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 April – June 2015


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

June 30, 2015 – 9:03 a.m.

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

Guest: ILYA SOMIN, Professor at the George Mason University School of Law, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, a blogger for Volokh Conspiracy, former co-editor of the Supreme Court Economic Review, author of “The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain.”

Topic: Government right to seize private property.

Caller: Herman from Richmond, Virginia (click here to view)

Note: Using a fallacious argument, caller denigrates Israel. Guest incompletely responds. As usual, host is either unable or unwilling to inform viewers.

Caller: “I wanted to ask a question. He [guest] was talking about the native American Indians in North America, and I know their land was seized for progress from the 19th century to the 21st century. But the question I have is – The Judeans [sic.] -- when they took the land from the Arabs and – Israel became a nation in 1949 [sic.] -- was that progress for the 21st century when they seized millions and millions of acres [sic.] of land in Israel?”

Guest: “You're really talking about the Arab-Israeli conflict that and that would be a whole other program that could easily swallow up this one. What I would say is that before the 1948 war -- in Israel the Jews didn't have the ability to forcibly obtain land that had been controlled by the British. When the war happened, the Arab states attacked Israel, trying to destroy it. The Israeli forces responded and seized some additional land. There were rights and wrongs on both sides. But it's wrong to say that the Israelis came unprovoked to seize Arab land.”

Host: “Right. You've [guest] written other books…”

NOTE: Caller falsely compares the 19th century North American land situation to the 20th century Israeli situation. Israel did not seize swaths of land. First, the land of Israel is part of the League of Nations' Palestine Mandate, Article 6, which 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. Second, the West Bank 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 illegal than areas built since then in previously existing Arab villages and towns.

June 28, 2015 – 9:53 a.m.

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

Guest: GARY SAMORE, former White House coordinator for arms control, non-proliferation, and disarmament.

Topic: Iran nuclear negotiations.

Caller: Gerry from Northampton, England (watching on the BBC Parliament channel airing every Sunday afternoon) (click here to view).

Note: C-SPAN Washington Journal indulges another lengthy harangue serving as an apologetic for the international outlaw state of Iraq which is considered by the United States and many other countries to be the major state supporter of terrorism. CAMERA's C-SPAN Watch has previously and subsequently discussed at length the false claims and reasoning used in this caller's monologue.

Caller: “I will keep this very brief. It is in relation to Iran. In Iran, the viewpoint is that what we in the U.K see of that country is a little less one-sided. In the United States, there are a lot of people, especially Jewish Americans, and we also note there are people who have – (indiscernible) are the petroleum industry that are supporters of Saudi Arabia, they seem to have corrupted the needs and the negotiations in regards to the Iranian situation. In the U.K., we look at it as that there needs to be a two-sided negotiation. There needs to be this -- we will end sanctions, but we will also give you guarantees which is -- we will stop Israel from taking military action on its own against you. We will also guarantee your own peace and security. Don't you think if we were to offer them peace and security, including (indiscernible), that we could bring Iran totally in to the fold, get rid of a potential nuclear threat and the world would be a lot happier? In regards to Israel, it has nuclear weapons. I was wondering when we are going to bring Israel's nuclear weapons into view and actually see what they've got so that we can actually protect not just the Middle East but also Europe as well, in case Israel decides to use their weapons in anger.”

Host: “Thank you for your call. [Guest] Gary Samore…”

Guest: “Thank you very much. This negotiation is about one thing -- Iran's nuclear program. It is not about Israel's nuclear program or Pakistan's nuclear program or India's nuclear program, or the British nuclear program. It is about Iran's nuclear program. I think that is the focus of negotiation. In terms of security assurances, my understanding is that Iran is not interested, has not asked for, and we are not prepared to give security assurances. This is all about economic sanctions really in exchange for nuclear constraint. In fact, one of the weaknesses of the agreement is that it is very transactional. It is focused on a very narrow set of issues -- economic relief for nuclear constraints. All of the other many areas of disagreement between the United States and Iran will continue even after this agreement. That includes any agreement on the Syrian civil war over Iranian support for Hezbollah and Hamas, over the Yemen fighting and intervention in Yemen, and even Iraq where the U.S. and Iran are tacit allies against the Islamic state. We are still competing for influence in Baghdad [Iraq]. Of course, there is a whole question of maintaining the freedom of navigation and shipping in the Persian Gulf. One should not imagine that this nuclear deal, if it happens, is going to transform U.S.-Iranian relations. In fact, we will continue to be enemies and rivals and hostile to each other on a broad range of issues in the region.

June 17, 2015 – 7:35 a.m.

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

Topic: Former Spokane, Washington, NAACP President Rachel Dolezal's decision to identify as African American.

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

Note: Repeat caller Don's familiar message echoes the racist myth propagated by Rev. Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam. The myth is easily refuted by the facts. There is a continuous Jewish diaspora history, from the Roman expulsions to the rebirth of Israel as a Jewish state, and modern DNA testing that strongly indicates both Jewish genealogical continuity and Middle Eastern origins. Washington Journal's chronic failure to refute such racist myths allows antisemitic fallacies to be repeatedly disseminated to millions of potential viewers (C-SPAN claims 28 million weekly viewers).

Caller: I think this whole deal is a mockery to the black community, actually because the white people – white man – they stole our culture already. We are the true Jews, blacks, Hispanics, and native Americans Indians are the true Jews in the Bible. America has duped us and made us believe that we are Africans and we all of this and that. But the Africans sold us. We are Hebrew Israelite Jews. The Africans sold us to the Arabs and the Arabs sold us to the white man. So, that woman [Rachel Dolezal] is not white. She is a [indiscernible] just the same as black people in America. We are Jews – we are not black. We are Hebrew Israelite Jews. Ever since [Roman] General Vespasian and his son Titus put an end to the Jewish state in 70 A.D., we have been under a whole disguise of a whole different people. We've been Jews ever since then. But our identity has been taken. Now, here this white woman is trying to take our color. They already took our culture. Now, she is taking our color."

Host: "Okay, Don, alright. In other news from Capital Hill ..."

NOTE: Washington Journal aired Don's previous nearly identical such messages also without interruption or challenge: May 2, 2015 – 8:29 a.m.(click here to view), April 11, 2015 – 7:23 a.m. (click here to view), and Sept. 21, 2014 (click here to view).

June 15, 2015 – 8:13 a.m.

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

Guest: DEREK WALLBANK, Bloomberg News congressional correspondent.

Topic: The week ahead in Congress.

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

Note: From among the numerous U.S. allies in the Middle East and elsewhere, another of the legion of Washington Journal anti-Israel (often antisemitic) callers uses a compliant Washington Journal to bash Israel.

Caller: "We have been talking about defense a little bit. Something that has to do with defense but a little more foreign policy, that I want to talk about is the U.S. stance on Israel. We hear a lot that Israel is supposedly our greatest ally. But I kind of disagree. You really just have to look at the history of the U.S.-Israeli relationship to see why. We could go back to 1954 to the Lavon affair where the Israeli military intelligence service recruited several Egyptian Jews to bomb U.S.- and U.K.-owned assets in Egypt. They were eventually found out, but nothing really came of the situation. Supposedly it was a hit to the U.S.-Israeli relationship, but we do not hear much about it these days."

Host: "Derek Wallbank, is the U.S.-Israeli relationship issue going to be debated in the coming weeks or months?"

Guest: "There will be an issue that's going to be coming up fairly shortly and I think you've addressed it with the previous guest [Hurley], about reaction from the Supreme Court case yesterday, about people born in Jerusalem and whether or not they can put Israel on their passports instead [Sic.] of Jerusalem. The Supreme Court said no. That legislation passed with a lot of bipartisan support and you would have a hard time getting something that was not seen as flatly pro-Israel through the Congress right now. Benjamin Netanyahu, when he came and spoke to Congress, was received with thunderous applause, the likes of which you rarely hear. So, there's going to be a big reaction there. Also – consider the caller brought up Iran – consider that a lot of the frame for how we are discussing this nuclear deal in the works with Iran is how it will affect Israel. Israel is very much the framework by which a lot of these foreign-policy decisions will be taken."

[Correction: Instead of  “Israel instead of Jerusalem,” it should have been stated, "Israel in addition to Jerusalem." The guest's assertion that "Israel is very much the framework by which a lot of these foreign policy decisions will be taken" is easily disproved. Israel strongly opposes the Obama administration's approach to negotiations with Iran over its presumed nuclear weapons program, but to little avail. The administration's recurrent emphasis on Israeli-Palestinian talks, and pressure on Israel to make additional concessions, while the Palestinian side refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, is another of many important examples. Yet they go unmentioned by either guest or host.]

NOTE: Caller criticizes U.S.-Israel alliance but Washington Journal viewers are virtually never informed about some of the advantages of the relationship. Cooperative arrangements with Israel provide technology benefits to America related to unmanned aircraft, anti-missile defenses, battlefield medical techniques – and intelligence on anti-U.S. as well as anti-Israeli Arab and Islamic radicals. Fourth and perhaps most important in the long run, Israel, the only Western-style democracy in the Middle East, is a technologically advanced open society with equal rights for Christians and Muslims as well as Jews. Israel has women's equality, an independent judiciary and a free press. It is the only country in the region where Americans could live as freely as they do at home and one that, absent religious and ethnic prejudice as official, let alone enforced policy, ought to be an example for the Middle East's many countries now in bloody intra-communal upheaval.

The so-called "Lavon affair" refers to an presumably ill-conceived, unwise, possibly rogue operation run by Israeli military intelligence that took place in Egypt in 1954. Its aim was to smear the Egyptian regime of President Abdel Gamal Nasser and to portray it as unreliable and untrustworthy in the eyes of Washington and London. The plan involved planting bombs in British and American owned cultural centers with the bombs timed to detonate several hours after closing time. It resulted in only one casualty – a Jewish operative when the bomb he intended to plant went off prematurely in his pocket. But the reference to this minor affair, overtaken by decades of significant developments in U.S.-Israel relations, turmoil in the Arab-Islamic world, and global reach of Islamic terrorism, indicate an anti-Israel obsession common to more than a few C-SPAN callers. It's an obsession Washington Journal hosts typically ignore if not, by follow-up questions, encourage. 
 
June 9, 2015 – 7:44 a.m.

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

Topic: Supreme Court decision on U.S. passport policy – Zivotofsky v. Kerry.

Guest (on phone): LAWRENCE HURLEY, Thomson Reuters Supreme Court correspondent (click here to view).

Host: "Joining us now on the phone is Reuters' Supreme Court correspondent Lawrence Hurley to talk about the decision that came out yesterday. It had to do with foreign policy. Explain the passport issue that was decided yesterday by the Supreme Court."

Guest: "The Court struck down a law that Congress had enacted which allowed U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem to say that they were born in Israel. The law never went into effect, but there was a legal challenge or – the people who wanted to enforce the law made a legal challenge and they ultimately lost yesterday."

Host: "What are the implications here for American Mideast policy and the separation of powers debate here in Washington, D.C.?"

Guest: "The ruling was a win for the Obama administration. It upheld the role of the White House in having a primary role in recognizing foreign governments. That has been established for some time, but this put a seal on that. It also, In a way, avoided any major problems in the Middle East because the U.S. has long remained neutral. This is a way to avoid getting into that."

NOTE: Characteristically when it comes to issues involving Israel, C-SPAN fails to adequately inform viewers. The persistent policy of the U.S. government has been to treat Israel's capital city uniquely from among all national capital cities – that is not recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Though Jerusalem is the seat of government, home to the Knesset (parliament), Supreme Court, prime minister's office and residence and most other governmental agencies – and has been a capital city only of the Jewish people at any time in the past 3,000 years – U.S. policy has not progressed beyond the 1947 U.N. partition plan, rejected by the Arab states and Palestinian Arabs. This called for the division of British Mandatory Palestine into one Arab and one Jewish state and the "internationalization" of Jerusalem. If anything, this stance probably contributes to Palestinian insistence on redividing Jerusalem as it was during Jordan's illegal occupation from 1948 to 1967. The U.S. position implies, incredibly, that even overwhelmingly Jewish western Jerusalem, home to most government facilities, is disputed territory, not just formerly Jordanian-held eastern Jerusalem. So, the American passports of Americans born in Jerusalem may not list Israel as the country of birth. The U.S. government justifies this policy on the grounds that it would interfere with U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the government's position by a six-to-three vote. Justice Antonin Scalia for the minority issued the dissenting opinion which included, "[M]aking a notation in a passport or birth report does not encumber the Republic with any international obligations." U.S. government policy in this case and the general case of refusal, on political grounds, to recognize Israel's capital (even the western section of the city) is opposed by a large majority of both houses of Congress.

June 5, 2015 – 9:27 a.m.

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

Guest: Mubin Shaikh, a Sunni Muslim whose parents are natives of India, has been an undercover counter terrorism operative for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. He co-authored the book Undercover Jihadi. Shaikh had revealed that he had "a full cognitive shift" after the Sept. 11, 2001 al-Qaeda attacks on New York City's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., leading him to reevaluate his commitment to the extremist mindset (U.S. News, January 2015).

Topic: How radical Islam recruits followers.
 
Caller: Earl from Maryland (click here to view).

