C-SPAN March – April 2011

April 29, 2011 – 8:58 AM


Guest: ANDREW TABLER, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Program on Arab Politics, Next Generation fellow.

Topic: U.S. response to political unrest in Syria.

Caller: Carl from Yonkers, New York.

Caller: “Mr. Tabler, any opinion as to why either the political insider or why the insiders are hesitant to confront Israel on a non-proliferation agreement at this point in negotiations prior to [Israeli Prime Minister] Netanyahu’s visit here to the United States? It does seem to be a sore point for many in the region that there would be a double standard as it applies to what is certainly the only nuclear power in their region versus agreements that are made outside of the region in other areas for nuclear control.”

TABLER: “Israel is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] and many other Middle Eastern countries aren’t as well. But I think the Obama administration has made clear that they are going to raise the issue with Israel about coming to some kind of accommodation. The Israelis are very appropriately reticent for national security interests. I don’t know where this is on the agenda at the moment. I think the administration is bogged down with trying to deal with the protests that are sweeping throughout the Arab world and we will have to wait and see. There is an upcoming Board of Governors meeting of the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] in June but I doubt it will be an issue that’s raised at that meeting.”
NOTE: Viewers are appropriately reminded by guest Tabler that Israel, like “many other Middle Eastern countries” is a non-signatory to NPT the purpose of which is to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weaponry capability. Therefore Israel is not legally required to adhere to NPT requirements. But both guest and host Brawner were remiss in not reminding viewers 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. The caller, presuming to understand the serpentine world of politics in the Islamic Middle East, warns that Israel’s non-participation in NPT constitutes a “sore point for many in the region … a double standard as it applies to what is certainly the only nuclear power in their region.” But the caller overlooks the universally recognized danger in the region posed by Iran’s nuclear program controlled by an Islamic fundamentalist regime – and the danger posed by the volatile Islamic nation of Pakistan which is also a known nuclear weaponry power in the region.
April 27, 2011 – 7:41 AM


Topic: First ever Federal Reserve Bank [FRB] news conference.

Caller: Steve from Valparaiso, Indiana.
Caller: “Yeah. Let’s just continue on that fact [previous caller criticized FRB]. Let’ s wipe away the smoke of who these seven people [FRB Board of Governors] are and who controls the world. Let’s not talk about global [indistinct] anymore; let’ s talk about the Zionist Jews. Ben Shalom Bernanke [Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve system] is our Federal Reserve guy – if you looked up Purim and the Iraq wars and Libya – like in ‘91, 2003, just this year – on the bloodshed in Purim, going back to ancient Babylon better known as Iraq – it’s the Zionist Jews, folks. Don’t get …”
NOTE: C-SPAN Host Echevarria belatedly cut-off yet another Jew-hating, anti-Zionist caller drawn to Washington Journal by its indulgence of them and then failed to reply to the caller’s rant. Mr. Echavarria seemed early on to be about to pull the cut-off trigger but he procrastinated – a typical problem with Journal moderators – long enough for the plainly anti-Semitic caller to continue his screed.
April 24, 2011 – 7:32 AM


Topic: President Obama as an international leader.

Caller: Jackie from Trimble, Ohio (anti-Israel frequent caller: Jackie/March 24; anonymously/March 20; Ann/March 19; Kathleen/March 6.)

Caller: “I think for most of us – we know – none of us really know what it’s like to be in that position so there are a lot of things that I spend a lot of time reading in the international press. Are there things that domestically people are unhappy with him – and overseas? Absolutely. I have read the 9/11 Commission report. It has to do a lot to do with our international policies. I encourage everybody to go online and read it, especially the recommendations and conclusions. In the report, the talk about why so many people in the Middle East are so angry with us. The number one thing, of course, was our support, over a lot many decades, for dictators in that part of the world. So, there is a shift obviously on that going on. Number Two, our support for Israel no matter what they do. Number three was our military bases in that part of the world and how it changes the dynamics in those countries. So …”

Host (interrupting): “Now, very quickly, Jackie, tie that into President Obama’ s leadership.”

Caller: “Well yeah, I think he’s actually working on some of those issues – some of those recommendations for overseas from that 9/11 Commission report. So …”

Host (interrupting): “Alright, we’re going to leave it there.”

NOTE: <Pending>
April 24, 2011 – 9:32 AM


Guests: Egyptian Arab women, MAY KOSBA (Muslim) and MIRETTE BAHGAT (Christian), residing in the United States temporarily (12 to 18 months) as fellows with the Atlas Service Corps which trains young foreigners for community leadership roles.

Topic: Political unrest in Egypt.

Caller: Doug from Boston, Massachusetts (frequent anti-Israel caller, has British accent).
Caller: “Oh hi. Yeah. I hate to put you on the spot but do you think they should open the Rafah crossing [between Egypt and Gaza Strip] and provide the guards with the ability to defend themselves? I’d like to urge every Comcast [Cable TV s ervice] customer to demand al Jazeera [Arab news channel]. United States is the only country in the world that will not carry it and I think we all know the reason why. Thank you. Bye ”

Host: “He asked something about a crossing and I presume it’s a crossing from Egypt into the Gaza Strip?”

KOSBA: “Yes.”

Host: “And he also wanted to know if you thought that people in the Gaza Strip should be able to defend themselves – I presume militarily. The third one was about al Jazeera. Now, during this whole revolution, al Jazeera is on a lot of the cable companies here in America.– a lot of the stations – and that’s where a lot of people are getting their Mideast news.”

KOSBA: “Alright, I am not an expert on Palestinian-Israeli kind of thing but logically, if you are talking about two powers or two people, lets say me and Mirette, and if my power outclasses her power, then obviously she should get she should get the support to be able to communicate on the same level. I don’ t understand how Americans see Palestinians and how the media portrays the struggle in Gaza [Strip] right now. Israel is only a couple of hours away from where I live and we have been in touch with whatever was going on there. The Gazans – the Palestinians – have been suffering for so long. We don’ t have to go through the massacres and the killings of Palestinians of the past few years. But I think we have to understand the situation in Gaza right now and how Palestinians are really suffering under the Israelis. The Israeli occupation whatever. As for al Jazeera, to me, it has done a great job during the revolution. I could only watch what was happening in Tahrir square over al Jazeera – and with a pain because al Jazeera was shut down for quite some time and I had a hard time knowing what was going on because no one would cover the news. I would jump around the channels with CNN and a few other U.S. channels.”

Host: “Do the majority of Egyptians have access to CNN and al Jazeera?”

BAHGAT: “I would not say the majority because we have a high percentage of Egyptians under the poverty line so we would not expect that this group would have cable. Most of the people who could afford to have cable – al Jazeera is very popular. It is one of the most popular channels during the revolution.”
NOTE: Host Slen appears to equate Palestinian terrorism from the Gaza Strip, including in recent years the firing of thousands of mortars and rockets at Israeli population centers – crimes under international law – with legitimate military defense. He ignores the anti-Jewish frequent caller’s insinuation – the Jews are to blame – regarding objections to Al Jazeera on some American cable channels. Guest Kosba echoes the common themes heard in Arab countries as prompted by communications media, mosques and schools. The claim of Palestinian “suffering” allegedly inflicted by Israel is responded to by the NOTE section of February 2, 2011, 8:16 AM C-SPAN Watch entry (here is an excerpt):
“Palestinian Arab suffering mostly has been self-inflicted, including notably the refusal of Palestinian leaders to accept Israeli-U.S. offers of a two-state solution in 2000, 2001 and 2008 or that continued Palestinian aggression, including the thousands of mortars and rockets fired into Israel after its 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza Strip provoked Israeli counter-attacks such as ‘Operation Cast Lead’ in 2008-2009.”
 As pointed out then, and applicable to Washington Journal host Peter Slen’s performance here, neither guest nor host stresses that the sentiment the caller expressed and is allegedly held by many in the Middle East amounts to blame-shifting for the fundamental causes of stagnation in Arab countries and perpetuation of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Host Slen lost an opportunity to inquire as to why Egypt and other Arab countries currently in turmoil have not developed Western-style democracies like Israel’s, with political and religious freedom and economic prosperity, even without petroleum as a natural resource. Given that one guest is a Muslim and the other a Christian Arab, the omission of questions from the host about the deadly oppression of Egyptian Copts and the widespread influence of the Muslim Brotherhood is glaring. As to the endorsement of Qatari-based satellite TV network al Jazeera, a balanced program would have pointed out Jazeera’s anti-Israel, anti-U.S. Middle East policy positions which are documented here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Again, given that the guests are identified by their religious affiliations, the role of al Jazeera as long-time host for Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s influential program ought to have been noted. Qaradawi, the “spiritual mentor” of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and known for his anti-American, anti-Jewish, anti-Christian views, exiled during the rule of former President Hosni Mubarak, returned to preach to hundreds of thousands of people in Tahrir Square. Al Jazeera’s function as a platform for Islamic extremists and anti-Western views in general goes unmentioned by moderator and guests. The latter, in fact, seem affected by those views.

April 24, 2011 – 9:39 AM


Guests: Egyptian Arab women, MAY KOSBA (Muslim) and MIRETTE BAHGAT (Christian), residing in the United States temporarily (12 to 18 months) as fellows with the Atlas Service Corps which trains young foreigners for community leadership roles.

Topic: Political unrest in Egypt.

Caller: George from Chicago, Illinois.

Caller: “I just want to say, we in America are with you. I want to know when the Rafah crossing will be open and the oppressed Palestinian people will be given concrete and medicine they sorely need. And whether people in the Muslim world are aware that Israel did 9/11.”

Host: “Alright, we’ll just leave that call alone. Is that a common perception that 9/11 was backed by Israel? We get those calls in here from time to time. Was that a perception?”

KOSBA: “You talk about 9/11 – you have every possible scenario for 9/11 that people talk about. You talk about Israel – of course – this is what people think of. They think it’s an inside job – like most of the Americans.”

