in this lifetime?"

Host: "Mary, do you think talking peace will better protect these soft targets here in the United States?"

Caller: "I'm hoping so because I'm thinking, if someone mentions, ‘hey let's talk peace,' and they put up a red flag to emphasize that, then let's sit down at the table. We can't live like this. This is like barbarians. This is crazy. The world has to provide and we have to protect and we have to leave this place better than when we found it."

Host: "Mary from New York this morning."

September 17, 2013 – 8:25 AM

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

Guest: SHIBLEY TELHAMI, University of Maryland peace and development professor.

Topic: Syria and impact on U.S. Foreign Policy.

Caller: Craig from San Rafael, California (click here to view).

[Both host and guest enthusiastically accept the cue from caller to switch criticism target from Syria to Israel.]

Caller: "My comment is – finally in the United States of America, finally the people were heard. Ninety percent or better finally gave a no on Syria. But my question is – do you believe or is it your opinion that the real directive comes from Israel for all of our controls and actions that take place in Syria and Palestine and so on?"

Guest: "The Israel question is always important for the U.S. in thinking about the Middle East. There's no question that American support for Israel is one of the cornerstones of the foreign policy. So, whatever you do, whether about Iran, whether about Syria, ask the question about the consequences for Israel and consult with Israel on matters that have importance. No doubt Israel is a big factor in all this, including Syria. Obviously, Secretary Kerry just in Israel briefing the prime minister of Israel on the deal with Syria.

But on Syria, Israel's calculations have been very, very complicated. On the one hand, it's true, if you look at global public opinion, almost everybody in the world – including Europe and the U.K. where we saw it play itself out in the parliament. Israel was the only place where the majority supported a strike on Syria. The Israel calculation is complicated because on the one hand, it pertains to Syria itself as to what might happen. They did worry about chemical weapons. The Syrians were probably using the chemical weapons – initially perceived as a poor man's weapon of mass destruction – in that game with Israel. Now they were obviously using chemical weapons internally on their own people. The Israelis are worried about them falling into the wrong hands. They are also worried about Al Qaeda. So, they have real issues.

The big thing for them is what will be the consequence for what they see as the biggest strategic threat, which they see as Iran. So, any calculation they have has to do with Iran. They supported the president's strike and obviously the pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, supported the strike and lobbied for it in Congress. But, when the deal was announced about the chemical weapons with Russia, you found actually that the Israeli press was very supportive and saying it was a godsend for Israel. Can you imagine the potential for disarming Syria and they used the argument that the threat is what produced that to make the argument that we now need to push back on Iran."

Host: "What does the chemical weapons deal mean for Israel? Israel is one country suspected of having some stockpiles of its own. But they don't publish information on that. Does that put more of a spotlight on Israel?"

Guest: "Yes, it does. As I said before, it does put a spotlight on them and particularly because they did not sign the treaty prohibiting chemical weapons. And that puts them in a really bad space. So, yes it does. And I think they're going to have to do that. It puts the pressure on them."

Host: "They signed the treaty but they did not ratify it?"

Guest: "They did not ratify it."

NOTE: Not willing to miss a target of opportunity, neither guest Telhami nor host McArdle could be contained. Telhami, Palestinian-Arab-American academic, always moderate-sounding but who invariably argues the Palestinian vantage point or at least criticizes Israel, nods in agreement during caller's false accusation defaming Israel and America. Instead of a reasoned response by guest and/or host refuting caller's bizarre charge claiming Israeli control of American Middle East policy, they pile on in discussing Israel's purported chemical weapons.

Viewers could have been informed (or reminded) that Israel has never threatened to annihilate other states as, for example, Iran has threatened to destroy Israel. Israel's purported chemical weapon role or purported nuclear weapons role, for deterrence in the volatile Middle East, 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, is in close consultation with the United States on defense matters, including concerning the risk of threatening entities in the Middle East possessing advanced technology or in the process of acquiring it such as Iran, Hezbullah or Hamas.

Telhami, as a frequent Washington Journal guest, has always been in synch with hostile-to-Israel hosts and anti-Israel callers. For example, on Nov. 22, 2012 during a discussion on an Israel-Hamas ceasefire, Telhami expounded at length on the Gaza conflict, including the now familiar narrative involving the aggrieved rulers of the Gaza strip, Hamas, firing volleys of rockets at Israel whose response is then disproportionate. But Telhami somehow fails to mention Hamas' fanatical Islamism which governs its violent actions toward Israel. Hamas's ultimate mission – "no matter how long it takes" – is to "fight the Jews and kill them" and to replace the Jewish state with an Islamic caliphate.

• An 8:07 AM caller on Nov. 22 from St. Petersburg, Florida argued briefly that United States should be committed to negotiating with Hamas, despite its designation as a terrorist entity, because it was elected by the Gazans to lead them. Telhami took a few minutes to support the caller's assertion including arguing for support of democratic ideals like the right of the people to elect its leaders.

• An 8:11 AM caller from Detroit, Michigan propagandized including the accusation that Israel is "destroying the people of Gaza." Telhami generally supported the caller's claims in another lengthy discourse.

• An 8:17 AM caller from Johnson, Tennessee argued that Israel and United States have to negotiate with Hamas. Telhami strongly supports (again) this proposition. Not surprisingly there is no mention here of Hamas' deadly mission.

• An 8:21 AM caller from Brookville, Illinois expounds on the high cost of the Israeli missiles and defense system and the high cost of fixing up Gaza after this current chapter of the conflict. Telhami concurs (at length).

• An 8:26 AM caller from Ellwood, Illinois is the only one of the seven callers in this segment voicing support for Israel. Telhami in a brief response observes that "the United States has been extraordinarily supportive of Israel."

• An 8:28 AM caller from Bradenton, Florida asks if Hamas actions are merely a tactical approach or those of a group interested only in radical Islamic aims. Telhami responds comparing Hamas to the Morsi government in claiming that government is likely to be absorbed in domestic politics economy-related in the near future.

September 15, 2013 – 9:29 AM

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

Guest: RUTH WEDGWOOD, international lawyer and arbitrator, professor of international law at Johns Hopkins university.