Note: Guest nods in agreement throughout the call from "Earl from Maryland" despite a glaring, false claim. Neither host Echevarria nor guest Shaikh refutes the caller's big lie, "... Jews killing Jesus, you know, which was a historical fact." No, it's not an "historical fact" but rather an early post-classical and medieval charge that continued to be invoked into the 20th century to incite contempt for and violence against Jews. History tells us (and it's not contradicted by Christian New Testament scriptures) that the Roman rulers of Judea killed Jesus, worshiped by Christians as savior and Son of God. Jesus was killed by crucifixion, a common punishment imposed by the Romans for crimes against the state but never known to be used by Jews (the Note below elaborates on these themes).

C-SPAN's silence in the face of a lie central to traditional antisemitism, one that calls for immediate recognition and refutation, is not surprising. Since 2008, CAMERA's C-SPAN Watch feature has shown that Washington Journal functions as a platform for numerous antisemitic, anti-Zionist callers who are rarely, if ever, interrupted or refuted.

Caller: "I preface by saying – white man speaks with forked tongue. My question is – I have not read your book – but how do you deal with the hypocrisy about the right of freedom of speech to draw cartoons of the prophet Mohammed, but yet so, if you as a community do cartoons about the Jews killing Jesus, you know, which was a historical fact. Would that be considered free speech or antisemitic?"

Guest: "Well, this is the thing. You have to identify it as hypocritical. You can't encourage people to internalize these values of freedom of speech, and then not apply them equally across the board. The problem with that is that people will see through that right away. Your question is how do I deal with that. I recognize that humans – we are humans. We will make mistakes. We have these lofty ideals. We always try to realize those ideals, but often we fall short of realizing those ideals. So, I recognize the human condition. Where I can, I speak out against it and identify it. So, I do that. That's how I respond to it."

NOTE: It would have been out of character here for this self-described public affairs program, Washington Journal, to inform viewers of basic facts here – Jews did not kill Jesus and furthermore, as both the New Testament and historical evidence indicate, all of Jesus' followers and supporters before and at the time of the crucifixion were Jews. On Washington Journal, however, the large majority of defamations of Jews and Israel go uninterrupted and uncontradicted.

In 1965, The Roman Catholic Church under Pope Paul VI repudiated belief in collective Jewish guilt for the crucifixion of Jesus (Second Vatican Council, 1962–1965). In 2011, Pope Benedict XVI explained biblically and theologically there is no basis in Scripture for the argument that the Jewish people as a whole had any responsibility for Jesus' death. "How could the whole people have been present at this moment to clamor [for the Romans to crucify] for Jesus' death?" Benedict asks. Benedict concluded that the "Temple aristocracy" and a few supporters of the figure Barabbas clamored for the crucifixion (Washington Post, March 2011).

Newsweek magazine (April 2015) discussed historical aspects regarding the crucifixion of Jesus: "Jesus stood accused of sedition, not blasphemy—a civil crime, not a religious one. Rome's punishment was a painful, and visible, death by crucifixion. In the age of Roman domination, only Rome crucified. And they did it often. The two men who were killed along with Jesus are identified in some translations as ‘thieves,' but the word can also mean ‘insurgents,' supporting the idea that crucifixion was a political weapon used to send a message to those still living: Do not stir dissent or this will be the result. It was a popular method of dispatching threats to the empire. ‘Romans practiced both random and intentional violence against populations they had conquered, killing tens of thousands by crucifixion,' says New Testament scholar Hal Taussig, who is with the Union Theological Seminary in New York. New York Times best selling author Stephen Mansfield described crucifixion in a 2014 article as ‘an act of state terror.' By the time crucifixion was a staple of the Roman Empire, its justice system had employed strangling, stoning, burning and even boiling in oil as methods of torture and execution. But crucifixion sent a more lingering message. Jesus would then have been part of this show of power by the Roman Empire. There is also evidence that Jesus's arrest was part of a broader pattern of violence and fear of revolt that particular Passover circa A.D. 33. Barabbas' presence fuels the theory that [Roman governor (under the Emperor Tiberius) Pontius] Pilate was concerned with rebels and had already confronted an insurrection before he interrogated Jesus."

May 28, 2015 – 9:09 a.m.

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

Guest: John Bradshaw, National Security Network executive director

Guest: Michael S. Doran, Hudson Institute senior fellow.

Topic: U.S. strategy Against ISIS.

Caller: Maury from Bridgeport, Connecticut (click here to view).

Caller supports Iran's nuclear position (not uncommon for a Washington Journal caller).

Caller: "I have a comment and a question. Good morning, everybody. My comment – the totality of global engagement is imperialism regenerated. Satellites pinpoint global resources and the CIA is inserted. The resultant social political apathy and the militarization of local citizenry results in the global threat. Now let's look at a fresh perspective. My question – If Israel were to attack Iran and the U.S. were to assert its mettle there, wouldn't the Middle East roadmap be mostly complete? Wouldn't the Bush doctrine of strength abroad, even though we're really relying on Iran who is really just defending their own natural resources like gas, and the fact that they are a nuclear power – their quest for nuclear power is hinged upon their desire not to waste their natural resources, not to have them outsourced to the U.K.?"

Host: "I will have Mike Doran, who was part of the Bush administration, respond to that."

Guest Doran: "I don't agree with any of the premises of the caller. I don't think that global engagement is really about imperialism. I think the United States is basically a force for good in the world on balance. Certainly when compared to any other great power that has had interests like these. It was not the Bush administration's policy to build up Iran. You can say – and it is a legitimate critique to say that inadvertently, the Bush policy in iraq opened the door to Iran in that country [Iraq], and we didn't do enough to push back against it. I think that tendency has worsened under the Obama administration. But it was not any part of the strategy."

Host: "Okay. John Bradshaw?"

Guest Bradshaw: "The caller mentioned the possibility of military action against Iran. I think that is one of the great potential dangers in the coming year, especially if we don't agree on this nuclear deal. Iran would be a very tough country for us to engage with militarily, much bigger, stronger than Iraq, more homogeneous, more united. Even if we were to use air strikes to attack the nuclear program, it would only send it back for a couple of years. They already have the knowledge of how to build a nuclear weapon so we might get into a cycle where we would have to continually attack them and they would retaliate against us throughout the region. That is another losing proposition."

Host: "Okay."

May 28, 2015 – 9:29 a.m.

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

Guest: John Bradshaw, Executive Director National Security Network

Guest: Michael S. Doran, Senior Fellow Hudson Institute

Topic: U.S. strategy Against ISIS.

Caller: David from Flemington, New Jersey (click here to view).
 
This caller criticizes Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu "for not acting against Iran's nuclear program" thus causing today's current Middle East problems. This is an odd twist for Washington Journal since numerous anti-Israel callers (Journal regularly indulges them) criticize Netanyahu for taking any defensive actions.

Caller: "Churchill said he feared inaction and now I see why. I believe that this problem – this mess – is completely due to the inaction of Bibi Netanyahu for not taking out Iran's nuclear program before it went to deep underground and for Barack Obama for not standing up and enforcing the red light on chemical weapons. Thank you."

Host: "Okay. Final thoughts, John Bradshaw."

Guest Bradshaw: "Well, I think President Obama's plan to use military air power when he drew that redline, I think he should have done it. Going to Congress at that time was a mistake. A lot of the people in Congress who prevented it from doing that are now backtracking and criticizing him for that. That argument is not going to benefit either side, really, at this point, talking about what happened in 2013 in Syria."

Host: "The President was able to broker a deal with Russia involved cooperating so that Assad would have to get rid of chemical weapons."

Guest Bradshaw: "Yes, the outcome in the long term – the process that got us there was one that could have been done better."

Guest Doran: "No, I disagree with that. First of all, the deal that we got with Assad, he didn't respect. There is significant evidence he did not give up the sarin gas to us – and secondly, now he's using chlorine anyway. Why was getting rid of his gas arsenal the key interest of the United States? We have just been talking about what the key interests really are, and that is the problem with them not respecting the red line. We signaled with that action and a number of other ones, we sent a very clear signal to everybody in the region that we will not help them solve their problems and so they are taking matters into their own hands with the results that we see."

Host: "Alright. Gentlemen, thank you both for a very interesting conversation. Mike Doran with the Hudson Institute and John Bradshaw with the National Security Network.

May 28, 2015 – 9:57 a.m.

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

Topic: Open phone lines – your topic in the news.

Caller: Bob from Long Beach, California (click here to view).

Caller faults what he thinks was the Obama administration's false belief that it was necessary to stop an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities in order to avoid having the Middle East against Israel. "... all those countries in the Middle East have been against Israel from day one," caller says.

Caller: "There is one thing I don't really understand. Obama wants to give Iran $50 billion to lift sanctions for this nuclear deal of his, but Israel a couple years back wanted to take that nuclear facility out. But the Obama administration stopped it, saying the Middle East would be against Israel if they did this. Well, the Middle East – I will tell you, all those countries in the Middle East have been against Israel from day one. So, I want to know what the difference would be on that. Another thing is – the British was in the Middle East, the French and the Russians, and they crucified the only man, Jesus Christ, trying to get these people to love one another and get along. What makes the United States think they can change it?"

Host: "Alright Bob."

May 26, 2015 – 7:16 a.m.

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

Topic: Defense Secretary – Iraqi forces showed "no will to fight."

Caller: Rick from Louisville, Ohio (click here to view).

Note: Conspiracy theorist, repeat caller "Rick from Louisville, Ohio " – habitually speaking in an unusual pedagogic manner and using the same talking points each time – is a familiar Washington Journal caller (see NOTE below for his priors). Familiar, that is, except seemingly to Journal's ostensible screening process and hosts, especially this host, Echevarria, who also hosted Rick's prior call April 21, 2015. Each of his calls – all indulged for minutes on end – assigns blame for various problems faced by the United States to a list of culprits (especially the state of Texas) that includes only one ethnic/religious group – "the Jews." On Washington Journal, no other ethnic or religious group has been subjected to such continuous and virulent defamation by mendacious, hate mongers like this caller. It would seem that in airing and indulging Rick's rants, C-SPAN is acting intentionally and/or fecklessly.

Caller: "Yeah, you know, what is amazing about this conversation is the Iraq war – am I on the air?"

Host: "Go ahead Rick, you're on."

Caller: "The Iraq war was based on lies and brainwashing. You go back – and the reality is -- for me to speak about this, you have to give me my freedom of speech. Freedom of press – you know – the freedom of speech. The reality is – this is the south. The south in this country – the same south that we fought in the Civil War relies on oil and war – that is there economy. Then you talk about the brainwashing. The media is controlled through the state of Texas with Clear Channel Radio, 1350 radio stations – that's 30 per state. So, you have the brainwashing that comes out of Texas and then you have Georgia which was Time-Warner which was just bought by the company that used to own NBC, CNBC and MSNBC and that is New York state and Connecticut. And that is Wall Street and the banking system and then the Jews. Now, the freedom of speech here. Now, if the last five wars were started by Texans – the Vietnam War and both Gulf Wars and both Afghanistan Wars – and if the largest military base in the world is in Texas and the largest military contractor in the world is in Texas and the largest oil company in the world is in Texas, then how come the conversation right now – see, I am in Ohio. Texas steals money from Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania by creating these wars."

Host: "Okay, Rick. Final thought before we move onto another call. In light of what you said, what should be done now?"

Caller: "Well, we need to take back our media so we can speak the truth."

Host: "Okay."

NOTE: Rick's Washington Journal priors include April 21, 2015 – 7:34 a.m.(click here to view), April 3, 2015 – 7:08 a.m. (click here to view), March 19, 2015 – 7:17 a.m. (click here to view), Dec. 31, 2014 – 7:12 a.m.(click here to view), Feb. 10, 2014 – 8:06 AM (click here to view), Jan. 22, 2014 – 8:20 AM (click here to view), and Dec. 19, 2013.

May 22, 2015 – 7:32 a.m.

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

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

Caller: Nancy from Toledo, Ohio (click here to view).

Note: Caller's flattery of Washington Journal host Slen gets her everywhere. Slen indulges – even more than is typical for Washington Journal hosts – caller's lengthy conspiracy mongering and defaming of Israel and Jews. CAMERA's continuous "C-SPAN Watch" monitoring of Journal's calls since November 2008 has documented the program's hospitality both to a core of anti-Zionist, antisemitic frequent callers and another group of more sporadic but like-mind conspiracy theorists in its audience of potentially millions (C-SPAN claims 28 million weekly viewers); whatever their number, viewers have heard Jews and the Jewish state defamed hundreds if not thousands of times, targeted in a manner the network prohibits for any other people or country.

Caller: “Hi Peter. You are my favorite moderator.”

Host (smiling broadly): “Oh, you just made my mom's day.”

Caller (laughing): “I have to get up early to watch you because you seem to take charge more than any of the other ones do.”

[Slen's face beams with joy during much of the of the caller's tirade that follows.]

Caller: “I wanted to say that the gentleman from Virginia that called was spot on about taking out the dictators. And if you stand back and get a bigger picture of what is going on, I believe that we went into the Middle East to satisfy the Zionists and for the benefit of Israel. And people need to take a look at that. I am one of those people that thinks that we need to re-open and investigation of 9/11. And why Building Seven went down. We have been bamboozled for a long time. America is being fleeced. It is getting harder and harder to eat. And to throw in a side bar here, I have to get a new refrigerator. Am I still on?”
 
