Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘keith-weissman’

Steve Rosen’s Double Life: Pimping for Israel, Trolling Craigslist for Gay Sex

Tuesday, November 16th, 2010
craig's list sex services

Steve Rosen's 'craving' for Craig's List sex listings

The transcripts of depositions (warning: this is a single pdf page containing hundreds of pages of transcripts with no easy way of navigating through it) in Steve Rosen’s $20 million defamation case against his former employer, Aipac, are just becoming public as both sides ratchet up pressure on the other and manuever for legal advantage.  I pride myself that almost nothing anyone can tell me about Aipac would shock.  But this material goes way beyond that.  It includes a little of everything: salacious sex, computer porn, clandestine meetings with Israeli agents (aka diplomats), angry confrontations with FBI agents threatening arrest, references to Jonathan Pollard and even Alfred Dreyfuss.

When I first got this material from a source I wrote back and said: can Steve Rosen really have used Craig’s List to procure anonymous gay sex from other married men?  But alas, it’s true and spoken in Rosen’s own words.

So where to start: Aipac’s lawyers made a summary judgment motion earlier this month asking the judge to dismiss the last remaining claim in the case.  As part of its motion, Aipac deliberately dumped all the previous deposition transcripts into the public domain.  Here are the primary findings for those keeping score at home:

1. Steve Rosen, a man married five times, arranged for anonymous sex trysts via Craig’s List (not that dissimilar from Sen. Larry Craig’s MO) and even conceded to Aipac’s deposing attorney he may’ve used the organization’s own computers to do so.  That’s OK, he argues because Howard Kohr and Kohr’s secretary viewed pornographic images in the workplace and pubicly regaled their fellow workers with them.

2. Steve Rosen spent much, if not most of his work time, recruiting federal employees, mostly at the Department of Defense, to reveal classified information that would be of interest to Israel.  When he recruited such an employee or secured such information he pretty much went directly to his “handlers” in the Israeli embassy to whom he passed the information or contact.  The very first person with whom he met after being the FBI confronted him and warned that he might be arrested was NOT his own attorney or anyone from Aipac, but the deputy director of the Israeli embassy.  Such warning, allowed Israel to roll up its espionage-intelligence operation and spirit Naor Gillon out of DC so he would not be arrested and thus embroil Israel directly in the controversy. As the Forward notes in its report, this fact may be a very important one since if Rosen was following the procedures and directives of Aipac in summoning the Israeli for the meeting and warning him about the investigation, then Aipac is in effect an accessory to Israeli intelligence operations in this country and not a fully independent American lobbying venture.

3. After Aipac fired Rosen (and his colleague Keith Weissman), Aipac’s wealthiest and most powerful donors lined up behind Rosen and raised nearly $1-million that was distributed to him over the four year period until the government dismissed its case against him.  Some gifts were even bundled by two major fundraising leaders, just as they might be in a political campaign.  The gifts were structured so that neither Rosen nor the donors would have to report them on their IRS tax forms, with checks made out to Rosen, his wife and three children to skirt minimum gift reporting levels.

Let’s be straight here, so to speak: if Steve Rosen wants to engage in furtive sex that’s his business.  It should only be a footnote to the overall weirdness of this story.  But what is important about this is that Steve Rosen, who wrote this memorable phrase in a memo to M.J. Rosenberg:

A lobby is like a midnight flower, it thrives in the dark and wilts in the light.

Which means that Aipac itself and Rosen professionally led precisely the same types of lives that the latter did privately.  In other words, he lived a lie which he perpetrated on his wives and children.  He presented himself as something he wasn’t in order to cater to whatever personal or sexual demons might’ve been like hellhounds on his trail.  Aipac’s offices as described by Rosen in his deposition sound more like a bawdy house than a place where serious work was done.  He alludes to fellow employees and directors regaling each other with stories about prostitutes.  All of it gives the lie to Aipac as a high-toned serious organization.

Anyone who knew Steve Rosen personally or by reputation had to know he was one sleazy dude (though I have heard one former Aipac staffer speak fondly of him). The information above only confirms that he practiced such sleaziness both in his professional and personal life. There will be those among Aipac’s supporter who will attempt to dissociate themselves from Rosen: he was fired when the organization discovered he’d disgraced its principles, etc. But this is nonsense. I do agree with Rosen in at least one major respect: he was doing his job precisely as Aipac wanted him to. Howard Kohr knew every top secret document Rosen lifted from the defense department files and he knew what Rosen did with the information in those memos. He knew every reporter Rosen tempted with tidbits, he knew every Israeli embassy handler with whom Rosen met to further his and Israel’s intelligence harvesting agenda. In that sense, Rosen was Aipac and Aipac, Rosen. As Israel’s ass-lickingest Congress members like to say about the Israel-U.S. relationship: “there wasn’t any daylight between them” in this regard.

For those of you who wonder what the average day of an Aipac policy staffer might be like take a look at this calendar as laid out by the FBI in its investigation:
rosen deposition transcript

I’m not foolish enough to believe that the FBI’s portrayal of Steve Rosen’s work might not be the full story of what he did for a living. But knowing everything else I know about both Rosen, his reputation and Aipac’s I’ve got to say that this schedule probably isn’t that far wrong.