Topic: Will Syria's President Assad face war crime charges?

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

Caller: “I think we are missing the central point, which is that the weapons of mass destruction, which Syria supposedly has, the sarin gas, is actually the format for nuclear weapons. We are asked to believe that Israel has some 200 nuclear weapons. Where is the balance of power now going to be in the Middle East? I'll take my answer off the air. Thank you very much.”

Guest: “Israel is said to have a nuclear bomb or two or three or whatever there are for deterrence purposes. It hasn't used them. It is said that the nature of chemical weapons is that they are more discreet in their geography of usage than other WMDs. There have been many countries that have used them from time to time. I don't see the WMDs charge against Syria as affecting anything that has to do with nuclear weapons within the region as a whole. I am hopeful that we can have a productive Israeli-Palestinian peace process. I don't think the two issues are going to be politically connected.”

NOTE: C-SPAN viewers could have been informed (or reminded) that Israel has never threatened to annihilate other states as, for example, Iran has threatened to destroy Israel. Israel's purported nuclear weapons role, for deterrence in the volatile Middle East, is analogous to the role of American nuclear weapons in keeping the Cold War with the Soviet Union from turning hot. Israel, a close ally, is in close consultation with the United States on defense matters, including concerning the risk of threatening entities in the Middle East possessing advanced technology or in the process of acquiring it such as Iran, Hezbullah or Hamas. Incidentally, what does the caller mean by “… the sarin gas, is actually the format for nuclear weapons?” The question is not asked.

September 15, 2013 – 9:54 AM

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

Guest: RUTH WEDGWOOD, international lawyer and arbitrator, professor of international law at Johns Hopkins university.

Topic: Will Syria's President Assad face war crime charges?

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

[“Doug” is C-SPAN's obsessive Boston Brit basher of Israel.]

Caller: “It is a war crime to drop white phosphorus on populated areas yet the Israelis seem to do this with immunity. Why do you think that is? I'll take my answer off the air.”

Guest: “I think you may be referring to the incident in which there was phosphorus – I forget what you call them – they were phosphorus shells you can use to create a thick black smoke to obscure the atmosphere so that people cannot target back at you. That was an incident that was examined in the [United Nations] Goldstone report. The Israelis responded to it with their own report. Ultimately the Israelis decided that they would in fact limit the use of that kind of weapon in urban areas. It was part of the tragedy of fighting in Gaza. Any kind of weapon has terrible collateral effects. They try to give timely combatant commands and reconsider about some weapons twice. I think there were lessons learned from that. The Israelis would be the first to say that.”

NOTE: Contrary to the defamatory accusations of obsessive anti-Israel caller Doug and his ilk, Israel does not now and has never used chemical weapons. White phosphorus is not a chemical weapon or any other kind of weapon. The Israel Defense Forces used white phosphorus in Gaza much like U.S. and Coalition forces did in Afghanistan for smoke camouflage and marking. Furthermore, according to the international Chemical Weapons Convention, white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon. The guest erred in referring to white phosphorus as a weapon.

British accented “Doug from Boston” has been obsessed with bashing Israel in each of his numerous calls during which C-SPAN hosts allow his tendentious monologues. Washington Journal has provided phoner Doug a platform on at least these 14 previous occasions:  March 20, 2013 – 9:52 AM (click here to view), 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).

September 12, 2013 – 8:32 AM

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

Guest: Rep. CHRIS GIBSON, Republican – New York.

Topic: U.S. and Russia meet today in Geneva.

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

[Typically, C-SPAN's Washington Journal fails to refute a caller's obvious anti-Israel distortions.]

Caller: “I want to make three very quick points. The bombs and guns of today that are used in war are equally weapons of mass distraction as any chemical weapons are. And so, I don't understand. We see 100,000 killed with bombs, so I don't see that 1400 with chemicals makes that much difference. The other thing is, does is our Congress know how we are involved in this civil war already? We are supporting the rebels with guns or whatever. We're giving them military aid. Do we recognize that to be an illegal intervention in a civil war in another country? Why isn't the Congress making a decision that we leave that civil war alone. The other thing is, the world sees our hypocritical look at that area when we say that Israel should be able to bomb other countries around them, and that they can have a nuclear weapon. And for some reason, that is okay because they are a democracy but we must intervene in a Middle East Islamic nation and start killing people.”

Host: “Okay, we'll get a response from the congressman.”

Guest: “First of all, Barbara, thank you for calling in. To your point on aiding rebels, I agree. I was actually on this show a couple months ago with my colleague [Congressman] Peter Welsh. Our point was that arming the rebels is an act of war. Think about it – if another nation provided military assistance to rebel groups for the express purpose of attacking us, we would view that as an act of war. ...”

[Guest's lengthy response of several minutes failed to address caller's anti-Israel distortions.]

NOTE: In the absence of a response from the guest to caller's anti-Israel distortion, C-SPAN host Brawner might have asked the caller what countries, if any (there are none), Israel has threatened with annihilation the way, for example, Iran has threatened it.

Israel has not participated in the proliferation of nuclear technology to other countries in the way Pakistan, China, North Korea and Iran reportedly have. Neither has it threatened to annihilate other states, as Iran has threatened to destroy Israel. Brawner might have questioned the caller on the role of American nuclear weapons in keeping the Cold War with the Soviet Union from turning hot. There is an analogy here with Israel's purported nuclear weaponry.

The caller could have been asked about her concern (or animosity) about Israel, a close ally in close consultation with the United States on defense matters, ahead of any number of threatening entities in the Middle East possessing advanced technology or in the process of acquiring it such as Iran, Hezbullah or Hamas?” This caller, with her animosity towards Israel, typifies a group that finds C-SPAN's Washington Journal an indulgent platform.

September 9, 2013 – 7:12 AM

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

Topic: Syria military strike – how should Congress vote?

Caller: John (actually James Morris) from Canyon Country, California (click here to view).