Note: Caller identifies herself as a 9/11 "truther." Without an iota of evidence, she parrots the malicious conspiracy theory that falsely alleges Jews, not Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda, were responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center. Host irresponsibly fails to challenge the inflammatory falsehood. Instead, he allows himself to be diverted by phoner's personal rambling.

Host: “Yeah. What about the refrigerator?”

Caller: “Well, the gentleman told me that a new one will only last me seven to ten years. And the reason I will not be able to get it repaired after seven years is because of NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] because corporations do not have to make parts after so many years for these appliances. So, we have to buy new ones. And I just think that is terribly wrong. I think we need to get money out of politics. We are being sold out.”

Host: “Nancy, you have covered a lot of topics and tied a lot of things together. Number one, do you not think that Israel is an ally of the United States?”
 
Note: Tying lots of unrelated things together and finding a scapegoat to blame is what conspiracy theorists, who otherwise find the world inexplicably complicated, do. Rather than say so, host Slen encourages this one.

Caller: “No, I do not.”

Host: “Why?”

Caller: “Because we are feeding them billions of dollars. [U.S. Senator John] McCain gets up there and wants to know where our moral compass is. Why are we allowing Israel to kill the Palestinians? That was their land.”

Host: “Number two, why do you believe that 9/11 did not happen as the vast majority of people see it as happening?”

Caller: “I do not believe the vast majority saw it as it happened. I believe they were told that was what was happening. And they have been told it and told over and over.”
 
Note: The Washington Journal host does not challenge the caller's 9/11 conspiracy theory. Host was typically remiss in failing to refute caller's "Why are we allowing Israel to kill Palestinians? That was their land." As then U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said after Israel's war against the Palestinian Hamas terrorist organization and its allies in the Gaza Strip in 2014, Israel went out of its way to avoid non-combatant Arab casualties. That was one reason the Pentagon sent a "lessons learned" team to Israel to study its urban warfare methods.

Concerning "their land," the League of Nations Palestine Mandate, which brought 20th century Palestine into being, called in Article 6 for "close Jewish settlement" on the land west of the Jordan River to help reestablish the Jewish national home on the Jewish people's ancient territory. The host's failure to interject such basic facts contributes not only to continuation of a delusional call, but a fact-free dialogue.

Host, shamelessly pandering to not just this "truther" but those who share her fantasy, asks: "Nancy, do you remember we did a segment on this program on the architects of 9/11 who agree with you that it was an inside job. That video is available online to watch."

Caller: “Yes, sir.”

Host: “Have you been personally affected – besides the refrigerator? You come from a manufacturing city. Have you been personally affected by NAFTA?”

Caller: “Yes, I believe I have.”

Host: “Has your city been affected?”

Caller: “Most definitely. There are no jobs here. There are no jobs in Toledo.”

Host: “Nancy, who do you like in 2016 for President? Do you like anybody?”

Caller (laughing): “No, no. I thought that I was going to vote in the primaries for [U.S. Senator] Bernie Sanders. I am learning that Bernie Sanders has dual citizenship with Israel. What is wrong with that picture? What is wrong with that picture? Why are there so many people in Congress and the Senate that have dual citizenship? Why is there so many people in our government that has dual citizenship with Israel?”

Note: What is wrong with this picture? C-SPAN's host, Peter Slen, should have cut off "Nancy" from Toledo at her first assertion 9/11 was "an inside job." Instead, he's carried her all the way to the nonsensical – and antisemitic – assertion that "so many people in Congress and the Senate [Sic.—in the U.S. House and Senate] have dual American-Israeli citizenship. Washington Journal's moderator doesn't recognize this as a variant of the bigots' "Jews run everything" mantra? Or he recognizes it but doesn't consider it disqualifies the caller? Either way, Slen fails again as moderator as he keeps her talking. Caller confirms her obsession with Israelis under every bush with falsehoods regarding U.S. Senator [Bernie] Sanders (I-Vt.) and other members of Congress as dual U.S.-Israeli nationals.

Host: “You know what? That is the first time I've ever heard that Bernie Sanders has dual citizenship. I knew he was Jewish. Where did you see that or read that?”

Caller: “I read that online. I think CounterPunch [Web site] has it.”

Host: “CounterPunch?

Caller: “Yes.”
 
Note: CounterPunch is a notoriously anti-Jewish, radical leftwing Web site, of which, given C-SPAN's claim to broadcast in the public interest, the network's hosts ought to be aware and able to explain.

Host: “All right. That is Nancy from Toledo, Ohio. Our producer, Jim Rush, is already looking up that story as we speak.”

NOTE: Host Slen in the interchange with this caller makes a mockery of his own declaration, "Our goal is to discuss public policy and have a civil discourse with you [viewers] about some of these current topics" (Washington Journal, April 10, 2015, 7:01 a.m.).

May 22, 2015 – 7:40 a.m.

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

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

Note: Another conspiracy mongering, Israel-hating caller is typically indulged by a C-SPAN host.

Caller: Gabriel from Puerto Rico (click here to view).

Caller: “Two points that I actually wanted to make. In regard to the first caller, the Democrat, she questioned whether 9/11 was actually a perpetrated act by her own government. And this is actually a very, very, very tense topic. When searching and googling my studies I found out that the government actually approved a measure to instate terrorist acts within the United States on its own people in order to rise up political dissidents against Cuba in the [President] John F. Kennedy days. So, if the government was able to actually pass those and actually to get an invasion of Cuba, it does really not seem that far off that they would do it as recently as 2000. The second point I wanted to make was, again, the first caller actually stated it. Is Israel and ally of the United States? Is Israel our best buddy in the Middle East? That is another question that can be answered through history. There was an incident called the U.S.S. Liberty where Israel actually shot down, sank and killed a bunch of U.S. sailors and sank the U.S.S. Liberty. Again, these are old things, but they happened. Those who learn from history are doomed not to repeat it.”

Note: "Gabriel" from Puerto Rico almost makes "Nancy" from Toledo sound informed. Online he found the charge that the U.S. government perpetrated the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. to be "a very, very, very tense topic"? Washington Journal's host, if not the caller, should know that anything can be found online, including the truth and its negations, and ought to say so when appropriate, as in this case. The government infiltrated terrorists during the Kennedy administration to foment anti-Castro sentiment? Is there an adult on either end of this call?

The caller's false allegation, a favorite of Israel-hating conspiracy mongers, regarding the U.S.S. Liberty, amounts to icing on the kook cake. Multiple U.S. and Israeli investigations determined that Israel's attack on the Navy's U.S.S. Liberty during the 1967 Six-Day War was indeed a tragic "fog of war" mistake:

• C.I.A. report – June 13, 1967 – No malice; attack a mistake.
• U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry – June 18, 1967 – Mistaken identity.
• Report by presidential advisor Clark Clifford – July 18, 1967 – No evidence ship was known to be American.
• Senate Select Committee on Intelligence – 1979/1981 – No merit to claims attack was intentional.
• National Security Agency – 1981 – Mistaken identity.
• House Armed Services Committee – 1991/1992 – No support for claims attack was intentional.
Captain Jay Cristol, USN (Ret.), a decorated Navy aviator and Navy lawyer (member of Judge Advocate General's Corps) in his book The Liberty Incident definitively refutes allegations of an intentional Israeli attack. But C-SPAN watchers would never know it.
 
Host: “Gabriel, what do you do in Puerto Rico.”
 
Caller: “I am a student at the University of Puerto Rico. I study anthropology.”
 
NOTE: "Gabriel's mangling of philosopher Georges Santayana's famous observation that "those who do not learn from history are condemned to relive it" as the malapropism "those who learn from history are doomed not to repeat it" could be a useful motto for host Slen: "Having heard one anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish conspiracy nutcase, no need to condemn Washington Journal viewers to repeat versions." Unless, to judge by his and C-SPAN's indulgence, they find such callers compelling.

May 22, 2015 – 7:45 a.m.

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

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

Caller: Omar from Terre Haute, Indiana (click here to view).

Note: Conspiracy mongering, anti-Israel phoner “Omar” has been a purveyor of hate against Israel and an apologist for Iran's Islamist regime in previous calls to Washington Journal. Examples – March 28, 2015 (9:10 a.m.) (click here to view) and Nov. 17, 2013 (click here to view).

Caller: “I wanted to give a shout out to Nancy in Ohio and tell her I love her. She made six or seven points and hit the bull's-eye on every single one. I have often called in and said that Israel is going to be the destruction of the United States.”

Note: It's not surprising that caller Omar would look upon previous caller “Nancy” (see 7:32 a.m. entry above) as a soul mate since she's a fellow conspiracy mongering, Israel-hater.

Host: “Omar -- why, why?

Caller: “Because it is using U.S. money. We pay Israel about $8 billion per day, every day month after month.”

Host: “$8 billion a day? That's 365 times 8 billion. Somebody do the math.”

Caller: “Maybe it is $8.5 million a day.”

Host: “50 percent of our budget.”

Note: Mendacious, wildly misinformed phoner states absurd money amounts for U.S. aid to Israel while host makes light of it. But Washington Journal listeners are highly unlikely to ever be informed of the actually quite small percentage of the U.S. budget that funds aid to Israel, let alone of the much larger benefits this country derives from the Israel-America relationship. There are at least four relevant points that go unmentioned on Washington Journal. First, financial (military only) assistance to Israel constitutes less than 0.1 percent of the federal budget.

Second, Israel is required by U.S. law to spend most (74 percent) of the U.S. aid ($3 billion per year) in the United States for the purchase of military materials which helps create or sustain thousands of American jobs. Third, cooperative arrangements with Israel provide technology benefits to America related to unmanned aircraft, anti-missile defenses, battlefield medical techniques – and intelligence on anti-U.S. as well as anti-Israeli Arab and Islamic radicals. Fourth and perhaps most important in the long run, Israel, the only Western-style democracy in the Middle East, is a technologically advanced, open society with equal rights for Christians and Muslims as well as Jews. Israel features women's equality, an independent judiciary, free press and is the only country in the region where Americans could live as freely as they do at home. Absent religious and ethnic prejudice, it ought to be an example for the Middle East's many countries now in intra-communal upheaval.
 
Caller: “In terms of ISIS, here is my point. You need to go back to a guy named Oded Yinon. The 'Oded Yinon plan from 1982.' And Israel's plan to break up every state in the Middle East that they consider a threat. You notice, Peter, ISIS has not fired a single bullet at Israel. ISIS is the brainchild of Israel and the United States and Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Jordan and Turkey allow these spiders to infiltrate into Syria and Iraq. The United States give them the okay. They train in Turkey, they train in Jordan. Who pays for it? Saudi Arabia. Somebody pointed out yesterday that we were able to destroy Iraq in a month or two. Yet here ISIS has no air force, no navy, yet here we are giving them plenty of play. Yet, at the same time, making it seem like it is impossible to deal with them.”
 
Note: Anti-Israel notions about the so-called "Yinon Plan," based on a translation and editing of a 1982 article, are promoted by Islamist and lunatic-fringe Web sites such as the one mentioned below. Out of all the hundreds of thousands of articles written by Israelis, the Yinon Plan has been conveniently, if unfoundedly, identified as representing Israel's real strategy. So, what is this "Plan" all about? Oded Yinon is an Israeli journalist who apparently at one time had been attached to the Foreign Ministry of Israel. Yinon authored an essay, "A Strategy for Israel in the 1980's (dubbed the Yinon Plan)," printed in1982 (in Hebrew) in the journal, Kivunim Hadashim (New Directions) published by the World Zionist Organization. The "Yinon Plan" was promoted by the anti-Zionist writer, Israel Shahak, in his translation and editing of Yinon's essay as "Greater Israel: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East" published by the Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc. (March 3, 2013). Shahak's piece is available on the Global Research Website.

Elder of Ziyon says about the Shahak work, "... Shahak's translation of Yinon's article has very little to say about Israel actively causing Arab regimes to fracture. In fact, most of the article (and possibly all, since Shahak cannot be trusted to translate accurately) talks about how this dissolution of the Arab world is inevitable, given the hatred between Sunnis and Shiites, different tribes in Syria, Iraq and Jordan, oil rich states run by a tiny elite but not sharing the wealth with the poor citizens, and so forth. In some ways Yinon's article has been vindicated; he pretty much predicted the Arab Spring in 1982... If Israel's strategy in the 1980s was to cause the Arab world to collapse, it failed, as the current Arab Spring upheavals came over 20 years later. But the beauty of the theory - especially for Shiites - is that the problems in Egypt, Syria, Libya and so forth can now be blamed on Israel, which is behind everything! Sunni leaders are Israel's puppets!"

Host: “Omar, give us one Web site where you go to get your information in case people are interested in reading what you are discussing.”

Caller: “The site is InformationClearinghouse.info.”

Host: “It's InformationClearinghouse.info. Thank you sir. What do you do in Terre Haute?”

Caller: “I am a retired schoolteacher.”

Peter: “What did you teach?”

Omar: “Elementary school.”
 