The man himself confirms some of our worst fears through his own words. When he sits down with Israel’s deputy chief of mission, Rafi Barak, to tell him that Larry Franklin and Naor Gillon’s cover have been blown, the first analogy that comes to mind to convey the gravity of the situation is saying this is a Pollard situation. In other words, when the shit hit the fan Rosen thought of the likening the case in which he was involved to the most damaging American Jewish spy to have fed secrets to the Israelis in the history of both our nations.

At another point when he is taking with the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler about a possible story and feeding him some classified government information he thanks his lucky stars that there is no Official Secrets Act in the U.S. In other words, he is thankful that neither he nor Kessler can be prosecuted by the federal government for such leaks though in England they could be. In all of his work, Rosen speaks of himself in the language of espionage and spies. Whether what he did was legal or not, it is telling to view matters the way he did. It tells you a great deal about how he saw himself and how he saw Aipac’s role.

Aipac’s argument is always, we do what every other lobby inside the Beltway does, or wishes it had the skills or resources to do. And they have a point. They may not be quite the evil villains people like Grant Smith paint them to be. They after all are exercising their constitutional right to petition the government regarding public policy. That’s not my quarrel with Aipac. My quarrel is that they step right up the red lines of proper lobbyist behavior and then cross over. Then they dare anyone to call them on it. And that includes presidents, the Justice Department and the FBI.

Curiously, even though Aipac fired Rosen and Weissman apparently because they peddled a story based on classified intelligence to a Post reporter, the group had no specific policy at the time prohibiting such conduct.  Now it does.  Which is interesting, and makes me wonder how it will continue to handle its little escapades with government sources.  I’m guessing one way it might handle this, is to pass information directly from its sources to the Israelis bypassing the “middleman.”  Though this may possibly put the sources into greater legal jeopardy since I presume it would harder to prosecute them for leaking to Aipac than to the Israeli government.

In his own deposition, Howard Kohr claims he never knew nor approved of Aipac receiving classified government documents.  He also claims (and I don’t believe him) this was the case throughout his tenure.  Which is convenient because at least one of his predecessors notes that he did know of such Aipac activities during his tenure.  When you want history on these issues, best to go back to Larry Cohler Esses’ archives.  He wrote in Jewish Week in 2005:

Thomas Dine, a former executive director of AIPAC, confirmed this week that during his tenure Steven Rosen, the lobby’s foreign policy director until April, informed him of his success in gaining access to a highly classified document…Dine said federal agents investigating Rosen unearthed a memo from 1983, soon after Rosen’s arrival at AIPAC, in which Rosen boasted about his access to a comprehensive, classified review of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

…AIPAC and federal prosecutors have depicted Rosen as a lone ranger. His superiors at AIPAC have said that until recently they were ignorant of his alleged pursuit of classified information.

The last major group to be deeply embarrassed by these revelations will be the fatcat leadership cadre which anted up hundreds of thousands to shut Rosen up or keep him happy. The donor list is a virtual Who’s Who of American Jewry’s wealthiest and most powerful: Larry Hochberg ($200K bundled), Lynn and Stacy Schusterman ($18K), Haim Saban ($100K), Walter Stern, Daniel Abraham ($75K), Ralph Goldman, Randall Levitt, Newton Becker (~$200K). It’s not clear what the motivation for the payments was: rewarding Rosen’s loyalty, keeping him quiet, expression of kindness to someone in need.

Again, turning to Cohler-Esses contemporaneous reporting in Jewish Week in 2005, these same donors appear to have approached Mort Klein of ZOA and asked if he’d hire Rosen with the donors picking up the tab.  Somewhat surprisingly, knowing Klein’s usual recklessness, he declined citing the near insanity of hiring someone about to be indicted by the feds.

Former Aipac officers told the Jewish Week reporter that the Aipac donors’ motivation may be to cover Aipac’s ass by covering Rosen’s:

“I’m sure there’s a concern Steve would reveal everything he knows about AIPAC” in a trial, said the former official. “The concern is not just violations of law but also from a political angle; they don’t want the inner workings of the lobby laid out.”

This ex-official said Rosen also might reveal information that could leave AIPAC with other, unrelated legal problems. These included potential violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act and Federal Elections Commission regulations, he said.

Another former official opined, “Their biggest worry right now is if the case against Rosen and Weissman becomes a case against AIPAC. They’re terrified the feds will get Rosen to flip. If they’re putting up the money for his next job — well, Steve Rosen is not a wealthy guy.”

Whatever the motivation, the way in which the payments were structured were designed to conceal them from scrutiny by the public or IRS. Checks were given not just to Rosen, but to his wife and children in order to keep the threshhold below the minimum required for reporting for tax purposes. This also meant that Rosen himself didn’t have to report them as income to the IRS.

I find the fact that America’s wealthiest Jews were eager to reward a man for eliciting top secret information from the federal government and giving it to Israel is at the least unseemly. You can spin this any way you want and Hochberg et al undoubtedly will, but this was something more than helping a guy when he’s down and out. This was protecting their own organization when it looked like it too might get dragged into the mud by the government. It was save Rosen’s ass, save Aipac’s.