Host: “I would not say most.”

KOSBA: “Yeah, probably most. Regarding the conflict in the Arab world between Israel and the Arab world, I think this is one of the things that people think of. But right now, recently, I think – people think more like Americans – like they think it is like an American inside job kind of thing.”
NOTE: The anti-Israel caller falsely accuses Israel of perpetrating the 9/11 attacks and propagandizes about the Palestinians [Gazans] “lacking concrete and medicines” when the facts show otherwise. Host Peter Slen, in what should be an embarrassment for C-SPAN management, essentially allows a fringe caller and – impugned by her own assertions – one of the guests to turn the segment into a “Truther” platform for the lunatic fringe claim that Israel and/or the U.S. government was behind the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks perpetrated by Muslim Arab terrorists against New York’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. Guest May Kosba insists wrongly about most Americans: “They [Arabs] think it’s [9/11 attacks] an inside job – like most of the Americans.” Slen tepidly responds: “I would not say most.” Kosba persists with her opinion: “Yeah, probably most.” Mr. Slen should have asked for Kosba’s information sources on this matter since opinion polling of Americans concerning the 9/11 attacks shows that a majority of Americans believe that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks.

Likewise, Kosba says, “You have every possible scenario for 9/11 that people [in Egypt and other Arab countries] talk about. You talk about Israel – of course – this is what people think of.” Again, the guest – uncorrected by Slen – is inaccurate in implying there is a wide range of opinion (“every possible scenario for 9/11”) among Arabs when polling shows that a large majority in the Arab and Muslim world has for several years responded that it believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories. An authoritative study authored by Matthew A. Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro, entitled “Media, Education and Anti-Americanism in the Muslim World” published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives – Volume 18, Number 3 – (pages 117–133) states on page 117: “In results we report below, 78 percent of respondents in seven Muslim countries said that they do not believe that a group of Arabs carried out the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center.” The study states (on page 120) that these respondents “most often cited the United States itself or Israel as behind the attacks.”

Host Slen first says “we’ll leave that call alone” in response to the “Truther” claim, then asks the guests if Middle Easterners share the belief, justifying his discussion of the conspiracy theory by acknowledging that “we get those calls in here from time to time.” Washington Journal gets such calls repeatedly because the C-SPAN program has shown itself an uncritical echo chamber for them.

April 22, 2011 – 9:02 AM


Guest: JON ALTERMAN, Middle East Director for Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Topic: Arab states unrest and U.S. policy.

Caller: Bob from San Antonio, Texas.

Caller: “Yes. I’ve got some observations and a statement please. The first observation is that every time someone comes on to your show here from the government, [he/she] is Jewish. The other statement is: If this country goes down, it will be for the love of Israel. That’s all I’ve got to say.”

ALTERMAN: “I’m not from the government. Sorry.”
NOTE: Washington Journal’s seemingly daily obligatory anti-Jewish, anti-Israel caller is, as usual, neither interrupted nor cut off. A professional response from the host would have included a challenge and/or a cut-off immediately at the utterance, “…every time someone comes on to your show here from the government, [he/she] is Jewish.” Host Susan Swain, who is also C-SPAN’s president and co-chief executive officer, presumably realizes that the caller’s claim is (a) false and (b) indicative of the caller’s animosity toward the only religious/ethnic/national group regularly attacked with impunity by callers on the Journal. The caller’s negative preoccupation with Jews and Israel is indicated by allegations occasioned by the presence of a guest, Mr. Alterman, who is clearly not a spokesman or representative of any mainstream pro-Israel or pro-Jewish cause, let alone the government. That Ms. Swain didn’t cut off the caller after his second sentence suggests tolerance of this sort of bigoted charge.
April 18, 2011 – 7:23 AM


Topic: Do you pay your fair share in taxes?

Caller: Susan from Pennsylvania.

Caller: “I would like to make three brief points. I will try to make them brief. Number one, I was watching a program chaired by [U.S. Senator] Max Baucus [chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance] about a week ago. He was talking with [Acting Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes] David Cohen who is going to be taking [Undersecretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence] Stuart Levey’s place in the [U.S.] Department of Treasury which is now running intelligence and anti-terrorism campaigns. Our Department of Treasury cannot get our books balanced but they are running around trying to bankrupt Iran, and that is their purpose – to bankrupt Iran for the sake of Israel. But this is the important thing that he said; Baucus said ‘we have 19 offices under Stuart Levey’s or David Cohen’s shop that are working on financial intelligence and anti-terrorism’ – 19 offices! That’s point number one. I think that is outrageous, incidentally. Point number two – I’m looking here at a letter that is being circulated by rabbis in the United States. It says: ‘Support for and love of Israel is the center of our rabbinate. Today, we are at a critical point – we need money from the Congress. Make sure the Congress keeps Israel on its foreign aid dole.’”

Host (interrupting): “But we are focusing on taxes this morning.”

Caller: “Number three …”

Host (interrupting): “Is it related to taxes?”

Caller: “It is. And that question is what kind of question is it that you’re asking? You are conditioning us. We are not children, Libby. We don’t need to be asked, “Do you pay your fair share in taxes? That is not the question. The question is – is our government being responsive to its people and not to Israel?”
NOTE: Host Libby Casey omitted comment upon completion of the caller’s lengthy, off-topic multi-part rant. It wasn’t until Casey, after appropriately interrupting twice, was herself berated – the caller even rejected the Journal topic as improper – did Casey finally completely run out of patience with the obsessively anti-Israel, implicitly anti-Semitic caller bent on airing her propagandistic charges. The host should have terminated the tirade much earlier when the caller’s aim became apparent. The wording in the alleged letter, as quoted by the caller, supposedly from “rabbis in the United States” appears to be contrived. The host doesn’t question why the caller singles out only Israel from among the large number of nations receiving assistance from the U.S. government. The Journal audience would have been better served if Ms. Casey had asked for the caller’s sources regarding the letter and in dismissing critical U.S. government actions in going after the finances of adversaries including Iran, North Korea and al Qaeda. David Cohen would, if confirmed by the U.S. Senate, be in charge of the U.S. “mission to combat terrorist financing and money laundering domestically and internationally.” Senator Baucus said at the hearing, “We face new, often invisible challenges to our security, and Mr. Cohen’s leadership will help preserve our safety.”

Finally, as for the caller’s seemingly esoteric but, in fact, deceptive point,”19 offices under …,” U.S Senate testimony shows that the “19 offices,” rather than being under “David Cohen’s shop,” are spread among several agencies: “We need to coordinate the 19 federal offices that work on terrorism financing. We need to work seamlessly with the Justice Department, FBI, and other law enforcement agencies that oversee this issue.” Once again, in response to anti-Israel, anti-Jewish canards asserted chronically by Washington Journal callers, a program host offers too little, too late.

April 12, 2011 – 7:27 AM


Topic: WSJ article says President open to deal on debt limit.

Caller: Richard from Washington, DC.

Caller: “I’m glad that finally the government is looking at the budget and the fact that we can’t spend more than we bring in. But in addition, there are some costs that nobody apparently is looking at – like unwarranted foreign aid. If someone is in a real catastrophe, like Japan with the earthquake and a tsunami and so forth, or otherwise, then of course, America wants to help. But spending money to create an army for the PLO [Palestinian Liberation Organization – through its largest component, Fatah, in charge of the Palestinian Authority, the ruler of the West Bank Palestinian Arabs] in Palestinian territory – and we don’t even know if there will ever be a another state there – and spending money for UN Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, camps basically training little children – as has been proved – to hate and terrorize [Israelis] and make war [against Israel], I think we need to look at funds like this that are not serving any national purpose.”

NOTE: The Washington Journal host is typically non-responsive and appears to be disinterested. But in a rare type of Journal call referring to the Arab/Israel conflict, a reasonable point is made – one that challenges the advisability of sending financial aid to UNRWA, the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, and arming PA forces in the West Bank. UNRWA, with most of its funding contributed by the United States, exists in large part to maintain Palestinian Arab refugees. No other refugee group has such a specialized UN agency, all other refugee groups coming under the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. An informed, informative host might well have alluded to this key information in a few sentences, clarifying and amplifying the caller’s point. But dealing with calls referring to Israeli and Jewish topics, Journal moderators are virtually never informative. As Front Page magazine aptly points out about UNRWA:

“In this difficult economic climate, as American citizens are seeking ways to cut costs, the U.S. government must consider ways to eliminate waste. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) is not only a wasteful expenditure but, unbeknownst to most U.S. taxpayers, this U.S.-funded agency serves as an incubator for Arab-Palestinian terrorists. In the 60 years of its existence, UNRWA has done little to rehabilitate and settle the Palestinian-Arab refugees and much to foster incitement, hate, and terror against Israel.”

Here is a CAMERA round up about UNRWA.

April 9, 2011 – 9:46 AM


Topic: Congress and White House avoid government shutdown.

Caller: Jack from Annapolis, Maryland.

Caller: “I am a Republican but I am a very, very disappointed Republican. I thought when they came in they would make some really valid cuts. Right now they’re attacking only the middle class people. That is all they are doing.”

Host: “What would valid cuts be to you?”

Caller: “I’d stop sending money to Israel, number one. I’d also end affirmative action and all the costs for it. It’s been around fifty years. That’s a long time. I look at some of these contracts that these fat cats – politically connected fat cats – have with the government and I’d cut back on some of them. As far as I can see, the Republicans right now want to have everybody working for minimum wage with no benefits. This will destroy the United States of America. By the way, someone asked if the federal employees pay for their health care. Yes, they certainly do. I am a retired federal employee and they do pay for it and they also pay for their pensions. These people think we are getting entitlements, but we getting back the money we gave to the government.”
NOTE: A professional response by the Washington Journal host, Mr. Echevarria, would have included asking why the caller would “stop sending money to Israel” as the very first “valid cut” he would make in the U.S. budget. An engaged host would notice the peculiarity of singling out Israel from among the numerous recipient nations of foreign aid. Did the Journal host not know that of the $30 billion-plus total foreign aid budget in recent years, Israel’s approximately $3 billion yearly share has been less than 10 percent, that it is all military aid and most of it is spent in the United States? If he knew, why not challenge the caller’s response, invited by the moderator’s question? Yet again, a Washington Journal audience, owing to a non-responsive host, is left with unrebutted criticism of U.S.-Israel ties.
April 6, 2011 – 9:29 AM


Guest: ADAM BOULTON, political editor for Sky News (Britain).