Note: Host Slen publicizes the InformationClearinghouse Web site which despite its misleading name, is an extremist, leftwing site featuring screeds defaming U.S. policy and Israel.

May 22, 2015 – 9:53 a.m.

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

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

Caller: John from Glenview, Illinois (click here to view).

Note: John is a rare caller to C-SPAN since, when discussing Israel and Jews, he contributes truthful information without spewing falsehoods heard regularly on Washington Journal such as that purveyed by this day's phoners Nancy, Gabriel and Omar.

Caller: “Earlier in the program when you are discussing Bernie Sanders' run for president, someone had made the comment – she was one of those people who propagate the conspiracy theories like the United States or Israel was responsible for something – she referred to Bernie Sanders having dual citizenship with Israel and you kind of let that go except for a comment that we would put our people researching that and it never came back. There's probably no time left today but please leave a note for somebody to come back with that on a future Washington Journal and fix that.”

Host: “Did you go online, John?

Caller: “Yes.”

Host: “Did you find something relevant?”

Caller: “Yes, I went online and I found an article on a Nazi Web site called ‘StormFront' and then lots of other sites quoting that information. So there is actually a Facebook page which talks about congressman with dual citizenship and what it does is just list random Jewish people [falsely] claiming that they hold dual citizenship.”

Host: “If you noticed, we read the tweet from another viewer saying I think that refers to the fact that a lot of Jewish Americans can get dual citizenship. And I think – we did not just leave it hanging out there, I don't want you to think that. It's important for viewers to know.”

Caller: “It's important for viewers to know that it is similar to Germany or England. I can't remember exactly, but if both their parents come from there you are entitled to citizenship. I am Jewish and I know probably thousands of Jewish people and I don't know a single one of them with Israeli citizenship. I'm sure there are. This woman and the like her clearly believe that kind of thing. I think it's important to fix that.”

Host: “John, thank you for calling in and making that comment.”

NOTE: Host Slen sounds naively earnest. "Did you go online? Did you find something relevant?" This caller found a likely source for an earlier caller's antisemitic allegation that many members of Congress hold dual American-Israeli citizenship – a neo-Nazi Web site. Slen himself should have been quick enough to have challenged the original caller on exactly these grounds. And the Washington Journal seems to imagine that a tweet from another viewer about the possibility of American Jews getting Israeli citizenship somehow takes care of C-SPAN's responsibility for rebutting the "Israeli congressmen" slander. C-SPAN describes itself as founded by the cable television industry in the public interest. Not when it comes to Jews and the Jewish state.

May 21, 2015 – 8:18 a.m.

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

Guest: U.S. Congressman ADAM SMITH (D-Washington).

Topic: White House strategy against ISIS [Islamic State in Iraq and Syria – terrorist army].

Caller: George from Lafayette, Louisiana (click here to view).

The first of four detached-from-reality C-SPAN callers on May 21 preposterously claiming that U.S. support for Israel is a major reason (or the only reason) for U.S. problems in the Middle East

Caller: "My comment is very simple. In order to resolve the problem, first you have to know what the reasons were. In Iraq, the Middle East, general, Arabs, mainly, the whole world , they have a big resentment toward the U.S. because we support Israel. As long as there are Palestinians and as long as the U.S. says Palestine does not exist, they don't like us. I come from Lebanon originally, I'm a Christian, and it has been a war. The Christians used to be 60 percent of the population, and now maybe 25 percent. The Muslims are on the rise. They have their own way of life. Let's face it, this is an essential commodity war. The U.S. needs the oil. The Middle East has it. And we want it. And they basically don't want to give it to us as long as we support Israel, period.

Host: "Well, George is making that argument, Congressman."

Guest: "I obviously don't agree with it. This is not at this point about oil or they do want to give it to us. They sell it to us all the time. This is about violent extremist groups that are attacking western targets and how we contain them. A resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would be enormously helpful to the Palestinian and Israeli people. That is something we need to work on. It is far, far, far from the only issue that motivates people like Osama bin Laden and Al- Qaeda and ISIL [ISIS]. There is much more to do with it than just the Palestinian question."

May 21, 2015 – 8:54 a.m.

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

Guest: U.S. Senator MIKE ROUNDS (R-SD).

Topic: White House strategy against ISIS [Islamic State in Iraq and Syria – terrorist army].

Caller: Wayne from Huntington Beach, California (click here to view).

The second of four detached-from-reality C-SPAN callers on May 21 preposterously claiming that U.S. support for Israel is a major reason (or the only reason) for U.S. problems in the Middle East

Caller: "What the Senator said about five or six times, that this would be bipartisan, and the reason it is going to be bipartisan is because what all of this involved in the Middle East is basically in support of three powerful groups in the world. One is the defense contractors, which the other guy [caller] hit on, which is really true. This is about making defense contractors rich. It is about getting an administration more conducive to better oil deals that will make the oil lobby rich. And it is about Israel. Because, if you watched Congress stand up like a bunch of trained seals clapping for [Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu when he was talking complete nonsense to try to get us even deeper in, because they want to destroy every Arab country in that region."

host: "What evidence do you have that Israel wants to destroy every arab country?"

Caller: "That's what they lobby for."

Host: "What evidence do you have for that? Does AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] or any other Jewish lobby say to you, Senator, that they want to destroy every Arab country?"

Guest: "No, and I disagree with the analysis our caller has made in this case. I'm a freshman up here, but what I have seen from both Republicans and Democrats is a sincere desire to get to the actual facts and to find a long-term strategy that what works for our country. The fear that we have is another terrorist attack on our homeland. That is where the concern comes from. When we talk about whether or not we should be spending American resources in another part of the world, it goes back down to why is it, what are we doing, what happens if we don't, and what about our foreign policy, and what happens when we withdraw. I work with folks on one side who say we should just get out and let them do what ever they will do to each other. Then I have heard other folks say that – that doesn't work because they are going to come back and at some point they are still focused on America. I am of the opinion that a lot of our presidents in the past had it correct. You should not be dictating to other countries how they should operate. But you should carry a great big ugly stick that says if you mess with us, you will only be able to do it once. I think that message is still a powerful message. You have got to have a strong military but also a very good foreign diplomacy effort as well to let people know what you are standing for and what are the expectations."

May 21, 2015 – 9:48 a.m.

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

Topic: Confidence in President's strategy against ISIS?

Caller: Rudy from Daytona Beach, Florida (click here to view).

The third of four detached-from-reality C-SPAN callers on May 21 preposterously claiming that U.S. support for Israel is a major reason (or the only reason) for U.S. problems in the Middle East.

Caller: "I thought that Obama is doing the right thing. It should not matter whether Shia or Sunni, they will sell their oil to us, whoever controls the oil will sell to us. We will buy oil and they need the customers. The other thing is getting rid of Saddam Hussein – the reason I believe we had to get rid of him – he was paying suicide bombers, the family like $16,000 to do their thing in Israel. The whole thing is about Israel anyway."

Host: "Why do you say that, Rudy?"

Caller: "What was that – I'm sorry?"

Host: "Why do you say that, Rudy – the whole thing is Israel?"

Caller: "To protect Israel. Around the world – Israel is breaking us by using our blood and we had to borrow money to give to Israel. They are rich. They could pay for their own debt."

Host: "Why do you say that? Give me some evidence that this is all about Israel."

Caller: "Well, because it is."

Host: "That is your opinion but you do not have some data to back that up. The aid to Israel, many members of Congress have talked about that. Military aid to Israel – about $3 billion a year, is on par with what Congress gives to other countries. It also gives aid to Egypt, an Arab country and other countries in that region."

NOTE: Malinformed caller states, "Israel is breaking us by using our blood and we had to borrow money to give to Israel." What "blood?" Israel is just about the only U.S. ally never to ask for use of U.S. troops. "Borrow money to give to Israel" – really? Where does this phoner go to get his opinions formed? C-SPAN never informs viewers what the aid to Israel is about. There are at least four relevant points about the mutually beneficial relationship between America and Israel. First, financial (military only) aid to Israel constitutes only a tiny portion of the federal budget (less than 0.1 percent). Second, Israel is required by U.S. law to spend most (74 percent) of the U.S. aid ($3 billion per year) in the United States for the purchase of military materials which helps create or sustain thousands of American jobs. Third, cooperative arrangements with Israel provide technology benefits to America related to unmanned aircraft, anti-missile defenses, battlefield medical techniques – and intelligence on anti-U.S. as well as anti-Israeli Arab and Islamic radicals. Fourth and perhaps most important in the long run, Israel, the only Western-style democracy in the Middle East, is a technologically advanced open society with equal rights for Christians and Muslims as well as Jews. Israel has women's equality, an independent judiciary, free press and is the only country in the region where Americans could live as freely as they do at home and one that, absent religious and ethnic prejudice, ought to be an example for the Middle East's many countries now in intra-communal upheaval.

May 21, 2015 – 9:57 a.m.

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

Topic: Confidence in President's strategy against ISIS?

Caller: Jean from Detroit, Michigan (click here to view).

The fourth of four detached-from-reality C-SPAN callers on May 21 preposterously claiming that U.S. support for Israel is a major reason (or the only reason) for U.S. problems in the Middle East

Caller: "I just wanted to say first that I was passionately against the war in Iraq. I felt that, what gave us the right to go in and attack a country which had not done anything to us? I felt that if we went in it would result in death, destruction and chaos. President Bush was warned by former President Mubarak [of Eypt] that if he went into Iraq he would not have just one Osama bin Laden but 100 Osama bin Ladens. I think that has come to pass. Saddam Hussein was a buffer to Iran. They fought wars back and forth. Saddam Hussein said he had a lot of these weapons as a threat to keep Iran from attacking him. Going back to Israel, we have to remember there were people living in that land, the Palestinians. When the United States and the U.N. gave the land to Israel, that began a whole bunch of wars and fighting that has continued to this day. So, that is my say on it."

Host: "Alright, Jean."

NOTE: This malinformed caller should been asked who or what forms her opinion regarding Israel and its land. Regarding this, a public-service network (which C-SPAN purports to be) should be capable of providing viewers (and Web site visitors) with at least some relevant information:

Concerning the caller's opinion about who "gave the land to Israel," there never has been an Arab state of Palestine. So, there was no such thing as Palestinian national land to give to anyone. Caller speaks of the "people living in that land, the Palestinians" – they were basically descended from families who arrived in order to participate in the economic boom created by Jewish Zionists in the late 1800s and early 1900s. While some land was purchased by Jewish groups from Arabs, there has been no policy of taking land from them. The "bunch of wars and fighting that has continued to this day," that the caller falsely blames on the restoration of Israel, started with several Arab armies trying, in 1948, to abort the restoration of the ancient Jewish state authorized by the United Nations, and continued with several more attempts to destroy Israel. The reasons – mainly Arab hyper ethnocentrism and Islamic fanaticism.

Jewish presence in the Holy Land predates Arab presence by thousands of years. Jewish presence in Israel's capital of Jerusalem has been almost continuous for thousands of years and for most of that time it was concentrated in east Jerusalem (now claimed by the Palestinian Arabs), where Judaism's holy sites lie. Since the mid-1800's, Jews have constituted the largest single group of residents in the city. According to historical and cultural geographer Professor Yehoshua Ben-Arieh, "In the second half of the nineteenth century and at the end of that century, Jews comprised the majority of the population of the Old City..." Historian Martin Gilbert reports that 6,000 Jews resided in Jerusalem in 1838, compared to 5,000 Muslims and 3,000 Christians. Encyclopedia Britannica of 1853 "assessed the Jewish population of Jerusalem in 1844 at 7,120, making them the biggest single religious group in the city." And others estimated the number of Jewish residents of Jerusalem at the time as even higher.

"Close Jewish settlement" on the land (now consisting of Israel, including all of Jerusalem, and the subsequently named "West Bank") is called for under the basic international law in this case, the League of Nations Palestine Mandate, Article 6, and upheld by the U.N. Charter, Chapter XII, Article 80. These have never been revoked. Post-1967 Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem, where Jews lived before the 1948 Jordanian conquest, and Jewish communities in the West Bank, widely known as Judea and Samaria prior to being renamed by Jordan in the 1950s, comprise less than 7 percent of the West Bank and are largely in addition to Jerusalem's 1967 boundaries, not at the expense of pre-existing Arab areas.

Israel is the obligatory and legal military occupational authority of the West Bank, having taken the territory from Jordanian occupation in self-defense in the 1967 Six-Day War. But the land is not "Palestinian." It is disputed. Hence the need for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations according to U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), and the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian interim agreement.

May 18, 2015 – 7:20 a.m.

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

Topic: Military efforts against ISIS [Islamic State In Syria – a terrorist entity].

Caller: Hussein from Jamaica, New York (click here to view).

Another of the numerous and unchallenged C-SPAN blame-the-Jews callers unimpededly vents an irrational notion. This time, it's one that preposterously blames all Middle East wars "for the last 1000 years" on Israel. Such an absurd lie, while not believable to any sensible, informed person – nevertheless is potentially credible to the numerous uninformed biased individuals (as indicated by the caller documentation provided by CAMERA's C-SPAN Watch feature) among C-SPAN's millions of potential viewers (the network claims an audience of 28 million weekly viewers) to Washington Journal. Therefore, it's incumbent for a Journal host to challenge callers like "Hussein" rather than tacitly accepting their egregious falsehoods. But this journalistic malpractice failure is common at Washington Journal particularly as it pertains to vilification of the Jewish people and Israel.