In deposition, Aipac questioned Rosen about these gifts seeking to argue disingenuously that they somehow accrued to Aipac’s credit. As if, contrary to Rosen’s claim that his firing destroyed his ability to earn a living (which it did), these gifts by these Aipac donors proved the group was still on his side and therefore couldn’t possibly be seeking to harm his reputation.

What did Steve Rosen get for his 23 years at Aipac? Nearly $5-million in lawyer’s fees paid out begrudgingly, $144,000 in severance, and six months COBRA coverage. That’s it. A measly $6,000 for every year of service after he fell on his sword for the group. Frankly, I can’t see how they’re going to get out of this lawsuit without paying him a few mill. It seems the least these jackals can do for a fellow jackal.

A couple of stray oddities in all this that are worth mentioning. When Aipac’s attorney tells Rosen they found pornography on his computer he professes not to know how it got there. Did he surf porn websites? Sure, doesn’t everybody? But he never did anything that would’ve caused anything to have been downloaded on his work computer. It’s like Bill Clinton saying he didn’t inhale. How does he think the files got there? Did they worm their way into his PC unbidden? Rosen even volunteers that he didn’t watch videos (God forbid), only looked at pictures. As if that somehow sounds better. But of course he viewed videos. How else do files get on a computer? They’re downloaded. And when you watch a video it’s downloaded to your PC. The other way a file is downloaded is if you manually copy an image to your hard drive and it’s very possible Steve did that though he claims he was a choir boy in that regard: he looked but he didn’t download. He also, to show you what a smart dude he is, points to a Nielsen survey that found that 27% of Americans view porn at work. I swear, where did they get this guy from? Central Casting for jackasses and hypocrites??!

Rosen seems to draw a moral line in the sand concerning pornography. Images of adults are OK, but images of children are not. And Steve wants you to know that he never was into children. OK, now that we know that I somehow feel a whole lot better.

There is a long exchange between Rosen and Aipac’s attorney in which they flail as they attempt to explain to each other the difference between “browse” and “view.” It’s amusing because they fall all over each other at first asking a question, then seeing whether the other guy can answer it himself so as not to embarrass the questioner too much. Guys, you “browse” the web. You don’t browse images (unless you’re on the Google Images site–& hey, maybe that’s where Steve was). You “view” an image.

The Forward’s own report on these depositions quotes Rosen warning Aipac: “You ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.” He claims that his own filings later this month will put to shame the dirt Aipac exposed about him and his personal life. I can hardly wait. But I warn readers to put on a shower cap when you read this stuff so it doesn’t get dumped on your head on the way down.

Iran Conference Video Available Online

Friday, December 25th, 2009

I’d like to thank Ed Mays of Pirate TV, who arranged for videotaping the Iran conference I organized last week: Iran-Israel, U.S.: Resolving the Nuclear Impasse.  The presentations by Muhammad Sahimi, Ian Lustick and Keith Weissman are now available online (video stream).

Military Attack on Iran Will Set Reform Back 50 Years

Friday, December 18th, 2009

Yesterday, I organized a series of media and public events on the Iranian nuclear crisis which featured Prof. Muhammad Sahimi, an expert on Iran’s nuclear program, Ian Lustick, a University of Pennsylvania political scientist specializing in Israeli politics, and Keith Weissman, former AIPAC deputy director.  Sahimi and Lustick joined Steve Scher’s Weekday on KUOW (audio stream here) and KIRO talk show host, Dave Ross, interviewed Sahimi (audio stream here).

(L. to R.) Profs. Ellis Goldberg, Ian Lustick, Keith Weissman and Muhammad Sahimi, conference speakers (photo: Cliff Wells)

(L. to R.) Profs. Ellis Goldberg, Ian Lustick, Keith Weissman and Muhammad Sahimi, conference speakers (all photos: Cliff Wells)

Ed Mays will be posting video and I will also post audio of the evening event shortly.

125 people heard the above speakers discuss Iran, Israel, U.S.: Resolving the Nuclear Impasse at Town Hall.  What follows is an impressionistic summary of the most important ideas and information I gleaned yesterday.

Prof. Sahimi is a chemical engineer with special expertise in the world energy industry.  As a scientist he pays especially close attention to the Iranian nuclear program.

Just after the Islamic Revolution, when he was a young student, he told me that young people generally chose one of two political tendencies, the Mujahadeen al Khalq a moderate Islamist left group or the Communist Tudeh movement.  He supported the Mujahadeen as did some of his brothers and cousins.  Tragically, one of his brothers and several of his cousins were murdered.  One of the cousins who died was a doctor and his “crime” was tending to the wounds of fellow Mujahadeen members.

He told this story to establish his bona fides as a critic of the Iranian regime and as a supporter of some aspects of its nuclear program.  He does not accept Ahmadinejad’s victory in the June election and does not call him “president.”  The elections were a sham.  Nonetheless, he finds that some of the arguments raised by Iranian officials regarding the nuclear program are cogent.  First, both reformers and the current leaders support this program.  So if we are so naive as to believe that we will resolve our problem through regime change (short of installing a puppet regime), we are sorely mistaken.  Second, we are hypocritical to deny Iran the ability to do research that many other western nations are pursuing.  Third, there is no evidence so far that Iran is actively following a path that would lead to building a nuclear weapon, there is some evidence to support the idea that the country is pursuing research that would lead to its ability to create such a weapon if it decided to do so.

