Thursday, March 22, 2018
RSS Feed
Media Analyses
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
Contact CAMERA
Contact The Media
Privacy Policy
Media Analyses

C-SPAN April – June 2016

Send your comments about C-SPAN's platform for the defamation of Israel and Jews to CAMERA:

June 18, 2016 – 9:57 a.m.

Host: YLAN MUI, Washington Post financial reporter [,, @ylanmui ].

Guest: SEAMUS HUGHES, George Washington University's Center for Cyber and Homeland Security deputy director.

Topic: Homegrown terrorism.

Caller: John from Carmel, Washington (click here to view).

Note: Caller vilifies Israel with a big lie and characterizes Iran, a leading state sponsor of international terrorism, according to the U.S. government, as “… more of an ally.” Guest's reply is feckless; host remains silent. C-SPAN's chronic Washington Journal journalistic malpractice is on display. When it comes to Israel and Jews, such is often the state of affairs at the self-described public service network.

Caller: “We need to redefine terrorism. You've got countries we support. [Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu kills 500 children and we [U.S. Congress] give him a standing ovation. You have governors which won't okay Medicaid expansion which causes needless deaths. They need to be arrested and sent to Gitmo [military prison at Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base] as far as I'm concerned. And it is against the law for us to support a country that violates all the human rights of the Palestinians, yet we send them $8.6 million every day. We have Saudi Arabia which is bombing and killing innocent civilians. We have Turkey, we support them, who bombed the Kurds, who are our allies. Iran is more of an ally to us than any of those countries.”

[The “500 children” killed charge reflects the propagandist's big lie technique (see NOTE below). What are caller's sources for his erroneous assertions and political notions? Typically for C-SPAN's Washington Journal hosts, the question is not asked.]

Host: “Alright. That's John from Washington. Seamus Hughes, what's your take?”

Guest: “I think I would disagree with some of the assessments on that but I would say that you are going to have to make a number of deals with individuals whom you may not agree with 100 percent, and that is the nature of diplomacy. If you agree with them 100 percent, they would probably not be useful for you in this context.”

Host: “The final caller comes from California …”

NOTE: Standard operating procedure for C-SPAN's Washington Journal: A caller defames U.S. ally Israel, the only Western style democracy in the Middle Test, and neither host nor guest challenge. Caller's falsification apparently refers to Israel's 2014 self-defense war against Hamas, terrorist rulers of Gaza Strip: “Netanyahu kills 500 children.” This allegation appears often on antisemitic, anti-Israel Web sites. A knowledgeable C-SPAN host or guest could have reminded viewers that Gen. Martin Dempsey, then chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress that Israel had gone out of its way to avoid civilian casualties. "No army in the world acts with as much discretion and great care as the IDF in order to minimize damage. The U.S. and the U.K. are careful, but not as much as Israel." Colonel Richard Kemp, a former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, testified on Sept. 4, 2014 about Operation  Protective Edge, and basically reiterated his testimony about a previous similar operation before the U.N. Human Rights Council in October 2009: "During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of war." 

As for Palestinian deaths in Gaza in 2014, Israeli analyses of figures from Palestinian sources, tracking each casualty by name, age, sex, place of death, affiliation when applicable with terrorist organizations showed approximately half either were affiliated with terrorist organizations or males of prime combat age. In fact, the number of children and adult women among the fatalities was disproportionately low compared to their presence in the general population, which Gaza's Hamas rulers often used as coerced "human shields."
C-SPAN's Washington Journal virtually never informs viewers of the facts of the mutually beneficial America-Israel relationship when the subject comes up as here. Several points are relevant. First, financial (it is 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, which amounts to $2.2 billion) of the American aid 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-Israel Arab and Islamic radicals.
It's not surprising that former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen called the relationship with Israel “absolutely critical” to U.S. national security. Additionally, Israel, with less than nine million people, is America's 20th largest customer (larger than Russia or Spain). Consider votes in the United Nations over the last several years that coincided with U.S. votes – Israel sided with the United States 90 percent of the time, all other recipients of U.S. support stood at less than 20 percent – Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Philippines and others. Unjournalistically, such basics rarely if ever turn up when the Jewish state and its supporters are slandered on C-SPAN. Instead, C-SPAN's Washington Journal is biased by commission, tolerating if not encouraging many antisemitic, anti-Zionist callers, not supplying essential context and granting bigotry a platform.
June 15, 2016 – 7:04 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER [,,, Twitter: @gretabrawner ( ].

Topic: President Obama says the phrase "radical Islam" is a talking point rather than a strategy. Do you agree?

Caller: Jane from Webster, New York (click here to view).

Note: Caller's questionable assertions are unquestioned by host (the norm for Washington Journal).

Caller: "Yes I do. The whole Republican strategy is out of the Nazi play book except they're using the word "Muslim" instead of "Jews." A lot of the speeches that he's [Donald Trump, presumptive Republican presidential nominee] using are almost word for word, except he plugs in "Hispanic" or "Gypsies" or anyone who is different or doesn't have the right color hair or skin. This is a real alarming turn. The thing that is most alarming is that the Republican Party has sanctioned this. We have Reince Preibus [chairperson of the Republican National Committee] up there with a smirk on his face when the candidate [Trump] is blathering the stuff. Yes, I agree with the President. I wholeheartedly think this is very destructive. It's very destructive to the people who look different because now, he [Trump] is pointing them out to his followers. He [Trump] is sanctioning any kind of mistreatment that they might dish out, like he did with the Israelis."