[It's virtually the same propagandistic Morris script each time as host typically indulges frequent C-SPAN caller (67 calls since Dec. 2008) who is obsessively anti-Israel and invariably misleads about America's policies. He is often, as here, having called only seven days ago, allowed to violate C-SPAN's ostensible one-call-per-30-days rule.]

Caller: "I'd like to talk to (indistinct). Have him go to [names a lunatic fringe, antisemitic Website]. We don' t need any more wars for Israel in the Middle East. You have AIPAC, the Israel lobby, pushing for this. You've got [Secretary of State] John Kerry who is a Jewish Zionist who pushed for the Iraq war for Israel, Hillary Clinton who is basically doing this to get money for a presidential campaign from Haim Saban of Brookings Institute. Americans better wake up to what is going on in the Middle East and these wars for Israel. More and more Americans are waking up about Israel..."

Host (interrupting): "John, let' s talk about U.S. action. If you were a member of Congress what question would you be asking the president this week?"

Caller: "Well, I would be asking Barak Obama to look at the intelligence. Again, if you go to [names a lunatic fringe, antisemitic Website]."

Host: "What don't you believe about the intelligence yourself?"

Caller: "Thank you for the follow-up opportunity. I think it was basically the Syrian rebels that set up Obama to go to war against Syria, that the Israel lobby is pushing so hard here. If you look at the ‘Clean Break' document, in James Bamford's book, it was Iraq, Syria, and then going forward against the rest of the enemies of Israel in that region. So, I would basically be very skeptical about the intelligence... "

Host (finally terminating Morris): "Well John, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria actually made remarks to CBS ..."

NOTE: Hosts of C-SPAN's Washington Journal three-hour daily call-in show typically don't function like journalists. Rather, to the potential detriment of millions of potential viewers (C-SPAN claims 28 million weekly viewers), they chronically tolerate antisemitic, anti-Israeli fanatics, epitomized by "John," that is, James Morris. This journalistic malpractice, conduct that provides a potentially large platform for anti-Jewish bigots, has been continuously documented by CAMERA's "C-SPAN Watch" Website feature since November 2008.

Washington Journal hosts habitually indulge Morris who invariably parrots what amounts to the Iranian propaganda line (he has been cited approvingly by Iran's Press TV, an official government mouth-piece). He last phoned on Sept. 2, 2013 as “Tim” (click here to view). Previously it was on May 27, 2013 as “Tony” (click here to view) and on April 22, 2013 as "James" (click here to view). Morris' 66 previous calls (with very few exceptions each has been anti-Israel, anti-America, pro-Iran) to Washington Journal since December 2008 are chronicled. Morris' Iran connection is indicated by the government-funded propaganda Website, which refers to Morris as a “Los Angeles-based political analyst” in a propaganda video (posted May 23, 2011) featuring Morris (includes his photo).

September 9, 2013 – 7:14 AM

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

Topic: Syria military strike – how should Congress vote?

Caller: Sue from Pekin, Illinois (click here to view).

["Sue" is another of C-SPAN's large cadre of anti-Israel callers who, justifiably, it appears, feel welcomed at Washington Journal to irrationally blame Israel for all Middle East problems.]

Caller: "I think we need to go ahead and let neighboring countries of Syria take care of it. We seem to be always be in the midst of taking care of everything for Israel, the holy land, the holy people, so say. But they fight, fight, fight, kill, kill, kill. And they're supposed to be the holiest land around. Let Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel fight their own battles. Nobody seemed to care when almost a million people died for three months in Rwanda. Why are we worrying about a thousand people with nerve gas. I feel sorry for them [the Syrian people], don't get me wrong, but I feel more sorry for the American people. Do we have a trillion dollars to go to war over there? Put the American people to work. Build some bridges, do something for the American people. That's my comment. Thank you."

Host: "That was Sue from Illinois this morning."

[Once again, a C-SPAN host does not question defamation of Israeli Jews – "We seem to be always be in the midst of taking care of everything for Israel, the holy land, the holy people, so say. But they fight, fight, fight, kill, kill, kill. And they're supposed to be the holiest land around." Yet no other country or people is so routinely smeared on Washington Journal.]

September 9, 2013 – 7:37 AM

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

Topic: Syria military strike – how should Congress vote?

Caller: Paul from Bellevue, Michigan (click here to view).

[Host McCardle encourages still another conspiracy mongering, anti-Israel caller.]

Caller: "Yes, I'm calling about Syria. According to the newspaper I read, American Free Press, they say that Israel is pushing us to go into Syria. And these are the same people that pushed us into Iraq. I think it's a bunch of baloney. We don't have no business over there. All we're doing is this is all for Israel. I think the Americans are tired of fighting these wars for Israel."

Host: "Paul, if you were a member of Congress this week, what would you be asking the president? Do you believe the evidence the president has put out there on the use of chemical weapons in Syria against Syrian rebels?"

Caller: "No, I don't believe the government. If they got the proof, let them show us the proof. We're not that stupid. We can make our own minds up. We don't need the president or the Senate or anybody else making our mind up for us. They don't need to show us – they need to show us proof on 9/11, who blew up them buildings. Let's take that, go back to that and find out what the truth is ... "

Host: "All right, Paul, we'll go on to Kelly now from Desert Hot Springs, California ..."

NOTE: The caller gets his news from American Free Press which is a lunatic fringe, conspiracy mongering newspaper dedicated to promoting Holocaust denial and blaming the Jews for just about everything it doesn't like. Of course, this should be obvious from the caller's diatribe. Yet host, consistent with Washington Journal's chronic journalistic malpractice, encourages caller to continue, never asking about U.S. national interests in the Middle East.

September 8, 2013 – 8:25 AM

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

Guest: EDWARD DJEREJIAN, former U.S. ambassador to Syria (1988-91).

Topic: Inside the Assad regime.

Caller: Kate from Boulder, Colorado (click here to view).

[Typical of Washington Journal, caller's false allegation (contained in a three-minute uninterrupted diatribe) about Israel is unrefuted. This frequent phoner has called many times using different names but always working from a similar script.]