Topic: U.S.–British relations.

Caller: Lawrence of New York City, New York.

Caller: “I am calling because I look in history and I see a lot of conflicts started by the British and by the British empire and how a lot of those conflicts are still conflicts we’re dealing with today, primarily they’re American conflicts. So, we look at Israel and that state of unrest comes from the fact that England did not properly establish an Israeli government. They basically moved people out and said, ‘[H]ere you people take it.'”
“Our military has had to spend a ton of money to support that. You guys are making military budget cuts, and we are making military increases. I know that the English are not real happy when we pull out of conflicts or ask for shared responsibility, but we have for a very long time pulled the weight militarily for Europe. Look at World War I and World War II, and I do not feel that the Americans should have that responsibility exclusively. I think there needs to be more of a unified process. NATO is always a last resort. I know a lot of the English – I spent a lot of time in England – are not happy about the war in Iraq and are not happy about the money that was spent to sent to troops there. I’ve never once heard an American complain about having to participate in World War II.”
Guest: “I think you make a very good point. The fact of the matter is that if we look at British operations, even in these two recent conflicts, the conflict in Iraq and the conflict in Afghanistan, the initial military effort, which Britain undertook in the southern provinces of Iraq – Basra or in Helmand province [Afghanistan] – in the end, we were not able to see through completely. We have to admit that we had been over ambitious and what we tried, and in both cases American forces came in and took over military control. From an American perspective, it is perfectly understandable to say, is there a question about Britain doing its bit? All I can say, is for a much smaller country, roughly speaking a fourth or a fifth the size of the United States, although we’re making defense cuts, Britain still has a relatively large defense budget. We’re something like fifth or sixth in the world in terms of our defense spending. What I would say is that Britain and … etc.”
NOTE: The guest’s lengthy response, mainly devoted to defending Britain’s military position, omitted any reply to the caller’s misguided assertion attributing the Arab/Israel conflict to British failure, prior to relinquishing control of the U.N.-affirmed British Mandate for Palestine in 1948, to establish a government for the Israelis: “So, we look at Israel and that state of unrest comes from the fact that England did not properly establish an Israeli government. They basically moved people out and said, ‘[H]ere, you people take it.'” It was incumbent on the host to correct this basic error: Great Britain had no need to establish a government for the new state of Israel, since the Zionist movement, operating through the quasi-governmental Jewish Agency, already had laid the basis for one. Nor had the British “moved people out” prior to their relinquishing the Mandate. A professional response by the host would have noted Israel’s success, over more than six decades, of maintaining, on a portion of the Jews’ ancestral homeland, a Western-style democracy unique to the troubled Middle East, and doing so under ceaseless threat of terrorism and war.

April 6, 2011 – 9:57 AM


Guest: ADAM BOULTON, political editor for Sky News (Britain).

Topic: U.S.–British relations.

Caller: S.J. from Morris, Alabama

Caller: “I’ve got a question: How good a relationship does Britain have with Israel? Which party over there supports Israel the most of the three or four [parties]?”

Guest: “I think both those questions [prior caller included] put your finger on how difficult it is when you get involved in events abroad. On the Iran question, yes – with hindsight, people thought it was a very exciting prospect to get rid of the Shah of Iran but they did not anticipate the government that would be formed. In hindsight, whether in London or Washington, people regard that as a bit of a mistake. Of course there is the worry now in supporting change across the Middle East we could end up with Islamist governments. All I can say is I think everyone is aware what went wrong in Iran and it does not appear at the moment that Islamists are at the head of reform movements in the Middle East. We have a situation where Barack Obama and [British Prime Minister] David Cameron are supporting that. I think as far as Israel is concerned, it is true that generally speaking, western European governments, the European Union, is not as closely and automatically supportive of the state of Israel as the United States has tended to be. That said, that there is absolutely firm support for Israel as an independent, democratic state in the Middle East. I do not think there is any question of that changing. Again, a bit similar to the United States, it is not something that tends to be a very strong party political issue, that there are elements of the right who are extremely critical of the Jewish state as they see it, but there are also elements on the left who are extremely supportive of the Palestinian cause, but within that, there is a general consensus that the hope is that Israel persists and that Israel is able to reach an accommodation with its neighbors.”
NOTE: The caller’s reasonable Israel-related question (a Washington Journal rarity) deserves a fuller response than that made by the guest. Mr. Boulton seems to understate the growing animosity toward Israel in Britain, which is thought to be due in part to the influence of a large influx of Muslim immigrants antagonistic toward Israel. For example, according to the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA). Additionally, CAMERA has reported on growing bigotry by influential British institutions against the Jewish state. See, among other entries, here and here. Hosts of public affairs programs need to be aware of salient development regarding topics under discussion. When it comes to Israel and Jews, that rarely seems to be the case for C-SPAN’s Washington Journal.
April 5, 2011 – 7:39 AM


Topic: White House reverses on 9/11 trials.
Caller: Harry from Satellite Beach, Florida.

Caller: “It‘s another case where the Jewish lobby has gotten their way. What they want to do is they don’t want [Khalid] Sheikh Mohammed [considered to be the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on America] going in front of the American public and telling them that the reason that he attacked the United States and its followers is because the United States supports Israel.”

HARLESTON (interrupting): “Harry, is the Israel lobby – are they the only people that really want to see this trial in Guantanamo as opposed to New York?”

Caller: “In my opinio n, yes. Because what other reason would there be?”

HARLESTON: “Well, we’re going to leave it there.”

NOTE: Washington Journal aired approximately 20 calls in this broadcast on the topic, “White House reverses on 9/11 trials,” with only one religious/ethnic/national group pilloried by callers – Jews/Israel. This is typical for Washington Journal. Mr. Harleston’s ineffectual even encouraging response, asking the caller if the Israel lobby comprises “the only people that really want to see this trial in Guantanamo as opposed to New York?” gives the caller time for one more unanswered, anti-Jewish innuendo. A professional response from the host would have included pointing out that opinion polls show that the American public in general strongly supports Guantanamo as the site for military trials for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (and various of his 9/11 co-conspirators).

Moreover, the caller’s claim that the reason for the 9/11 terrorism attacks was U.S. support of Israel has been shown as false in a CAMERA report which said: “While the 9/11 Commission report did mention Israel as a factor in the attacks, there is much evidence to argue against the assertion, and the report certainly did not point to Israel as the major factor in provoking the attacks. Indeed, according to documents cited by experts on Al Qaeda, such as Rohan Gunaratna, the group attacked the United States on 9/11 (and before) not primarily because of its support for Israel, but 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 “holy warriors”, but the Saudis turned him down and invited in the Americans. The 9/11 Commission Report itself provided an explanation on page 362 of the motivation for the 9/11 attacks: ‘The stream (Wahhabism) is motivated by religion and does not distinguish politics from religion, thus distorting both. It is further fed by grievances stressed by bin Laden and widely felt throughout the Muslim world against U.S. military presence in the Middle East, policies perceived as anti-Arab and anti-Muslim, and support of Israel. Bin Laden and Islamist terrorists mean exactly what they say: to them, America is the font of all evil, the ‘head of the snake,’ and it must be converted or destroyed.’”

“Of course, Islamic fundamentalists hate American support of Israel; Israel and the United States represent the kind of societies they reject – including open, secular civil societies successful in science, technology, medicine, and non-petroleum-based economies, societies in which religion and state are separated and in which women and minorities are equal. They attack both the United States and Israel because of what they do – invade Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, hunt al-Qaeda, and fight Palestinian terrorism – and because of who they are – not them, not zealots for sharia-based medieval theocracies. American support of Israel stems from American belief in its own founding ideals. Blaming American support for Israel for 9/11 is somewhat like blaming U.S. aid to England for the Pearl Harbor attack.”

April 2, 2011 – 8:59 AM


Guest: LAWRENCE KORB, fellow at Center for American Progress.

Topic: U.S. military action in Libya.

Caller: Nick from Albany, New York.

Caller: “I was wondering since your guest recently conceded that oil is the major factor and that there’s no real humanitarian basis since we don’t do anything in Bahrain or in Saudi Arabia or even in Israel when they do things like Operation Cast Lead. If you’re going to say and argue that the U.S. should act in this manner what incentive is there for states like Libya to ever abandon their weapons-of-mass-destruction program and nuclear weapons program as deterrence against the United States? Why should Iran not look at us and say, ‘perhaps we really do need a nuclear weapons program’?”

Guest: “You raise a couple of points. I’ve talked about the fact that’s why we’re concerned about that part of the world. But then I think that what you also have to overlay on that is we get a very small percentage of our oil from there; we get 2 percent from Libya. But the real problem is what Gaddafi was doing to his people. I did mention the fact that our relations with Saudi Arabia and our ability to influence them is influenced by the fact that in many senses there are they are our gas station. However, I don’t think you can compare what the Saudis have done in Bahrain to what Gaddafi was doing in Libya. As the President said, he was pretty specific about what he would do. So I think you have to put all of those things in context when you decide what your policy will be.”