Host: "Okay, Jane."

NOTE: Whatever the merits of – or objections to – Donald Trump's rhetoric concerning Muslim immigrants, the caller's comparison or equivalence with Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda is totally invalid. Furthermore, it is insulting and even hurtful to Jews especially Holocaust victims. The Washington Journal host's inadequate response ("Okay, Jane") is typical of the unwillingness, inability or disinterest of Journal hosts to discharge their professional responsibilities in such matters. Those who agree with Trump on the matter, consider it prudent to keep out of the United States undocumented Muslim immigrants and Mexican illegal immigrants. When the matter is brought up, sometimes these particular subgroups are disparaged. But this is a far cry from the Nazi propaganda campaign that sought to dehumanize all Jews. Initially this led to efforts to expel Jewish citizens and ultimately to send them to death camps where six million were murdered.

Moreover, the caller seems to imply that the Israeli people (allegedly) perpetrate mistreatment of certain people. If so, what people? The question is not asked. This is another Journal caller's throwaway line defaming Israel unchallenged by the host – the norm for C-SPAN's (supposed) public service daily call-in show.

June 15, 2016 – 7:07 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER [,,, Twitter: @gretabrawner ( ].

Topic: President Obama says the phrase "radical Islam" is a talking point rather than a strategy. Do you agree?

Caller: (The name, as pronounced by host, is indiscernible) from New York (click here to view).

Note: Heavily accented male caller, who asserts that Islam means "peaceful," disagrees with the President and agrees with Mr. Trump that the term that should be used is "radical Islam."

Caller: "Yes, I totally disagree because I know the word 'Islam' means peace by itself. But in that version, that belief, there are Muslims killing each other. So, when we see radical Islam, we should call it by its name. It does not antagonize Islam. I guarantee you that. But to hide, to shy away from it is not right. If you look at talking points – it is a trait, a dangerous version of Islam. There is a name for it – ‘radical Islam.' We have to face it. I know the word ‘Islam' means ‘peaceful'. So, I'm not really worried about calling it by its name. Mr. Obama goes too far. In fact, he was accusing Donald Trump [indiscernible]. Mr. Barack Obama was too much upset and he went too far in blaming Donald Trump for that."

Host: "Okay. Alright."

NOTE: C-SPAN viewers deserve more accurate information about the meaning of "Islam" as brought up by the caller. Unsurprisingly a C-SPAN host is either unable or unwilling to deal with it (or is disinterested). The Oxford Dictionary says "The Arabic word ‘islam' means ‘submission' – and is related to the Arabic word ‘aslama' meaning ‘submit to Allah.'" Otherwise, an Islamic site says this: "Islam is derived from the Arabic root ‘Salema' meaning peace, purity, submission and obedience. In the religious sense, Islam means submission to the will of God [Allah] ..." The Merriam-Webster dictionary site says, "Simple Definition of Islam: the religion which teaches that there is only one God and that Muhammad is God's prophet." The Urban Dictionary site says "Islam is a religion of peace which teaches that it is proper to eliminate people who question its peacefulness."

June 12, 2016 – 8:46 a.m.

Host: STEVE SCULLY is C-SPAN's political editor and senior executive producer [,,, @SteveScully ].

Guest: BARBARA SLAVIN, Atlantic Council of the United States acting director.

Topic: Iran nuclear deal.

Caller: Doug from Brookline, Massachusetts (click here to view).
Note: Repeat caller "Doug" succeeds again (see NOTE below) in planting an anti-Israel seed thanks in no small part to the usual cast of C-SPAN Washington Journal characters. Here it's a host and guest each with records of Israel-related feckless (at best) on-air performances (documented for years by CAMERA's C-SPAN watch online feature).

Caller: "Three quick questions. Why should Israel have a nuclear monopoly in the area? What is the Symington amendment and why does it not apply to Israel? Thanks very much."

Guest: "Thank you. That's a very good question. Israel is known to have 200 nuclear weapons. It does have a nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. People are always talking about other countries and concerned about other countries, but they don't talk about Israel. The reason Israel is not sanctioned for this in any way is because it does not admit it has nuclear weapons. It has a policy of what it calls ‘nuclear opacity' [also known as nuclear ambiguity – which means, among other things, that it doesn't threaten anyone with nuclear attacks]. Everybody knows it, but nobody talks about it. If there is going to be real nonproliferation at some point, one would hope that Israel would also reduce or even get rid of its nuclear weapons. Obviously, that is not going to happen with the current state of chaos in the region."

Note: Israel is reported to possess nuclear weapons. Guest's assertion, "Israel is known to have 200 nuclear weapons," is inaccurate.

Host: "There's the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 by Senator Stuart Symington [D-Missouri]. It says what?"

Note: Host Scully is inaccurate. Sen. Symington in 1976 amended the 1961 act which he did not create.

Guest: "You know, I don't know. You will have to tell me."

Note: It's surprising that guest Slavin, given her professional experience, lacks knowledge about this key 1961 act of Congress.

Host: "It banned U.S. economic assistance and export credits to countries that deliver or receive, acquire or transfer, nuclear enrichment technology when they do not comply with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] regulations and inspections."

