Anti-Semitism And The Pro Israel Lobby — 1
In this 3 part report I’ll investigate the powerful pro Israel lobby, which has had an impressive global presence almost since the inception of Israel as a state.
In the first part I’ll look at the history of anti-Semitism and how it became deeply ingrained within Christianity, leading to widespread persecution of Jews.
After citing an overview of Paulo Freire’s work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, I discuss how this could be relevant to the emergence of the Zionist movement and also how it could equally offer a foundation for a non violent reconstruction of Palestinian society.
I then look at how a modern more sophisticated globalised Israel lobby emerged in the wake of the second Intifada.
The second part will look at what makes the Israel lobby tick, the various techniques and tactics used by Public Relations actors and how anti-Semitism is being used as a tool to distract attention away from Israeli atrocities.
Part 3 analyses the media approach to the conflict and how a complicit corporate media disseminates ‘fake news’ and propaganda.
According to the Israel lobby, criticism of the State of Israel constitutes anti Semitism. It is a charge that is completely irrational and has no context whatsoever. It effectively means that taking a political viewpoint on Israeli policies constitutes a form of racism. It is a charge that is both arrogant and dangerous.
A definition
According to the UK Government there is an ‘absence of an agreed international definition of antisemitism.’ On the website, the Government reproduces a ‘working definition of antisemitism’ from the UK’s College of Policing. It makes references to criticism of the State of Israel. However it does make this clear statement that:
‘criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).’
It goes on to say that
‘Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.’
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) is another body that has adopted a working definition of anti-Semitism. The role of the IHRA is to ‘place political and social leaders’ support behind the need for Holocaust education, remembrance and research both nationally and internationally.’
The definition is as follows:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
Not surprisingly, Israel is a member of the IHRA. As such, the country would have agreed to the adoption of the above definition. However just like the police definition above, criticism of the State of Israel is linked into the guidance:
‘Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.’
Its pretty clear from the above definitions that criticism of Israel can only be regarded as anti-Semitic if there is an element of racism that targets Jews specifically. More often than not, criticism of Israel falls into the ‘similar to that levelled against any other country’ category, but is then intentionally or otherwise conflated with anti-Semitism.
The Holocaust
The Nazi Holocaust and persecution of Jews before and during world war 2 is a vital essence of Israeli culture. And of course it has a great deal of significance to Jews, regardless of their association with Israel. The word ‘shoah’ has become the Hebrew term for the holocaust and is used to specifically refer to the Nazi holocaust.
However from a historical perspective, limiting the definition of the holocaust to encompass Jews only, could be regarded as a narrow definition. A broader definition encompasses other ethnic groups such as Romani, Poles, other Slavic ethnic groups, mentally and physically disabled people, Soviets, prisoners of war, homosexuals, black people, political opponents of the Nazis, and members of other groups that didn’t measure up to the Nazis racial profiling. In other words a more accurate definition of the holocaust would account for the full spectrum of persecution of all peoples targeted by the Nazis.
The book The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust considers many aspects of the holocaust.
This does not of course detract from the deliberate, systematic and specific treatment of Jews within the context of the ‘final solution’, a Nazi term used in the phrase ‘Final Solution to the Jewish Question’. This was actually a Nazi code name for the plan to murder all Jews within reach, and was not limited to the European continent. This form of ‘industrialised murder’ where Jews were rounded up en masse and sent to extermination camps was unprecedented in history.
There’s no doubt that an extreme form of anti-Semitism had developed in Germany. Understanding the roots of this issue is an important prerequisite in understanding the status of Israel as a ‘Jewish state’.
Historic Persecution
The roots of anti-Semitism stem from the Christian belief that the Jews were responsible for rejecting and killing Jesus Christ.
In A viewers Guide to contemporary Passion Plays, an explanation is offered on the background to productions such as The Passion of Christ. The paper goes on to define anti-Semitism and the reasons behind Jewish persecution. In essence, Jewish persecution had become a component of the Christian faith. It is defined thus:
‘In the Gospel of Matthew, when Pilate declares himself innocent of Jesus’ death, it is said, “And all the people answered, ‘His blood be on us and on our children!“ (Mtth 27:25). Over the course of time, Christians began to accept this interpretation of the crucifixion to mean that the Jewish people as a whole were responsible for killing Jesus. According to this interpretation, both the Jews present at Jesus’ death and the Jewish people collectively and for all time, have committed the sin of deicide, or God- killing. For 1900 years of Christian-Jewish history, the charge of deicide has led to hatred, violence against and murder of Jews in Europe and America.