Introducing conference

Introducing conference

This is a path that Japan decided to follow in the 1960s.  It has not nuclear weapons.  But should it feel under attack from one of its neighbors and face a severe national security threat it could put into place an effort to create such a weapon in short order.  Yet you don’t hear the world complaining about this.

No matter how deranged Iran’s domestic politics seem under the clerical regime, its foreign policy is conducted under different and far more pragmatic terms.  Iran knows that should it go too far that Israel and the U.S. stand ready to vaporize it with their own arsenals.  They look around them and see their country surrounded on three sides by U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf (the 5th fleet), and Iraq.  They understand the limitations of their power.  Despite the claims about “wild-eyed mullahs” they are anything but when it comes to relations with the outside world.

If Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons is it to destroy Israel?  In a word, no.  Aside from the three-sided net the U.S. has sewn around Iran, several Iranian neighbors like Pakistan and Russia have nuclear weapons.  Not to mention Israel’s warheads which could strike it as well.  And one fact that is insufficiently understood is that Iran is deeply worried about the instability of the former.  Within Pakistan, there is deep hatred of Shiism, the dominant form of Iranian Islam.  Pakistan is rumored to have funded and founded an anti-Iranian terror group, Jundallah that is active inside Iran along their joint border.  Iranians worry that an unstable Pakistan could fall to the Taliban or other radical Islamist forces who will look to Iran as a mortal enemy and feel free to use its nuclear arsenal as political blackmail.  We must recognize that Iran does have legitimate national security concerns to preserve its territorial integrity and social stability.  If we address these concerns and treat them as legitimate then we may be able to resolve the impasse.

Prof. Ian Lustick

Prof. Ian Lustick

Prof.Lustick also says the Iranians have taken note of the fact that having a nuclear weapon has protected countries like North Korea from outside attack and regime change.  All they have to do is look next door to see what happens to a leader the U.S. doesn’t like who does NOT have a nuclear arsenal.  This lesson is not lost on Iran.

Sahimi argues that Iran itself has not pursued an offensive war in 275 years.  So the notion that it will take out Israel is far-fetched in the extreme.  Ian Lustick also argues that most Israeli security experts (as opposed to politicians) do not predict an Iranian attack on Israel.

He also notes the similarities between Israel’s early nuclear program and the current Iranian posture.  Israel maintains studied ambiguity regarding its nuclear capability.  It has always refused to acknowledge that it has such weapons, though experts generally concede it currently has about 400 warheads.  It has always said it will not be the first to use nuclear weapons in the Middle East, though it immediately contradicts that statement by adding it won’t be the second either.  More studied ambiguity.

Lustick also notes another historical parallel between Israel and the U.S.’ deep-seated fear of a nuclear Iran and the Soviet Union’s similar response in 1965, when they learned from an Israeli spy that his country was a few years away from developing a nuclear weapon.  The Soviets were so hysterically opposed to this that they did their best to provoke the 1967 war.  They even basing their most sophisticated Foxbat MIG fighter-bombers there in preparation for an all out assault on Israel’s Dimona facility.   They felt they needed the cover of a war in order to launch such an attack.

The point he makes is that we should learn from the mistake that the Soviets almost made in 1967 and not repeat it through the same overreaction.

Lustick argues that the reason Israel is so vehement about stopping an Iranian weapon is NOT because it fears being attacked, but rather it fears losing nuclear hegemony and the constrictions on its own behavior which would result.  Israel has always followed the dictum of Jacobtinsky’s Iron Wall, which argued that Israel need to use massive, overpowering force to defeat the Arabs so they would eventually see reason and accept Israel on its own terms.  This explains the “madman” strategy of the Lebanon and Gaza wars.  If Iran gets the bomb, then Israel can no longer muster that overwhelming firepower to intimidate the Arab enemy.  This will mean that it is that much more likely Israel will have to accomodate to its opponents than the other way around.  This constraint upon its courses of action is unacceptable and “sends shivers down the spines of Israeli leaders.”

Lustick and Sahimi both argue that the fear of Israeli military vulnerability will also encourage a net migration outflow from Israel to the Diaspora.  In such an event, the first to go would be the best educated, wealthiest, and those with intellectual, scientific and technical backgrounds which Israel can ill afford to lose.  Those who choose to remain will be the poor, elderly and those with the least likelihood of succeeding outside Israel.  So the real threat from an Iranian bomb is the debilitating psychological impact and instability it will instill.

This also plays into the deep trauma instilled in Israel by the Holocaust.  Which means that when the Iranians speak in terms that resonate with the Nazis in Israeli minds, it also provokes an atavistic survival mode response.  While some Israelis will dig in their heels and say they’ll fight till the end, many others will say they refuse to live under the threat of a potential Iranian nuclear attack since it brings to mind memories of the Holocaust.  They will not want their children to face such a fight and may choose to emigrate.  In fact, in the past seven years there has been significant emigration and a net outflow of population.