Note: The U.S. State Department has said this about the 1961 Act: "Reference is to two amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (as amended), one sponsored by Representatives Silvio O. Conte (R–Massachusetts) and Clarence Long (D–Maryland), the other by Senator Stuart Symington (D–Missouri). The Conte–Long amendment required the President to withhold economic assistance to any "under-developed country" that used military assistance to acquire sophisticated weapons systems. The provision did not apply to Greece, Turkey, Iran, Israel, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Korea, or to any country that the President specifically exempted on the basis of national security. (81 Stat. 937 and 81 Stat. 940). The Symington amendment stipulated that the President terminate development loans and PL–480 assistance to any country that made military expenditures "to a degree which materially interferes with its development." (81 Stat. 459)." The Arms Control Association says about the Symington amendment that it "Prohibits most U.S. assistance to any country found trafficking in nuclear enrichment equipment or technology outside of international safeguards. President Jimmy Carter found Pakistan in violation of the Symington amendment in 1979 because of Islamabad's clandestine construction of a uranium enrichment plant. U.S. aid to Islamabad was possible between 1982 and 1990 only through the use of presidential waivers."

Guest: "Obviously, Israel has nuclear weapons. I don't know how that would fit with that. They developed nuclear weapons after the provision was originally put in. As far as I know, Israel does not proliferate. It does not send the stuff around. That is a good question; that is a very good question. The caller should ask his congressman and senators to explain why it does not apply to Israel."

NOTE: The innuendos casting suspicion on Israel by caller, host and guest warrant additional information. Israel, like some other Middle Eastern countries but unlike Iran, is a non-signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (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 about nuclear weaponry, C-SPAN viewers are rarely if ever reminded that there is little reason to fear Israel's presumed nuclear capability since Israel does not threaten other countries with destruction and is perceived as highly unlikely to share any nuclear weaponry knowledge with any other country as, for example, Iran which has threatened to destroy Israel. Israel's purported nuclear weapons role, for deterrence in the volatile Middle East, is analogous to the role of America's nuclear weapons role in keeping the Cold War with the Soviet Union from turning hot. Israel, a close ally, consults with the United States on defense matters, including concerning threats from Iran, Hezbullah or Hamas. Israel has not participated in the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology to other countries as have Pakistan, China, North Korea and, reportedly, Iran.

Doug's previous call-ins includes at least two hosted by Scully: Jan, 25, 2015 – 9:20 a.m. ("... the power of these [Israeli lobbyists] and their ability to affect United States outcomes.") Click here to view. Typically, Scully remains silent to anti-Israel slur. Scully hosted Doug's anti-Israel tirade on Nov. 8, 2015 ( 8:56 a.m.). Click here to view. Caller Doug's blame Israel messages (routinely unchallenged by C-SPAN) include Aug. 23, 2015 (8:50 a.m.); Oct. 20, 2013 (9:55 a.m.); Sept. 15, 2013 (9:54 a.m.); March 20, 2013 (9:52 AM); Feb. 3, 2013 (8:21 AM); Oct 19, 2012 (8:15 AM); May 4, 2012 (9:14 AM); March 4, 2012 (9:18 AM); Jan. 8, 2012 (9:06 AM), Nov. 25, 2011 (9:06 AM), April 24, 2011 (9:32 AM), Feb. 19, 2011 (8:45 AM), Dec. 27, 2010 (7:50 AM), Nov. 24, 2010 (9:10 AM), April 11, 2010 (8:51 AM), Jan.1, 2010 (9:13 AM), Dec 20, 2009 (9:09 AM).

Previous Slavin Washington Journal guest appearances include: Dec. 4, 2011; Sept. 26, 2009; May 30, 2009 in which Slavin avoided speaking positively about Israel. For example, on Sept. 26, 2009 when the caller, during a discussion about Iran, was provided an anti-Israel propaganda platform unchallenged by either guest Slavin or host – both of whom failed to mention the Iranian leadership's contention that Israel has no right to exist and will soon meet its demise.

May 25, 2016 – 9:40 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER [,,, Twitter: @gretabrawner ( ].

Guest: JAMES BOVARD, author and contributor (writer).

Topic: $4 trillion spent by U.S. on war on [Islamist] terror since it began in 2001.
Note: Bovard's Washington Journal appearance here is prompted by his recent article (in Reason magazine and its Website) “The High Price of Security Theater – The $4 trillion war on terror: Where did the money go?” The article's main points are echoed throughout this Journal segment. While it is certainly appropriate to question expenditures and point out waste therein, Bovard makes unwarranted conclusions in which he completely ignores Islamic fervor as a major factor in the terrorism. In the article he even blames the U.S. government for inculcating jihadi motivation after 9/11, example – Bovard alleges, “… the [U.S.] government's informants introduced and aggressively pushed ideas about violent jihad and, moreover, actually encouraged the defendants to believe it was their duty to take action against the United States.” But Bovard  failed to point out that U.S. governmental negligence is likely to have factored significantly into the tragic success of the 9/11 attacks which led to great loss of life and the resulting incurrence of enormous financial costs. The government should have required that air marshals be placed onboard domestic airliners prior to 9/11 (as is now done) and the then security checks should have prevented passengers boarding with knives (“box cutters”). But it's a nonsensical stretch of the truth to assign blame to the U.S. government for Islamist attacks against America (or elsewhere).