Caller: “The previous caller brought up a few points I wanted to bring up. One was that we don't know who used the sarin gas. The one fellow said he was focused on the facts about Syria but then he repeated an unsubstantiated claim about Iran, referring about dealing with their nukes. There is no proof that they have nukes and I would hope that he sticks with facts. The other caller mentioned about a plan. He might want to go to the Project For a New American Century's Website. I wanted to ask you – who do you think the U.S. is to be lecturing about killing innocent people, and as the host mentioned, why such a hard sell? I think it has to do with whether Americans think we are rolling over a huge pile of debt and deficits in Iraq including children. You question about who are we to be lecturing about killing innocent people. Not that the situation in Syria is not horrific. It is. Colonel Wilkerson said on MSNBS after they had a softball interview with Secretary of State Kerry. I would've asked Secretary of State Kerry – you voted for the Iraq war resolution and you are now lecturing Syria? He was part and parcel to that horrific situation in Iraq. Colonel Wilkerson came on and he was General Powell's chief of staff and he said ‘What's the difference?' Not in any way undermining the situation in Syria but he said, ‘What' s the difference in using napalm on children in Vietnam, white phosphorus on Palestinian children by Israel, or sarin gas and we don' t know who used this. Who are we to be lecturing about this?”

Host: “Thanks for the call.”

[Guest Djerejian spoke at length more than five minutes yet failed to address the caller's allegations about “using napalm on children in Vietnam, white phosphorus on Palestinian children by Israel …”]

NOTE: Here this caller typically lies. Israel used white phosphorus (which is not a chemical weapon or any other kind of weapon) in Gaza much like U.S. and Coalition forces did in Afghanistan for smoke camouflage and marking.

This caller – invariably indulged by C-SPAN in each of her numerous calls – always rails against Israel and U.S. foreign policy in each of her calls and she lies about her own name. Her easily recognized distinctive voice has been heard on Washington Journal variously identifying herself as: "Ann," "Mary," "Rebecca," "Patricia," "Jackie," "Kay," "Kate," "Kathleen." Her most recent previous call was on June 21, 2013 as Anna from Athens, Ohio (click here to view).

September 8, 2013 – 9:12 AM

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

Guest: ABDERRAHIM FOUKARA, al Jazeera Washington Journal bureau chief.

Guest: JAY SOLOMON, foreign affairs correspondent for Wall Street Journal.

Topic: Reaction to possible U.S. action in Syria.

Caller: Mike from Lebanon, New Jersey (click here to view).

[Typically for Washington Journal, caller's defamation of Israel is unanswered.]

Caller: “Is Abderrahim Foukara suggesting that President Obama has no choice but to not listen to Congress and to go ahead with this attack to save face? When you put civilians in harm's way to represent the interests of a foreign country, not the U.S., by misrepresentation, that is treason. We are representing Saudi Arabia and Israel as part of a plan that started with Libya, Syria, Egypt, and that is to make them dysfunctional countries by attacking them and supporting rebels to do that. This is all a set up to justify our involvement in an attack of Iran. How can you sit there when the rebels that are in Syria are committing atrocities against the Christians, which we saw in Libya and we saw in Israel? Those are the same profile people that we are representing.”

Guest Foukara: “First, there are no Christians in Libya. The caller has made some very serious points …”

[Guest Foukara refutes caller's allegation claiming atrocities against Christians in Libya but is silent about caller's inflammatory falsehoods claiming atrocities against Christians in Israel and the conspiracy to attack Middle East countries. Typically, host Scully is also silent on this. Guest Solomon is silent on this.]

September 7, 2013 – 8:58 AM

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

Guest: MEDEA BENJAMIN Code Pink (women's anti-war group) co-founder.

Topic: Protestors and U.S. intervention in Syria.

Caller: Paul from Massachusetts (click here to view).

Caller: “I would just like to make a couple of comments. Those who think that we can send the missiles over and weaken Assad have another thing coming because the people that are going to come in to replace him – if he falters and falls – the groups that are going to try to take over his position and possibly gain control of these chemical weapons is going to cause those chemical weapons to go into hands of people that we would never ever want to support. So I don't know who we're going to help over there. The second thing is – during the Iraq war, we begged Israel to back off when missiles were flying into Israel left and right. Israel is not going to back off this time. Benjamin Netanyahu is not the best friend of Obama. And no matter what he says, once the missiles start flying into Israel, Israel is going to unleash its entire military against not only Syria but also Iran, which is going to open up a whole new problem for the United States. So when they say no boots on the ground – not right now – but they'll be coming.”

Guest: “I think your callers are very sophisticated and have over the years gotten an understanding of how complicated this region is. And the caller's first comment about if indeed Assad was overthrown, who would take over, is a very, very scary thought given that the fiercest fighters right now are the ones that are related in some way to al Qaeda. And I think the caller is also correct about Israel. Israel is now in favor of the U.S. Intervention. The Israeli supported groups in the United States – or the groups that support the Israeli government in the United States – I should say – like AIPAC have now come out in favor of this and they are sending people to Capitol Hill this week to call for Congress to vote in favor of an attack on Syria. I think this is a bad move because I think this is very bad for Israel. But your caller is right. This could unleash a horrendous regional conflict that could lead up to something like another world war.”

NOTE: Reports of pro-Israel groups “sending people to Capitol Hill to call for Congress to vote in favor of an attack in Syria” are coming essentially only from fringe and otherwise unreliable sources. So, where's the proof that guest Medea Benjamin's charge is anything other than false or a gross exaggeration? Typically, in an abdication of journalistic responsibility, the Washington Journal host does not ask.

September 6, 2013 – 7:29 AM

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

Topic: President Obama's leadership on Syria.

Caller: John from Burke, Virginia (click here to view).
 
[Typically for C-SPAN, host Slen accepts, without question, caller's false accusation impugning Israel. At least the caller could have been asked to identify his misinformation source.]