Caller: "President Truman as a [U.S.] senator said that if the Russians are willing, we should [indiscernible] the Germans. They should kill each other – [indiscernible]. You tell me that all on this Earth [indiscernible] deaths in Syria – where is the leadership? In Iraq, where is American leadership? Your viewers should understand, if the Jewish state was not there, there would have been no war in this part of the world for the last 1000 years."

Host: That was Hussein in Jamaica, New York.

May 18, 2015 – 8:15 a.m.

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

Guest: PAUL SINGER, USA Today newspaper – politics editor.

Topic: Congressional ethics and investigations.

Caller: Tom from Missouri (click here to view).
 
Caller voices outrage about a congressional methodology involving military aid to Israel that he complains about from an ethics viewpoint. That the caller singles out Israel in this case (from the many seemingly similar such cases in Congress) is not surprising given the discussion climate fostered by Washington Journal's chronic journalistic malpractice as it pertains to Jews and Israel.

Caller: "First time I have been able to get through in almost two years. I have a comment about ethics. In 2010 after Republicans went into office, immediately after they got their assignments in Washington and all, a big majority of them hopped on a plane and flew over to Israel on a fact-finding mission. And yet we American taxpayers shelled out millions of dollars every year to Israel. This to me is an ethics violation also. You want to find an example, back about the first of this year, there was this trying to get some funding for all these children coming up from south of the border, to house them and feed them and get them straightened out before they sent them back or whatever they were going to do with them. So, they were trying to get the funding for this. Now, in the Senate – now, this is strictly for here and these children from south of the border. But someone tacked on extra funds – in the middle of the night so to speak – in the Senate and gave $100 million to Israel out of this fund. That is wrong. That is totally wrong."

Guest: "There are two different sides of this question. Given the fact that we give billions of dollars in aid to Israel, does it make sense for members of congress to go to Israel and look around to see what we are paying for? That gets back to a previous question about, why should they go to Azerbaijan. You could make the argument that going to Israel, given the military tension in that region and how much we rely on Israel as a bulwark of defense – you could argue it makes more sense to go to Israel than it does to go to Azerbaijan. However, they were using a loophole, funding a nonprofit to travel overseas, that was pioneered by the Israelis. There's an organization called AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an Israeli lobby here in Washington. They created a nonprofit to pay for travel for members of Congress to go to Israel on so called ‘fact-finding trips.' There have been advocates who have argued that this is a working way around the rules, Israel paying for the travel through a non-profit organization. So, to some degree – and there were hearings in this case of oil companies – they were using a loophole that Israel and the Israeli lobby had sort of pioneered."
 
Guest had previously discussed an ethics probe of ten congressmen accused of accepting improper travel from a state oil company – and here he manages to assign blame in the matter to Israel, a favorite scapegoat at Washington Journal.

NOTE: Typically, Washington Journal avoids informing viewers about the advantages of the aid to Israel. There are at least four relevant points about the mutually beneficial relationship between America and Israel. First, financial (military only) aid to Israel constitutes only a tiny portion of the federal budget (less than 0.1 percent). Second, Israel is required by U.S. law to spend most (74 percent) of the U.S. aid ($3 billion per year) in the United States for the purchase of military materials which helps create or sustain thousands of American jobs. Third, cooperative arrangements with Israel provide technology benefits to America related to unmanned aircraft, anti-missile defenses, battlefield medical techniques – and intelligence on anti-U.S. as well as anti-Israeli Arab and Islamic radicals. So Israel indirectly helps strengthen the United States' ability to fight and defeat Islamic extremists including ISIS, which benefits Arab states like Saudi Arabia.

Fourth and perhaps most important in the long run, Israel, the only Western-style democracy in the Middle East, is a technologically advanced open society with equal rights for Christians and Muslims as well as Jews. Israel has women's equality, an independent judiciary, free press and is the only country in the region where Americans could live as freely as they do at home and one that, absent religious and ethnic prejudice, ought to be an example for the Middle East's many countries now in intra-communal upheaval

May 2, 2015 – 8:29 a.m.

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

Guest: PENIEL E. JOSEPH, Founding Director of Tufts University Center for the Study of Race and Democracy.

Guest: CRYSTAL WRIGHT, Editor and Publisher of conservativeblackchick.com.

Topic: Six police officers indicted in Baltimore.

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

After fecklessly indulging this conspiracy mongering caller whose false history would deny to the Jewish people (the real ones) their Israel heritage – host immediately moves on to next caller thus preempting any possible refutation from guests that would inform viewers. This same caller previously conveyed the same C-SPAN-indulged, racist message (see NOTE below). C-SPAN's chronic credence-lending silence to bogus antisemitic, anti-Israel claims mocks its claim of performing a public service in providing a public discourse for its millions of potential viewers.

Caller: “It is me, Don, again. I'd like to say that the young lady there [guest], she is going to get her Ann Coulter [conservative commentator] badge pretty soon because she is as bad as all of the white folks who call in here and discuss this stuff. It is just what they want to hear. But my point is that all of the education that you two people [African-American guests] have, it seems to me that you should know that your nationality is a Jew, and you have been Jews ever since they kicked us out of Israel in 70 A.D. The Romans took over and they kicked us out and took our identity. And after that happened, then they took us here, brought us here to America on the slave ships and gave us a false god and told us that Jesus Christ was a white man.”

Host: “So, Don, to the events in Baltimore this week, do you have anything to add on that?”

Caller: “Yeah, that we were sold to our enemies.”

Host: “Connie is up next, from New Jersey …”

NOTE: Washington Journal allowed this call in violation of C-SPAN's ostensible one-call-per-30-days rule since California Don's previous call was April 11, 2015 (click here to view) in which he conveyed the same racist message. The caller's message echoes the racist myth propagated by Rev. Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam. The myth is easily refuted by the facts. There is a continuous Jewish diaspora history, from the Roman expulsions to the rebirth of Israel as a Jewish state, and modern DNA testing that strongly indicates both Jewish genealogical continuity and Middle Eastern origins. Washington Journal's chronic failure to refute such racist myths allows antisemitic fallacies to be repeatedly disseminated to millions of potential viewers (C-SPAN claims 28 million weekly viewers).

April 29, 2015 – 8:48 a.m.

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

Guest: Congressman STEVE DELANEY (Democrat – Maryland).

Topic: American hostages and terrorism.

Caller: Steve from Allen, Texas (click here to view).

Texas' "Steve" is another member of the sizable cadre of Washington Journal antisemitic callers pleased to use any topic to cast aspersions on Jews or Israel. To noxiously compare the 20th century origins of the restored Jewish state to that of a terrorist entity of today is to be completely out of touch with reality.

Caller: "Yes, I was wondering. What's the difference between the Jewish state being established for Israel – they were terrorists at the time; actually the commies were terrorists at the time. And what are your thoughts on those policies being implemented in this context of this world order right now?"

Guest: "I do not agree with the fundamental premise that the Jewish state was terrorist or the United States was terrorist. So, I think we disagree right out of the block. So, it is hard for me to make any comment."

Host: "We will move on."

April 27, 2015 – 7:21 a.m.

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

Topic: Do you support or oppose the U.S. drone policy to combat terrorism?

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

A C-SPAN host typically indulges a racist, detached-from-reality caller who believes that America and Israel are the "terrorists of the world."

Caller: "I would like to say I regret I voted for Obama. I regret that I voted for Obama in 2008. I did not vote for him in 2012 because I found him to be a warmonger. I'm against the drone strikes because you are killing a lot of innocent people, women and children. When you kill these folks over there, they don't go to a psychologist to help them out with their problems. The U.S. and Israel are the terrorists of the world. You're killing Muslims by the hundreds of thousands every year. I regret that I voted for Obama."

Host: "What is the better option here? I was reading from USA Today earlier that went through that conventional aircraft could cause more destruction and putting U.S. service members on the line might cause more U.S. deaths. What is the better option, Ron?"

Caller: "The best option in the world is for the U.S. to get out of the Middle East and for Israel to stop killing the Palestinians. As long as Israel is killing Palestinians, people will be upset. People are killing – white people are killing so many brown and black people in the world, it is a shame. When you find out, when people call in this morning it will be all white folks calling in for the killing of other people because white folks like to kill people. It is in their blood to kill and murder innocent people."

Host: "Alright, we'll go to ..."

April 22, 2015 – 8:10 a.m.

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

Guest: Rep. REID RIBBLE (R-Wisconsin).

Topic: U.S. foreign policy challenges.

Caller: Pete from Windsor, Connecticut (click here to view).

On the positive side for C-SPAN, in an exception to the norm, this anti-Israel caller's false charges are challenged. However, what is the source of caller's negative information about AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee)? The question is not asked. Agitated caller charges that only anti-Israel callers are interrupted or cutoff on the program. But, on the contrary, as documented for years by CAMERA's online feature, C-SPAN Watch – anti-Israel, antisemitic callers are inordinately indulged. On the program, complaints about lobbying groups operating in Washington D.C. are nearly all aimed at AIPAC or "Jewish lobbying groups." This imbalance reflects the program's inordinate indulgence of such callers.

Caller: "Yeah, I just have a comment that I don't see America wanting anything in the Middle East as long as AIPAC and Israel runs our foreign affairs. Okay? Our congressmen are pretty much owned by AIPAC ..."

Host (interrupting): "Okay Pete, Pete, Pete, you are making some accusations ..."

Caller (interrupting): "It's not accusations. Do a little research. You'll find it's true. You always interrupt when somebody says something like that ..."

Host (interrupting): "Because that is a general statement ..."

Caller (interrupting): "You let other people keep going but because of Israel, whatever ..."

Host (interrupting): "Pete, let me jump in. If someone calls in and says that a Muslim lobbyist group runs our government, whoever is sitting in this chair would jump in and say, what evidence do you have of that? Congressman, you have probably heard this accusation before."

Guest: "Yes, you hear this exact accusation in a number of cases. It is not just AIPAC or the Israelis having an influence or a lobbyist group operating in Washington, D.C. – it is every major corporation in the country that has a lot of lobbying activity here in Washington, D.C.. We have often heard about the amount of money that is in this town, trying to drive the agenda. And I think it would be disingenuous to say that – that money doesn't have some type of an effect, or that the people who are spending it wouldn't spend it. But to say that it is such a large effect that it is actually manipulating what is going on in the Middle East – I don't see the evidence of it. It is not like AIPAC has given me a call every day saying do this, do that. I hardly ever hear from them. I realize that there is this impression out there that this is going on, but I can tell you that it is not going on in the halls of Congress. I'm not seeing it."

NOTE: Guest appropriately refutes biased caller. In a version of the infamous anti-Jewish canard, "the Jews control everything" (echoing Europe during and before the Holocaust – and the lead-up to genocidal Nazi Germany), the caller alleges that "AIPAC and Israel runs our foreign affairs."

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

April 22, 2015 – 8:24 a.m.

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

Guest: Rep. REID RIBBLE (R-Wisconsin).

Topic: U.S. foreign policy challenges.

Host: Joseph from Cranston, Rhode Island (click here to view).

Chalk up another failure for C-PAN's ostensible caller-screening process. Mal-informed, antisemitic caller misstates meaning of Bible scripture, alleging that according to the Bible, America will be "blown up" as punishment for putting "them Jews over there in Israel." However, the Bible nowhere says – or implies – that the United States will be punished for supporting the restoration of the Jewish nation – in fact just the opposite. See Bible scripture, especially Genesis 12:3. Further it's arguable that world history shows that severe punishment has befallen previously great empires for thousands of years that opposed and mistreated the Jewish nation.

Caller: "Hey Congressman, You was talking about – this goes back to 1948 when we put them Jews over there in Israel. The Bible tell you – this is going to happen. It's going to happen. The United States is going to get blown up. You guys ..."

Host (interrupting): "Alright, it's time to move on."

April 22, 2015 – 8:27 a.m.

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

Guest: U.S. Rep. REID RIBBLE (R-Wisconsin).

Topic: U.S. foreign policy challenges.

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

Typical C-SPAN anti-Israel caller fails to understand "why other countries [read Iran] can't have nuclear weapons" and grossly exaggerates the amount of U.S. aid (all of it military) to Israel and demands that it be discontinued and - as well, that there should be a stoppage of paying for "their [Israeli] health benefits" (untrue) , charging that it's too costly for U.S. taxpayers (the amount of military aid to Israel is less than 0.1 percent of the U.S. federal budget).

Caller: "Why should we taxpayers give Israel every year $8 billion a year for their military and pay for their health benefits? They have about seven nuclear weapons themselves. Why can't other countries have nuclear weapons?"

Host: "I think she said $8 billion, I think it is close to the $3 billion."

Guest: "Yes, the number is $3 billion and it has been that way for the last several Congresses. The idea that we are not going to provide some type of aid in the region to those partners of ours that have been friendly and supportive of U.S. policy, and in general the United States. I think it would be wrongheaded for us not be engaged in the region at some level. We provide aid to the Jordanians, we provide aid to the Egyptians. Where you are involved in foreign policy and you have an economic impact, I believe it is a better strategy to eliminate or resist war then in fact the counter argument that says that it [the aid] creates it."