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

Note: Caller resonating with guest James Bovard prompts Bovard's false blame-America, blame-Israel notion to explain Islamist terrorism.

Caller: “I would like James to maybe address the subject of terrorism didn't start in a vacuum. The creation of the hate of our way of life was due to our own actions, and now we are spending $4 trillion already fighting something that is an idea and the reaction to our past policies.”

Host: “James Bovard.”

Guest: “Excellent point. If you look back at 9/11 [Sept. 11, 2001 attacks from the air against America by Islamic terrorists], there are three primary reasons[for the attacks], one of which was the U.S. was stationed in the Muslim holy land in Saudi Arabia. Another one was the embargo on Iraq. Another one was the support of Israel. Now, especially the troops in Saudi Arabia – it makes no sense stirring up all that hatred. There are other policies like this. What we need is a supply side anti-terrorism policy because at this point, the U.S. government has done so many things creating new terrorists. People will hate us in the future – for instance, Obama's drone policies. They are secretive about how many people they have killed. There are a lot of civilians who have died in the [drone] attacks and we do not know how many. The Obama administration has some hope that if it was military age males, between 16 and 50 or 60, then we are going to assume that he was a terrorist. Well, this is absurd, but this is how the government looks at this. We are seeing this forever in the war on terror. We see this secrecy, and the only consistent thing is the government always wins.”

[Host is silent to guest's response to caller.]

NOTE: Typically, here C-SPAN's Washington Journal misleads viewers about Middle East conflicts. Such is C-SPAN's disservice to viewers is that nowhere in this Journal segment that begins at 9:19 a.m. is there any mention of Islamic fervor (or jihadism) as a factor in motivating the terrorism. Bovard states here, “… there are three primary reasons [for the 9/11 attacks], one of which was the U.S. was stationed in the Muslim holy land in Saudi Arabia. Another one was the embargo on Iraq. Another one was the support of Israel.” Bovard and others of the blame-America, blame-Israel persuasion generally overlook or at least minimize what is arguably the basic motivation for the terrorism – the fervor of jihadists to dominate the world as reflected in Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden's stated desire to establish an international Sunni Islamic caliphate. This is consistent with the supercesionist aspect of Islam played upon by Al-Qaeda, ISIS (Islamic State) and the numerous other Islamist terror groups. Furthermore, an indication of the unreliability of Bovard's notions about the Middle East is his mispronunciation of “Iraq” (and it would be likewise for “Iran”). Bovard mispronounces the “I” as “eye.” The correct pronunciation of the “I” is “i” as in “is.” Individuals who have Middle East expertise invariably, or almost invariably, use the correct pronunciation. This failing is also evident in his mispronunciation of “Muslim.”

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

Additionally, the Arab-Israeli conflict certainly appears to have been much less of a motivating factor than U.S. actions apart from support of Israel. As a 2006 CAMERA report shows, according to documents cited by experts on Al Qaeda, such as Rohan Gunaratna, the group attacked the United States on 9/11 (and before) because of its support for Saudi Arabia and other "moderate" Arab countries. As Gunaratna explains in his book "Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror," after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia, bin Laden was horrified that the Saudis were considering a U.S. offer to send troops to protect the Kingdom. Bin Laden urged against what he saw as sacrilege, and offered to protect the Kingdom with his Afghan mujahidin, but the Saudis turned him down and invited in the Americans.

May 19, 2016 – 8:08 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER [,,, Twitter: @gretabrawner ( ].

Guest: REID RIBBLE, U.S. Representative [R] Wisconsin, member of House Foreign Relations Committee.

Topic: U.S. fight against ISIS [Islamic State].

Caller: Adam from Fairfax, Virginia (click here to view).

Note: Caller, self-identified as being of Palestinian Arab descent, suggests falsely that the United States concern about the Middle East is mainly driven by its support for Israel.

Caller: "I have a quick comment and a follow-up question. My comment is that the Middle East is a lot more than just oil to the United States since the United States and Canada both produce a lot more oil than Saudi Arabia [indiscernible] and plus the fact that [indiscernible] where more of the oil is passed through [indiscernible]. My question is do you believe that our concern for stability of the Middle East [indiscernible] is really toward the stability of Israel?"

Host: "Adam, are you in the military?"

Caller: "No, I am first generation – born Palestinian in the United States."

[Host's question unintentionally elicits a meaningful response from the caller.]

Guest: "Thank you for your question. The difficulty in answering your question is that I think it makes an inference about something. First of all I would say this – for the United States, our relationship with Israel is something that is extremely important not just to our country and our own national security, but we have an ally in the Middle East that is just rock solid. So, in bipartisan fashion, the Congress and the Administration, now for decades, has been a staunch ally with Israel and it has been a staunch ally of ours. There clearly are some differences of opinion that could emerge between our countries and we try to navigate them. But our role in the Middle East goes well beyond what our role with Israel is and what it might be in the future. Our presence becomes a stabilizing factor in that region. And by the way, we are there in part because other nations in the region have invited us to be there and they want our engagement. So, we have a role to play here. Whether we like it or not, to try to become more isolationist and remove ourselves from that region, I think would be bad foreign policy."