NOTE: The caller’s false equivalence of Israel’s Operation Cast Lead against Hamas-led terrorism from the Gaza Strip with Gaddafi’s actions against his own people in order to retain power and Saudi Arabia’s intervention to quell the uprising in Bahrain, apparently for improved treatment of Bahrain’s Shi’ite majority by the ruling Sunni minority, draw no rebuttal from either guest or host. While the guest missed a clear opportunity to make this distinction, the journalistic obligation to do so belonged to the host. But in common C-SPAN practice, another Washington Journal moderator sat mute in the face of a gratuitous and erroneous anti-Israel slander. CAMERA reports here and here the events leading to Operation Cast Lead: In the preceding months – hundreds of mortars and rockets fired at Israeli civilians from the Gaza Strip, anti-tank missiles fired at Israeli security vehicles, many attempts (one successful) to kidnap Israelis. The attacks, overwhelmingly by Palestinian terrorists against Israeli civilians, escalated. Finally, Israel, on Dec. 27, 2008, attacked Hamas targets. Approximately 1,200 Palestinian Arabs, most Hamas and affiliated fighters, were killed in Operation Cast Lead as is documented by CAMERA. Unlike Hamas, or Gaddafi’s forces in Libya, Israel did not intentionally target non-combatants, as Judge Richard Goldstone’s recent retraction of the main charge in the U.N. report that bore his name confirms. At no time have Palestinian civilians been intentionally targeted by Israel as compared with Hamas and other Palestinian terror organizations which intentionally target Israeli civilians. The vast majority of the casualties caused by Palestinian terror organizations like Hamas are Israeli civilians. The guest’s response failed to point out the caller’s failure to differentiate between countries under medieval, autocratic rule – routinely violating human rights – and the modern, democratic, representatively governed country that is Israel which is not a violator of humanitarian rights. Defamatory misinformation against Israel, but not any other nation, is routinely disseminated on Washington Journal.

March 29, 2011 – 7 :31 AM


Topic: President Obama: U.S. had a responsibility to act in Libya.

Caller: Tom from Annapolis, Maryland.

Caller: “Somebody who called in wanted to know how much the Arab League is financing the war in Libya. I would like to know how much Israel is contributing to the war in Libya. I will tell you right now that they will not give us a dime. They will take all our money, but they will not help us when we need it. They won’t send a single troop to help us when we need it. They continue to expand their very provocative settlements and possibly creating a real confrontation over there. If Obama is really concerned about the humanitarian deals, why doesn’t he stop the Jews from attacking the Palestinians?”

BRAWNER: “Okay, Tom. We’ll leave it there.”
NOTE: Moderator Brawner tacitly accepts the caller’s anti-Israel diatribe. Apparently obsessed with dislike of Israel and the Jewish people, the caller is allowed to go off-topic to condemn Israel for not participating in the anti-Gaddafi coalition. Washington Journal moderator fails to point out the obvious – nobody in the coalition wants the participation of Israel – especially the Arab League. The C-SPAN host unprofessionally allows the caller to broaden the Libya conversation to condemn Israel on the straw man issue of expansion of “settlements” and to blame “Jews” for “attacking the Palestinians.” A professional response from the host, in addition to citing the utter impracticality of including Israel in the coalition, would have included the question, “Who is attacking whom?” and citing the apparent Palestinian massacre of the Fogel family of Itamar two weeks previous or the more recent fatal Jerusalem bus stop bombing and renewed terrorist rocket and mortar fire from the Gaza Strip.

March 28, 2011 – 7:31 AM


Topic: U.S. mission in Libya: Regime change?

Caller: Marlon from Birmingham, Alabama (click here to listen).

Caller: “Good morning. I’ m very disturbed by what I see the President doing. I’ ve been a fanatical Obama supporter. I walked all over Florida for the President. I’m making a reassessment. I’ ve changed my party. I’ m now in independent. When I look at what we did in Libya, I wonder why we have not done it to the tyrannical governments of Syria and Saudi Arabia, where you have the worst of oppression against women. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that Gaddafi has one of the highest living standards in Africa – all over Africa. Most of the people were working. America is number one in infant mortality, number one in incarceration. Libya is 69th in the world for incarceration because most of their people work.. They have a high literacy rate. America has a very, very high illiteracy rate. I’m really disturbed at the President and I’m wondering if there’s any fact to the conspiratorial theorists when they talk about Zionists being in the government or the fact that Gadaffi gave Minister Farrakhan $5 million for a self-help program in the black community. Any of those things have anything to do with why would we attack a country with the highest living standards in Africa and most of the people are working there? I’ m just really confused and I have to make a reassessment as to whether I’m going to support this president in the coming 2012 race. Thank you.”

Host: “Marlon, are you still with me?”

Caller: “Yes.”

Host: “If the U.S. actions in Libya lead to a regime change, will that effect the way you support or do not support the President going into 2012? “

Caller: “Yes, it will. I know what happened in some parts of Africa when President Clinton failed to act. When I look at the statistics, even though he is a dictator and I don’t agree with the dictatorship, I look at the tyrannical governments in the parts of the Middle East and I say they do not have the high living standard that Libya has.”

Host (interrupting): “Marlon, we will leave it there.”

NOTE: <Pending>

March 27, 2011 – 7:29 AM


Topic: Republicans only: What issues will define GOP primary?

Caller: Eric from Los Angeles, California.

Caller: “I would like to say that I agree with the former head of the bin Laden unit at the CIA, Michael Scheuer, when he says that mainly we need to dump Israel. They are not our friends. They’ve never been our friends. They bombed – they torpedoed the U.S.S. Liberty and then strafed the surviving soldiers. We are in two wars that have drained our economy due to AIPAC being the largest lobby in this country …”

SCULLY (interrupting): “Okay caller, wait, when you say dump Israel, what specifically are you referring to?”

Caller: “Well, we are fighting – we have conflicts with almost every Arab country. We have backed up these dictators just to keep Israel safe. Israel is an enemy. They have never helped us…”

SCULLY (interrupting): “How have they been an enemy to the U.S.?”

Caller : “Well, for one – they bombed the U.S.S. Liberty and strafed …”

SCULLY (interrupting): “What’s your proof of that?”

Caller: “Look it up. You’ll see that it is common knowledge that is not disputed. Okay? The assassinated prime minister’s wife wrote a biography of him and she said it in there.”

SCULLY: “Who is ‘him,’ Eric? “

Caller: “I forget the name of him the guy who was assassinated. He was their prime minister a couple of prime-ministers ago – but anyway – for signing a peace deal. That is not disputed information. Just look it up – you’ll see.”

SCULLY (interrupting): “I would say, Eric, it probably is disputed. I have to question whether …”

Caller (interrupting): “I’m telling you it was. You will look foolish when you look it up. AIPAC is a foreign agent and they have gotten us into two wars and have gotten us into conflict with everybody in the Middle East.”

SCULLY: “Eric, we’ve got your point. We’re going to talk more on the Middle East on our Sunday roundtable coming up.”

NOTE: <Pending>

March 27, 2011 – 7:39 AM


Topic: Republicans only: What issues will define GOP primary?

Caller: Barry from Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Caller: “Good morning. I have dealt with the AIPAC. What we need to do as a Republican, we need to point out that AIPAC produced over 100 Democrat congressmen and they produced so many people – all the key positions in the State Department are Jewish. And I think our foreign policy – they’re deci ding it for the United States. I think it’s a good point, as a Republican, we need to point out what AIPAC is doing with the Democrats, using and taking the policies of this country to a wrong direction.”

SCULLY: “Barry, just let me point out that the secretary of state is Hillary Clinton and she is Christian.”

Caller: “Well, she is but other people in key positions there – if you want to get promotions, all the top positions there – they are Jewish.”

SCULLY: “We are getting off track.”

NOTE: <Pending>

March 27, 2011 – 8:00 AM


Guest: ABDERRAHIM FOUKARA, Al Jazeera Washington bureau chief.

Guest: PERRY BACON, Washington Post White House reporter.

Topic: Sunday roundtable on current political news.

Caller: Ron from Miami, Florida.

Caller: “I am curious about – that we have to have anything to do with any of the Arab countries and what’s going on with the turmoil? The issue that nobody wants to talk about has to be there. It has to be included – and that is the state of Israel. Because, all these countries once they get their democracy, they’re going to go the opposite way which is not in Israel’s interest. We have to get the shield away and not be afraid to talk about the issues of Israel and the Palestinians.”

SCULLY: “We will put that issue on the table right now. Thank you Ron.”

FOUKARA: “The viewer raises a very important point. Israel has, as we all know, for several decades, been saying that one of the things that works for it as a non-Arab state is that it is the only democracy in the Middle East. And while many Palestinians under occupation would challenge that, many Israelis believe it. It is going to be interesting to see, first of all, how democracy pans out in the Middle East now, let‘s say in a place like Egypt, since a lot of the focus of attention is on Egypt and if it succeeds in Egypt then that would be a good indicator that it might succeed elsewhere in the region. If it failed, that would also be an indicator that might not flourish elsewhere in the region. It is going to be interesting. If there is a democracy narrative coming out of the arab world, it will be interesting to see how the Israelis deal with it. United States has a lot to do with what is going on in the Middle East. They supported many of these regimes – like President Mubarak. We have Vice President Joe Biden, up just a few days before Mubarak stepped down, saying that Egypt is not a dictatorship. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, just a short while before Mubarak stepped down, saying that the regime in Egypt is stable. We have to a knowledge that United States, by investing in the Egyptian army over a period of 30 years, giving over $1 billion in aid to the Egyptian army, in many ways, that was a wise decision, because it gave the United States – the Obama administration – for all the rap that the Obama administration has been getting – it gave the administration leverage over the Egyptian army in a way that may have helped in averting the kind of bloodshed in Egypt that we’re seeing in Libya. But as President Obama said one day when he was asked about Israel, and how the Arab world may deal with Israel if it becomes democratic, he acknowledged the challenge and the challenge is that when you deal in a democracy, you have to talk to several people – or many different people – instead of just talking to one. There’s a lot of doubt as to whether President Anwar Sadat [of Egypt] could have traveled to Israel in the ‘70s if Egypt had been a democratic country. But at the end of the day, a lot of people feel – both on the Israeli side and on the Arab side – that the best investment in the future is investment in democracy not in dictatorship.”