Host: "And is the foreign aid to Egypt and Jordan on par with what we give to Israel?"

Guest: "I wouldn't necessarily say it is on par. Those issues of foreign aid are closely watched and monitored by the U.S. State department to provide a response to the requests that come from various world leaders. And you can say that foreign aid is out of balance at any given place, depending on your personal ideas or your relationships with citizens in those countries. However, at some point you must make a determination – and foreign aid for the U.S. is only about one percent of all federal spending. That tiny amount of money gets a quite decent return for that investment."

NOTE: Aggrieved caller apparently is misinformed about the potential danger posed by Iran possessing nuclear weaponry. This would constitute a mortal danger to both Israel and America (among others) given repeated declarations by Iranian leaders to the effect that Israel is a "cancer" that must and will be eliminated. Note that Israel as "the little Satan" and America as "the Great Satan" remains an ideological pillar for the Iranian regime.

April 21, 2015 – 7:34 a.m.

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

Topic: What is the effectiveness of the 114th Congress after its first 100 days?

Caller: Rick from Louisville, Ohio (click here to view).

"Rick" is a Washington Journal conspiracy theorist, serial caller who spews political and economy-related gobbledygook in lengthy tolerated rants which invariably involve heaping blame upon Jewish people. Today, typically, a C-SPAN host indulges the ranter instead of properly terminating the call when, halfway through his two-minute air-time, he malevolently lies, "the Jews took go over our Federal Reserve system." Unsurprisingly, this caller, whose talking points change very little from call to call, is again allowed to violate C-SPAN's ostensible one-call-per-30-days rule as his prior call was on April 3, 2015 which in turn also violated the rule since a previous call was on March 19, 2015 (see NOTE below). On Washington Journal, no other ethnic or religious group has been subjected to such continuous and virulent defamation by mendacious hate mongers like this caller.

Caller: "Over about five or six years, C-SPAN had a guy on, and I think he was in front of Congress. Oil was $140 per barrel and the congressman said, ‘Well, how much should it be?' And he [the guy]said it should be about $30 per barrel. He said it was all fraud based all on derivatives. And please don't hang up on me. The guy says, Congressman, you have a problem. We took all of your pension money based on the deregulation of derivatives and used it to manipulate the price of oil. So if oil goes down, your pension funds will collapse. Now, since Bush and Cheney were elected, the Jews took over our Federal Reserve system and they created these currencies wars around the world trying to use the Euro and the American dollar to control the entire world through the manipulation of oil based on the Fed printing money. Now, the Fed actually lowered interest rates 11 times in one year during the Bush administration. And if you want to see what the Jews are all about, pull up a [indistinct] chart of Citigroup [An American multinational banking and financial services corporation headquartered in New York City]. It went to $650 a share during the Bush administration when oil was up $150 per barrel. When oil crashed, it went to $.50 a share."

Host: "So, Rick, you put out a lot there. But Congress, first 100 days, what is your opinion of it?"

Caller: "Well, it's the same old thing because oil has doubled in the last week. The stock market is at 18,000. It's the same old thing."

[Host has no closing comment.]

NOTE: Rick's blame-the-Jews rants on Washington Journal include: April 3, 2015 – 7:08 a.m. (click here to view), March 19, 2015 – 7:17 a.m. (click here to view), Dec. 31, 2014 – 7:12 a.m.(click here to view), Feb. 10, 2014 – 8:06 AM (click here to view), Jan. 22, 2014 – 8:20 AM (click here to view), and Dec. 19, 2013.

April 20, 2015 – 7:07 a.m.

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

Topic: Open phones – topics in the news.

Caller: Sydney from Louisiana (click here to view).

Caller, criticizing the previous day's knowledgeable guest (Max Boot), brings up a staple of the conspiracy-mongering, anti-Israel crowd – the U.S.S. Liberty incident (see below). Typically, host, either incapable of or unwilling to respond to the call, says only, “Okay.” When the incident is brought up by C-SPAN's antisemitic, anti-Israel callers, as it often is, it would be a red flag to a competent moderator.

Caller: “Yesterday, you had a man from the CFR [Council on Foreign Relations]. He was – Ma'am?

Host: “Yes, we are listening; from the CFR.”

Caller: “I forgot what his name was.”

Host: “Max Boot.”

Caller: “He was asked a question yesterday about the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, the killing of our sailors and wounding of our sailors and the threat of court martial if they talked about Israel bombing the ship. Now, he would not answer the question. But he turned and started calling the man antisemitic for asking a legitimate question and he was berating him and talking like he was out of his mind bringing the subject up. I am getting tired of hearing these people use the antisemitic religions so they don't have to answer the questions.”

Host: “Okay.”

NOTE: The criticism of the previous day's guest, Max Boot, is misplaced. Boot properly recognized the caller's anti-Israel, antisemitic inspiration because the accusation regarding the U.S.S. Liberty is a favorite canard of anti-Israel, antisemitic polemicists. It refers to the myth of a far-reaching conspiracy regarding what repeated investigations have determined was a tragic accident, Israel's attack on the Navy's U.S.S. Liberty during the 1967 Six-Day War. Six separate inquiries determined the attack to have been a "fog of war" mistake:

• C.I.A. report – June 13, 1967 – No malice; attack a mistake.

• U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry – June 18, 1967 – Mistaken identity.

• Report by presidential advisor Clark Clifford – July 18, 1967 – No evidence ship was known to be American.

• Senate Select Committee on Intelligence – 1979/1981 – No merit to claims attack was intentional.

• National Security Agency – 1981 – Mistaken identity.

• House Armed Services Committee – 1991/1992 – No support for claims attack was intentional.

April 20, 2015 – 7:25 a.m.

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

Topic: Open phones – topics in the news.

Caller: Artie from New Orleans (click here to view).

Misguided caller cannot distinguish the possible danger as between Israel's possible possession of nuclear weaponry with that of Iran. Typically, a C-SPAN host is either incapable of or unwilling to inform caller and viewers of the facts (see NOTE below).

Caller: “One of the things that C-SPAN can do when these folks are calling in, have a real quick meter on the side that we call a fact check. When these people are telling all these lies on the program, especially some of your guests, you could press the button and get the facts checked. Lies, lies, and then you could get them right out of your face. The second thing -- why can't Iran have a nuclear weapon? What happens if Pakistan gives them one? Do we go and kill Pakistan? How did Israel get a nuclear weapon? Same thing with South Africa – how did they get one. I'm pretty sure the United States had something to do with both. Why did they [United States] give it to them? Because the potential to use them is against people of color all over the world. We cannot survive as a nation with what we are living with. We are going into a Cold War eventually and I hope it does not ever happen, but we will probably end up being a nuclear wasteland. Those folks do not mind dying.”

Host: “Alright Artie. On your first part about fact checking, as many of you know, there is no time delay for this show. It is happening in real time. We want it that way so it has the feel of democracy at work; that there is a town hall format here between us and the callers and the guests and the callers. So, having a fact checker in real-time is not realistic.”

NOTE: A competent host would have answered the caller by informing him (and viewers) that the United States did not “give it [nuclear weaponry] to them” and that Iran's potential possession of nuclear weapons is of great concern not only to Israel and the United States, but also to Iran's Arab neighbors. Although Israel, a modern Western style democracy (unlike Iran) reportedly possesses nuclear weapons, it has not threatened any other country with them. But Iran is a worldwide sponsor of terror which is controlled by a fanatical Shiite Muslim religious dictatorship, members of which reportedly believe in a doomsday scenario requiring them to hasten the destruction of the West and Israel in order to speed the appearance of a messianic "twelfth imam."

April 20, 2015 – 7:27 a.m.

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

Topic: Open phones – topics in the news.

Caller: Jack from Minnesota (click here to view).

Caller: “I have a suggestion, a couple of suggestions for the show. One is for a program that you could run. The program title should be ‘Is criticism of Israel equivalent to anti-semitism?' I'm also calling about Max Boot. He called one of the callers ‘brainwashed.' He called another of the callers, ‘antisemitic.' So, have a program, ‘Is criticism of Israel equivalent to anti-semitism?' Another suggestion I have is, you need to expand your guest list. Now, Max Boot is in a long line, probably 10 or 12 people that are called neocons. And a lot of people would call him arrogant and insolent and warmongers because they got us into this criminal war in Iraq. You need to have some people on the other side of this foreign policy issue of an aggressive United States policy. People like Norm Solomon, Norm Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, Paul Craig Roberts, Steve Cohen. By the way, most of those people are Jewish. I would risk my life jumping into the Mississippi river to save them if they were going down. If Dick Cheney were going down, I would give a thumbs up.”

Host: “All right. We will take the suggestions. By the way, if anybody else wants to send suggestions, you can e-mail us at journal@c-span.org. Or you can send us tweets with the hashtag #wjtopics.”

NOTE: Answering the callers point – no, criticism of Israel is not automatically antisemetic but most of it is. “Neocon” is a disparaging code word for Jewish advisors in the previous Bush administration who are blamed for what is commonly viewed as the unsatisfactory outcome of the Iraq campaign due to high casualties. It is also used as a disparaging code word for American Jews and other supporters of close U.S.-Israel relations. Critics, satisfied with scapegoating mostly Jews (“neocons”) for the perceived failures in Iraq, conveniently fail to note that the U.S. Congress essentially unanimously supported the policies in Iraq as did the U.S. intelligence community (and, as well, other Western intelligence communities) especially in the original assessment of the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

April 19, 2015 – 8:15 a.m.

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

Guest: MAX BOOT, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), senior fellow for national security studies.

Topic: U.S. foreign policy challenges.

Caller: Vernal from South Carolina (click here to view).

Anti-Israel caller's main false claims about Israel and apologia for Iran are refuted by guest. A competent host would have done well to ask the caller who or what has been instrumental in forming her detached-from-reality opinions.

Caller: “I'm calling in reference to the Middle East policy with Israel. I do not think we should start a war on behalf of what Bibi Netanyahu wants us to do with the Iranians. I think we need to stop and take a break and breathe about this. Because those people [Iran] are not starting a war with us. Israel is always fighting the Palestinian people. We don't act like we care what happens to the Palestinian people. Those people live like they are in an apartheid state. They do not have food there and everything that goes in and out of the Palestinians, has to be controlled by Israel. Why are we so silent about that? Why do we allow Israel to dictate the politics that go on in America? I do not understand it. This is crazy to me that we would let another country tell us who to fight and how to treat other people. We should actually be telling Israel how wrong they are for treating the Palestinians so horribly.”

Guest: “I'm sorry to hear the caller has been brainwashed by anti-Israeli propaganda. The plight of the Palestinians is in fact a serious issue and I feel very bad for their current plight. But the caller is far off base to blame Israel for the plight of the Palestinians. Israel has consistently attempted to make peace with the Palestinian leadership. In the Camp David proposal in 2000, Israel offered to give up more than 95 percent of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to Palestinian sovereignty and subsequently raised that to 99 percent – and all the Palestinians had to do was to recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state and to make peace with Israel, something that Yasser Arafat and his successors failed to do.
 
Right now, we have a situation where the Gaza Strip and the Palestinians living there are under the control of Hamas, a radical, extremist jihadist organization, every bit as bad as the Islamic State. They are dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel. So, it is impossible for Israel to make a deal with Hamas and in the Palestinian areas in the West Bank, what you have is a Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas who is an unelected leader afraid to face his own voters and who presides over a corrupt and ineffectual bureaucracy, unable to keep the peace without Israeli help. So, I think Israel has consistently shown that it is willing to do deals to give up land for peace as it did with Egypt, giving up the Sinai in the 1970's. It gave up the control of the entire Gaza Strip unilaterally in 2005. In return for that, Israel has not gotten peace. What its gotten is more terrorist attacks or rocket attacks on its soil, which is why Israel is unable to do a deal with the Palestinians.

Let me clear up a point that the caller also made, a ludicrous notion that somehow the state of Israel is asking the United States to fight a war on its behalf. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, throughout the whole existence of the state of Israel, the United States has not sacrificed a single soldier in the defense of the state of Israel. Whereas, we have sacrificed many, many soldiers in defense of South Korea, South Vietnam, Kuwait, and many other states. Israel is perfectly capable of doing its own fighting. It's capable of doing its own fighting to defend itself and in many ways, to defend American interest in the region as well. The only thing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been saying is not that the United States should fight a war on behalf of Israel, but that the United States should not undertake a very bad deal with Iran that would empower Iran, as a predator throughout the region, and that would allow Iran to keep a nuclear program. Prime Minister Netanyahu is not calling the United States to make a war on Iran. He is calling for the United States to make a better deal with Iran. And I think that would be possible, but unfortunately, it is probably not going to happen under the current administration.”

April 19, 2015 – 8:29 a.m.

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

Guest: MAX BOOT, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), senior fellow for national security studies.

Topic: U.S. foreign policy challenges.

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

Guest appropriately refutes caller's anti-America polemics. See NOTE below for refutation of anti-Israel claim.