Caller: “I think we have to take a step back and actually look at the message we're sending out to all of the other countries. Our allies like Israel – recently they used chemical agents in Gaza. So, what kind of message are we sending to the rest of the world if we allow some countries to use these chemical agents without (indistinct) and when other countries use them we get in a huge uproar and we want to launch strikes. We need to look at how the others in the Arab world will view us …”

Host: “In the Washington Post, Senator Markey …”

NOTE: C-SPAN's Washington Journal hosts typically act as "receptionists," not moderators, merely “logging calls,” at times eliciting additional comment, rather than challenging obviously bigoted anti-Israel, antisemitic callers making wildly erroneous allegations. In this case, host Slen, merely receives, without questioning, the caller's erroneous accusation implying that Israel's use of “chemical agents” is equivalent to the chemical weapons used in Syria. Israel used white phosphorus which is not a chemical weapon or any other kind of weapon. Phosphorus has been commonly used for illumination such as on the face of a wrist watch. The Israel Defense Forces used white phosphorus in Gaza much like U.S. and Coalition forces did in Afghanistan for smoke camouflage and marking.

September 6, 2013 – 7:41 AM

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

Topic: President Obama's leadership on Syria.

Caller: Daisy from Indianapolis, Indiana (click here to view).

[Typically for C-SPAN, host Slen accepts, without question, caller's false accusation impugning Israel. At least the caller could have been asked to identify her misinformation source.]

Caller: “Thank you for C-SPAN. I watch C-SPAN all the time. I think the president's leadership is great. I voted for him twice and all. I feel that he has done a fantastic job and I am excited and glad that he is sitting in office now. Because the president is cautious and he's doing what he is supposed to do. As far as the Constitution, even though he talked about the red line before going to Congress. Congress holds the purse. The Congress (indistinct) the troops (indistinct) and they have not been doing – well, not all of them but the majority of the Republicans have been going against everything the president tried to do here in America. I feel that the president's leadership is fine and it is not about the president. It is about laws that have already been drawn by America before the president came about with war and redlines and all that. It was Israel who used chemical weapons on Gaza and America did nothing about it. I am happy that the president is still in office because I feel if we go into Syria it will be an excuse for Israel to go rogue and hit Iran and everything else. People around the world are not stupid. They have seen the disrespect thrown at this president since he has been in office. They have seen the Iraq situation with George W. Bush and everything, that it turned out all to be a big fat lie and …”

Host: “Daisy, we're going to leave your comments there. Thanks for calling in.”

NOTE: C-SPAN's Washington Journal hosts typically act as "receptionists," not moderators, merely “logging calls,” at times eliciting additional comment, rather than challenging obviously bigoted anti-Israel, antisemitic callers making wildly erroneous allegations. In this case, host Slen, merely receives, without questioning, the caller's erroneous accusation implying that Israel's use of “chemical agents” is equivalent to the chemical weapons used in Syria. Israel used white phosphorus which is not a chemical weapon or any other kind of weapon. Phosphorus has been commonly used for illumination such as on the face of a wrist watch. The Israel Defense Forces used white phosphorus in Gaza much like U.S. and Coalition forces did in Afghanistan for smoke camouflage and marking.

In a bloody civil war basically pitting Shiite Muslims against Sunni Muslims, the caller vilifies Israel which has nothing to do with the war. Members of C-SPAN's sizable cadre of anti-Israel callers condemn Israel for the flimsiest of reasons. It's always open season to attack Israel at Washington Journal aided and abetted by receptionist pseudo moderators.

September 6, 2013 – 7:47 AM

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

Topic: President Obama's leadership on Syria.

Caller: Chaz from Haymarket, Virginia (click here to view).

[Ranting about a bloody civil war (which basically pits Syria's Shiite Muslims against Syria's Sunni Muslims), the caller (aided by Washington Journal's non-responsive, receptionist pseudo moderator) vilifies Israel which has nothing to do with the war.]

Caller: “This issue has nothing to do with the president of the United States and it has everything to do with hegemony. The reality with our government – if you do the research since World War II, all of the military interventions, all of the foreign governments we have overthrown, that we have made unstable using any number of surreptitious means – this is just another example of the United States, U.K., France and the like, using al Qaeda, using foreign mercenaries. Some of the very men fighting in Syria right now. fought the Libyan government. So, people need to not take the conventional wisdom. They need to get off of their behinds and do some research. We live in an information age. If you look online you will see an example of people being we are being asked to support. We saw over the weekend that some of the rebels killed a man, cut out his heart and ate it right before the camera. The New York Times ran a piece yesterday with the slaughter of those soldiers and throw them into a hole. These are the people that we are being asked to support. We need to wake up and understand that this is all about Israel and taking out all of Israel's enemies. That's what this is all about.”

Host: “That was Chaz in "Haymarket, Virginia. And finally …”

September 3, 2013 – 7:15 AM

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

Topic: Syria vote – impact on Obama presidency?

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

[Typically, a C-SPAN host tacitly accepts a caller's false anti-Israel charge.]

Caller: “I agree with the lady who was talking about, there was always money for war. When there is an outbreak in another country, we see the people out in the streets, we see them overthrowing their government, the things like this. I do not know what the viewership for C-SPAN is. Everyone, do not go to work this week! Spend time calling your representative. If this is a democracy, let's exercise it. The commander- in-chief does have to go to Congress. That is in our Constitution. Jam their phone lines, go to Capitol Hill, and tell these people we do not want this war. This is not our fight. This is about Israel and the $30 billion we give them every year.”

Host: “And the impact all of this has on the presidency?”

Caller: “I don't think that matters, we have to be willing to say, hey, we can change our mind. Our people don't want this. As the commander-in-chief, I'd back down.”

Host: “Okay.”

NOTE: Host Scully has no problem with the caller's wildly false claim of the amount of financial aid to Israel which is ten times greater than it actually is. Likewise, it would be completely out of character for the C-SPAN host to inform viewers that Israel has nothing to do with Syria's civil war.

Additionally, responsible journalism (which is not Washington Journal's strong suit) would dictate that viewers be informed of the mutually beneficial relationship between America and Israel. Three points are relevant here. 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.

September 3, 2013 – 7:29 AM

Topic: Syria vote – impact on Obama presidency?

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

Caller: James from Irvington, New Jersey (click here to view).