NOTE: <Pending>

March 27, 2011 – 8:19 AM


Guest: ABDERRAHIM FOUKARA, Al Jazeera Washington bureau chief.

Guest: PERRY BACON, Washington Post White House reporter.

Topic: Sunday roundtable.

Caller: Mofti from Tampa, Florida.

Caller: “Yes. Good morning. How are you today? I’m kind of disappointed with the narrative of

the American media about what’s going on in the Middle East. I think I am very proud of what we’ re doing, trying to do come up with something that could not be done a little while ago which id bring democracy to the Middle East. I do commend al Jazeera for bringing the attacks. and I’ m very disappointed that most of the media in the United States has taken over the Israeli government’ s point of view. I just think we need to hear the fact s. Israel should be welcoming democracy in the Middle East more than anybody else. We’re tired of fighting. We’ re tired of the conflict. We seem to get along here fairly well I do not see any difference over there in what these people are doing with each other overseas , whatever religion or nationality, they do not have a problem with it. I commend the people and I hope that it will be peaceful and I notice also that none of this anti-Israel issue is what is the core of what’s going on in Egypt or Tunisia. Hopefully it will go to Jordan, Syria, Yemen and the rest of the Middle East because people are tired of all these dictatorships and presidents for life — people are starving to death. People need to take a break from that.”

Host: “Thank you for calling. We have another question from another viewer: Is the rising cost of food causing some of the riots?”

FOUKARA: “This is the part of the equation that has not been tackled yet in all of these debates that people have been having about why this current wave of changes is sweeping through region. Remember that in the case of Tunisia, it started with the young man who set himself on fire because he could not get a job and he was humiliated by a local government official. The story behind that is that the government of the former president of Tunisia had introduced some economic reforms and privatized the economy, restructured it etc. so yes economic issues are there – but the overriding issue is political tyranny etc. It’s not about anti-Western issues, it’s not about anti-Israel issues although that may become part of the political narrative in the future if democracy takes hold.”

NOTE: <Pending>

March 26, 2011 – 7:30 AM


Topic: What should President Obama say Monday on Libya?

Caller: <Anonymous male> from Catonsville, Maryland.

Caller: “Yes. I agree with the previous caller about the bankers and how much they control America. My comment is – I’d like to put it in a global context of what’s going on here is that the Arabian revolutions are an end to a global apartheid that set the Middle East that has been in it for 40 years where if you are a dictator and you supported Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Muslim and Christian Palestinians to maintain a Jewish majority then you w ere okay with us even though you impoverished your people. And in a local context, what the dissent in Congress, and I would put Ron Paul as an exception, the dissent in Congress is not sincere and not based on principle and the president’s war act powers. It’s basically – they’re taking their calls from AIPAC, the Jewish lobby here, and they serve their interest and wait for them to tell them what to dissent in and if something is not in the interest of Israel, they…”

Host: “We’re going to leave it there.”

NOTE: <Pending>

March 25, 2011 – 9:41 AM


Guest: MEGAN SCULLY, reporter with National Journal and MISSY RYAN with Reuters news service.

Topic: NATO to lead Libya no-fly zone.

Caller: Sam from San Diego, California.

Caller: “Just recently Gaddafi decided to share the oil profits with the people of Libya. The last time he did that was during Ronald Reagan’s presidency. Shortly before Ronald Reagan bombed Gaddafi’s compound killing one of his daughters, there was a bunch of servicemen in Germany were killed. It was apparently traced back to a radio transmitter out of Libya with orders for this bombing in Germany took place. So Reagan decided to send in bombers over there to take care of the problem. A little while later, It turns out the transmitter was planted by Israelis. So, the orders to do any damage in Germany obviously came through Israelis. My question is – why didn’t Ronald Reagan bomb Tel Aviv? They were the ones that caused the deaths. That would have been the solution to it. It was obviously good enough for Gaddafi, why not good enough for Tel Aviv. I’d like to say one thing before I hang up about President Obama: The man, when he went to college, took foreign student aid. He’s not qualified. Thank you.”

NOTE: <Pending>

March 24, 2011 – 8:27 AM


Topic: President Obama’s handling of Libyan conflict.

Caller: Jackie from Trotwood, Ohio.

Caller: “I think [House Speaker] Boehner’s letter is more than reasonable about Congressional oversight. Given the circumstances with Iraq, and how many people are dead there based on our preemptive actions, based on lies – which Americans do not like to think about, I think Obama really should have allowed the other nations involved to lead. They are not an imminent threat. Libya is not an imminent threat. Many of the European countries, as well as the U.S., have in some ways supported Gaddafi. If I were that guy – clearly he has a bull’s-eye on his back – even though he is obviously a maniac, like [Saddam] Hussein and I think Bush/Cheney were maniacs – make a tape – say to the world how these other nations have supported him, and other dictators in the region – like the U.S. and the other nations. I also want to ask you guys to do some programs on the West Bank – the illegal settlements, because nobody is talking about that.”

NOTE: <Pending>

March 20, 2011 – 7:42 AM


Topic: U.S. allies strike Libya today.

Caller: Yusuf from Long Island, New York City.

Caller: “For the first time – I’ m an American Palestinian, and I feel that it is the first time the United States is doing a good job. God bless America for getting rid of this dictator who has oppressed his people for 40 years. Now I hope that the United States will do the same thing with the state of Israel when they brutally on Saturday attacked the Palestinians. There should be no double standard.”

SCULLY: “Thank you for the call.”
NOTE: Host Scully apparently has no idea what the caller is referring to. Israel did not “brutally attack Palestinian Arabs on Saturday,” that is, the day before this Washington Journal program. What did happen, as the Associated Press reported, was that Palestinian terrorists in the Gaza Strip “fired 54 mortar shells at Israeli border communities within a period of 15 minutes,” wounding two Israeli civilians and sending many to bomb shelters. Israel fired back, reportedly killing one member of Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement), a movement designated not only by Israel but also by the United States and European Union as a terrorist organization, and wounding four civilians. Hamas, which rules the Strip, acknowledged firing some of the mortars. A host aware of current events might have challenged the caller’s double standard: It’s Palestinian terrorists who, like Col. Muammar Gaddafi’s forces in Libya, were intentionally targeting civilians, not the Israelis. But yet again, a C-SPAN host plays straight-man for an anti-Israel caller.

March 19, 2011 – 7:05 AM


Topic: U.S. joining no-fly zone over Libya.

Caller: Ann from Dayton, Ohio.

Caller: “Yes. I think it’s insane. We invaded Iraq 8 years ago almost to the day. I was watching MSNBC and Chris Matthews was taking Rachel Maddow’s place, Lawrence O’Donnell… None of them mentioned that this is 8 years to the day that we – the Bush administration invaded Iraq based on false intelligence. We cannot do this again. Egypt should lead the way. France should lead the way in regards to Libya. These nations have supported Kadaffy for years and nobody cared about human rights, and now we care about human rights.”

ECHEVERRIA: “So, even at the level we’ve made the commitment, you’re uncomfortable with that.”

Caller: “I am. I think we should let these other nations lead the way. We have already invaded a country based on false intelligence. There are hundreds of thousands that are dead that Americans don’t even want to think about. Your program – and MSNBC – don’t even touch it. Here we are again with our noses in a country where we have supported the dictator as well as the U.K., Italy has support of this dictator. Now we are all about human rights. It is insane. Here’s what’s really getting me – protests in Syria – in Tunisia, Egypt. No one talks about the protests in Palestine or the Palestinians. You all leap right over that issue and that being one of the most critical issues in the Middle East. I do not think we should lead the way. We can be part of a team effort. I understand that.”

NOTE: Caller “Ann from Dayton, Ohio,” allowed by host Echeverria to violate C-SPAN’s ostensible 30-day rule (having called on March 6), deceptively uses a variety of names in her frequent calls. Regardless of the Journal’s topic, this chronic anti-Israel caller typically is permitted to disparage Israel. Since Palestinian Arabs are heavily covered by the media, the caller’s claim of a conspiracy (that “no one talks about the protests in Palestine” is nonsense. A knowledgeable host able to engage the issues at hand would have questioned the caller’s allegation. If news media are “leaping over” coverage of Palestinian protests, the largely missing reporting might have to do with the suppression of anti-Palestinian Authority demonstrations in the West Bank and anti-Hamas protests in Gaza. Sparse coverage of official Palestinian suppression or co-option of demonstrations in support of those in Egypt did include the March 20 New York Times report by Isabel Kirchner on peaceful Palestinian protesters forcefully dispersed by Hamas operatives in Gaza.

This caller is identical to “Kathleen from Nelsonville, Ohio” (Mar. 6, 2011, 9:55 AM) who demanded that C-SPAN display an accurate “map that really shows the illegal settlements” (the charge that Israeli “settlements” are illegal is itself false, as shown here). The caller is identical to “Ann from Ohio” who falsely complained (Jan. 29, 2011, 7:21 AM) “They’ll [media] cover the protest in Iran but they won’t cover the Palestinians who have been protesting for years peacefully” and is identical to “Kay from Trotwood, Ohio” who referred (Oct. 30, 2010, 7:24 AM) to “illegal [Israeli] settlements.”

Likewise, this caller is identical to “Patricia from Dayton, Ohio” who complained (May 10, 2010, 7:32 AM) on “Washington Journal” about an alleged lack of media coverage of the Israeli-Arab conflict. As “Kate from Chopwood, Ohio” (Aug. 26, 2010, 7:20 AM), she falsely complained, “We have had decades of blackouts with the news about the harsh realities for the Palestinians for what’s really going on there.” Journal hosts rarely if ever refute this erroneous, propagandistic line of anti-Israel attack or point out that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been, as the anti-corruption, anti-dictatorship, “liberation” protests shaking much of the Arab world suggest, if anything over-reported given its actual importance to regional conditions.