The charge that the Jews killed Christ/God gave rise to a belief that Jews were inhuman. They were often portrayed in Christian art and commentary as demons, complete with fangs and hooves, committing hideous crimes against Christians. The Jew, historically the object of derision and animosity, became the living incarnation of Satan. Holy Week, the week beginning with Palm Sunday and culminating with Easter, became a particularly dangerous time for Jews, as Christians perpetrated violence against Jews living in their communities.’
As a result, anti-Semitism became deeply rooted in Christian culture and its influences. The fall out from this was widespread persecution of Jews through the middle ages and beyond up until the present day, where Jews were used as scapegoats whenever some calamity occurred.
The paper points out though that from a historical perspective, Jesus was tried and convicted under Roman law. Jews played no part in that process.
In 1962, the Vatican ‘officially repudiated the charge of deicide against the Jews, as well as all forms of anti-Semitism.’ Other Christian Groups followed suit following this high level decision within the Catholic Church.
But despite recognition of historical misinterpretations, including references within the Gospels, anti-Semitism still prevails within certain Groups.
Taking account of the widespread historical persecution of Jewish communities, the actions of Nazi Germany are not unique.
Another key component that played a role in Jewish persecution was the accusation of blood libel.
In essence, blood libel (or accusation) is an accusation that Jews kidnapped and murdered the children of Christians in order to use their blood as part of their religious rituals during Jewish holidays. This revolved around the baking of matzos (an unleavened flatbread that is used during Passover) using the blood as an ingredient in the bread.
This accusation has no basis in fact and is based on heresy, surrounded by stereotypical notions of Jews. Origins of the phenomenon are discussed in the article Blood Accussation from the Jewish Encyclopedia. The article notes:
‘The origin of the blood accusation has not yet been discovered. The annals of Erfurt state that the Jews used waxed sacks (“in saccis cera linitis”) for collecting the blood of the children killed at Fulda in Dec., 1235. According to the Marbach annals (also contemporaneous with the event) the Jews confessed that they wished to utilize the blood for remedial purposes. The annals also state that the emperor Frederick II. (as mentioned above) consulted a number of distinguished converted Jews in order to ascertain whether the Jews required Christian blood on Parasceve — a term frequently used to designate Good Friday. As early as the twelfth century it was several times reported that the Jews had crucified Christian children during Easter (e.g., William of Norwich, 1144, see above; Gloucester, 1171; Blois, 1179; Richard of Paris, in Pontoise). Whether all or part of these reports agree with the facts, or are alike unworthy of credence, the theory of a ritual murder is in no case justified; and, if the accounts are historical, it can only be assumed that the Jews in one instance or on several occasions put Christians to death. A ritualistic feature was imparted to these real or supposed crucifixions or other murders of Christians, and especially of Christian children, by the suggestions: (1) that the murders involved the acquisition of blood; and (2) that the crimes were related to the Passover festival.’
Another slant at Jewish persecution and its origins comes from this article from National Geographic. It describes the discovery of The Judas Gospel, which along with other Gospels not published in the Bible offers a different portrayal of early Christianity.
The article sums up the contrasting role of Judas as Christ’s closest Apostle compared to the accepted narrative and how he became a scapegoat for the Jews:
‘There is a sinister backdrop to traditional depictions of Judas. As Christianity distanced itself from its origins as a Jewish sect, Christian thinkers found it increasingly convenient to blame the Jews as a people for the arrest and execution of Christ, and to cast Judas as the archetypal Jew. The four Gospels, for example, treat Roman governor Pontius Pilate gently while condemning Judas and the Jewish high priests.
The “secret account” gives us a very different Judas. In this version, he is a hero. Unlike the other disciples, he truly understands Christ’s message. In handing Jesus over to the authorities, he is doing his leader’s bidding, knowing full well the fate he will bring on himself. Jesus warns him: “You will be cursed.”’
In essence, Christianity was a breakaway sect of Judaism, which in turn formed other factions with different views of Jesus and His relationship with the Apostles, especially Judas. That was ultimately reflected in the dominant hierarchical Group, which painted Judas into a corner as a despicable Jew in order to vilify the religion they rejected. As such, anything that contradicted that narrative was rejected. The rest — as they say — is history.
A translation of the Gospel was published by National Geographic.
The Oppressed Become The Oppressor
One of the most important works in the realm of oppression, is Paulo Freire’s, Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
In his book, Freire analyses the relationship between the oppressor and the oppressed.
He argues that through the process of liberation ‘the oppressed, instead of striving for liberation, tend themselves to become oppressors, or “sub-oppressors.’ He goes on to say:
‘Their ideal is to be men; but for them, to be men is to be oppressors. This is their model of humanity. This phenomenon derives from the fact that the oppressed, at a certain moment of their existential experience, adopt an attitude of “adhesion” to the oppressor. Under these circumstances they cannot “consider” him sufficiently clearly to objectivize him — to discover him “outside” themselves. This does not necessarily mean that the oppressed are unaware that they are downtrodden. But their perception of themselves as oppressed is impaired by their submersion in the reality of oppression. At this level, their perception of themselves as opposites of the oppressor does not yet signify engagement in a struggle to overcome the contradiction; the one pole aspires not to liberation, but to identification with its opposite pole.’