Caller: “I would like to say that I do not think we should go to war. Because, first of all, Syria – they voted in the [Muslim] Brotherhood. The Brotherhood wanted to bring back Sharia law to the region. I am so sad because all of the suffering going on in the world. And Israel is committing violent acts against their people. We do not need to go into another war. America just needs to concentrate on us. We are not the cops of the world. Let someone else deal with that. Because I am sure once we get him out they are going to get someone else in that they do not agree with.”

Host: “James, thanks for the call.”

NOTE: Consistent with Washington Journal's chronic journalistic malpractice, host Scully accepts caller's clearly erroneous claim, Syria “voted in the [Muslim] Brotherhood.” Caller apparently confuses Syria with Egypt but he doesn't get any help from Scully. But more serious  – yet again, demonstrating C-SPAN's special anti-Israel, antisemitic problem, a Washington Journal host accepts without question the clearly false and inflammatory accusation that “Israel is committing violent acts against their people.”

September 3, 2013 – 7:33 AM

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

Topic: Syria vote – impact on Obama presidency?

Caller: Brady from Akron, Ohio (click here to view).

[Due to Washington Journal's exercise here of its chronic journalistic malpractice, misinformed, unenlightened (about the Middle East) caller Brady remains so, as are potentially millions of viewers.]

Caller: “I don't think that we should interfere into Syria. When the president made the speech of the red line, to me it was a plan that if the opposition loses and then there could be chemical weapons, then we have a reason to go in. This could spark a lot of problems and our young men and women will be leaving here. We are already in trouble over here. And then we have to go fight a war? If we can just settle the problem of Israel, there would not be any reason for us to have to worry about them. We are supposed to separate church and state but how in the world do we get into the situation for all these years and with all this money and the whole five million Palestinians that's been going on for seventy years. It's just not right. That's on our hands too. America is going to have to pay to the cosmic justice for what we're doing. I just hope we can settle the Palestinians. I think that would help us out a lot. It would ease the tension of the world so people could be human beings. I really appreciate C-SPAN and the American people for listening. Things you very much and may God bless everyone. Goodbye.”

Host: “Thanks for the call. A look at the map of the region of Syria. An earlier story by the BBC ...”

NOTE: Caller wrongly believes, in the face of historical evidence, that Israel is the main problem in the Middle East. Of course, host Scully is not about to enlighten caller and viewers. In 2013 the Palestinian side is still in violation of its major "peace process" commitments twenty years after the handshakes between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, coaxed by President Clinton, and Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat in the White House Rose Garden.

Meanwhile, much of the Arab world is in flames in a way unimaginable in 1993 and a potentially genocidal Iranian regime is on the verge of possessing nuclear weapons. In violation of U.N. resolutions, Hezbollah and Hamas now have tens of thousands more rockets threatening Israeli citizens, Jew and Arab alike. Yet many Western leaders and opinion molders insist that ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is key to regional stability. Such is the stuff of illusions and willful ignorance of many including caller “Brady” and potentially millions of viewers.

September 3, 2013 – 8:11 AM

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

Guest: STEVE CLEMONS, Atlantic magazine Washington editor at large.

Topic: Congress, the presidency and Syria.

Caller: Jim from Stanton, Michigan (click here to view).

[Conspiracy mongering caller promulgates conspiracy involving America and Israel that is partially debunked by guest.]

Caller: “I have basically three short questions that piggyback off of each other. First, I would like to know how much we are relying on Israeli intelligence. Second, how do we know that our surgical strike won't take out more than 1400 people? Third, is this not just logical that we are going to go through Syria hoping to get a knee-jerk response from Iran on Israel to give us more of an excuse to move into Iran after their nuclear capacities?”

Guest: “… Israeli intelligence was significant but not determinative. … I've no doubt in this particular case that we found the Israeli intelligence useful but not definitively important.”

[Guest's lengthy response omits mention of Iran's nuclear capacity.]

Host: “A comment from Monty. …”

September 3, 2013 – 8:20 AM

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

Guest: STEVE CLEMONS, Atlantic magazine Washington editor at large.

Topic: Congress, the presidency and Syria.

Caller: Shirley from Brentwood, Maryland (click here to view).

[Caller correctly understands that it's always open season to defame Israel at Washington Journal.]

Caller: “I am Shirley Lewis and I am from Cottage City also part of Brentwood, Maryland.”

Host and guest: “Good morning, Shirley.”

Caller: “My question is – of course, I' m vehemently opposed to us participating in a strike against Syria. No more war, please. But my question is, did not France step up to the plate and said that they would stand in the (indistinct) for Britain, who was vetoed out the war by its own people? That's the first question. The second question is, what about the big warlock, Israel? Can't they handle it? It is in their backyard.”

Guest: “Two very interesting questions Shirley, thank you so much. First of all, France did, as you said, stand up to the plate and offer its support but they said they won't go it alone. They won't take this on alone. Thus, if the United States does step forward and take action, you will find French support very much in place. On the other question of Israel, Israel, of course, is concerned, and Israel, from my discussion with their defense and intelligence authorities, is ready to take action any moment. Their intelligence shows them that chemical weapons might fall into the hands of any of the transnational terror groups that have been targeting Israel. There are a lot of watchdogs basically looking at how the Syrian government is trying to obscure and hide these chemical weapons stashes.

Israel has a formidable intelligence capacity of being able to do this and reserves the right to act alone any time it sees this, and the moment any of those chemical weapons were to go across the border, you would find Israel taking very, very fast action. That said, Israel is in a complicated, tough neighborhood, and for many reasons, ranging from the fact that a deal has not been done on Israel-Palestine peace, to having been essentially in a cold war itself with Syria for decades, for Israel to take a strike against any one of these nations and (indistinct) and we know that it did attack Syria, a nuclear site, on its own, and Syria did not respond to that at that time. So, Israel could take action but in this particular case, it would be such a heated impact that Israel has been counseled by the United States not to take those kinds of steps, because it would broaden the coalition of opposition to Israel throughout the region. So, I think it's a complicated neighborhood. It's a good question. I think Israel will take action. But right now, it makes good sense, in this particular case, for the United States to position itself and its other allies [excluding Israel] as those in the lead.”