March 19, 2011 – 7:21 AM


Topic: U.S. joining no-fly zone over Libya.

Caller: Luke from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

Caller: “Good morning, C-SPAN. [Unintelligible] what we are doing for humanitarian aid and I guess we have to be very, ver, very careful. We doing for humanitarian aid – look at countries like the Israelis, exactly what they are doing to the Palestinians, the Saudis, excatly what they’re doing to their own people, Jordan. We have to be ready. We have to [Unintelligible] to not only enforce the no-fly zone over the countries and not just to close our eyes from what’s happening to the Palestinians and what the Israelis doing all these [unintelligible]. I mean, if we doing it for [unintelligible] we need to look at what is [unintelligible] and this is why the Arab world and all the other countries around the world are looking at us and they’re saying, ‘wow,’

we are truly, truly doing things.”

Host: “As far as the U.S. position, how are you with the stance we have taken?

Caller: “I do not mind because if we are doing anything for humanitarian reasons, we have to help the Libyan people but we have to look like we are not doing it only for Libya. We have to do it for the Israelis, we have to do it for the Saudis and (indistinct) as well.”

Host: “As far as Libya is concerned, then would you at least approve or go along with it if we had to step up our involvement?”

Caller: “You have to be very, very, very careful. You have to be very careful about ground troops and (indistinct) but once you step in – like Colin Powell says – you definitely have to – if you step in – you know exactly the other countries – they’re not going to back off – they don’t have enough money like we do. So, we gonna be in it a long time as usual.”

NOTE: Asking largely secondary and non-confrontational follow-up questions, host Echeverria indulges the heavily accented, difficult to understand caller, who nevertheless is able to equate falsely, Israel with Libya as a human rights violator. The host fails to challenge the caller by pointing out that a) there is no humanitarian crisis in the West Bank or Gaza Strip, b) Israel’s Gaza embargo against arms shipments permits so much food, medical and other humanitarian aid that news reports have noted for months the flow of consumer goods from Gaza to Egypt, c) thousands of Palestinian Arabs are admitted to Israeli medical centers annually for treatment and d) to the extent Palestinian Arabs are denied human rights, including imprisonment without charges or trial and torture, it is by the ruling Palestinian Authority on the West Bank and Hamas in the Strip. Instead of not refuting the caller’s insidious comparison of Israel to Libya, host Echeverria could have provided relevant information so C-SPAN viewers could make a factual judgement. But when it come to chronic smearing of Israel, factual judgements seem beyond the scope of Washington Journal.

March 19, 2011 – 7:29 AM


Topic: U.S. joining no-fly zone over Libya.

Caller: Jack from Annapolis, Maryland.

Caller: “Good morning. I’m sorry (coughing); I have a bad cold. I think, as somebody said, we are being hypocrites. I agree. Israel – it’s as brutal as any country in the world when it comes to the Palestinians. We say nothing about them. Innocent Palestinian men, women, and children – and we say nothing about them. They’re killing innocent Palestinian men, women and children and we say nothing about that. We give them billions of dollars and ask them to stop building settlements. They tell us to go to Hell.”

Host: “As far as the Libya situation is concerned?”

Caller: “I think we are probably doing a good thing to get in there and at least put more pressure on Gaddafi.”

Host: “Are you comfortable with the level of U.S. involvement as it is right now?”

Caller: “Yes.”

NOTE: The call is an anti-Israel screed. Palestinian Arab living standards, as annual U.N. Human Development Reports have noted, have ranked higher than those of Arabs in Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Syria and Egypt and not far behind Tunisia. Compared to Arab rulers’ treatment of their own people or by absolute standards, Israel has been both patient and lenient, given repeated Palestinian terrorism and rejection of peace offers including a West Bank and Gaza Strip state. The host had two professional alternatives: Immediately cut off the rant, or factually challenge it. Instead, in the feckless, accommodating treatment C-SPAN extends to anti-Israel, anti-Jewish callers, he did neither.

March 19, 2011 – 8:08 AM


Guest: JOSH ROGIN, Foreign Policy magazine staff writer.

Topic: U.N. security resolution on Libya.

Caller: Lewis from West Palm Beach, Florida.

Caller: “Hi Josh. I just wanted to say I like your hair and I have three important things to point out and I want you to reflect back on how they pertain to Libya. The first important thing that I want to reflect on is the United States’ unconditional support for the nation of Israel which has nuclear power and is in violation of UN regulations. The second important thing I want to point out is Of course the second thing I want to point out – the U.S. unconditional support for Saudi Arabia which is run by a brutal Saudi family which brutalizes its own people. The third contradiction I want to point out is United States role in Somalia, which was a peaceful mission but turned into the brutal slaughter of many Somalis and resulted in the Air Force base that was built by the United States. So, I like you to reflect on those three points.”

Guest: “Okay, thanks a lot. Let me try to say something intelligent about each of those subjects. U.S. unconditional support for Israel – first of all I would not say unconditional, but there is no doubt that Israel is a major U.S. ally and has been in that region for a very long time. That is not about to change and there’s a whole variety of reasons for that. If you looked at the uprisings around arab world, and even in Libya, Israel is not really part of the discussion one way or the other. The Obama administration came in with this idea of linkage – well, what we have to do is solve the Israeli-Arab conflict and that will lead to a turnover in the region. But that’s not what’s happening. The People in these countries are clamoring for rights an democracy and a greater say in their own future. These things are largely independent of the United States. Israel probably cleverly has stayed out of this. You do not see them making statements about that it really one way or the other. This is not about Israel. The U.S./Israel alliance is controversial for many reasons, and it is a great topic for another discussion. The U.S. unconditional support for Saudi Arabia – now that actually is directly related to what we’re talking here. Saudi Arabia is moving massive amounts of military assets that they purchase from the United States into Bahrain, which could be used to attack innocent civilians right next to a U.S. military base. So, this is actually an important relationship. The bottom line here is that the U.S. is very, very wary of sending a signal to our allies that if you get into trouble, we’re going to abandon you. This is a problem in Egypt, this is a problem in Bahrain, this is a big problem in Yemen.”

NOTE: The guest for the most part, informatively responds to the caller’s remarks. But the guest and, more importantly, the host were remiss in failing to challenge the remark, “Israel which is in violation of UN regulations.” This charge is a staple of anti-Israel propaganda. What does the caller refer to here? An attentive host would have noted that if the reference is to nuclear issues, there can be no violation because Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). As for numerous anti-Israel resolutions from U.N. bodies like the Human Rights Council – of which Libya, for example, was an active member until its recent suspension – such agencies exist largely to further the anti-Israel campaign of the 22-member Arab League and 57 member Organization of the Islamic Conference within the United Nations. Again, C-SPAN airs, without challenge, false accusations against Israel.

March 18, 2011 – 7:10 AM


Topic: Most significant news story of the week.

Caller: Awad from Laguna del Gal, California.

Caller: “Hello, thank you for taking my call. The first time the U.S. has its proper role is to help people in disasters and not to go create war zones as they are in the Middle East and creating the state of Israel, which is the most fascist, terrorist country …”

SWAIN : “We will move on to a call from San Diego.”

NOTE: Host Susan Swain properly cut-off the propagandist caller. However, before moving to the next call, a sentence refuting the venom by noting that Israel is the one Western-style country in the Middle East and was created by Jews returning to their ancient homeland, not the United States, would have been in order.

March 18, 2011 – 7:30 AM


Topic: Most significant news story of the week.

Caller: Bob from St. Louis, Missouri (aka “Darrell” anti-Israel, anti-Jewish frequent caller).

Caller: “I think the most significant story of the week is that the Palestinian people are still being slaughtered by the Israelis and not a peep out of the cowards in the media. How about a no-fly zone for Israel – or are you people allowed to say anything about Israel without us getting hung up on? I’ve listened to this and anytime anybody says anything about Israel you reach for the button and you hang up on them. Murder going on for years and people don’t say a word.”

SWAIN: “It’s not – Bob, Bob, Bob [caller is still ranting on and on without being cut off]. That is really not true. We talk about it frequently and we have guest segments on regularly. The reason that I reached for the button with the last caller was the string of invectives. It is fine to have a civil discussion and voice your opinion but I think we can do without a string of invectives here when we are having a discussion about issues.”

NOTE: This frequent caller, violating C-SPAN’s own questionably enforced 30-day rule, is allowed to freely defame Israel. Host Susan Swain’s only response to a caller uttering the false accusation, “the Palestinian people are still being slaughtered” and to the demand for a no-fly zone for the only democracy in the Middle East, is to remonstrate defensively about a cut-off of callers.

There was an Israeli-Palestinian slaughter last week: Five Jewish family members, including a three-month-old baby, were stabbed to death in the community of Itamar, apparently by Palestinian terrorists. Instead of tacitly accepting the caller’s anti-Israel libel, host Swain might have made this point.

Caller “Bob,” also calling as “Bill,” and “Darrell” has phoned Washington Journal numerous times, each time defaming Israel or the Jewish people with Anti-Semitic canards. Here, the caller violated C-SPAN’s 30-day rule having called as “Bill” on Feb. 26, 2011, 7:16 AM, uttering his familiar condemnation of Israel and the U.S. As “Darrell” on Feb. 1, 2011, 7:22 AM, he said, “I’m wondering what the terrorists in Israel are going to do now that this flunky [Mubarak] is out.” Darrell/St. Louis (Aug. 16, 2010 – 7:09 AM) said: “The war [in Afghanistan] is un-winnable. It’s un-winnable because the Afghanistan people have nothing to do with 9/11. If you want to bomb somebody for 9/11 then you need to go to Israel. They were the ones that were behind 9/11.” Darrell/Defiance, Missouri (Dec. 21, 2010 — 7:46 AM), said (unchallenged): “I have no faith at all in our Senate. I think there’s only three things that they’re good at doing and that’s stuffing cash in their pockets, selling the American people out and kissing Israel’s ass.”