Caller: “I would like to tell you how many wars America has been involved in since 1900. Haiti, Dominican Republic, Panama and, Serbia, Kosovo, Sudan, Yemen, World War I, World War II, Vietnam, Iraq one, Iraq two, Afghanistan. Can you tell me how over one million people have been killed in these wars, can you tell me how many wars Iran has started? And I would really like to make a comment, if I could, on one of his previous statements if you will allow me.”

Host: “Go ahead and we will let our guest respond to both.”

Caller: “I believe that the Jewish lobby in America controls America. The perfect reason for that is the crew of the U.S.S Liberty. They will not allow the men of the U.S.S. Liberty to testify. And the men feel that they were murdered. There is no testimony of any man in any investigation that Congress has said they ever made. They say they have made many. Senators, and Congressmen, Democrat and Republican, they will not do anything about it.”

Host: “That is Ted in Florida.”

Host: “We'll let our guest respond.”
 
Guest: “The great thing about C-SPAN is that you do allow all callers to add their voice to it. We get to hear voices not normally part of the mainstream discourse in American politics, such as the caller, who is obviously pro-Iranian, anti-Israeli and antisemitic. His views do not warrant rebuttal. But, let me just comment very briefly on his spin, which is what you hear from some Iranian apologists who take this line about how the United States has been involved in all these wars and [they ask] how many wars has Iran been involved in. While it is true that the United States has been involved a number of wars, but we started very few wars because most of the ones we were involved in have been in response to the aggression and attacks of others, whether the attack of Pearl Harbor in 1941, the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 or whether it was the invasion by Saddam Hussein's Iraq of Kuwait in 1990.
 
We have been responding to various acts of aggression. It is fair to say that American military intervention has been the greatest force for good in the world in the last century because it has been responsible for spreading peace, freedom, and democracy from Europe to east Asia and for keeping the peace. U.S. intervention has been a tremendous force for personal freedom and liberty, whereas Iranian intervention has brought nothing but death, destruction, terrorism, and extremism in its wake. There is no comparison between the democratically elected government of the United States, which promotes freedom, and the government of Iran, which is unelected, unpopular, theocratic, extremist, and promotes terrorism and has been responsible for countless acts of terrorist aggression including against the United States, acts such as the bombing of the Marine barracks and the U.S. embassy in Beirut, 1983, the taking of numerous American hostages by Iranian proxy forces, and most recently, over the last decade, the attacks which have killed hundreds of American troops in Iraq carried out with Iranian munitions. Iran is an extremist, theocratic country that stones gays, that oppresses freedom of speech in its own country and locks up anybody in Iran who dares to criticize this extremist regime. They are responsible now for terrible acts and terrible atrocities being carried out in Syria where the Bashir Assad regime is using Iranian munitions and directed by Iran to drop barrel bombs on civilians, to drop chlorine gas on civilians, killing hundreds of thousands of people. These are acts that are completely beyond the pale of the civilized world. It is something Iran is carrying out on a daily basis. I am sorry that the caller is trying to imply some kind of moral equivalence between United States and Iran, which exists only in his own lurid imagination.”
 
NOTE: The guest's direct, detailed refutation of two anti-Israel, anti-American callers is both noteworthy and rare on C-SPAN's Washington Journal. One could add to the guest's remarks that Iran is also known to be complicit in the 1992 and 1994 bombings in Buenos Aires, Argentina of the Israeli embassy and Jewish community headquarters in which scores were murdered and hundreds wounded. As for the caller's accusation regarding the U.S.S. Liberty, it refers to the myth of a far-reaching conspiracy regarding what repeated American and Israeli investigations have determined that, contrary to anti-Israeli conspiracy mongers, Israel's attack on the Navy's U.S.S. Liberty during the 1967 Six-Day War was indeed a "fog of war" mistake:
 
• C.I.A. report – June 13, 1967 – No malice; attack a mistake.
• U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry – June 18, 1967 – Mistaken identity.
• Report by presidential advisor Clark Clifford – July 18, 1967 – No evidence ship was known to be American.
• Senate Select Committee on Intelligence – 1979/1981 – No merit to claims attack was intentional.
• National Security Agency – 1981 – Mistaken identity.
• House Armed Services Committee – 1991/1992 – No support for claims attack was intentional.

Captain Jay Cristol, USN (Ret.), a decorated Navy aviator and Navy lawyer (member of Judge Advocate General's Corps) in his book The Liberty Incident definitively refutes allegations of an intentional Israeli attack.

The caller exposes himself as an antisemite by his mendacious statement, “the Jewish lobby in America controls America.” The blame-the-Jews syndrome often includes grossly exaggerating the influence of activist, organized supporters of Israel. Ironically, the most potent element of these groups in America is arguably Christian evangelicals defining themselves as Christian Zionists. As should be obvious, America's two large political parties, the Democrats and Republicans, with tens of thousands of activists and millions of supporters, are "controlled" by no one, not even their top elected leaders. Bigger groups with more clout on broader legislation would include, for example, the American Association of  Retired Persons, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Roman Catholic Church in America, labor unions, the dairy lobby and the National Rifle Association. Yet, none of them "controls" the United States.

An example of a lobbying heavy-weight that is rarely if ever brought up in a C-SPAN Washington Journal discussion, by guests, callers or hosts, is the petro-dollar funded pro-Arab lobby. Its influence is felt not only on Capitol Hill, the State Department and Pentagon, through multi-billion dollar weapons purchases and diplomatic initiatives, but also in academia, with large-scale grants to prominent universities, and in society in general through subsidies and material support to mosques, religious schools and advocacy groups.

April 14, 2015 – 8:06 a.m.

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

Guest: SHIRA T. CENTER, Boston Globe newspaper, politics editor.

Guest: CATHERINE LUCEY, Associated Press, government reporter.

Topic: 2016 presidential race – Rubio announces; Clinton heads to Iowa.

Caller: David from Waldorf, Maryland (click here to view).
 
C-SPAN Washington Journal host typically indulges a conspiracy mongering, anti-Israel caller who implies that Israel was responsible for the assassination in 1963 of U.S. President John Kennedy. Typically, neither host nor guests challenge caller.

Caller: "It seems our politics have become some type of perverted theater. Any politician that does not raise millions and millions of dollars cannot run. Any politician that says anything against Israel, even if it is true, cannot run. Hillary is not even talking about it – [presidential candidate] Rand Paul, for instance, who I am not a fan of, but he has said some things that make common sense about how America should free itself from its relationship with Israel. The media does not give him due time like they will Clinton or Rubio or Jeb [Bush]. Someone should talk about that. [President John] Kennedy, when he said that there are forces that want to enslave America, we know three weeks later, he was killed. So, Americans need to stop being transfixed with the theater and get down to the truth."

Host: "Catherine Lucey, the first part of the question has to do with fund raising expectations. What are the expectations on Hillary Clinton after her announcement over the weekend?"

LUCEY: "I know that obviously she is getting right into fund-raising. They are starting right away and they will raise huge amounts of money. The thing though is – the races on both sides – we have seen this in the past few cycles, is that there are so many vehicles for fund-raising and spending as far as both the candidates and outside committees. Huge amounts of money can come and in a lot of different ways. So, she will have ample opportunity to raise and access funds. So, yes it does create a certain kind of race. Absolutely."

Host: "Shira Center, on the caller's second point on maybe foreign policy in general, or Israel policy specifically, as it will factor into the presidential contest and primaries."

CENTER: "Right. I think, especially on the Republican field, you will be hard-pressed to find a candidate that doesn't describe himself or herself as a partner and friend of Israel. I think it will be the same on the Democratic side. Republicans in particular have been emphasizing a relationship with Israel more and more over the last decade or so. I think the current negotiations with Iran will keep the issue in the forefront, at least through the summer, as we find out the details in early August, conveniently right around the time of one of the first debates."

NOTE: Caller, in an unprovable allegation, claims that politicians "cannot run" if they say "anything against Israel." Is it possible that presidential candidates generally support Israel because being informed they understand the realities faced by America's dependable ally (and the benefits to America of the alliance – see below) and are aware, as shown by opinion polls, of overwhelming American public support for the Jewish state? The point is not made. On the other hand, there is ample evidence, as has been documented for several years by CAMERA's C-SPAN Watch online feature, of the inability and/or unwillingness of hosts and guests (generally) to refute or challenge such anti-Israel, often antisemitic callers.
 
Washington Journal never informs viewers that, arguably, the most potent source of support for Israel in America is by Christian evangelicals who define themselves as Christian Zionists. This group, along with Jewish Zionists and agnostic Zionists, believes 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.
 
Caller's demand that America "free itself from its relationship with Israel" could have been countered by information about the benefits of the U.S. alliance with Israel. U.S. cooperative arrangements with Israel provide technology benefits to America related to unmanned aircraft, anti-missile defenses, battlefield medical techniques – and intelligence on anti-U.S. as well as anti-Israeli Arab and Islamic radicals. So Israel indirectly helps strengthen the ability of the United States to fight and defeat Islamic extremists including ISIS, which benefits America's Arab allies such as Saudi Arabia.

But perhaps most important in the long run, Israel, the only Western-style democracy in the Middle East, is a technologically advanced open society with equal rights for Christians and Muslims as well as Jews. Israel has women's equality, an independent judiciary, free press and is the only country in the region where Americans can live as freely as they do at home and one that, absent religious and ethnic prejudice, ought to be an example for the Middle East's many countries now in intra-communal upheaval.

April 11, 2015 – 7:23 a.m.

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

Topic: Do you trust the police in your community [in the wake of the shooting death of Walter Scott]?

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

Caller should have been terminated by host as soon as he said “… blacks, Hispanics, and native Americans are the true Jews of the world” since call is obviously unrelated to the topic and likely to convey a racist message. In fact, the entire call is a version of the racist message of Rev. Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam that falsely claims that modern Jews are not related to the Jews of antiquity. C-SPAN hosts consistently indulge such callers due to either ignorance of or unwillingness to inform viewers that continuous Jewish Diaspora history, from the Roman expulsions to the rebirth of Israel as a Jewish state, and modern scientific DNA testing, both strongly indicate both Jewish genealogical continuity and ancient Middle Eastern origins. This caller conveyed the same false message on Sept. 21, 2014 (click here to listen).

Host: “Let's talk about your local community, let's talk about your local police department. Do you trust it? How is the police department reaching out to build trust? And have your views changed in the wake of the Walter Scott incident? Don is up next from Vallejo, California. Thank you for getting up early.”

Caller: “Good morning. I'm calling back again to let you all know that blacks, Hispanics, and native Americans are the true Jews of America and the world. We are scattered all over this world. People, you know, they have a perpetual hatred for blacks all over this world. Blacks, Hispanics, and native Americans are hated in this world. It has been that way ever since 70 A.D. when [Roman emperor] Titus and his son Vespucius came and ran out all the Jews which are blacks, American Indians, so-called blacks, so-called Mexicans. We are [the tribe of] Judah and so-forth while the other 12 tribes [of Israel] are …”

Host (belatedly terminates call while failing to refute caller's false history): “Alright Don. We will try to bring this back to current time and talk about the police incidents in communities today.”

April 5, 2015 – 8:34 a.m.

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

Guest: ERIC TRAGER, Washington Institute for Near East Policy fellow.

Topic: Arab League joint military force creation amid Yemen crisis.

Caller: Gary from Atlanta, Georgia (click here to view).

Guest Trager appropriately refutes today's first C-SPAN detached-from-reality caller who supports the notion of Iranian hegemony.

Caller: "I just wanted to comment, that I wanted to say what is wrong with Iran being the dominant force over there? I mean, it's like it's two issues mixed up into one. One is nuclear weapons and the other one is the attempt to destabilize Iran."

Guest: "The problem with Iran – first of all, it is an anti-American country that has tried through many different mechanisms to resist American influence in the region. During the Iraq war they supported Shiite militias fighting our troops. They are now supporting the murderous [Shiite related] regime of Bashar Al-Assad. They are now pursuing nuclear weapons. They say they want to destroy Israel, our ally. This is a country with very hostile intent in the region, hostile intent against American allies. When we look at Yemen and the current situation, we have to remember that for 36 years we have aligned ourselves in the region against this particular Iranian regime. We have built bases in the area against this regime, and now when we reach out to that regime, we confuse our allies. They do not just sit still and say ‘Well, I guess America is trying to make a deal with Iran' and they start matters into their own hands. So, we cannot just look at the merits of a nuclear deal with Iran through that narrow lens. We have to consider the way the other regional players will respond. What we are seeing is that they will respond more unilaterally. That will make the region, a region that is the biggest supplier of oil around the world, even less stable."

Host: "We will conclude on that note. Eric Trager is a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East policy. Thank you very much."

April 5, 2015 – 9:25 a.m.

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

Guest: DARYL KIMBALL, Arms Control Association executive director.

Topic: Nuclear weapons – which nations have them?

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

Today's second C-SPAN detached-from-reality caller asserts that Iran has a right to nuclear weapons since Israel reportedly has them.

Caller: "I want to know how can the United States think that Iran can not have nuclear weapons when Israel has them. I don't think we would do the same thing if Mexico had nuclear weapons and we did not have any; I think we would try to get some the same as Iran."