NOTE: Guest responds appropriately, sensing, as indicated by his initial comment, that the caller's agenda is to plant the false notion that Israel – or U.S. concern for Israel – is the actual reason for U.S. sacrifices in the Middle East.

May 15, 2016 – 7:08 a.m.

Host: STEVE SCULLY [,,, @SteveScully ].

Topic: Recordings of phone calls of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump supposedly claiming to be his own publicist talking about his relationships with women – do these recordings matter?

Caller: Al from Charlestown, Rhode Island (click here to view).

Note: Host Scully fails to interrupt or terminate a mendacious antisemitic message. What are the caller's information (or misinformation) sources? Typically for C-SPAN, the question is not asked.

Caller: "I want everyone out there to hear what I'm saying that's out there. It's so important. Every news company, every newspaper, every TV station that's owned by the secular Jewish left is out to destroy him [Donald Trump] because they can't take the competition. They are in the fix for Hillary Clinton because she will do whatever they want. Just like – what's his name – [Mark] Zuckerberg that owns Facebook [online social networking service]. Here's a little kid that comes out and he's trying to keep the Republicans or conservative voices off his Facebook program. The secular Jewish left owns all these TV stations and newspapers – The New York Times, The Washington Post – and the Republicans are so stupid because they don't realize what all these people are doing to them. It's unbelievable. But thank you for C-SPAN."

Note: The blame-the-Jews caller makes sweeping, anti-Jewish charges that he cannot prove nor is he asked to do so. Most TV stations and newspapers and other communications media are not owned by Jews. The New York Times is owned by the Sulzberger family who are Episcopalian Christians descended from German Jews. The owner of the Washington Post, Jeff Bezos (born Jeffrey Preston Jorgensen), founder of Amazon, is not a Jew. Noteworthy here is that the caller thanks C-SPAN, which, as CAMERA's C-SPAN Watch documents, has been providing anti-Israel, antisemitic callers with a platform at least since 2009. As if in confirmation of the caller's charge of Jewish political influence, Washington Journal host Scully immediately cites an Op-Ed column by casino magnate Sheldon Adelson – though Adelson happens to support the same candidate the caller apparently backs, Republican Donald Trump.

Host: "Al from Rhode Island. Sheldon Adelson [who is Jewish and a strong supporter of Israel], who is a longtime supporter of many Republican [presidential] candidates including [Speaker of U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999] Newt Gingrich in 2012, has written this piece in the Op-Ed page of today's Washington Post, [the headline:] ‘Dear GOP: It's time to bet on our horse.' [Scully selectively reads from the Op-Ed:] ‘You may not like Trump's style or what he says on Twitter, but this country needs strong executive leadership more today than at almost any point in its history. The world is less secure than ever, and our allies have lost confidence in our ability to lead. The economy is not growing the way it should. The middle class is finding it harder and harder to get by. Trump has created a movement in this country that cannot be denied. He will end this primary election cycle having garnered more Republican primary votes for president than anyone before.' Sheldon Adelson announcing his support and likely up to a $100 million in supporting Donald Trump."

May 9, 2016 – 8:21 a..m.

Host: JOHN MCARDLE [,,, @cspanMcArdle ].

Guest: Frank J. Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, former Reagan administration official as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy.

Topic: Foreign policy and campaign 2016.

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

Note: Repeat Washington Journal caller identified here only as "Grant from Washington D.C." is Grant F. Smith a Washington, D.C. author and director of an anti-Israel advocacy organization. He has been an apologist for Islamic terrorists and the Iranian government led by Islamist fanatics.

Caller: "I just wanted to quote [guest] Frank Gaffney, who said, ‘most of the Muslim American groups with any prominence in America are now known to be, as a matter of fact, hostile to the United States and its Constitution.' It is on page 211 of a book, ‘Big Israel: How Israel's Lobby Moves America.' Frank is one little note in a 336 organizational closed system called the ‘Israel Lobbyists.' It raises $4 billion a year in this country and then harps for endless war on Hezbollah and Hamas and for the U.S. to attack Iran, etcetera, etcetera. I get Frank – he does not like Muslims and he wants Americans to be afraid of them..."

Note: Caller fails to note that he is the author of the anti-Israel book he cites here – "Big Israel: How Israel's Lobby Moves America" Paperback – Feb. 5, 2016.

[Guest's facial expression in glance at host suggests that caller's polemical message (delivered in a sarcastic tone) is ready for a response.]

Host (interrupting): "Let's give Frank a chance to respond to some of those statements you made."

Guest: "Well, it's simply not true. I commend to you page 31 of this secret plan [holding up a book entitled: ‘Explanatory Memorandum on The General Strategic Goal For the Group in North America'] written [in 1987, published in 1991] by a top Muslim Brotherhood operative [Mohamed Akram], introduced as evidence at the Holy Land Foundation trial eight or nine years ago. This has an attachment under the heading, ‘Our organizations and organizations of our friends.' This has only 29 groups on it. But even now, some 25 years after this document was written, they represent the most important of the Muslim American organizations in the United States. That group has now expanded by probably at least the size you would attribute to the so-called ‘Israel lobby.' This is a Muslim Brotherhood driven fifth column in our country. In their own words, what they are trying to do is take us down. I believe that those who would assign to me or anyone else a similar kind of agenda on behalf of a friendly nation, indeed one of our most important allies [Israel], and ignore or deny or try to sully me for pointing out the facts – they are themselves part of the problem, quite frankly."