Lustick calls for patience in dealing with Iran and recognition of the fact that the mixed messages emanating from there about various nuclear approaches and compromises offered and then rescinded indicate an internal political situation in a state of flux.  Instead of posing parnoiac theories about Iran seeking regional dominance and mistrusting every statement made by the Iranians, we should take a step back and view developments in pure internal political terms.  The reformers are vying for power with the hardliners.  Neither is in complete control.

In fact, the reformers are the ones who are taking a harder line than Ahmadinejad regarding the nuclear talks with the west.  So if we really support the former and want them to succeed, we have to recognize the possibility that the nuclear debate is a secondary issue to the more important question of who will control Iran in the long-term.  If we shrei about the axis of evil and use other hyperbolic phrasing, we only stand to make things worse.

The current crisis also enables one to broach the idea that all nuclear states should be on the same terms, and the same demands should be made of all of them.  They all should join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (Israel is not a member).  They all should offer inspections by the IAEA.  They should all follow the same standards and sign the same agreements.  There needs to be transparency in nuclear affairs and not the current state of opacity represented by Israel’s approach.

Israel’s supporters point out Iran’s support for neighboring forces like Hezbollah and Hamas who wreak havoc on Israel’s northern and southern flank.  They use this as evidence that that country harbors expansionist motives and seeks to sow seeds of discord into regional politics.  Lustick argues that the best way to defang this issue is a comprehensive peace agreement among Israel, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians.  In fact, one Iranian president said: “It’s not up to us to be more Palestinian than the Palestinians.”  If they accept an agreement, Iran will as well.  That is the best way to end these proxy battles.

The University of Pennsylvania professor invoked a new book, Iranophobia, which argues for deep parallels between the Israeli Zionist historical narrative and the Shah’s tale of an ancient Persian empire revived via his Peacock Throne.  In each mythology an ancient people was returning to its ancient home to claim its historical birthright.  The goal of both Zionism and the Shah was to turn this ancient regime into a modern, western one which was an important political, economic and military state.  In this way, Israel and Iran saw each other as kindred spirits in this project.  So when the Shah was toppled and was replaced by what some Israelis called a “Levantine dunghill,” it shattered Israel and made it realize in some deep way if it could happen to the Pahlevis it could happen to it as well.

Keith Weissman, as former deputy director of Aipac, spoke about the ineffectiveness of sanctions.  He said he wrote the first set of legislative sanctions for Congress in 1995 and experience has shown that they have failed.  Unilateral sanctions don’t work.  The only instance in which sanctions have ever worked was South Africa and the circumstances there were much different from what we face today.  In fact, sanctions are a “placeholder” policy because they stave off a cry for military attack, which no one in the Obama administration wants to face.

The problem is that sanctions are not a policy in and of themselves.  They don’t advance an agenda, they merely prevent a worse outcome.  They cannot replace the need for a comprehensive settlement of the outstanding issues with each party’s needs and interests being considered as legitimate.

Iran-Israel-U.S.: Resolving the Nuclear Impasse

Monday, November 9th, 2009

My readers will recall a series of posts going back to September criticizing a hawkish Seattle Jewish federation conference on Iran held at Temple DeHirsh Sinai on October 21st, which included speakers from Aipac, the Jerusalem Post, and the Israeli consul general.  I made my opposition to the partisanship of this known here and also published an op ed in the local Jewish newspaper.  It wasn’t easy to get my voice heard locally.  But I think the fact that the conference speakers toned down the message they could have delivered came somewhat as a result of the ”pummeling” they took beforehand from me.

Iran conference FlyerAt any rate, I determined that I would organize a conference to address the same subject from a more pragmatic, realistic perspective.  On December 16th at 7PM at Town Hall, I am organizing a community conference on Israel-U.S.-Iran relations providing a background to the current international crisis over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.  In response to a growing furor in the U.S. Congress, media and specifically in the American Jewish community calling for “crippling sanctions” (Bibi Netanyahu’s phrase) and even a possible military strike against Iran, a coalition of Seattle academic, religious, and peace groups, and individual activists is organizing an event that will feature national Iran experts who present a pragmatic approach to resolving the conflict advocating diplomatic engagement and critiquing military options.

Speakers:

Dr. Trita Parsi, director & founder of the National Iranian American Council
Dr. Ian Lustick, political science professor, Univ. of Pennsylvania
Dr. Keith Weissman, former director of Aipac’s Iran desk
Moderator: Dr. Ellis Goldberg, political science professor, University of Washington

We hope to have an audience of 500 for this event and also to secure media coverage promoting our realist vision for improving relations between these three nations.

I am soliciting donations from my readers and event sponsors to cover costs for the evening which will surpass $6,000.  Please consider as generous a gift as you can afford.  If you need a tax-deduction for your gift, it can be made through American Friends Service Committee.  E-mail me for information on how to do this.  You may purchase tickets for the conference through Brown Paper Tickets.  For further information call 206.632.0662 extension 30.

Among the issues we plan to cover:

1.          What is the best way to approach the issue of Iran’s nuclear program that will secure a positive outcome for those nations opposed to it?

2.         What impact might “crippling sanctions” have on Iran and the overall conflict?  Will they work?

3.         What repercussions might there be from an Israeli military attack on Iran and would such an attack attain its objectives?