Essentially, because people have been exposed persistently to oppression, they know nothing else. As such they have adopted the mindset of the oppressor. They then model their own existence on that of the oppressor.
Freire discusses the paradox of freedom. Freedom being the ultimate goal, it nevertheless becomes something to be feared. Having developed a dependency on the oppressor, how does freedom transform into independence? Ultimately this boils down to education — something that Freire goes into considerable detail in his book — and the perception of a critical reality that Freire calls the oppressor-oppressed contradiction.
The oppressor also needs to change his outlook. That means breaking the chains of power and altering what is essentially a false reality, a condition that affects oppressed and oppressor alike:
‘A different type of false perception occurs when a change in objective reality would threaten the individual or class interests of the perceiver. In the first instance, there is no critical intervention in reality because that reality is fictitious; there is none in the second instance because intervention would contradict the class interests of the perceiver In the latter case the tendency of the perceiver is to behave “neurotically.” The fact exists; but both the fact and
what may result from it may be prejudicial to the person. Thus it becomes necessary not precisely to deny the fact, but to “see it differently.” This rationalization as a defense mechanism coincides in the end with subjectivism. A fact which is not denied but whose truths are rationalized loses its objective base. It ceases to be concrete and becomes a myth created in defense of the class of the perceiver.
Herein lies one of the reasons for the prohibitions and the difficulties designed to dissuade the people from critical intervention in reality. The oppressor knows full well that this intervention would not be to his interest. What is to his interest is for the people to continue in a state of submersion, impotent in the face of oppressive reality.’
Freire discusses the root source of oppression as coming from the ruling classes, who impose their power through the use of violence. ‘Once a situation of violence and oppression has been established, it engenders an entire way of life and behavior for those caught up in it — oppressors and oppressed alike. Both are submerged in this situation, and both bear the marks of oppression.’
Freire then sums the mindset of the oppressor perfectly:
‘The oppressor consciousness tends to transform everything surrounding it into an object of its domination. The earth, property, production, the creations of people, people themselves, time — everything is reduced to the status of objects at its disposal.’
He notes their ‘strictly materialistic concept of existence’ and the fact that ‘Money is the measure of all things, and profit the primary goal’.
‘As beneficiaries of a situation of oppression, the oppressors cannot perceive that if having is a condition of being, it is a necessary condition for all women and men. This is why their generosity is false. Humanity is a “thing” and they possess it as an exclusive right, as inherited property. To the oppressor consciousness, the humanization of the “others,” of the people, appears not as the pursuit of full humanity; but as subversion.’
Freire then analyses the student/teacher relationship. The terms student/teacher can have a universal context. His key analysis is the sterility of education, in which a narrative is dispensed to the student. As such:
‘Narration (with the teacher as narrator) leads the students to memorize mechanically the narrated content. Worse yet, it turns them into “containers,” into “receptacles” to be “filled” by the teacher. The more completely she fills the receptacles, the better a teacher she is. The more meekly the receptacles permit themselves to be filled, the better students they are.
Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiques and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat. This is the “banking” concept of education, in which the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filing, and storing the deposits.’
This Freire argues is a process of
‘Projecting an absolute ignorance onto others, a characteristic of the ideology of oppression, negates education and knowledge as processes of inquiry. The teacher presents himself to his students as their necessary opposite; by considering their ignorance absolute, he justifies his own existence.’
In short, the dissemination of information is controlled by the ruling classes through a narrative that is designed to further their own interests (see below).
Having been systematically ‘programmed’, those who have been ‘educated’ will then disseminate the ‘program’ to others as they have no other base from which to refer to.
The solution to this problem is to alter the relationship between Teacher/Student where ‘no one teaches another, nor is anyone self-taught. People teach each other’. This means
‘They become jointly responsible for a process in which all grow. In this process, arguments based on “authority”are no longer valid.’
Freire sums up his analysis:
‘Once again, the two educational concepts and practices under analysis come into conflict. Banking education (for obvious reasons) attempts, by mythicizing reality, to conceal certain facts which explain the way human beings exist in the world; problem-posing education sets itself the task of demythologizing. Banking education resists dialogue; problem-posing education regards dialogue as indispensable to the act of cognition which unveils reality. Banking education treats students as objects of assistance; problem-posing education makes them critical thinkers. Banking education inhibits creativity and domesticates (although it cannot completely destroy) the intentionality of consciousness by isolating consciousness from the world, thereby denying people their ontological and historical vocation of becoming more fully human. Problem-posing education bases itself on creativity and stimulates true reflection and action upon reality, thereby responding to the vocation of persons as beings who are authentic only when engaged in inquiry and creative transformation.’