NOTE: Typically, C-SPAN fails to refute caller Shirley's unjustifiable insult of Israel as a “warlock.” A dictionary definition of “warlock” is “a witch or demon imagined to have special powers derived from the devil.” Shirley's insult includes the charge that Israel is a warlike nation. But history shows that Israel acts only defensively and does not threaten any other nation. An objective host might have at least asked Shirley if she considers any of Israel's neighbors as “big warlocks.” The guest only mildly and indirectly corrects Shirley's defamatory charge. The guest exaggerates the importance to regional stability of an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians since much of the Arab world is in flames and a potentially genocidal Iranian regime is on the verge of possessing nuclear weapons – and terrorist entities Hezbollah and Hamas now have tens of thousands more rockets threatening Israeli citizens, Jew and Arab alike.

September 3, 2013 – 8:24 AM

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

Guest: STEVE CLEMONS, Atlantic magazine Washington editor at large.

Topic: Congress, the presidency and Syria.

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

[C-SPAN tacitly accepts caller's claim that America should not support Israel “because we are a Christian nation” unlike Israel.]

Caller: “I'd like to tell you that what makes the Middle East such a tough neighborhood is that none of these people, including the Zionists, believe in Jesus Christ. That is what makes it a tough neighborhood. Only Jesus Christ can bring about peace. And because both sides reject Jesus, America should reject them, because we are a Christian nation, and we should never support anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus Christ, Zionists included.”

Host: “Michael, thanks for calling, and we will turn to a question ...”

[Neither guest nor host commented on anything the caller said.]

NOTE: Viewers could have been informed that Zionism, to which the caller vehemently objects, is the modern expression of historic Jewish nationalism – the belief that the Jews are both a religious community and a people with unbroken, 3,000-year-old roots in Jerusalem and the land of Israel.

The bigoted caller, who professes to be a Christian, is apparently unaware of the large number of Christians in the United States who, based on their understanding of the Bible, firmly support a strong Israel. For example, the group “Christians United For Israel” (CUFI) which is the largest pro-Israel organization in the United States, with more than a million members (according to the Jerusalem Post). CUFI's Website at the top, quotes this passage: Isaiah 62:1 “For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, for Jerusalem's sake I will not remain quiet …” (NIV).

Christian Zionism is based on God's everlasting covenant with Abraham found in the Book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible. Christian Zionists generally believe that the Jewish people of Israel remain part of the chosen people of God, along with the "ingrafted" Gentile Christians (Romans 11:17-24 of the Christian New Testament).

Reflecting C-SPAN's problem of chronic indulgence of anti-Jewish, anti-Israel callers, Washington Journal utterly fails to counter the bigotry of the caller by informing viewers of the beliefs of millions of American Christians who oppose caller Michael's bigotry.

September 2, 2013 – 7:11 AM

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

Topic: Syria – how Should Your Member/Senator Vote?

Caller: Tim (actually James Morris) from California (click here to view).

[It's virtually the same propagandistic Morris script each time as host typically indulges frequent C-SPAN caller (66 calls since Dec. 2008) who is obsessively anti-Israel and invariably misleads about America's policies.]

Caller: “First of all, go to [names an anti-Israel, antisemitic Web site] for the latest on this next step of this Israel war agenda. You've got these neocons [Secretary of State] John Kerry, neocon mouthpieces like [U.S. Senator] John McCain. John Kerry supported the war for Israel against Iraq. He's now pushing another war for Israel against Syria. How many more Americans have to die for Israel in the Middle East? We are broke. Enough is enough. Americans have to rise up against this war for Israel agenda …”

Host (belatedly terminating Morris): “Brenda from Florida …”

NOTE: Hosts of C-SPAN's Washington Journal three-hour daily call-in show typically don't function as journalists. Rather, they habitually pander to anti-Israeli, antisemitic callers, to the possible detriment of millions of potential viewers (C-SPAN claims 28 million weekly viewers). This journalistic malpractice has been continuously documented by CAMERA's "C-SPAN Watch" Website feature since November 2008.

Washington Journal hosts indulge Morris in particular. He invariably parrots what amounts to the Iranian propaganda line (he has been cited approvingly by Iran's Press TV, an official government English-language mouth-piece). He last phoned on May 27, 2013 as “Tony” (click here to view). The previous call was on April 22, 2013 as "James" (click here to view). Morris' 65 previous calls (with very few exceptions each has been anti-Israel, anti-America, pro-Iran) to Washington Journal since December 2008 are chronicled. Morris' Iran connection is indicated by the government-funded propaganda Website, which refers to Morris as a “Los Angeles-based political analyst” in a propaganda video (posted May 23, 2011) featuring Morris (includes his photo).

September 1, 2013 – 8:19 AM

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

Guest: NICK GILLESPIE, Reason.com and Reason TV editor in chief.

Topic: Libertarians, the GOP and Syria.

Caller: Tyrone from Virginia Beach, Virginia (click here to view).

[Typically, Washington Journal tacitly accepts a caller's anti-Jewish racism and anti-Israel defamation including blaming Jews for problems throughout the world. No other ethnic or religious group has been subjected to such continuous and virulent defamation on the network.]

Caller: “Yes, General Wesley Clark did a talk on the ‘Project for a New American Century.' This is a neocon Zionist Jewish group. And their goal – the talk, he said this – he had a talk with [Donald] Rumsfeld [former Secretary of Defense] and he said the overthrow of seven countries in five years – Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea and the Sudan. I think Obama is stuck because when it came to Syria, it took him more than two years, and it doesn't look like they're going to be able to overthrow Syria that easy. So Obama has pushed the panic button and he has to do something because this group, this Jewish, neocon Zionist group, they (indistinct) our government and they have a lot of pressure on Obama.”

Host: “Tyrone, thanks for the call. Let me follow up on his point and share with you the comment by Bill Kristol, who joined a number of other so-called neocons in a letter to the president urging action with regard in Syria. And today Bill Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard, writes on ‘those of us who believe that the U.S. must act and must act decisively in Syria and beyond have a twofold task. We need to persuade the country and Congress to pass a resolution authorizing the use of force. And we need to persuade the administration to take strong and decisive action. Both may be difficult. But as Churchill once wrote, difficulties mastered are difficulties well won.'"