[Host McArdle has no comment. This same host indulged same caller "Grant" on Feb. 3, 2014 (9:29 a.m.) when he vilified  Israel using misinformation.]

NOTE: Guest aptly responds to caller Grant F. Smith who is director of anti-Israel advocacy organization "Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, American Educational Trust." Jeff Stein of The Washington Post calls Grant F. Smith "a Washington, D.C. author who has made a career out of writing critical books on Israeli spying and lobbying." Caller phoned on Oct. 30, 2013 (9:49 a.m.) when he claimed that "… behind the Chinese and behind the Soviets, you have Israeli spies … There is a story ... about Israel that goes on and on." Then, as now, the caller obsessed on alleged nefarious nuclear acts of Israel but no mention was made by the caller, C-SPAN's host or his guest on Oct. 30, 2013 of the potential threat posed to the world by a nuclear armed Iran.
Washington Journal never informs viewers – when callers like "Grant from Washington D.C." defame Israel – of the facts of the mutually beneficial America-Israel relationship. Several points are relevant here. First, financial (it is 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 – $2.2 billion) of the U.S. aid 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-Israel Arab and Islamic radicals. It's not surprising that former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen called the relationship with Israel "absolutely critical" to U.S. national security. Additionally, Israel, with less than nine million people, is America's 20th largest customer (larger than Russia or Spain). Consider votes in the United Nations over the last several years that coincided with U.S. votes – Israel is 90 percent, all other recipients of U.S. support are under 20 percent – Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Philippines and so-on. It should be obvious, except to the most biased individuals, that Israel is an exceptionally valuable American ally.

April 22, 2016 – 9:34 a.m.

Host: PETER SLEN [,,, @pslen ].

Topic: Viewer calls on news of the day.

Caller: Lara from Troy, Michigan (click here to view).

Note: Caller “Lara” phoned previously at least once vilifying Israel and expressing antisemitic sentiments when she identified herself as “Pat from Michigan” (see NOTE below).

Caller: “I want to thank C-SPAN profusely. About a month ago, you devoted an entire Saturday to a program about United States-Israeli interests, and you presented a number of speakers. It was actually a group of people -- it was an educational institute, and some other large group. They presented …”

Host: “Are you talking about the AIPAC [The American Israel Public Affairs Committee] conference?”

Caller: “No, no, no – this would be the exact opposite of AIPAC. These are people – I do not have it written down. Usually I write down the programs. I have it written down, but I don't have it handy. I believe it was March 18. It was a point of view of many Israelis that lived in Israel and some that live here showing how much they opposed what is going on there. They oppose, of course, Prime Minister, President [Sic.] [Benjamin] Netanyahu, what he is doing, and how the Palestinians have been …”

Note: The caller mistakenly identifies Israel's prime minister as also being the president. The March 18 meeting referred to by caller was that of the “Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, American Educational Trust: Israel's influence on United States.” C-SPAN devoted (aired by C-SPAN2) eight consecutive hours (exceptionally lengthy even for C-SPAN) to the gathering of this group that is an anti-Israel advocacy organization whose director, according to an biography, is Grant F. Smith. Jeff Stein of The Washington Post calls Grant F. Smith “a Washington, D.C. author who has made a career out of writing critical books on Israeli spying and lobbying.” This same Grant F. Smith phoned  C-SPAN's Washington Journal on Feb. 3, 2014 (9:29 a.m.) to vilify Israel with misinformation.

Host: “And you agree with that point of view?”

Caller: “Yes, I do. I will tell you why. Because I guess I'm a C-SPAN junkie, and I try to look at things from both ends, and I can recall numerous times when Netanyahu would say one thing – we are going to stop the settlements, and as the years have gone on, different parts of the West Bank that were originally Palestinian have been built up by the Israelis. Every once in a while C-SPAN has a program with people presenting the opposite point of view, and I thank you profusely for that.”

Host: “All right. We got that. And the whole point of this network is to present lots of points of view. Whether you agree with it or not, you're going to learn something.”

Note: Host Slen's C-SPAN self-serving characterization here merits comment. Allowed by hosts (and presumably by call-in screeners), it's always open season for bashing Jews and Israel on C-SPAN's Washington Journal. Hosts permit no other country or religious or ethnic minority to be vilified repeatedly as are Jews and the Jewish state. CAMERA's C-SPAN Watch has, since November 2008, documented this problem (more than 1000 entries) while C-SPAN officials decline to acknowledge it. Repeat (see below) caller “Lara” is one of many indulged repeat anti-Israel callers. A partial list of such callers was noted in C-SPAN Watch in response to a similar Slen self-serving characterization on Nov. 27, 2015 at 9:13 a.m.

NOTE: The caller's claim about “the settlements” is misleading. No additional “settlements” have been constructed in years. Holding "settlements" responsible for problems with the Palestinian Arabs is not supported by the evidence. As Congressman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) has pointed out on C-SPAN, "Well, the settlements – let's look at a little bit of history here. In 1947, the United Nations resolution took historic Palestine and split it into what was called a ‘Jewish state' and an ‘Arab state.' That was the two-state solution back in 1947. In 1948 Israel declared independence. The Palestinians could have had their Palestinian state as part of the U.N. resolution. Instead, the Arab countries attacked Israel and tried to destroy it before it was ever a country. There were no settlements until 1967, those were 19 years since 1948. The Palestinians could have had a state. They chose not to do it." Arab/Islamic hostility to a sovereign Jewish state, in any borders, existed long before there were "settlements" in the West Bank.