4.         If a military attack is ill-advised, how do we work to counter it?

5.         How can the west support the goals of the Iran reform movement?

6.         Is Iran an “existential threat” to Israel?

Event sponsors:

Middle East Center, University of Washington*
American Friends Service Committee
United Nations Association
Network Promoting Peace with Iran
Jewish Voice for Peace
Kadima Reconstructionist Community
American Muslims of Puget Sound

* The Middle East Center’s sponsorship of this event does not imply it endorses the content of the event.

Misunderstanding the Iranian Threat

Friday, October 16th, 2009

The following appeared in today’s JTNews, the newspaper of the Seattle Jewish community.  It was accompanied by an excellent news report by Leyna Crow on the controversy surrounding the Seattle federation co-sponsored conference on the alleged Iranian nuclear threat.  To support the progressive Iran-Israel conference on December 16th, please make a donation here to cover our expenses:

The Jewish federation is hosting a community conference, Understanding the Iranian Threat, on October 21st.  The federation website notes it:

…Will provide a look at Iran’s history and political landscape; an in-depth analysis of the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran; its strategic threat to Israel, the United States and the world; and, an understanding of how we can prevent it.

While the panel speakers (from Aipac, the Jerusalem Post and Israeli government) are qualified to represent the views of the Israeli government, Aipac and StandWithUs, the sponsors, they are not qualified to discuss “Iran’s history and political landscape” since they likely have never visited Iran, do not speak Farsi, and have no academic expertise in this field.

This event will present a partisan hawkish view of the Iranian crisis.  Expenses for this event will be paid by Aipac and SWU, hardline pro-Israel advocacy groups.  Speakers will advocate “crippling sanctions” (Bibi Netanyahu’s term) and failing them, a possible military attack on Iran.  Katz, in a report in the Post said that such an Israeli military attack on Iran could cause the current hardline government to fall.  In fact, almost every serious Iran analyst believes that a military attack on Iran will unite the nation behind the hardline clerics and doom the reformist movement.  The leader of the opposition, Mir-Hussein Moussavi, has publicly warned that further sanctions will hurt his movement.

We as Jews should think about the long-term impact of U.S. and Israeli actions.  If we really wish a more democratic Iran open to foregoing nuclear weapons, then a pragmatic approach is the only way to go.  As tempting as confronting Iran’s Ahmadinejads is, we should think about the impact of threats and harsh rhetoric on political reality.  Iran’s current hardline leadership is an unsavory lot.  But a policy of confrontation will not attain the goals that we set for eliminating Iran’s nuclear threat.

The federation conference claims to represent the consensus views of the local Jewish community.  But the 2009 American Jewish Committee national survey finds  that about one-third of Jews oppose an attack on Iran.  This minority realist strain in Jewish opinion will NOT (as of the day I write this) be represented by any panelist at the event.

While JTNews originally refused to publish this statement claiming it is unnecessary because the event will not be partisan.  I disagreed and planned to pay for an ad to make views known that should have been readily published.  But I’m pleased to say that the newspaper’s editor finally agreed to publish this as an op ed and recognized the need to present a wider perspective within the pages of the paper.

The Israeli foreign ministry, Aipac and StandWithUs should not control this debate within the Jewish community.  For that reason, a coalition of local community groups including some in the Jewish community will host a conference which will present the alternative views that should have been offered on October 21st.

On December 16th at Town Hall, Keith Weissman, former director of Aipac’s Iran desk, Prof. Ian Lustick of the University of Pennsylvania’s department of politica science, and Trita Parsi, director of the National Iranian American Council will present a pragmatic approach to the Iranian crisis which embraces diplomatic engagement and eschews force.  Unlike the federation event, each of these speakers has academic and direct personal experience of Iran along with deep experience of Israel and its interests.  I invite Seattle’s Jewish community to hear a point of view endorsed by one-third of our fellow Jews.

As Aipac Conference Begins, Group Embroiled in Scandal

Sunday, March 5th, 2006

Aipac’s annual hoopla conference began today with 4,500 delegates hearing speeches from the big shots like Ehud Olmert and John Bolton.

But behind all the festivities, the New York Times reports, stands a 900 pound gorilla of whom no one is speaking:

Steve RosenSteve Rosen: were his actions protected by First Amendment? (photo: Jewish Week)
Keith Weissman former Aipac staff memberKeith Weissman, former Aipac Iran specialist (photo: Niacouncil.org)

…The official program omits a topic likely to be a major theme of corridor chatter: the explosive Justice Department prosecution of two former officials of the group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, that is ticking toward an April trial date.

The highly unusual indictment of the former officials, Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, accuses them of receiving classified information about terrorism and Middle East strategy from a Defense Department analyst, Lawrence A. Franklin, and passing it on to a journalist and an Israeli diplomat. Mr. Franklin pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 12½ years in prison, though his sentence could be reduced based on his cooperation in the case.

Rosen and Weissman’s lawyers are attempting to mount a First Amendment-based defense:

Some legal experts say the prosecution threatens political and press freedom, making a felony of the commerce in information and ideas that is Washington’s lifeblood. Federal prosecutors are using the Espionage Act for the first time against Americans who are not government officials, do not have a security clearance and, by all indications, are not a part of a foreign spy operation.