Here is a partial list of other calls to “Journa l” by this individual: Bill/St. Louis (May 14, 2010 – 8:21 AM); Darrell/St. Charles (April 19, 2010 – 7:08 AM); Bill/St. Louis (April 17, 2010 – 7:46 AM); Bill/St. Charles (April 12, 2010 – 7:54 AM); Bill/Paris Missouri (April 5, 2010 –8:00 AM); Darrell/St. Louis (Feb. 12, 2010 – 8:14 AM); Darrell/St. Louis (Dec. 5, 2009 – 8:13 AM); Darrell/St. Louis (Sept. 30, 2009 – 8:21 AM).

Evidence enough that this caller, for whom C-SPAN repeatedly puts out the welcome mat, has an “obsessive-compulsive disorder” (OCD) with regard to Israel and Jews — and that C-SPAN indulges him.
March 17, 2011 – 8:03 AM


Guest: Rep. JOE WALSH (R-Illinois).

Caller: Chris from Birmingham, Alabama.

Topic: 2011 federal spending.

Caller: “Your push for fiscal responsibility and cutting NPR funding, Planned Parenthood funding – why isn’t foreign aid to Egypt and Israel on the table? I mean, it seems that only programs that Republicans oppose – mainly social programs – are on the chopping block. Meanwhile, there’s $ 3 billion a year to Israel – no strings attached. Israel and Egypt get a full third of the foreign aid budget. I’m not saying we should cut of foreign aid entirely but such a huge chunk of seemingly ineffective money – you know, they voted against us more often than anyone else in the UN. I’m saying it should at least be on the table for debate if you are really for fiscal responsibility.”

WALSH: “Chris, that’s a great question. I appreciate it because oftentimes, Republicans put out a number of things that need to be cut and we ignore some of the usual suspects. I can tell you, Republicans are open to and are going to examine – let me just start with Defense – the Defense Department to begin with. There is much that can be cut in Defense. There is much that we can do to make the Defense Department more efficient and not jeopardize what we’ re doing. But look, when it comes to what government should be doing, it is a matter of priorities. Clearly, I am a limited-government conservative who wants my government doing a few things and wants them doing it well. Defending ourselves is one of the major chores of government. When it comes to foreign aid – and Paul, I saw you mention in your earlier segment – there is a proposal to examine foreign aid to each and every country. It is a wonderful idea. We should look, country by country, at who we are giving money to because too often, the money goes to opponents of ours. Too often, the money never reaches the source where it should reach. Now when it comes to funding for Israel – look, they are our closest, dearest ally in the world, certainly in that region. They are awash in a sea of enemies who are trying to annihilate that country. It is in Israel’ s interest and our interest that we provide whatever resources we can to defend Israel. But when it comes to each and every other country that’s getting foreign aid, I love that idea.”

NOTE: <Pending>

March 13, 2011 – 8:52 AM


Guest: IAN VASQUEZ, Director of Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.

Topic: U.S. foreign aid.

Caller: Chris from Alexandria, Virginia.

Caller: “I have a few issues that come to my mind when I hear the term “foreign aid.” First, is the 1 percent that your guest brought up at the beginning of the program – I question that statistic. First, as a government employee, I see a lot of money in the Defense Department going to other countries under the guise of military aid, but I do not know if that captures the intent of it being aid. Take for example the commanders of the emergency relief program. The Department of Defense spends billions of dollars on budget, off budget in supplemental spending, to build schools and other types of projects that traditionally have fallen under the guise of foreign aid. So, I don’ t know if that 1 percent actually captures that kind of spending. The other point is with foreign aid, we are making many enemies. I have not seen the numbers, but from what I have read in different newspaper articles – I haven’t seen the evidence – a large portion of it goes to the Israeli military which is one of the reasons why we are kind of low as a country in the Arab world. We would help ourselves if we wouldn’t have that kind of aid. I think the third point sn the law of unintended consequences, when we are giving aid to, say, African farmers, we are jacking up our prices by subsidizing U.S. farmers, and putting other farmers in Africa out of business because they cannot compete because other farmers are given money that they don’t really earn.”

NOTE: <Pending>

March 13, 2011 – 8:58 AM


Guest: IAN VASQUEZ, Director of Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.

Topic: U.S. foreign aid.

Caller: Frank from Long Beach, California.

Caller: “I’d just like to say that maybe we have a different perspective here. It seems to me that with the exception of Israel, most of what we spend on foreign aid is really American products and it effects American jobs. A friend of mine worked for a company that made auto accessories back in the ‘80s.and their owner was a big Republican contributor. They sent 100,000 of what we used to call as kids, “mickey mouse white walls”– what you put on your blackwalls [tires] to make them look like whitewalls. We sent a 100,000 of them to Uganda. And I have some kind of feeling that Uganda really didn’t really need a whole lot of mickey mouse whitewalls. But it was nice – it double the price of what they sold for here in the United States and they get it all reimbursed from the government. This is what I always thought foreign aid was.”

NOTE: <Pending>

March 10, 2011 – 7:12 AM


Topic: Today’s hearing: “Islamic radicalization” in U.S.

Caller: Anita from Moreland Park, Illinois,

Caller: “Good morning. I just happened to hear about the subject. I am Republican. I wanted to vote for George Bush, but I felt that there would be a war because I was told that Republicans usually engage in war and I couldn’t vote for him but I would not vote for [2008 Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee] Joe Lieberman with Al Gore because I felt that the Jewish interest was there [Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut is a Jew] and that was not the interest in America that we should be looking at. I happen to be Muslim-American and I was with Elijah Muhammad’s son who tried to follow the religion and not [indistinct] and I feel like we should look for people who are trying to break up and tear up the hard-fought democracy that we have established here in America, but I do not think we should take a radical approach. We should take an extremely cautious approach. I do not feel like it is a threat. Most Muslims should be peaceful, if they are really Muslims. Most American Christians and Americans what-ever. they follow – we should all be trying to preserve our democracy. Years ago, there was a lady named Wallida Deitrickson [ph] running for Senator and Carol Mosley Braun I was for her. George Bush had [inaudible] a pers on, Chris Dodd , working for him when he would come to Illinois, and he would also come to the motorcade. I was working with Chris Dodd to get Wallida Deitrickson hired in the south suburbs. Muslims do good things for America and we’re not just all Democrats and we do not want to see our country blown up and torn up, but we do want to establish what Martin Luther King said. Keep everything equal for all people. That’s what we should be looking at. We should not be looking at people coming in to tear our country up, but we should be cautious to make sure no one tears up what we all worked hard for and our ancestors worked hard for.”

SLEN: “Alright Anita. Thank you for calling.”

NOTE: Host Peter Slen allows the entirety of this caller’s lengthy, semi-incoherent monologue in which she establishes the fact that Jewish candidates (at least some) are unacceptable to her. A thoughtful host would have inquired as to what it is specifically about Senator Lieberman or the “Jewish interest” (whatever that might be) that the caller objects to and try to determine if there are any other ethnic/religious groups and their “interests” whose members she might not vote for on whatever grounds. An inquiring host would have asked what the caller’s mosque is teaching about Jewish or Israel related matters. The host could have mentioned that compelling evidence exists that a majority of American mosques are led by Saudi-financed and educated imams who teach and promote Islamic sharia law (which includes the notion that females are to be radically constrained in dress and comportment) and advocate Islamic supercessionism which is the belief that Allah through the prophet Muhammad has replaced Judaism and Christianity with Islam as the way to heaven and eternal life.

March 10, 2011 – 7:22 AM


Topic: Today’s hearing: “Islamic radicalization” in U.S.

Caller: Consuela from Baltimore, Maryland.

Caller: “Good morning. I want to say something about Peter King [chairman of House sub-committee holding hearings on Islamic radicalization] here. What is his proof of this radicalization that he is speaking of, that he is proposing here? And talking about him and [Senator Joseph] Lieberman – I mean, do the American public get the connection here? You’re talking about a lot of Jewish influence here on the Americans to kind of put us against – Christians against Muslims – and you’ve got this Jewish influence that’s causing this…”

SLEN (interrupting): “You think this is the Jewish influence question?”

Caller: “I do believe that some of this is xenophobia on his part. I mean, he doesn’t care for Muslims or whatever. He’s saying Islam is growing too much in the country and these Imams are radicalizing Muslims. Where is your proof of this? Lets (indistinct) this over there. What about the Zionists – what is being promoted in the Jewish synagogues? What is being said there? Because there is a lot of xenophobia about radicalization that’s going on here in Baltimore and there was a kid that got beat up, almost killed because he was walking from school and this so-called Jewish squad — or whatever that runs the neighborhood – came and beat this 15-year old boy with a pipe. Now, they’re letting this guy run off to Israel.“
NOTE: Mr. Slen interrupts the caller’s conspiratorial-spinning diatribe to question the caller about the “the Jewish influence question” as the alleged motivation for the House hearings. However, Slen, while allowing the caller to avoid answering this question, tolerates the caller’s venomous anti-Jewish harangue, advancing the idea that Jewish houses of worship are promoting hate against Muslims. As icing on the cake, the obsessive caller provides unchallenged anecdotal evidence of alleged Jewish intimidation of a neighborhood (“this so-called Jewish squad”) including beating “this 15-year old boy with a pipe.”

An effective host might have determined if the caller, in view of her accusations, has herself ever attended a Jewish worship service that promoted hate of Muslims. If the caller has not done this, the caller could have been asked where her information was obtained from on this matter and if the caller has information as to what is being taught in her neighborhood or area mosques about Jewish or Israel related matters.

March 10, 2011 – 7:25 AM


Topic: Today’s hearing: “Islamic radicalization” in U.S.

Caller: Khalid from Elizabeth, New Jersey.