Guest: "Well, It is true that some countries have nuclear weapons and others do not. The United States and Russia have by far the most number of nuclear weapons. The U.S. and Russia possess about 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons. But all states have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] except for Israel, Pakistan and India. Under that treaty, the states with nuclear weapons have committed to pursue the elimination of those weapons, the gradual and verifiable reduction in illumination of those weapons. The other non-nuclear weapon states including Iran have agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons and to allow international inspections by the International Atomic Energy agency to assure their peaceful nuclear activities, if they had them, and are not being used to build nuclear weapons.
 
Israel is an outlier [special case], but Israel's program really is not why Iran has been pursuing nuclear weapon capabilities. Remember, the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's, a very terrible war, affected Iran deeply. The Iranians were even before then, pursuing nuclear energy programs. It appears as though the sensitive nuclear activity that can be used to enrich uranium, produce plutonium, emerged out of that period as a hedge against Saddam Hussein's nuclear program. Saddam was pursuing nuclear capabilities but that was cut short in the 1991 Gulf War. So, it is a complex situation in the Middle East. Israel is obviously concerned about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. It would change the dynamics in the region dramatically, but I think this agreement that has been struck does, as the President and secretary of state said, block Iran's pathways to nuclear weapons for over a decade and puts in place extremely strong verification measures that will allow us and the rest of the international community the time to properly detect and deter and if necessary, disrupt any Iranian effort to produce plutonium or the highly enriched uranium that would be necessary to make nuclear weapons. So, I think this is the best path forward in this very difficult situation."

NOTE: Caller falsely places Iran in same category as Israel regarding nuclear weaponry. Viewers should have been reminded, if not by the guest then certainly the host, that Israel, as a presumed nuclear power, has not threatened other countries with destruction and is perceived as highly unlikely to share any nuclear weaponry knowledge with any other state. This is not the case with Iran, which not only continuously threatens other nations (especially Israel) – it is considered likely to proliferate its nuclear weaponry knowledge to terrorist entities. Furthermore, Israel's presumed nuclear capability is a factor only in terms of deterrence against concerted attacks by Iran and/or various Arab nations, not as a lever to achieve regional dominance, as Iran is attempting to do even without a nuclear umbrella in Lebanon, against Israel, in Syria, Iraq and Yemen through surrogates and/or allies including Hezbollah, Hamas, the Assad regime, Houthi rebels, other Shiite militia and its own Islamic Revolutionary Guards. Viewers also should have been reminded of repeated Iranian obstruction of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors.

Moreover, Iran is ruled by an extremist Shiite Muslim regime (members of which reportedly believe in a doomsday scenario requiring them to hasten the destruction of the West and Israel in order to speed the appearance of a messianic "twelfth imam"). Regime leaders and their supporters still shout "Death to Israel, Death to America," terming the latter the "Great Satan" and the former the "Little Satan."

April 5, 2015 – 9:40 a.m.

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

Guest: DARYL KIMBALL, Arms Control Association executive director.

Topic: Nuclear weapons – which nations have them?

Caller: Ron from Bayside, New York (click here to view).  

This is a rare C-SPAN connected-to-reality call regarding the Middle East.

Caller: "This [the nuclear deal] is to me so outrageous to be sitting down with a regime that blew up our troops in Lebanon – 241; that killed 30 percent of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; that continues to go against us and every day against us in every part of the world that they could. These people are a very evil regime. They are sitting on a sea of oil. The country is 600,000 square miles. You could hide a lot of things in the country that is bigger than Alaska. It is incredibly naive. They are very evil and they want the bomb to intimidate their neighbors and to expand the Middle East and to eventually use it on Israel."

Guest: "Well, I think it is clear that Iran is not a country that we have a good relationship with. Iran has foreign policies that are contrary to our interest and allies in the region. They are not our friends. But that is not what diplomacy is about. Diplomacy and solving these issues is about dealing with countries we are not friends with. Ronald Reagan set out with the Soviet Union, ‘the evil empire.' So, I think what we need to look at is – is Iran in a better position with a nuclear weapons capability and with nuclear weapons given all the things the caller is concerned about – and I would agree with many of them – or are we in a better position, we and our allies, if Iran is contained, if the nuclear program is rolled back, if we have sanctions in place to verify whether they're complying with the agreement in the future? That is the real choice before us and we cannot always deal with countries that we are friends with. We have to deal with countries that we oppose, countries that one might say are ‘evil.' This agreement is historic in the sense that it can change the situation in this region for the better for many years to come."

April 5, 2015 – 9:51 a.m.

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

Guest: DARYL KIMBALL, Arms Control Association executive director.

Topic: Nuclear weapons – which nations have them?

Caller: Herb from Milton, Massachusetts (click here to view).

Today's third C-SPAN detached-from-reality caller asserts that Israel and Saudi Arabia are paranoid concerning the belief that Iran's potential nuclear weapon capability will pose an existential threat to at least Israel and at least a great danger to other nations.

Caller: "At what point does Israel's paranoia join up with the Saudi paranoia? Because they are all surrounded by enemies. So, will they all join and allow Israel to use the airfields to attack Iran."

Guest: "Israel and Saudi Arabia are concerned about the possibility of this agreement for different reasons. The Saudis are concerned about a rapprochement between the United States and Iranians. This is a nuclear deal and we will not become overnight friends with Iranians on all the different complex issues in the Middle East. In fact, we will continue to have severe differences over human rights, the war in Yemen, the war in Syria, etcetera. Israel, I think, will continue to express frustration about this. [Israel's] Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu is going to call for the negotiation of a better deal. I don't think the better deal can be negotiated on the horizon. I think there will continue to be the possibility that Israel could reserve the right, will reserve the right, to militarily strike Iran if Iran gets to the point that it is actually pursuing nuclear weapons. I think, in the long run, the Israeli security establishment will recognize that this agreement is in Israel's interest because it holds back Iran's nuclear capabilities. Without this agreement, Iran would not be two months to three months from a so-called breakout point, but it would be weeks away. If the prime minister of Israel doesn't succeed in trying to scuttle this agreement, that is the situation that Israel would be in. That is one reason why I am confused about the direction Prime Minister Netanyahu is taking us in."
 
NOTE: Washington Journal's host appropriately lets the guest answer first. But rather than remind the audience of the obvious point omitted by the guest – that neither Israel nor Saudi Arabia are paranoid when it comes to Iran's attempted violent encirclement of them – he sits mute.

April 3, 2015 – 7:08 a.m.

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

Topic: Nuclear framework reached with Iran.

Caller: Rick from Louisville, Ohio (click here to view).

"Rick" is a Washington Journal conspiracy theorist, serial caller who spews political and economy-related gobbledygook in indulged rants which invariably involve blaming the Jewish people for numerous problems. Today, typically, host merely mildly questions rather than forthrightly challenging bizarre caller's attack upon Jews. On C-SPAN, no other ethnic or religious group has been subjected to such continuous and virulent defamation by mendacious hate mongers like "Rick." Unsurprisingly, this caller is allowed to violate C-SPAN's ostensible one-call-per-30-days rule as his prior call was on March 19, 2015 (see NOTE below).

Caller: “Since Obama got in office, he has not really done anything to stop what Bush and Cheney created. When Bush and Cheney got elected, you had the state of Israel and the state of Texas team up to go to war to manipulate oil and the amazing thing about this relationship is that the fracking industry and oil – to get oil to $100 a barrel, you have to have the Fed [Federal Reserve Bank]. Now you start bringing in the Fed and you go to the central banks around the world and what was happening is that the state of Israel took over our banking system, took over our Fed. This goes back to …”

Host: “Can you just give us an idea of the source you got for connecting all these dots?”

Caller: “Well, I have an accounting degree. I write books about this. I'm 100 percent correct. In fact, what happened back in October is that they stopped quantitative easing and this was put in place through the Jews that have been running the Fed. And when they quit quantitative easing oil went from $120 a barrel …”

Host: “We're talking about the nuclear framework agreement reached with Iran and several other larger powers on the world. Numbers are up on the screen if you would like to comment on what was announced yesterday.”

NOTE: Rick's blame-the-Jews rants on Washington Journal include: March 19, 2015 – 7:17 a.m. (click here to view), Dec. 31, 2014 – 7:12 a.m.(click here to view), Feb. 10, 2014 – 8:06 AM (click here to view), Jan. 22, 2014 – 8:20 AM (click here to view), and Dec. 19, 2013.

April 3, 2015 – 7:14 a.m.

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

Topic: Nuclear framework reached with Iran.

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

Iranian-American's rambling call expresses unchallenged unreasoning animosity for Israel while defending the Iranian position.

Caller: “Thank you for taking my call. I was born in Iran and I have been living here for some time. As much as I dislike bureaucracy and Ayatollahs in Iran, I have the same dislike for the regime in Israel. The question that has been missed is not the question of nuclear. Israel doesn't care if Iran has a nuclear or not because Israel knows that big daddy America is behind them and they can, you know, just, you know, wipe Iran off the map if Iran tries to do something. But the question that all the press misses is why Israel is doing this. Israel is doing this because (indiscernible).”

Host: “I'm sorry, Israel is doing what?”

Caller: “Israel is trying to find out how much power they can have in this country and how much they can push government. You can see Netanyahu coming here and going against Obama and America.”

Host: “Prime Minister Netanyahu has already expressed great disagreement with this deal.”

Caller: “No, no, no. Netanyahu is going against Obama. Netanyahu wants control over everything.”

Host: “All right.”

NOTE: Washington Journal typically fails to repudiate bizarre anti-Israel caller and fails to inform viewers. Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons, but experts say that its enrichment capacities and stockpiles of enriched uranium far exceed the amounts it needs at present for energy and medical purposes.

April 3, 2015 – 7:35 a.m.

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

Topic: Nuclear framework reached with Iran.

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

Caller expresses unrealistic attitude toward Iran's dictatorship and disparages mildly, but unfairly, Israel's position on nuclear weaponry .

Caller: “I'm a 35-year watcher of C-SPAN. Always appreciated the show. I'm the alter ego of my good friend [indistinct] in Georgia you hear from sometimes. It's good to talk to you... Let me send a very strong American thank you to C-SPAN for all the coverage you bring to the American people. I also wanted to say to you just quickly that I just appreciate that call from Texas that is very [indistinct]. But I think that disagreement is good for the country. I also think that the President and [Secretary of State] John Kerry and all those people on both sides of the aisle deserve a hand in trying to support this deal that has come up. It's very interesting again, with all due respect to the people of Israel, that they have not signed the nonproliferation nuclear agreement that most of these other countries have signed. They do have nuclear weapons. All the other countries, Pakistan, India, they have nuclear weapons. I actually see this as Iran trying to have some assurances for themselves that they will be protected from all the hostility in the Middle East. So I never really understood that if someone had a weapon and said that they didn't like us, but wanted to have their weapon, why such persons can't defend themselves. This is very elementary. To deny them this is wrong. Thank you so much. That's my opinion. Thank you.”

NOTE: Washington Journal fails to inform viewers that potential Iranian nuclear weaponry poses a worldwide threat recognized as such by Israel, and as well, Arab countries including America's ally Saudi Arabia. Caller casts aspersions on Israel regarding the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). In fact, Israel, like some other Middle Eastern countries but unlike Iran, is a non-signatory to the NPT the purpose of which is to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weaponry capability. Therefore Israel, cannot avail itself of certain nuclear assistance from other NPT countries but at the same time it is not legally required to submit to NPT requirements such as inspection of presumed nuclear facilities.

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

Furthermore, caller seems to misunderstand today's Iran and typically, C-SPAN fails to inform viewers. Iran, a worldwide sponsor of terror which is controlled by a fanatical Shiite Muslim religious dictatorship, members of which reportedly believe in a doomsday scenario requiring them to hasten the destruction of the West and Israel in order to speed the appearance of the "Twelfth Imam" perfect-man messiah, “Imam Al-Mahdi.” Iran is a major human rights violator having executed hundreds without due process sometimes for nothing more than religious or ethnic affiliation. Iranians who publicly speak or write negatively about Iran are frequently jailed. Homosexuals are often executed for being homosexual and women are subject to much more control than men under the dictatorship's restrictive religious law.

April 3, 2015 – 7:48 a.m.

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

Topic: Nuclear framework reached with Iran.

Caller: Joseph from Sewell, New Jersey (click here to view).

Caller's position is generally consistent with what is expressed in polling of Americans and thus inconsistent with most Washington Journal callers.

Caller: “I think Iran is trying to show its dominance in the Middle East right now. If they are allowed to pursue nuclear power, you're going to have Saudi Arabia and the other Arab countries also wanting nuclear weapons and this is going to cause more chaos and Israel is not going to stand back and just allow this to happen. So the Iranians as past history has proven, they cannot be trusted and so a deal that allows time to go by and allows them to build up centrifuges and other things that can lead to nuclear weapons in a country that produces so much oil for them to use the excuse that they need nuclear power to power their country is very poor excuse and the Ayatollah has already come out very, very strong to say that they want to destroy Israel and, therefore, any type of nuclear power that is given to them will only cause the region to be more in upheaval. And I don't think that ten years from now we're going to be living in the same world. And this is going to lead to total chaos …”

Host: “All right. Joseph from Sewell, New Jersey. We're going to leave it there.”


Bookmark and Share