Caller's false, unhistorical “originally Palestinian” land claim – often heard on Washington Journal, propaganda vilifying Israel, falsely charging it with stealing West Bank land – has been exposed, including in a CAMERA report, The facts are: On the West Bank, virtually no privately-owned Arab land has been lost; post-‘67 Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) comprise little more than four percent of the territory and have been built almost exclusively on property that was state land under Ottoman, British, Jordanian and now Israeli administration or property purchased from private owners.

Lara previously called on March 16, 2015 at 7:32 a.m. identifying herself as “Pat from Michigan;” she vilified – without challenge – Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and “Jewish donors.”

April 20, 2016 – 8:12 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER [,,, Twitter: @gretabrawner ( ].

Guest: ROBERT PITTENGER, U.S. Representative [R] North Carolina.

Topic: Combating [Islamist] terrorism.

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

Caller: “I am a big C-SPAN watcher and my question is, are you sitting there on C-SPAN, trying to tell us that the country of Israel, our main ally in the Middle East, supports this – going to bed, Americans with the Saudi's? I'm sorry, sir, you are not telling us the truth.”

Host: “Why do you say that, Catherine?”

Caller: “Because Israel does not want us to be in bed with anybody in the Middle East, especially not the Saudis. The Saudis want us to do their work, because they are not physically, morally apt to doing it themselves.”

Host: “Alright. Let's get a response from the Congressman.”

Guest: “Thank you for your inquiry. I will say that Israel fully recognizes the threat of Islamic terrorism not only to Israel, but to the Middle East and the entire world. Frankly, Israel works with our other partners in the Middle East. They have been an enormous assistance to Egypt in fighting terrorists like the Muslim Brotherhood in the Sinai. So, let us not discount the role that Israel has played. They been quiet about it but they have been very effective in defeating Islamic terrorists.”

April 20, 2016 – 9:16 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER [,,, Twitter: @gretabrawner ( ].

Guest: BRAD SHERMAN, U.S. Representative [D] California.

Topic: U.S.-Middle East relations.

Host poses point critical of Israel (click here to view).

Host: “Another quick issue – well not a quick issue, but I will try to get an answer from you. Vice President Joe Biden – the headline in the Washington Post discusses frustration with the Israeli government. He and Secretary Kerry attended a J Street – which is a pro-Israel, pro-peace two-state solution group – gala here in D.C. He said, 'at the moment, there's no political will that they will move forward with negotiations. The trust necessary to take risks for peace is fractured on both sides.' He criticized Palestinian leaders and condemned terrorists but he also singled out the 'steady, systematic expansion of Israeli settlements on land Palestinians desire for a state' as 'a step in the wrong direction.'”

Guest: “Look, you cannot equate the two things. Israel will build an apartment building in a place where the U.S. government would prefer you not to build the apartment building. Israel's enemies will go blow up a bus and kill a lot of innocent people. Those are not the same thing. I look forward to a two-state solution in the Middle East, and a two-state solution will mean in Israel, the bargaining position Israel has adopted will not be a reasonable peace. They will have to make some concessions. To the extent that their current position is not right at the final solution, we can say, well, they are being unreasonable, because they are asking for more than they will have to ultimately settle for. Everybody in a negotiation does that. We have to understand that Israel's enemies are demanding the destruction of all Israelis, and not just in mosques. Even the Palestinian Authority says, well, there can be an Israel, but every Arabic speaking person who claims that, at the time of the Ottoman Empire, their ancestors or any one of them that ever lived in Israel has the right to return there with their entire extended families. That could lead to chaos and jihad by immigration. So the idea that Israel will have to give up some apartment buildings, but Israel's enemies are going to have to give up on the idea that Israel can exist as a state only if it is an Arab state.”

[Host makes no comment].

NOTE: The Politico Web site report on last week's J Street meeting included this, “Vice President Joe Biden several times criticized what he called an Israeli government that causes ‘overwhelming frustration' in a speech that seemed to rule out the chances of a final year peace push from the Obama administration. ‘The present course Israel's on is not one that's likely to secure its existence as a Jewish, democratic state and we have to make sure that happens,' Biden said, in a speech to the annual gala dinner of the left-leaning J Street held in Washington.”

J Street while claiming to be pro-Israel more often behaves like an anti-Israel advocacy group. Examples here, here, here, here, here and here. Mr. Biden's comments, at the J Street meeting, restated the Obama administration's policy critical of Israel for what it sees as refusal to compromise on Palestinian conditions for opening negotiations on a two-state solution. That policy includes criticism of what it calls the “systemic expansion of Israeli settlements.” Countering this is a position which is described in the NOTE for the April 22, 2016 (9:34 a.m.) entry above.
Importantly, critics of Israel invariably fail to point out that Palestinian leaders rejected a two-state solution and peace with Israel in 2000, 2001 and 2008 and the current PA leadership insists on various conditions before peace negotiations can take place, including: Israel must accede to the demands that it accept heretofore unacceptable Palestinian pre-conditions such as refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and – "right of return" of millions of Arabs (nearly all of whom have never lived in Israel) which would result in engulfing Israel with Arab Muslims, effectively destroying it as a Jewish state and Western style democracy. The Arabs continue to refuse to accept Israel as a Jewish state. Evidently 22 Arab Muslim states is fine but one Jewish state is one too many.