Caller: “How are you doing? I would like to say salam aleichem [‘peace be upon you’ in Arabic] to all the Muslims in the world. I just wanted to touch on a couple points. The first thing is, if any Muslim in the world believes that America is going to apply justice to any Muslim anywhere in the world, America, anywhere in the world, all you have to do is look at Palestine. Palestine is the model of how America, the European Union, and all the other European countries treat Muslims. All you have to do is look at the history of Palestine [sic] and you will see what I’m talking about. The second thing is, this term – terrorism and radicalization. I was watching the Super Bowl [National Football League championship game]. We sing the Star Spangled Banner and you have all these commercials with joining the Army, Navy, and the Air Force, Marines. You see all the different weapons we have in this country. I think America radicalizes the people who fight in our armies, in our wars. I have a lot of respect for people in the Army because I have people in my family who have been in the Army, Air Force, and Marines. I have an uncle who was a Tuskegee airman. All I’m trying to say is, we radicalize our military to kill, to be the best killers in the world. And the people that we’re killing right now are Muslims. The last thing I want to say is, in terms of terrorism, I think terrorism is a creative term by the people who have the means and the ability to control the media. And if Muslims are terrorists, tell me any weapon any guns they build, any bonds they make, America has over 80,000 homicides per year because of people killing because of guns. Let’s be real when we talk about terrorism.”

Host: “Khalid, we got the point. Thank you for calling in.”

NOTE: Host Peter Slen tolerates the caller’s lengthy anti-America, anti-Israel diatribe and finally terminates the monotonous monologue only when it’s quite clear that the caller could continue venting his animosity indefinitely. Instead of a non-response, Slen might have asked the caller why he remains in America when he hates this country so much. Since the caller is so outraged about what he perceives as the terrible treatment of Muslims by the West, Slen might have asked what the caller makes of the killings of multitudes of Muslims by other Muslims as in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

March 8, 2011 – 9:42 AM


Guest: ERIC LICHTBLAU, New York Times national security reporter.

Topic: Lobbying and foreign governments.

Caller: Reepew (ph) from Brooklyn, Connecticut.

Caller: “Yes. I mean, what the Arabs are doing in Congress is a drop in the bucket. No one is looking at Israel. Why would someone (indistinct) about this Arab influen ce when Israel has made our Congress and this country, unfortunately, a colony — and the numbers would show you that. I mean, the amount of resolutions in Congress, the amount of bills – everything in favor of Israel. Only recently we had a bill that an Israeli dual citizen can occupy the highest position in our government, whether it is intelligence or could become a cabinet member. It doesn’t matter what. Excepting Israel, no other country was excepted – so you can be a dual citizen of the United States and you can be anything except President of the United States. Why talk about that when this is the mother of all lobbies – for Israel.”

Host: “Caller, before we get a response, where are you from?”

Caller: “I am from Brooklyn, Connecticut.”

Host: “Originally?”

Caller: “I was born in South America – Guyana.”

Host: “Got you. Thank you, Reepew. Bringing Israel into the conversation.”

Guest: “Sure. Well, we focus our story on Arab nations in the Middle East for the simple reason because that is where the tumult and violence has been for the last two months. I mean, there has been this wave of revolution that swept through the Arab nations, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, etc., etc., Bahrain, Yemen. It has not directly affected Israel. That said, as the caller said, Israel is a major lobbying force in the region. They are sort of watching all of this very, very closely because it affects their national security, above all else. Israel is well represented in Washington. AIPAC and other groups are very influential, spend enormous amounts of money and have close relations with many House members and Senate members. But their role in the current events, which is what we are talking about today, and obviously is the focus of my story, is more as an onlooker than an active participant.”

Host: “Beyond Israel and other countries you mentioned in the story, what other countries should we know about that are very active in this area making the connection with this?”

Guest: “Saudi Arabia we have not talked about much. I was alluding to them earlier. They are probably as big a force or bigger than anyone else. Their oil wealth, their critical role in counter- terrorism operations, the influence of Islamic and fundamentalist forces, they have an enormous lobbying operation in Washington. So far, we have not seen the kind of unrest in Saudi Arabia that we have seen in many of the other countries that we mentioned. But that is a region where you can be sure that their [Saudi] Washington emissaries are very actively monitoring the situation and making sure that members of Congress know what are the concerns and positions of the royal family and waiting to respond if events heat up there too.”

NOTE: The caller’s outrageous, propagandistic distortion that “Israel has made our Congress and this country, unfortunately, a colony” is left unchallenged by guest and host. Likewise left unchallenged is the caller’s venomous falsehood that the only dual nationality citizen that can hold high U.S. government office – is an Israeli. But this harmful lie is allowed to fester in the hearts of C-SPAN viewers. The guest, at the prompting of host Orgel, appropriately emphasized the substantial influence of oil-wealthy Saudi Arabia but could have also elaborated on the enormous investment made by the Saudis and the oil-wealthy Gulf states in influencing American public opinion through large direct investments in American academia and foundations. CAMERA reports on this matter here. Further, the guest, mentioned the Israeli lobby AIPAC but neglected to also mention influential American Arab lobbying groups such as AAI, AADC, CAIR. Pertaining to discussions involving Israel or Jews, unbalance continues to be a C-SPAN “Washington Journal” hallmark.

March 6, 2011 – 9:43 AM


Guest: SHEILA KRUMHOLTZ, Executive Director of Center for Responsive Politics.

Topic: Politics and outside group funding.

Caller: Helen from Glasgow, Scotland (listening on the BBC Parliament channel).

Caller: “Hello. First of all, I would like to preface my question by saying I voted for Obama and my mother is a Jew. My question is, considering Obama had to veto the U.N. Security Council resolution against on-going Israeli settlements, at what point does lobbying become a case of the tail wagging the dog.”

Host: “We’ll just take the last part of her question.”
NOTE: Guest Sheila Krumholtz, complying with Mr. Scully’s directive, ducked the Israeli aspect of the question and only discussed lobbying in general. The caller’s remark, “my mother is a Jew” is apparently supposed to absolve her from any taint of anti-Israel or anti-Jewish bias. Of course, it does not and can, in fact be considered insulting to Jewish people. The veto of the U.N. Security Council resolution was on the basis that it falsely characterized Jewish communities in the disputed West Bank as “illegal” (which they are not according to the League of Nations Mandate, Article 6, U.N. Charter, Article 80, and, by implication, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, among other provisions of international law) and that it was unbalanced. This is U.N. Ambassador Rice’s statement on NBC’s Meet the Press: “First of all, David, we vetoed the resolution not only because of the word “illegal” but because our view is that we need to get the parties back to direct negotiations so that they can agree through direct talks on a two-state solution.” Here and here are reports on the false “illegal settlements” claim and the illegal occupation by Palestinian Arabs of Jewish-owned land in Jerusalem.
March 6, 2011 – 9:55 AM


Guest: SHEILA KRUMHOLTZ, Executive Director of Center for Responsive Politics.

Topic: Politics and outside group funding.

Caller: Kathleen from Nelsonville, Ohio

Caller: “Thank you for taking my call. I sure hope I get as much time as that fellow. But first I want to mention quickly that I think [previous guest] Frank Luntz’ book should be called “spin” not “win” and I hope some media group really goes through what he said because there were quite a few lies in what he said. But, anyway, I want to ask your guest what other countries that are democracies – would have – where corporations have so much influence as they do now with Citizens United [conservative non-profit organization]. I was surprised when I looked at the Chamber of Commerce funds – where they came from – how much money was coming from corporations based in India. You talked about foreign-based influence, so if you could talk more about the Chamber of Commerce, where they get their money in regard to other countries. And this is off-topic, but I watched Washington Journal and twice you guys have shown a map of the West Bank in the last few weeks that does not show the land being an uncontiguous piece of land. So, I wish you guys would really throw up a map that really shows the illega l settlements instead of that inaccurate map. But thanks. ”

SCULLY: “Kathleen, thanks. We’ll follow up with our producers. We do have a couple of different maps. One we are showing probably may be too small to show that area. We do have close-ups we have used in the past. Appreciate your comment.”
NOTE: As CAMERA has documented frequently, C-SPAN’s Washington Journal is the television forum of choice for insistent, anti-Israel, anti-Jewish callers. Neither host Steve Scully nor guest Sheila Krumholtz commented on the caller’s tendentious reference to Israeli “illegal settlements.” The guest’s area of specialization lay elsewhere, but host Scully apparently did not know enough to expose the caller’s false charge that Jewish communities in the West Bank – which compromise less than five percent of the territory – break Arab-populated zones into non-contiguous areas or the caller’s off-topic mud-tossing at a previous guest, Frank Luntz. Moderator Scully and his fellow Journal hosts often prove to be either unwilling or unable to challenge lies by callers (also, occasionally by guests such as the obsessively anti-Israel Michael Scheuer) defaming Israel. Here and here are are reports on the false “illegal settlements” claim and the illegal occupation by Palestinian Arabs of Jewish-owned land in Jerusalem.

Regardless of the Journal’s announced topic, this particular chronic anti-Israel caller, using different names, typically is permitted to grab any opening to disparage Israel. “Kathleen from Nelsonville, Ohio” is identical to “Ann from Ohio” who falsely complained (Jan. 29, 2011, 7:21 AM) “They’ll [media] cover the protest in Iran but they won’t cover the Palestinians who have been protesting for years peacefully” and is identical to “Kay from Trotwood, Ohio” who referred falsely (Oct. 30, 2010, 7:24 AM) to “illegal [Israeli] settlements.”

Likewise, this caller is identical to “Patricia from Dayton, Ohio” who complained (May 10, 2010, 7:32 AM) on Washington Journal about an alleged lack of media coverage of the Israeli-Arab conflict. As “Kate from Chopwood, Ohio” (Aug. 26, 2010, 7:20 AM), she falsely complained, “We have had decades of blackouts with the news about the harsh realities for the Palestinians for what’s really going on there.”

Comments are closed.