Of course, the defense and this entire passage omit one critical and salient aspect to this case. Larry Franklin didn’t just pass on government reports to Aipac’s staff. The staff in turn passed the information on to Naor Gilon, political director of the Israeli embassy (and possibly a Mossad operative?):

Former and current intelligence officials have said the two men may have stumbled into an American intelligence operation involving electronic monitoring of Israeli interests in the United States. The indictment includes what it indicates is a verbatim quotation from an April 1999 conversation Mr. Rosen had with an official of a foreign country, identified as Israel by government officials who have been briefed on the case.

So the Times article is dead-wrong in contending that Rosen and Weissman “are not part of a foreign spy operation.” The only possible comfort the two can take is that the feds allowed Gilon to leave the country without charging him. So they can argue that if the government believed this was an important espionage case, why didn’t it detain one of the key players?

Of course, the answer is that if the feds HAD detained an Israeli embassy employee there would have been hell to pay. Aipac would have had a conniption fit. American Jews would be in a tizzy and Israel would be as well. It would have roiled relations for months if not years. One assumes that our government believes it gains as much in national security matters from its relations with Israel as it lost in this spy scandal. Therefore, it didn’t want to go as far as it might have for fear of losing those benefits.

The article quotes Steve Aftergood, an anti-nuclear activist I’ve admired since we both worked for small non-profits in Los Angeles in the 1980s, as questioning the prosecution:

“If receiving and passing on national defense information is a crime, we’re going to have to build a lot more jails,” said Steven Aftergood, who runs the Project on Government Secrecy at the liberal Federation of American Scientists. “To make a crime of the kind of conversations Rosen and Weissman had with Franklin over lunch would not be surprising in the People’s Republic of China. But it’s utterly foreign to the American political system.”

I understand that for Steve, in his line of work, contact with government officials that involves dissemination of information is vital. And I can also understand why he sees this case as a potential threat to the exchange of ideas between government and the public interest sector. But I’d implore Steve and others who question this case to remember that we’re talking about more than this. We’re talking about Aipac staff who are charged with passing this information on to a foreign nation. That should make all the difference. Do you want to allow Aipac to collude with Israel in order to secure U.S. government documents?

AIPAC Spying Trial to Begin in April

Sunday, February 26th, 2006

I just wrote a post about AIPAC’s big annual bash, better known as the AIPAC Policy Conference, that begins March 5th in D.C. They’ll bring 5-6,000 of their biggest fat-cat boosters to D.C. to hobnob with fawning members of Congress eager for campaign largess. The prime rib of red meat for this conference will be AIPAC’s proposed Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act (H.R. 4681), which will draw the noose ever tighter around Palestinian necks in a vain effort to destroy Hamas and the PA. Speaking of red meat, Dick Cheney will be the “Special Guest” for the Closing Session.

Steve RosenSteve Rosen, fired number 2 AIPAC staffer (photo: Jewish Week)

One of my deep background confidants who’s been known to frequent some of the same haunts as aforesaid AIPACniks points me to an even more important calendar date. Sometime in late April, the trial of Keith Weissman and Steve Rosen will begin. They’re the fellows accused of inducing Pentagon analyst, Larry Franklin to provide secret U.S. intelligence about Iran to an Israeli embassy officer. In other words, they’re spies (oops, ‘alleged’ spies). If not spies, then they were aiding and abetting.

AIPAC wants you to forget all about its connection to this heinous incident. That’s why it wants the Policy Conference to be as big a barnstormer as can be–in order to inoculate themselves from the toxin of the trial. But, as the Forward notes, it may not work:

Defense attorneys will try to establish that the men were following the organization’s routine practice and that Aipac’s top officials were fully aware of their actions. “The evidence in this case will show that Dr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman always acted in Aipac’s interests, never were on their own and acted with the knowledge and approval of their superiors,” Rosen’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, told the Forward.

…Defense attorneys are expected to argue that receiving information from administration officials was something the two were paid and encouraged to do, and something Aipac routinely does — as do many other lobbying groups in Washington.

“It is very possible” that attorneys for Rosen and Weissman will call senior Aipac officials to testify in court, sources familiar with the case told the Forward. Such testimony would undoubtedly be embarrassing to Aipac, according to several sources familiar with the case.

…The defense’s intention to bring Aipac into the courtroom — both physically and figuratively — is causing concern and resentment within the organization, sources close to Aipac said.

As far as AIPAC’s concerned, Rosen and Weissman were rogue staffers with a personal mission to assist Israeli intelligence. AIPAC didn’t put them up to it. AIPAC doesn’t endorse what they did. AIPAC fired them when it found out. Blah, blah, blah.

My confidant says “don’t you believe it.” S/He tells me that (at least in his informed opinion) the government’s “got the goods” both on the staffers and AIPAC. S/He’s hoping for a “hanging judge and jury.” Can’t say as I blame him/her.

This Jewish Week article raises serious doubts about how much separation AIPAC really has from Rosen. JTA published this February 2nd piece about the federal judge, T.S. Ellis III, who quadrupled Larry Franklin’s recommended sentence from four to twelve years. Apparently, Ellis has warned Rosen, Weissman and any other civilians to whom they may’ve passed information that they may be as culpable as Franklin even though they are civilians (not government employees).