Guest: “I'm friendly with Bill Kristol. He's no Winston Churchill. He has essentially zero wins in his column. When I think of the foreign policy mastery which comes out of the Weekly Standard, which was an instrumental mouthpiece for the Bush administration and before that they were calling for intervention throughout the Balkans. I mean, they have never in their short existence, they have never met a war that they didn't like. He reminds me of a baseball manager like Gene Mauch, the legendary baseball manager who had a career average winning percentage that was under .500 yet he kept getting hired by the next team. Bill Kristol has no – you know, for all of his plaudits and things like that, he has no credibility on foreign policy. Every decision that he has pushed and urged on America, including before 9/11, to start getting really antagonistic militarily with China, has been wrong. And it's about time that we stop paying that much attention to a kind of perspective on military action that's coming out of the Weekly Standard."

September 1, 2013 – 8:56 AM

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

Guest: GORDON ADAMS, foreign policy professor, American University.

Topic: Syria – What's next?

Caller: Freddie from Oakland, California (click here to view).

[Less than an hour following a similar call, Washington Journal tacitly accepts a caller's anti-Jewish racism including blaming Israel for Arab civil wars and making the typical antisemitic accusation that Jews control major world developments, and alleging patterns caused by conscious intent where none exist. This echoes classic anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, but the C-SPAN host tolerates and encourages it. Again, no other ethnic or religious group has been subjected to such continuous and virulent defamation on the network.]

Caller: "I've been watching this show a whole lot, maybe like ten years, and one thing I have not noticed, the American people have been truly dumbed down. We have a lot of sympathy for Israel. I'm not hearing anything much about Israel. If people would stop and do their history, we would look and see that the people that's running Israel came from Poland and Russia. They're not the indigenous Israelites. So Israel have everything to gain. They're [Syria] not threatening us. They're probably threatening Israel because Israel's taking their property, their land and trying to run the Middle East. Let's look back. Let's have some segments on who the true Jews are. They own your judicial system, your financial system, your news media and everything else. They're one percent of our population but they're running the world. And we're not waking up to them."

Host: “Your point is what?”

Caller: “My point is that this is all behind Israel taking over the Middle East.”

Host: “We'll get a response.”

Guest: “Yeah, I don't agree with you for a minute about who owns what with respect to the media, finance system or any of that. I just think that's a myth. But what's the interesting question tucked into what you're saying is there's been a lot of silence from Israel about its view on what's happening here. And I think that silence from the Israeli government reflects an ambivalence that is understandable.
 
From the Israeli point of view, having security around its borders is an important benefit. Egypt is uncertain. Jordan frequently troubled now, with a lot of Syrian refugees. Lebanon on its northern border. Hezbollah, influence rising, rocket attacks into Israel. And Syria has been a, if you will, an island of stability in Israel's regional relationship with Assad in the presidency. So from one point of view, the Israelis might be happier to have Assad stay there and have Syria be stable but we're past that point. From the other point of view, for the Israelis, Assad leaving Syria at least opens the door to an Iranian loss in the region because Assad's been an ally of Iran. If that were to happen from the Israeli point of view, the uncertainty about the political outcome in Syria might be outweighed by the new regime. So I'm kind of not surprised that the Israelis have been quiet and just putting on their gas masks.”

Host: “Let me go through a couple of developments courtesy of the Associated Press. This morning, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has told his cabinet that his country – quote – ‘is ready for any possible scenario.' At the United Nations in New York, the secretary-general expected to be briefed by the head of the chemical weapons team on exactly what they saw. In Egypt, the Arab League foreign minister scheduled to hold an emergency session in Cairo to discuss the developments in Syria. And with this photograph courtesy of the New York Times, the aircraft carrier, the Abraham Lincoln in the Mediterranean Sea. There are five destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea armed with dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles. They continue to stand by. And from France, the French president saying he will wait for the French parliament and U.S. Congress to consider possible military action. On all of these fronts, your thoughts.”

Guest: “What we're hearing and what we're seeing here is a disbursal of point of view and an uncertainty about direction and an uncertainty about implications of this kind of a strike. The Israeli position is very consistent with what I was saying. We're ready for anything. We're not taking an opinion on this. In the United Nations, the president clearly does not have the support of the Security Council.”

NOTE: Instead of a timely termination of the caller's anti-Jewish rant, host Scully typically encourages him ("Your point is what?") which allows the caller to make the stereotypically antisemitic charge that Israel is behind what's happening in the region so that it can "take over the Middle East." The caller had definitively exposed his racist views when he made the claim that the Israeli Jews are "not the indigenous Israelites." This ideological tic, shared by more than a few white and black supremacists, seems to be a variant of the 19th century British-Israelite myth. This fantasy held that the biblical Ten Lost Tribes of Israel were early settlers of the British Isles, making modern Britons "the original Hebrew Israelites."

The extreme right-wing "Aryan Nation" and "Christian Identity" movements in late 20th century America held to a version of this myth. So too, changing geography to account for racial differences, do many followers of Rev. Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam movement. They repeatedly use descriptions like "the so-called Jews that are in Israel right now are not the Jews from Israel," that is, not descendants of biblical Jews.

In fact, continuous Jewish diaspora history, from the Roman expulsions to the rebirth of Israel as a Jewish state, and modern DNA testing, which indicates strongly both Jewish geneological continuity and Middle Eastern origins, contradict the "British Israelite," "Hebrew Israelite," and "Christian Identity" myth.

C-SPAN is long overdue in correcting the problem of Washington Journal hosts, whether by ignorance of design, fecklessly indulging and failing to challenge anti-Jewish, anti-Israel callers. C-SPAN's chronic failure in this regard repeatedly allows inflammatory, antisemitic fallacies to be disseminated to millions of potential viewers (C-SPAN claims 28 million weekly viewers).


Bookmark and Share