April 7, 2016 – 9:48 a.m.

Host: JOHN MCARDLE [,,, @cspanMcArdle ].

Topic: Your news item (open phones).

Caller: Joseph from Marietta, Georgia (click here to view).

Caller: "Yes. I'm commenting – I'm listening to all of the callers coming in. Most of you guys who are calling in, you still complain about the same issues. And you complain about the same issues that are going on in the world. Until you get to the real issue of all of these tracking devices. All these eye scanners and all this. All this stuff is created by the Jewish people..."

Host: "We will move on to ..."

NOTE: Yet again a C-SPAN Washington Journal call-screener accepts a caller who defames the Jewish people. This is a routine Journal happening but it is not routine for any other ethnic/religious group. CAMERA's C-SPAN Watch Web feature has continuously documented this type of journalistic malpractice since November 2008. While appropriately terminating the caller, host McArdle should have preceded it by demanding evidence for the assertion vilifying the Jewish people, and then, real evidence lacking, commented something like this, “We regret airing this bizarre rant.” The problem could have been avoided by use of a 10-second call-delay mechanism which C-SPAN refuses to implement although commonly used by call-in shows.

April 5, 2016 – 9:03 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER [,,, Twitter: @gretabrawner ( ].

Guest: FRED BARNES, executive editor and co-founder of The Weekly Standard magazine.

Topic: Republican nomination process.

Caller: Louise from Arlington, West Virginia (click here to view).

Note: Off-topic, indulged caller's "neocon" obsession coupled with "Palestine" distortion suggests she is obsessively anti-Israel and indeed an online search verifies that she has previously been aired on C-SPAN's Washington Journal disparaging supporters of Israel (see NOTE below).

Caller: "I think that the neocons are being handed their heads. I was so glad to see Marco Rubio lose. I will be so happy to see Ted Cruz lose. He's a neocon."

Guest: "He's not a neocon."

Caller: "He's a neocon. Anytime you say ‘Palestine doesn't exist,' well – you are a neocon."

Guest: "You are wrong – but anyway, go ahead."

Caller: "You're not going to argue with me. You are the reason that most of America is a mess. You are just one of those crazy people."

Guest: "She's attacking me personally."

Host: “You are calling Fred Barnes names here. What is your evidence?”

Caller: "The evidence is – just watching over the past 40 years. I've been watching C-SPAN since I lived in Oklahoma in 1979 or ‘80. And I want to tell you something – I've been watching these people. They are unbelievable... and another thing – I was going to vote for Donald Trump. I was for Jeb Bush... but the neocons hated the Bushes in a big way and I'll never forget what happened to George H.W. Bush. "

Host: "Okay Louise. Are you a neocon (addressing guest)?"

Guest: "I am a conservative and I certainly did not dislike the Bushes. I happen to have a house in I know a lot about Florida politics. I have written about Jeb Bush. He was a great governor of Florida. He had eight years as governor. I thought he was the best governor in the country. I wrote that in The Weekly Standard magazine. I thought he would be a better presidential candidate that he turned out to be. It was an unusual election year. It turned out that someone's record that was impressive some years earlier, was not what the voters cared about. I heard Jeb speak in New Hampshire about a year ago and I thought he was very good. He talked about his record. The crowd was a bunch of active Republicans in New England and New York. I thought he had done very well. Then I went and talked to people in the audience and they did not think so. That was a hint that he would have trouble in the campaign which he did. At that event, Ted Cruz got a standing ovation. It was the first time I have heard Donald Trump on the stump and he got a standing ovation. So, there were some hints there about what this election was going to be like and it was going to be a bad one for George Bush."

NOTE: Neither guest nor host commented on the callers assertion, "Anytime you say ‘Palestine doesn't exist,' well – you are a neocon." It merits a response. Caller seems to be referring to U.S. Senator Cruz's March 21, 2016 speech at AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) meeting when he said, "I'm thrilled to be with you here today and let me say at the outset, perhaps to the surprise of a previous speaker [Donald Trump], Palestine has not existed since 1948." Trump had said, "So with the President in his final year, discussions have been swirling about an attempt to bring a Security Council resolution on terms of an eventual agreement between Israel and Palestine. Let me be clear, an agreement imposed by the United Nations would be a total and complete disaster..."

Contrary to the caller's implication in her disparagement of neocons, Senator Cruz is accurate. It should also be noted that Palestine did not exist as a state before 1948 either. In fact, there has never been a state of Palestine. If it is created as a result of peace agreement, it will exist for the first time. Prior to 1948, the territory of Palestine was run by the British under a mandate granted by the League of Nations in 1920, and was known as the Palestine Mandate or the British Mandate for Palestine.

Furthermore, "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. Caller was aired by Washington Journal at least once previously on Jan. 23, 2015 (8:20 a.m.) as "Louise from Fredericksburg, Virginia" (click here to view) when she claimed that worldwide Islamic terrorism should be blamed on Christian and Jewish Zionists.

Bookmark and Share