Be prepared too for a full frontal attack on Paul McNulty, the federal prosecutor trying the case. Just a matter of time before we hear Malcolm Hoenlein and his ilk accusing him of anti-Semitism and attempting to damage the reputation of the entire Jewish community in the eyes of the word, etc.

Justin Raimondo attempts to place this spying scandal in the context of what he sees as AIPAC (and hence, Israeli) infiltration of the higest level of the Pentagon in the persons of Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and others connected with AIPAC’s think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Read my past posts about AIPAC and the spying scandal.

Israel Never Spies on the U.S…except when it’s caught red-handed

Friday, May 6th, 2005

Today’s Haaretz carries the news that the political director of the Israeli Embassy in Washington will leave his post "for personal reasons":

Gilon_1

Naor Gilon (credit: Maarivintl.com)

Naor Gilon, the head of the political department at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, whose name has been linked to the Pentagon analyst charged with passing classified information to unauthorized personnel, will leave his post during the summer.

According to reports from Israel, Gilon is the Israeli representative who received classified information from two employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The AIPAC officials allegedly received the information during conversations with Larry Franklin, the Pentagon analyst who was charged by the FBI on Wednesday.

Now, isn’t that interesting?  When the AIPAC spying scandal first broke last August, the Israeli political establishment swore on a stack of Bibles (Old Testament of course) that Israel would NEVER spy on the U.S.  "We learned our lesson after Jonathan Pollard."  "We’re such close allies of the U.S.  Why would we jeopardize such a trusting relationship by spying."  And all of that turned out to be lies.  Turns out, Gilon aided and abetted the AIPAC spies.  Has Israel no shame?

Yes, of course all countries spy.  In fact, spying is not always a bad thing.  But for a country like Israel to engage in such idiotic risk-taking by damaging not just Israel’s reputation, but those of the individuals involved and that of AIPAC (which in my opinion deserves every bit of the bad reputation it has earned in this case) seems ludicrous.  In fact, it seems like exactly the type of reckless behavior that Israel seems to specialize in.

In fact, I believe that the Justice Department is letting AIPAC and the Israeli government off entirely too easily.  I think they should either arrest Gilon (I guess they can’t because of diplomatic immunity) or label him "persona non grata" immediately.  Allowing him to stay here until the summer (as the article maintains) is worse than a slap on the wrist–it’s a slap in the air that misses the victim entirely.

Just for the hell of it, let’s go back in time to when the scandal first broke.  Some of my posts from that period contain the following explanations and defenses from AIPAC, Israeli politicians and American Jewish leaders.  I hope every single one of these people is mortified by their cupidity or lies:

Here’s what one senior Likud pol said at the time:

…The Israeli government made a firm decision  [after Pollard] to stop all clandestine spying in the United States, Yuval Steinitz, the chairman of the foreign and defense committee in Parliament, said Saturday."

This was a firm decision," Mr. Steinitz said, "and I’m 100 percent confident–not 99 percent, but 100 percent–that Israel is not spying in the United States. We have no agents there and we are not gathering intelligence there, unlike probably every other country in the world, including some of America’s best friends in Europe."

And Israeli government lying continues as late as yesterday when, in response to news of Larry Franklin’s arrest, Foreign Minister Sylvan Shalom stated baldly:

"Israel does not carry on any activity in the United States which could harm, God forbid, its closest ally," Shalom told Israel’s Channel One TV.

Or how about this doozy from that choir boy of virtue, Natan Sharansky as quoted by CBS.com:

"There are absolutely no attempts to involve any member of the Jewish community and any general American citizens to spy for Israel against the United States," he said.

And these comments of his which were paraphrased by The Scotsman:

[Sharansky] claims that Israel had a spy in the Pentagon might have stemmed from internal US intelligence rivalry.

Talk about red herrings!  It’s interesting to note that the histrionic defense of AIPAC by Malcom Hoenlein a few months ago not only raised the specter of an anti-Semitic plot by the U.S. government against the organization; but also postulated that the entire case stemmed from interagency turf wars (CIA vs. Pentagon) and an attempt to embarrass Israel’s hard-line neocon supporters in the Pentagon. How vivid an imagination Hoenlein has!  And how in sync it is with Sharansky’s.  Isn’t that a coincidence?

When Gilon’s identity was first revealed last August, CBS.com noted:

The Israeli daily Maariv on Monday quoted Gilon as saying that he did nothing wrong. "My hands are clean. I have nothing to hide. I acted according to the regulations," Gilon said.

The diplomat told Maariv he was concerned that as a result of the reports, he won’t be able to continue working in Washington. "Now, people will be scared to talk to me," the newspaper quoted him as saying.

The poor, hapless fellow.  Just a deer caught in the FBI’s headlights, right?

This is a statement from AIPAC’s executive director, Howard Kohr:

Any allegation of criminal conduct by AIPAC or our employees is false and baseless. Neither AIPAC nor any of its employees has violated any laws or rules, nor has AIPAC or its employees ever received information the believed was secret or classified.

Now that AIPAC has fired Rosen and Weissman and tacitly acknowledged that they did precisely what AIPAC first claimed they hadn’t…one can certainly say that "time changes everything!"

The Agonist has perhaps the best and most comprehensive recap of the entire chronology of this case you’ll find.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE