Anti-Semitism And The Pro Israel Lobby — 2
Part 1
The Pro Israel Lobby is particularly strong in the US as noted above in the report The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. It then goes into more depth regarding the emergence of a more sophisticated Lobby in the wake of the second Intifada, which is very much part of a global phenomenon. This period would also see the emergence of a new Palestinian initiative that would ultimately bamboozle Israel (See below).
The Israel Lobby in the US is a general coalition of various pro Israel Groups, comprising mainly of American Jews, of which AIPAC is the most powerful. The Lobby also includes Christians who ‘believe Israel’s rebirth is part of Biblical prophecy, support its expansionist agenda, and think pressuring Israel is contrary to God’s will.’
A key element of lobbying in the US is the ability to influence and engage political actors. The Israel Lobby is particularly effective at this. What also helps is the lack of a counter initiative, although that would eventually change. The Report sums up the basic tactics:
‘The Lobby pursues two broad strategies to promote U.S. support for Israel. First, it wields significant influence in Washington, pressuring both Congress and the Executive branch to support Israel down the line. Whatever an individual lawmaker or policymaker’s own views, the Lobby tries to make supporting Israel the “smart” political choice.
Second, the Lobby strives to ensure that public discourse about Israel portrays it in a positive light, by repeating myths about Israel and its founding and by
publicizing Israel’s side in the policy debates of the day. The goal is to prevent
critical commentary about Israel from getting a fair hearing in the political arena. Controlling the debate is essential to guaranteeing U.S. support, because a candid discussion of U.S.‐Israeli relations might lead Americans to favor a different policy.’
AIPAC’s effectiveness comes from the simple premise that in US politics ‘money talks’. AIPAC talks a lot by making sure that those who are sympathetic are rewarded. Those who aren’t become the butt of negative pressure that can make or break careers. As the Report notes:
‘The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress. Open debate about U.S. policy towards Israel does not occur there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world. Thus, one of the three main branches of the U.S. government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. As former Senator Ernest Hollings (D‐SC) noted as he was leaving office, “You can’t have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here.” Small wonder that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon once told an American audience. “When people ask me how they can help Israel, I tell them — Help AIPAC.” (See separate section on AIPAC below).’
Not surprisingly, US mainstream media has a pro Israel bias, as it does in other countries. And the Israel lobby is very active in targeting the media. I’ll be devoting a separate section on the media later.
The establishment of think tanks has also been an effective means of pushing a certain narrative. And the Israel lobby has no shortage of thinkers. A key player was the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), founded in 1985. Involved in the setup was Martin Indyk, former deputy director of research at AIPAC.
There are many other players around, but emerging from the crowd is the Brookings Institution, who’s work ‘is conducted through its Saban Center for Middle East Studies, which is financed by Haim Saban, a wealthy Israeli‐American businessman and ardent Zionist. The director of the Saban Center is the ubiquitous Martin Indyk’, who is now the the executive vice president of the Brookings Institution. According to his biography:
‘He took leave from the Brookings Institution to serve as the U.S. Special Envoy for Israeli–Palestinian Negotiations from 2013 to 2014. Indyk served as United States ambassador to Israel and Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs during the Clinton Administration. He is known as the framer of the U.S. policy of dual containment which sought to ‘contain’ Iraq and Iran, which were both viewed as the United States’ two most important strategic adversaries at the time.’
Academia is an other area that is an important forum for lobbyists. In the US ‘AIPAC more than tripled its spending for programs to monitor university activities and to train young advocates for Israel, in order to “vastly expand the number of students involved on campus . . . in the national pro‐Israel effort.” ’
Students and university staff were targeted by the Israel lobby, with individuals being accused of being anti Semitic, a charge that would become a persistent feature of pro Israel tactics. This point is elaborated on in the report. But as it points out, the charges of widespread anti-Semitism are exaggerated and cases are few and far between.
Then there is the conflation of anti Semitism with criticism of Israel. But the report is succinct in its observation:
‘Critics are also accused of holding Israel to an unfair standard or questioning its right to exist. But these are bogus charges too. Western critics of Israel hardly ever question its right to exist. Instead, they question its behavior towards the Palestinians, which is a legitimate criticism: Israelis question it themselves. Nor is Israel being judged unfairly. Rather, Israeli treatment of the Palestinians elicits criticism because it is contrary to widely‐accepted human rights norms and international law, as well as the principle of national self‐determination. And it is hardly the only state that has faced sharp criticism on these grounds.’
But the Israel Lobby has always had a strong influence on US foreign policy. Ironically the Bush Administration was at odds with Israel following 9/11. The US had launched its ‘war against terror’ and it needed Middle East support. Israel had launched Operation Defensive Shield in response to the second Intifada. Bush ‘demanded on April 4 that Sharon “halt the incursions and begin withdrawal.” ’ Secretary of State Colin Powell headed for Tel Aviv to spearhead discussions:
‘Israel and the Lobby swung into action. A key target was Powell, who began
feeling intense heat from pro‐Israel officials in Vice President Cheney’s office and the Pentagon, as well as from neoconservative pundits like Robert Kagan and William Kristol, who accused him of having “virtually obliterated the distinction between terrorists and those fighting terrorists.” A second target was Bush himself, who was being pressed by Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals, the latter a key component of his political base. Tom DeLay and Dick Armey were especially outspoken about the need to support Israel, and DeLay and Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott visited the White House and personally warned Bush to back off.’
The lobby got its way and the political establishment in Washington got behind Israel. The report sums it up:
‘Sharon and the Lobby took on the President of the United States and
triumphed. Hemi Shalev, a journalist for the Israel newspaper Ma’ariv, reported that Sharon’s aides “could not hide their satisfaction in view of Powell’s failure. Sharon saw the white in President Bush’s eyes, they bragged, and the President blinked first.” But it was the pro‐Israel forces in the United States, not Sharon or Israel, that played the key role in defeating Bush.’
The sequence of events surrounding this period would lead to Hamas taking control of the Gaza Strip in 2006.
Ultimately the lobby would influence the shape of future US foreign policy:
‘Maintaining U.S. support for Israel’s policies against the Palestinians is a core
goal of the Lobby, but its ambitions do not stop there. It also wants America to
help Israel remain the dominant regional power. Not surprisingly, the Israeli
government and pro‐Israel groups in the United States worked together to shape the Bush Administration’s policy towards Iraq, Syria, and Iran, as well as its grand scheme for reordering the Middle East.’
The decision to invade Iraq in 2003, was strongly motivated by Israeli intelligence, who ‘had given Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq’s WMD programs.’ But Israel’s attitude towards war exposed an extreme warmongering state of mind within Israel:
‘Israel was the only country in the world where both the politicians and the public enthusiastically favored war. As journalist Gideon Levy observed at the time, “Israel is the only country in the West whose leaders support the war
unreservedly and where no alternative opinion is voiced.” In fact, Israelis were so gung‐ho for war that their allies in America told them to damp down their hawkish rhetoric, lest it look like the war was for Israel.’
Enter the Lobby:
‘Within the United States, the main driving force behind the Iraq war was a small band of neoconservatives, many with close ties to Israel’s Likud Party. In addition, key leaders of the Lobby’s major organizations lent their voices to the campaign for war. According to the Forward, “As President Bush attempted to sell the . . . war in Iraq, America’s most important Jewish organizations rallied as one to his defense. In statement after statement community leaders stressed the need to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.” The editorial goes on to say that “concern for Israel’s safety rightfully factored into the deliberations of the main Jewish groups.” ’
The Israel lobby went into overdrive. Intelligence reports were manipulated and the most tenuous evidence was used to convince that war should go ahead. One of the cheerleaders for the campaign was I. Lewis (“Scooter”) Libby:
‘Libby visited the CIA several times to pressure analysts to find evidence that would make the case for war, and he helped prepare a detailed briefing on the Iraq threat in early 2003 that was pushed on Colin Powell, then preparing his infamous briefing to the U.N. Security Council on the Iraqi threat. According to Bob Woodward, Powell “was appalled at what he considered overreaching and hyperbole. Libby was drawing only the worst conclusions from fragments and silky threads.” Although Powell discarded Libby’s most outrageous claims, his U.N. presentation was still riddled with errors, as Powell now acknowledges.’
There’s little doubt that the Israel Lobby played a major part in persuading the US to go to war with Iraq. Summing up:
‘Michael Kinsley put the point well in late 2002, when he wrote that “the lack of public discussion about the role of Israel … is the proverbial elephant in the room: Everybody sees it, no one mentions it.” The reason for this reluctance, he observed, was fear of being labeled an anti‐Semite. Even so, there is little doubt that Israel and the Lobby were key factors in shaping the decision for war. Without the Lobby’s efforts, the United States would have been far less likely to have gone to war in March 2003.’
But it wouldn’t stop with Iraq. The plan was to push for regime change throughout the Middle East. The cold war had put the breaks on US expansionism in the Middle East. 9/11 offered a glaring green light. And Israel and the US lobby wanted the US to put its foot down on the gas hard.
The report sums it up:
‘In short, Israeli leaders, neoconservatives, and the Bush Administration all saw war with Iraq as the first step in an ambitious campaign to remake the Middle East. And in the first flush of victory, they turned their sights on Israel’s other regional opponents.’
Syria was next on the list. Just as with Iraq, Israeli intelligence began building up a dossier against President Bashar Assad. Anything would go, regardless of how tenuous the association might be. However the Syrian question revealed a questionable grasp of reality on the part of Israel and the Lobby, because Syria was an asset to the US at the time. As the Report notes:
‘the Syrian government had been providing the United States with important intelligence about al Qaeda since 9/11 and had also warned Washington about a planned terrorist attack in the Gulf. Syria had also given CIA interrogators access to Mohammed Zammar, the alleged recruiter of some of the 9/11 hijackers. Targeting the Assad regime would jeopardize these valuable connections, and thus undermine the larger war on terrorism.’
Then there is Iran, Israel’s great nemesis in the Middle East. Not surprisingly, the rhetoric was flowing in Washington and the propaganda pushed a predictable fearmongering agenda, with the potential threat of Iran becoming a nuclear power high on the agenda. But as the report points out ‘If Washington could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China, or even a nuclear North Korea, then it can live with a nuclear Iran.’
AIPAC — A Major PowerPAC
This section features a case study on one of the most powerful lobbying Groups in the US, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
AIPAC was founded in 1951 by Isaiah L. “Si” Kenen. Kenen was a Jewish Canadian who moved to the US in 1926, where he studied law. His family were ardent Zionists and his father was directly involved with the World Zionist Congress.
During the war, Kenen himself became active in the Zionist movement. He went on to serve as the information director of the Jewish Agency and following the establishment of Israel in 1948, he served on the Israeli delegation to the United Nations.
He became a lobbyist for Israel via the American Zionist Council, which was established in 1949. Through this the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs was set up in 1953 — as AIPAC was known at the time — as a lobbying Group, who’s remit was to circumvent the State Department and lobby support for Israel via Congress. However under the Kennedy Administration, the Department of Justice ordered the AZC to register as an Israeli foreign agent in 1963. In order to avoid the Foreign Agents Registration Act public registration requirements, AIPAC was formally established.
With AIPAC now in place, political lobbying in support of Israel could continue as the rising Zionist movement within the US grew in strength.
It wasn’t until the 1970’s when AIPAC had the financial resources to consolidate its position further. The end of the 1967 war had significantly strengthened Israel’s hand in the Middle East. This boosted AIPAC’s role in Washington. This was further enhanced with the election of Menachem Begin as Israeli prime minister in 1977.
According to AIPAC’s website it ‘empowers pro-Israel activists across all ages, religions, races and political parties to be politically engaged and build relationships with members of Congress from both sides of the aisle to promote the U.S.-Israel relationship.’ Apparently, ‘More than 100,000 citizens from across the country work with their elected officials and AIPAC staff to strengthen the bonds between the United States and the Jewish state.’
AIPAC makes it clear that it is ‘not a political action committee (PAC) and we do not rate or endorse candidates for elected or appointed office.’
AIPAC also notes that it is ‘working to foster the next generation of American pro-Israel leaders, by working on hundreds of college and high school campuses, empowering and educating student activists to answer Israel’s detractors and use political involvement to build support for Israel.’
Although AIPAC is not a PAC as such, it is nevertheless closely involved with PAC’s. Lobby monitoring site OpenSecrets confirms that AIPAC is a major political donor.
An article by Connie Bruck in the New Yorker goes into AIPAC in some detail. Regarding PAC’s, she writes:
‘Despite its name, AIPAC is not a political-action committee, and therefore cannot contribute to campaigns. But in the eighties, as campaign-finance laws changed and PACs proliferated, AIPAC helped form pro-Israel PACs. By the end of the decade, there were dozens. Most had generic-sounding names, like Heartland Political Action Committee, and they formed a loose constellation around AIPAC. Though there was no formal relationship, in many cases the leader was an AIPAC member, and as the PACs raised funds they looked to the broader organization for direction.’
There’s no doubt that AIPAC wants to strengthen the bonds to the ‘Jewish State’. But what elements within the ‘Jewish State’?
During the Oslo Peace process, AIPAC had a difficult relationship with Rabin. Indeed AIPAC aimed at sabotaging Oslo.
But with the ascension of George W Bush and the subsequent ‘war on terror’ following the 9/11 attacks, coupled with the rise of Benjamin Netanyahu, there was common ground with Bush’s neocons and Netanyahu’s Lukid Party.
As noted above, AIPAC was actively involved in lobbying for war in Iraq following the announcement of the ongoing ‘war on terror’. However, following the invasion of Iraq, a major scandal almost unravelled AIPAC.
In 2005, policy director Steve Rosen and senior analyst Keith Weissman were fired by AIPAC following an FBI investigation into whether they passed classified U.S. information to the government of Israel.
According to a legal statement:
“Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman have not violated any U.S. law or AIPAC policy,” said the statement, issued by Abbe Lowell and John Nassikas. “Contrary to press accounts, they have never solicited, received, or passed on any classified documents. They carried out their job responsibilities solely to serve AIPAC’s goal of strengthening the US-Israel relationship.”
Unusually for AIPAC they were quick to distance themselves from this case, which revolved around ‘whether a Defense Department policy analyst, Lawrence A. Franklin, provided a draft presidential directive on Iran and other information to AIPAC, and whether AIPAC then passed the material on to Israel, officials have said.’ This case had opened a rather uncomfortable can of worms, not just for AIPAC but for Israel also.
Franklin, a Defense Intelligence Agency official, was transferred to the Pentagon policy office in 2001 to work on Iranian issues, mainly revolving around Iran’s nuclear program. According to Prospect:
‘A Brooklyn-born Catholic father of five who put himself through school, earning a doctorate, as an Air Force reservist, Franklin had served as a Soviet intelligence analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency until about a decade ago, when he learned Farsi and became an Iran specialist. At their July meeting, Franklin told the AIPAC employee about his frustration that the U.S. government wasn’t responding aggressively enough to intelligence about hostile Iranian activities in Iraq. As Franklin explained it, Iran had sent all of its Arabic-speaking Iranian agents to southern Iraq, was orchestrating attacks on Iraqi state oil facilities, and had sent other agents to northern Iraq to kill Israelis believed to be operating there. Iran had also transferred its top operative for Afghanistan to the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad. The move, Franklin implied, signified Tehran’s intention to cause more trouble in Iraq.’
According to the New York Times he ‘spent at least one of his annual tours on active duty working in the defense attaché’s office in the United States Embassy in Tel Aviv in the late 1990’s, defense officials said.’ The paper also notes that:
‘Some Justice Department lawyers are said to have expressed reservations about the proposal to make quick decisions about bringing charges, fearing that such a move would force the government to show its hand, disclosing evidence in a case in which investigators have already been forced to move more quickly than they had hoped because news organizations became aware of the inquiry.’
This was due to the fact that the FBI had already been investigating AIPAC, as Prospect notes:
‘For the past two years, it had been conducting a counterintelligence probe into whether AIPAC had served as a conduit for U.S. intelligence to Israel, an investigation about which National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was briefed shortly after the Bush administration came into office.’
Franklin pleaded guilty to ‘three criminal counts for improperly retaining and disclosing classified information, and he gave the first account of his motives and thinking in establishing secret liaisons with people outside the government,’ that involved sharing ‘secret military information with two pro-Israeli lobbyists and an Israeli official in an effort to create a “backchannel” to the Bush administration on Middle East policy.’ The aim being to influence policy on Iran in a way that that suited Israel.
Rosen and Weissman were indicted, however the charges against them were eventually dropped and Franklin’s sentence was reduced.
For some, there would have been an element of deja vu. In 1987, Jonathan Pollard, an Israeli spy who worked in the Naval Antiterrorist Alert Center, pleaded guilty to espionage and was sentenced to life in prison in 1987. Israel denied all knowledge that Pollard was a spy, just as they had dismissed the AIPAC case. However in 1998, ‘Israel has officially acknowledged for the first time that an American Jew, Jonathan Pollard, who was arrested in the United States 13 years ago, was one of its spies.’ Indeed according to Prospect these cases may well be the tip of the iceberg:
‘at least six sealed indictments have been issued against individuals for espionage on Israel’s behalf. It’s a testament to the unique relationship between the United States and Israel that those cases were never prosecuted; according to the same sources, both governments ultimately addressed them through diplomatic and intelligence channels rather than air the dirty laundry. A number of career Justice Department and intelligence officials who have worked on Israeli counterespionage told the Prospect of long-standing frustration among investigators and prosecutors who feel that cases that could have been made successfully against Israeli spies were never brought to trial, or that the investigations were shut down prematurely. This history had led to informed speculation that the FBI — fearing the Franklin probe was heading toward the same silent end — leaked the story to CBS to keep it in the public eye and give it a fighting chance.’
It probably won’t come as a great surprise to learn that AIPAC and their friends played the anti-Semitism card in order to push the case into the shadows, taking the position that it was nothing to do with Iran and that the investigators were going after Jews.
But there’s a twist in the tale regarding this case. Because in 2009, Steven Rosen filed a lawsuit against AIPAC for defamation, arguing that AIPAC used him as a scapegoat.
In an op-ed in Al Jazeera, MJ Rosenberg a Former AIPAC staffer, gets to the point that AIPAC is ‘Fighting for survival’ and that ‘Aipac is under siege, and is spending millions to stay alive.’
As part of its defence, AIPAC had engaged in a ‘dirty tricks’ campaign, accusing Rosen of sexual misconduct and raising issues of a personal nature. But the underlying message appears to be that AIPAC simply does not want its dirty laundry aired in public. And the Rosen suit might threaten to do that.
But as Rosenburg points out, Rosen himself is no saint:
‘The ugliest aspect of the case so far is that Aipac has decided to win by destroying Rosen personally. I have no use for the guy and consider him to have been, in his time, instrumental in helping to destroy Israel’s chances at achieving peace with the Palestinians. Rosen was so effective as a peace-wrecker that in 1992 Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin himself told Aipac to fire Rosen. He did not want Rosen to be in a position to thwart Israel’s efforts to make peace with its neighbours. In the years since, he has been a key advocate of war with Iraq and, even now despite his disgrace, is an agitator for war with Iran. He is also an extreme Islamophobe, now teamed with Daniel Pipes at his anti-Muslim hate organisation.’
In February 2011, the case against AIPAC was dismissed. The Washington Post sums up the outcome:
‘D.C. Superior Court Judge Erik P. Christian said that a jury would find it “impossible” to figure out what AIPAC’s standards of conduct are, not to mention whether Rosen had violated them.
“Allowing Rosen’s claim to go to trial would task the jury with identifying the standards referred to in the March 3 Times article, determining whether AIPAC had such express or implied standards, and determining whether Rosen’s conduct was in accordance with those standards,” Christian wrote.
“As explained above, these would be impossible tasks. At the same time, inviting a jury to scrutinize and second-guess an employer’s policies and business judgment would effectively convert this garden-variety claim for defamation into one for wrongful termination or discrimination. In contrast to those employment claims, the issue in this case is not the veracity of AIPAC’s motivation for firing Rosen … The issue is the objective truth of AIPAC’s public statement concerning Rosen’s firing. It is on this limited issue that the Court concludes that the statement is not provably false, and therefore, not defamatory as a matter of law.” ’
Rosen is down then, but definitely not out. Electric Intifada has been following his career since the case ended. The article notes that:
‘Since his fall from grace, Rosen has been recruited by Daniel Pipes, an influential bigot who has recommended the mass incarceration of Muslims.
Rosen joined Pipes’ Middle East Forum, a club dedicated to promoting “American interests” and “Western values.”
The work conducted by Rosen in that capacity suggests he regards American and Israeli interests as synonymous. During Barack Obama’s presidency, Rosen argued repeatedly that the US should back away from demanding an end to Israel’s settlement activity in the occupied West Bank.
With branches in several cities, the European Leadership Network has conveyed the impression it is a moderate organization. It has jointly hosted events with influential “think tanks” such as the European Policy Centre in Brussels and Berlin’s Federal Academy for Security Policy.
It has held discussions with Angela Merkel, the German chancellor. In France, the European Leadership Network has claimed that some of its advisers have become the main foreign policy aides to Emmanuel Macron, the president.’
But AIPAC’s troubles were to return. In November 2010, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) received a 1,389 page filing demanding that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC’s) tax exempt status be retroactively revoked. The filing was submitted by the IRmep Center for Policy and Law Enforcement, headed by director Grant Smith. The filing spans nearly 60 years, from the moment AIPAC’s founder left the employment of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the present.
Two core charges are:
False Charitable Purpose. AIPAC has been investigated several times by the FBI and is currently in a civil suit over the ongoing acquisition and movement of U.S. government classified information. The filing argues that such activities reveal AIPAC does not function as a bona fide “social welfare” organization.
Fraudulent Application for Tax Exempt Status. AIPAC’s original application for tax exempt status contains fraudulent representations and omissions. It fails to mention that AIPAC’s parent organization, the American Zionist Council (AZC) was shut down by a U.S. Department of Justice Foreign Agents Registration Act order in 1962. AIPAC incorporated six weeks later and applied for tax exempt status, but failed to reveal that the majority of its startup funding came from Israel, funneled through the AZC.
The filling came following a National Public Radio broadcast in January:
IRmep director Grant F. Smith and callers grilled IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman on National Public Radio January 1, 2010 over lax IRS enforcement toward some Israel-related nonprofits committing illegal acts overseas and violating U.S. tax laws. Shulman assured America that, “If a charity is breaking the tax law, is engaged in activities that they are not supposed to be engaged in, we certainly will go after them. Every year we pull 501(c)(3) charity status from a number of charities. We’ve got thousands of audits going on regarding charities, and so we don’t hesitate to administer the tax laws and make sure that people are following the rules.”
According to Smith, “By publicly filing this 13909 complaint with the IRS, we encourage concerned Americans and misled donors to monitor whether the IRS takes appropriate action. The clock is ticking.”
It would appear that AIPAC maintains its tax exemption status with the provision of filing proper schedules listing every contributor donating more than $5,000 to the organisation.
AIPAC doesn’t exist in isolation. There are other bodies that are directly linked to AIPAC that engage in complementary lobbying. These are:
American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF)
Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (CPMAJO).
Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP)
Jerusalem Post (JPost)
American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF): The AIEF is a sister organisation to AIPAC. Its remit is to organise ‘educational’ trips for member’s of congress. An article by Former Senator Jim Abourezk in The Christian Science Monitor outlines the process.
He notes that ‘congressional filings show Israel as the top foreign destination for privately sponsored trips. Nearly 10 percent of overseas congressional trips taken between 2000 and 2005 were to Israel. Most are paid for by the American Israel Education Foundation’
Put simply:
‘These trips are defended as “educational.” In reality, as I know from my many colleagues in the House and Senate who participated in them, they offer Israeli propagandists an opportunity to expose members of Congress to only their side of the story. The Israeli narrative of how the nation was created, and Israeli justifications for its brutal policies omit important truths about the Israeli takeover and occupation of the Palestinian territories.’
He points out the hypocrisy of the whole process, referring the Balkans war when ‘America sent troops to Europe to prevent the killing of civilians in the former Yugoslavia. But when it comes to flagrant human rights violations committed by Israel, the US sends more money and shields Israel from criticism.’
He also notes that:
‘Members of Congress may not be aware just how damaging their automatic support for Israel is to America’s interest. At a minimum, US policies toward Israel have cost it valuable allies in the Middle East and other parts of the Muslim world.’
According to the NTY, it would appear that many of those from congress visiting Israel know very little about the country:
‘Israeli officials who met with the Congressional delegation …said it seemed to include many first-time visitors, who knew little about Israel and appeared a bit naïve about its policies and traditions. Many of them were newcomers in Congress who were elected in 2010 with Tea Party support.
“What was remarkable about that group was most of them were freshmen; it was their first visit in Israel, and they did not know much, but they were very interested,” said one senior Israeli official who met with the delegation and spoke on the condition of anonymity. “I’m used to meeting members of Congress, and usually they’ve been here, we know them from the past.” ’
It isn’t just congress that AIEF is interested in. Working with the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation, It seeks to promote connections with Israel by engaging with young people within Jewish communities and schools. Its aims are perfectly clear:
‘We are proud to support a range of programs and organizations that share our commitment to strengthening the Jewish community and the State of Israel.
Our partners are making vital contributions toward shaping a strong Jewish ecosystem able to meet our community’s needs today and evolve in the future. They are working to build a stronger, more inclusive Jewish community. They are empowering young people all over the world to draw on Jewish values and shape meaningful Jewish lives. They are ensuring Israel’s central role in the Jewish narrative and strengthening the social fabric of Israeli society.’
To put it another way, its all about disseminating the fictional narrative that Israel lies at the centre of the Jewish universe. There is a similar organisation in the UK.
Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (CPMAJO): Also known as the Presidents Conference. It was founded by Nahum Goldmann in 1954 as an umbrella body for the 52 national Jewish organizations to lobby the executive branch of the US Government on behalf of Israel.
‘The Conference itself has its roots not in partisanship but on the presumption that the capacity to speak with a single voice on Israel would greatly benefit the American Jewish community — mainly by saving busy politicians in Washington the bother of talking to dozens of individual groups. It was established in 1954 in response to a request from John Foster Dulles, President Dwight Eisenhower’s secretary of State, that Jewish leaders figure out among themselves what they wanted him to hear about Israel rather than coming to him one at a time.
‘The founding executive of the Conference was Yehuda Hellman, a Lithuanian-born Labor Zionist who came to New York to cover the United Nations for Jewish papers in Mandatory Palestine. For 30 years, he took a back seat to the chairs of the Conference — he literally sat in the second row with other staff at official meetings with the White House. In May 1986, he died unexpectedly, at 65, after suffering a heart attack in the middle of a speech…’
Nahum Goldmann was a leading Zionist and the founder and longtime president of the World Jewish Congress. Born in Russia, he moved to Germany as a child. He escaped from Germany in 1936 as a result of the rise of Nazism to Honduras, where he established the WJC. He settled in the US in 1940. He died in 1982 and was buried in Jerusalem’s Mount Herzl National Cemetery in the section reserved for leaders of the World Zionist Organization.
Malcolm Hoenlein took over Hellman’s position after his death. Hoffman’s article offers some background and sums up his influence:
‘For the Israelis, Hoenlein provides institutional memory, as well as an extra-diplomatic link to Washington. “The government changes, and the administration changes, but Malcolm is always there,” said Dore Gold, who served as Benjamin Netanyahu’s ambassador to the United Nations in the late 1990s. Hoenlein is also seen as the gatekeeper to the extraordinary wealth and influence of the far-flung American Jewish diaspora.
“The real power behind the throne, both the kingmaker and the one who wields power on a daily basis, is Malcolm,” said Dan Gillerman, who was Israel’s U.N. envoy under Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. “Whenever I wanted anything done or to wield any influence in Washington, I consulted Malcolm. There were times when I thought the request or the alert should be not just the voice of Israel, but the voice of the Jewish community, and in that respect I thought Malcolm had an added value — and often some special connections that did the trick.” ’
On its website, CPMAJO states that:
‘The Conference is at the forefront mobilizing support to halt Iran’s nuclear program and to counter the global campaign to delegitimize Israel and the Jewish people.
The Conference of Presidents Fund also is in the vanguard of engaging America’s leaders and the public to:
- advance the U.S.-Israel special relationship, bolster Israel’s security and prosperity and promote prospects for true and lasting peace in the Middle East;
- reinforce links between Jews worldwide, aid endangered Jewish communities and fight anti-Semitism;
- combat terrorism at home and abroad, strengthen domestic security and safeguard American Jewish institutions;
- build support at the United Nations and end the anti-Israel bias;
- defend human rights of Jews and others and build ties to Arab and Muslim countries;
- build cooperation and coalitions with diverse ethnic, religious and civic groups and other sectors of American society;
- foster international cooperation and promote U.S. national interests.’
A detailed background is provided by the Jewish Virtual Library. It states:
‘The Presidents Conference carries the message of the government of Israel and the American Jewish community to the administration in Washington on Israel-related issues and on international matters, and vice versa. It is the address for foreign leaders who want to address American Jewish leadership and is often employed as a forum for improving relationship with the American Jewish community, which is often perceived as essential to improving relationship with the American government by foreign leaders.’
Zionist groups formed the backbone of the organisation. Out of 15 original members there were ‘eight Zionist groups, plus a number of “defense,” religious, and fundraising agencies.’ By 2005 ‘the Conference membership consisted of 51 national Jewish organizations — Zionist, “defense,” and community-relations, social-service, religious, and fundraising — whose members collectively represent the overwhelming majority of the Jewish community of the United States.’
In 1991, CPMAJO influenced the UN in reversing a UN resolution equating Zionism with racism.
As well as treating politicians to ‘educational’ trips to Israel, celebrities are also given the opportunity to ‘educate’ themselves. A project was set up in 2001 called America’s Voices in Israel. On the website it states that:
‘America’s Voices in Israel organizes week-long missions to Israel for prominent headline-makers with widespread credibility, including leading journalists, prime-time media and Hollywood TV stars, as well as religious and political leaders in the Latino and African-American communities. These high-profile opinion makers reach countless admirers, followers, and the general public. Using traditional and social media, they offer firsthand accounts of experiences in Israel, engaging large and ethnically diverse audiences. Their positive stories about Israel counter distortions and misrepresentations about the Jewish State, which often are reported in the media. Millions have read Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram posts from our influential guests, both during and after their visits to Israel.’
So the next time you see Hollywood stars engaging in celebrity bashes for Israel, they’ve evidently been educated by the Israel lobby’s slick propaganda machine.
Other initiatives include: Secure Community network and The Lawfare Project.
A series of incidents would challenge the integrity of the CPMAJO. Following a visit of Avigdor Lieberman in 2006, Electric Intifada reported that:
“He also spoke about the Oslo Accords, and said that the process was based on three misconceptions:
1. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the main cause of violence in the Middle East. 2. The conflict is a dispute over territory. 3. The conflict is limited to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. In fact, he said, it includes the Israeli-Arab community as well.
He advocated an exchange between Israel and the PA of territory with Jewish and Arab populations, which he referred to as the Cyprus model. There is a clash of civilizations — a conflict of values — between Jews and Arabs, and there can only be peace if there is separation between them.”
The article went on to comment:
‘The final paragraph here should be well noted. Here is a major Israeli official speaking directly of separation between Jews and Arabs — referred to in different world circumstances as a component of apartheid, Jim Crow, or ethnic cleansing — without being roundly condemned as a racist. Are the organizations that comprise the Conference of Presidents prepared to stand by and accept such bigoted notions from a prominent Israeli Member of Knesset? He is, after all, suggesting that nearly 20 percent of Israel’s population ought not to be included in Israel.’
Another incident was the death of Rachel Corrie on March 16, 2003, when she was run over by an IDF bulldozer. A report from the IDF was used to whitewash the incident. It states the following (no longer available on CPMAJO website):
‘Rachel Corrie died in a tragic accident on March 16, 2003, while participating in dangerous activities orchestrated by the International Solidarity Movement (ISM).
ISM protestors claim that the driver of the IDF bulldozer saw Rachel Corrie standing in his path and ran over her deliberately. In fact:
The bulldozer driver did not see Rachel Corrie — and was not aware of her proximity to the bulldozer.
Rachel Corrie was standing behind an earth mound and was obscured from the bulldozer crew’s view.
There was no direct contact between the bulldozer and Rachel Corrie
Rachel Corrie’s death was a result of injuries she sustained when earth and debris accidentally fell on her.
The irresponsible and dangerous conduct of ISM activists — blatantly ignoring IDF warnings, refusing to leave the area, and purposely putting themselves in harm’s way — is a major factor leading to the tragic result of this incident.’
This totally contradicts eye witness accounts that stated unequivocally that she was deliberately run over.
The whitewash continued following a civil lawsuit by Corrie’s family charging Israel with responsibility for Rachel’s killing and failure to conduct a full and credible investigation:
- ‘On August 28, 2012, the judge overseeing the case ruled that Rachel’s death was a “regrettable accident” and the Israeli government bore no responsibility for it. In response, Rachel’s mother, Cindy, declared: “I believe this was a bad day not only for our family, but a bad day for human rights, for humanity, for the rule of law and also for the country of Israel… Rachel’s right to life and dignity were violated by the Israeli military.”
- Prior to the verdict being handed down, Haaretz newspaper reported that US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro had told Rachel’s parents that the Israeli investigation wasn’t as thorough, credible or transparent as it should have been.
- Following the verdict, Amnesty International issued a press release entitled “Rachel Corrie Verdict Highlights Impunity for Israeli Military,” which stated:
“Amnesty International condemns an Israeli court’s verdict that the government of Israel bears no responsibility in the death of Rachel Corrie, saying the verdict continues the pattern of impunity for Israeli military violations against civilians and human rights defenders in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). The verdict shields Israeli military personnel from accountability and ignores deep flaws in the Israeli military’s internal investigation of Corrie’s death. “By upholding the flawed Israeli military investigation, completed within one month of Rachel Corrie’s death in 2003, the verdict seems to have ignored substantial evidence presented to the court, including by eyewitnesses. The full military investigation has never been made public, but US government officials have stated that they do not believe the investigation was ‘thorough, credible and transparent.” ’
Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP): One effective way of pushing a narrative is creating a dedicated think tank. In 1985, AIPAC did just that. Placed at the helm of WINEP was Martin Indyk, WINEP’s founding director, a former AIPAC research director. This was influenced by Steve Rosen, who advocated the setting up of an AIPAC related think tank.
The Israel Lobby report notes that ‘WINEP plays down its links to Israel and claims instead that it provides a “balanced and realistic” perspective on Middle East issues, this is not the case. In fact, WINEP is funded and run by individuals who are deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda.’ Like orbiting satellites, think tanks are a key component in the Israel lobby.
The report lists other linked institutions that include the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, the Center for Security Policy, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).
Indyk later migrated to the Brookings Institution and became director of the Saban Center for Middle East Studies, ‘which is financed by Haim Saban, a wealthy Israeli‐American businessman and ardent Zionist.’
WINEP was also a key voice in pushing for war in Iraq, Syria and Iran, an issue picked up in an article by Right Web.
The focus over Iran was country’s nuclear research program. Iraq and Syria was all about getting rid of nuisance dictators and the ‘war against terror’. As the article notes:
‘WINEP scholars have lobbied for increased U.S. intervention in Iraq and Syria, including against both ISIS (also ISIL) and the Bashar al-Assad government. WINEP counselor and former Obama administration official Dennis Ross has called for providing “significant lethal assistance and logistical support to those fighting not just ISIL but Assad as well.” ’
An important area of WINEP’s work is its military alliances:
‘Like the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, WINEP has worked to cultivate close ties between senior military officials in the United States, Israel, and Middle Eastern allies. The main mechanism for this outreach has been WINEP’s Military Fellows Program, which has “regularly hosted civilian analysts and senior military officers from the armed forces of the United States, Israel, Jordan, and Turkey,” according to a program blurb for the institute’s “Military and Security Studies Program.” ’
Clearly the Israel lobby in the US is highly influential with a broad base and links to political actors both in the US and Israel. But an important feature of the post second intifada era was globalisation. The Israel lobby was becoming more sophisticated. But so was the counter punch, as we will explore below. Much of this was down to the expansion of the internet at the turn of the century.
In short, 3 key events would shape the development of the Israel Lobby. After the end of the Second intifada, an election took place in Gaza at the end of 2006. Hamas was elected as the ruling party. This ultimately led to a total blockade of the Gaza strip.
In July 2005, the second intifada gave way to a peaceful ‘intifada’. The Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) foundation was established. This would be a highly significant move by Palestinian society that will be explored in more detail below and would have considerable ramifications in relation to the Israel Lobby.
The EU Lobby
Meanwhile in the UK and Europe, the Lobby was also consolidating itself. With the European Friends of Israel (EFI) now well established in both Brussels and Tel Aviv, the Lobby would have a strong influence on EU policy.
In David Cronin’s article on the EFI, he highlights a trend involving arms lobbying within the EU. In 2002 the think tank the Security and Defence Agenda (SDA) was set up to push ‘for higher military expenditure and for the EU to finance the development of new weapons.’
Lockheed Martin is a major funder of the SDA. And as Cronin points out:
‘It comes as little surprise, then, that the names of EFI staff can be often be found in the lists of participants for the ‘debates’ that SDA organises.’
And it would appear EFI’s influence is working:
‘In July 2012, reports appeared in the press saying that the EU planned to strengthen its ties with Israel even further. EFI responded with a note on its Facebook page, stating: ‘It is precisely for these kinds of headlines that the European Friends of Israel exist. We would like to think our hard work among the parliamentarians across Europe during the last seven years contributed to this decision.’
In May 2016, Spinwatch released a comprehensive in-depth Report, The Israel Lobby And The European Union, investigating just how well established the Israel Lobby has now become in Europe. It was published in conjunction with the EuroPal Forum, which is an independent organisation advocating Palestinian rights and working to build networks throughout Europe to achieve a positive and accurate public opinion on Palestine.
The report highlights the emergence of the EFI and other related organisations and focuses on their consolidation within EU lobbying environments.
A key element surrounding the establishment of many of these Groups is the emergence of the far right within the EU. Two countries in particular exemplify this trend, Poland and the UK. One group, formed in 2009 was the European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECRG). As its name suggests, its role is to bring together EU conservatives in order to initiate ‘reform’ within the EU.
Leading this Group is controversial Polish neoconservative Michal Kaminski, noted for ‘his past affiliation with a Polish far-right group with an antisemitic background and his opposition to a national apology for the wartime massacre of hundreds of Jews in a northern Polish town.’ He has close links with the CFI.
The current chair of the CFI in Europe is Timothy Kirkhope, a Conservative MEP for Yorkshire. He staunchly defended Kaminski’s appointment to the ECRG.
Kaminski’s anti-Semitic past has magically disappeared into the mists of time. As the report points out:
‘Responding to the controversy over Kaminski, Antony Lerman, former director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, a London-based think tank working on issues affecting Jewish communities across Europe, pointed out that many far-rightists and former neo-fascists seeking political respectability ‘now support Israel and see Israel-supporting Jews as potential allies in their fight
against the “Muslim threat”.’ ’
One UK party that has a highly visible presence in the EU is the UK Independence Party (UKIP), courtesy of its enigmatic leader Nigel Farage. Along with other UK parties, UKIP now has a ‘Friends of Israel’ Group. The Report sums up what UKIP stands for:
‘UKIP is a right-wing anti-immigration organisation aligned with anti-Semitic parties in Europe and whose supporters and officials are often accused of anti-Semitism. Anna-Marie Crampton, a UKIP candidate in East Sussex, was suspended from the party in April 2013 after posting anti-Semitic comments
online. In October 2014, Jane Collins, UKIP MEP for Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire, was forced to apologise after retweeting a link to a virulently anti-Semitic blog. The following December, the party’s leader, Nigel Farage, told a London radio station that Muslims are responsible for the disturbing increase in anti-Semitism across Britain, even suggesting that their anti-Israel views were to blame. Earlier that same year, UKIP MEP Gerard Batten, who represents London and is member of the party’s executive, affirmed to the Guardian his belief that British Muslims should sign a special code of conduct and that it was a big mistake for Europe to allow ‘an explosion of mosques across their land’.’
Adding to the growing cast of Israeli lobbyists in the EU is the Friends of Israel Initiative. Launched in Paris in May 2010, its website states:
‘Under the leadership of former Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar a high level group met in Paris in the middle of 2010 to launch a new project in defense of Israel’s right to exist.
This “Friends of Israel Initiative” has been joined by such notable figures as Nobel Peace Prize Laureate David Trimble, Italian philosopher Marcello Pera, former United States Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, British historian Andrew Roberts, and others. Their key aim is to counter the growing efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel and its right to live in peace within safe and defensible borders.’
The report notes a somewhat melodramatic article [paywall] that Aznar wrote in the Times, following an attempt to challenge the Gaza blockade:
‘Aznar argued that ‘Israel is our first line of defence in a turbulent region that is constantly at risk of descending into chaos,’ adding that: ‘If Israel goes down, we all go down.’ ’
The FII was then subsequently promoted in the UK by the CFI and neoconservative think tank the Henry Jackson Society.
An important element within the Israel Lobby’s arsenal is to effectively scapegoat ‘another’. As such there has been a shift away from anti-Semitism to Islamophobia, thanks to the rise of terror groups such as ISIS.
Keeping the spirit of melodrama going, former FII founder and member of EFI Fiamma Nirenstein had this to say when she served in the Italian parliament:
‘she refused to participate in a meeting with Iranian parliamentarians,
saying that any ‘dialogue with Iran’s official representatives is completely pointless’. Regarding Hamas, she also discounted the possibility of negotiations, arguing that: ‘You can not negotiate with cannibals, who eat human beings.’ ’
Interestingly the Hamas comment above from the Jerusalem Post appears to have been removed.
The islamophobic melodrama has intensified since the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, with various neoconservatives associated the Lobby making outrageous comments (more on Hebdo below).
One example that stretches credulity is this remarkable comment from another founder of FII, Italian-American billionaire Robert Agostinelli:
‘Agostinelli has called US President Barack Obama a ‘soulless serpent from the deep’ and considers him to be an agent of Marxists who have ‘finally stuck the raw edge of their poisoned sword into the heart of the glorious genie of capitalism and freedom.’ He also once described the left as ‘a cancer that needs to be eradicated’.’
This then is some of the Conservative alumni who represent the Israel Lobby in the EU.
Funding sources are kept in the dark by organisations related to the lobby. But Spinwatch has managed to track down many funding sources and have listed them in a series of tables within the report, as well as a list of key funders.
Over the past decade or so the number of influential Groups operating within the EU has increased. The report lists many of those Groups, outlined briefly here. Many of the Groups have close ties with Washington.
This has coincided with the emergence of the BDS movement in response to the emerging geopolitical situation following the end of the second Intifada.
AJC Transatlantic Institute: ‘The American Jewish Committee was founded in 1906 and defines itself as a ‘global Jewish advocacy organisation’ focusing on domestic and foreign policy. One programme is bringing foreign politicians and civil society leaders to visit Israel. But AJC also has 33 chapters across the US that engage in pro-Israel propaganda and operate a network of front groups and affiliated organisations working on different geographical areas and issues.’
Closely involved with the AJC is Paul E. Singer, a major donor to the Republican party and other Pro Israel Groups, including AIPAC.
Singer runs Eliot Mangaement, a Hedge fund that he founded in 1977. A former employer of Eliot, Mark Brodsky left in 2004 to form Aurelius Capital Management. Both firms have worked together on various international projects.
In 2014, Aurelius was part of a group of hedge fund firms that took over the UK Cooperative Bank following a financial crisis at the bank.
By coincidence following the take over, there was a spate of account closures specifically targeting pro Palestine Groups, including the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
Israel Allies Foundation: ‘The Israel Allies Foundation (IAF) originated in a 2004 initiative taken by Binyamin Elon, then a member of the Knesset and leader of the right-wing Moledet party, to forge links with Christian lawmakers in various parts of the world. Elon lives in Beit El, an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank, and has been active in promoting the settler movement for some time. Indeed, according to Salon, he has a ‘reputation as one of the least tractable and most radically right of Israel’s political leaders’ ’
Europe Israel Press Association: ‘Another recent addition to the Israel lobby in Brussels is the Europe Israel Press Association (EIPA). It was formed in mid-2012 as a kind of public relations consultancy that puts journalists in contact with spokespersons for the Israeli state.’
There are many similarities with BICOM. I’ll be looking more closely at media influence below.
European Foundation for Democracy: ‘A pro-Israel organisation in Brussels with a more expansive focus is the European Foundation for Democracy (EFD), established in November 2005. EFD is a think tank closely associated with a transatlantic network of neoconservative and Islamophobic activists. It focuses on ‘raising awareness about the threat of terrorist ideologies in Europe’, while promoting ‘universal human rights’, ‘individual liberty’ and ‘liberal Islam’.’
European Coalition for Israel: ‘According to its website, the European Coalition for Israel is a Christian Zionist alliance ‘determined to show genuine Christian love and solidarity towards the nation of Israel’. The coalition rejects
the recognition of a Palestinian state, saying ‘it violates the legitimate legal claims of the State of Israel with respect to Jerusalem and the West Bank.’ ’
European Leadership Network: ‘The European Leadership Network (ELNET) was founded in 2007 by American Larry J. Hochberg and Israeli Raanan Eliaz. According to Forward, it was launched to counter the widespread criticism of Israel in Europe since the outbreak of the second intifada.’
Jewish News One and the European Jewish Parliament: ‘Two controversial Ukrainian billionaires, Igor Kolomoisky and Vadim Rabinovich, launched Jewish News One (JN1) and the European Jewish Parliament (EJP) in 2011. Both are owners of JNI, and respectively president and vice president of EJP’ (more on the media below).
As noted above, the Oslo peace accords opened up Israels economy to the world at large. The EU is particularly important. As the report notes:
‘The [EU] is by far Israel’s biggest trading partner and the lobby’s scramble to open up branches in Brussels has economic implications. Israel was given special trade incentives in the 2000 EU–Israel Association Agreement, although goods produced in the occupied territories are technically excluded from its terms.’
The following table outlines trade with Israel since 2004:
Notably there were no trade restrictions imposed on Israel during the 2012 and 2014 offensives on Gaza. Indeed according to the BDS National Committee, arms trading has expanded between the EU and Israel.
Israeli Arms exporting is a major component of Israels global trade. As Jonathan Cook puts it:
‘The extent of Israel’s success in this market can be gauged by a simple mathematical calculation. With record sales last year of $7 billion (Dh25.7 billion), Israel earned nearly $1,000 from the arms trade per capita — up to 10 times the per capita income the US derives from its manufacture of weapons.’
Needless to say, the Israel Lobby has been making sure that business remains sound.
Opening the door for Israel was the Agreement on Conformity Assessment and
Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAA):
‘The agreement was the first in a series of similar accords that the EU aims to reach with its neighbours. Its main effect is that the standards applying to particular goods in Israel are recognised as valid by the EU authorities. Israeli manufacturers are, therefore, spared the hassle and expense of having to undergo quality checks when shipping their goods to Europe. While the agreement with Israelis initially limited to pharmaceutical products, it contains a clause stating that its scope may be broadened to cover other goods in the future.
The agreement, reached in 2009, did not enter into force until 2013, largely because the European Parliament delayed it in response to Israeli policies. After Israeli forces shot dead nine Turkish activists taking part in the Gaza Freedom Flotilla on 31 May 2010, the parliament’s committee on international trade decided to postpone its discussions on the dossier indefinitely. This decision was taken unanimously by the committee’s coordinators, which included members of all the main political groupings in the assembly.’
In 2015, the EU introduced guidelines on the labeling of settlement goods, incurring the wrath of Israel and the lobby.
In the next section (part 3), I’ll cover the role of the media and its role in presenting a false narratives and propaganda.