There is a parallel in Freire’s analysis to the emergence of the Zionist movement. Then there is the development of the state of Israel itself, where ordinary Israeli’s may not be repressed but are kept in ignorance from the roots of Israel’s formation.
Freire also speaks in terms of what he calls ‘reversing the poles’ in which the oppressed become what they have tried to escape. The subjugation of the Palestinians is such an example, which ultimately led to the ‘Jewish State,’ a phrase that implies a form of racial superiority.
Freire’s narrative can also be relevant to the Palestinians in seeking to break the yolk of the occupation, in building a transformative grassroots movement that is non violent and may lead to genuine freedom for the Palestinians. Indeed such a process is already underway, as will be discussed later below.
Much of what Freire focuses on would be regarded as propaganda. That’s the subject of the next section.
The Pro Israel Lobby
Public Relations and propaganda is almost as old as history itself. The term propaganda comes from Pope Gregory XV, when he created the Congregatio de Propaganda (“congregation for propagating the faith”).
Modern PR emerged early in the last century. An article from the New York Times looks at some of the pioneers of PR in the 20th Century.
Ivy Lee was one of the earlier developers of PR. Lee was hired by John D. Rockefeller, who established the Standard Oil Company, which ultimately became one of the most successful corporate entities in the world.
‘Mr. Lee tried to repackage the industrialist as a humane philanthropist, and in so doing became an important counsel to John D. Rockefeller Jr. as well. Mr. Lee, whose career later foundered when it was revealed that he did promotional work for the Nazis, advised the Rockefellers to be frank and direct when discussing their business practices with the press — a relief to a family averse to the practice, then common, of bribing reporters for coverage.’
Another key figure was Edward Bernays, who was a nephew of Sigmund Freud. Bernays was strongly influenced by his uncles work in psychology and began to apply psychology within the context of PR, seeing PR as an applied social science that uses insights from psychology, sociology, and other disciplines to scientifically manage and manipulate the thinking and behaviour of an irrational and “herdlike” public.
He was the author of several books on the subject, including The Engineering of Consent (1947) (Noam Chomsky later picked up the notion with Manufactured Consent). In addition, the New York Times notes that ‘He professionalized the business while introducing other new forms of manipulation, like establishing bogus front groups to promote the benefits of smoking.’
The article The History of Public Relations gives a good overview of the history of PR. The article points out how Ivy Lee placed emphasis on openness and transparency, with the belief that being honest with the public was a sure winner and that way trust could be built. Not-for-Profit Organizations and Social Movements tended towards Lees version of PR.
Edward Bernays by comparison applied the art of persuasion within PR, what to today might be referred to as ‘spin’. As the article notes:
‘Bernays understood that publics could be persuaded if the message supported their values and interests. In many ways, the thrust of his philosophy is made clear in his first book, Crystallizing Public Opinion. At the time, he saw public relations as being more or less synonymous with propaganda, which he defined as “the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses.”’
The post-war period saw the rapid expansion of modern PR. Many proponents learnt their trade during the war from wartime propaganda campaigns. Many of the now well established PR companies cut their teeth during this period. The article outlines how all this came together:
‘…the hallmark of postwar public relations growth took place in the private
sector, in corporations and agencies. A consumer economy made use of both public relations and advertising to market products. Agencies came into full being, providing media relations and media contact capabilities not always available on the corporate side. The need for these skills was driven in part by the explosive growth of media outlets not available before the war — including FM radio, general magazines, suburban community newspapers, and trade and professional association publications. Their services expanded from a base of counselling and media relations to include public affairs or government relations, financial and investor relations, crisis communication, and media relations training for executives.’
But PR was not the sole province of Corporations and individuals. Countries would use the expertise of PR companies to sanitise their image. Israel is amongst those countries. Indeed the Israel lobby has become a potent force over the years.
This was highlighted in a report published in 2006 by John J. Mearsheimer, Department of Political Science, University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, called The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. The report investigates the unique relationship between the US and Israel that is unparalleled in global affairs.
There are some eye opening revelations within the report. Perhaps the most remarkable is the basic assertion that the US is sacrificing its own national security by supporting Israel. And it isn’t cheap:
‘Israel receives about $3 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, which is roughly one‐fifth of America’s foreign aid budget. In per capita terms, the United States gives each Israeli a direct subsidy worth about $500 per year.’
And Israel doesn’t have to account its spending to Washington, it can ironically invest in projects that run counter to US policy ‘like building settlements in the West Bank.’
But perhaps one of the most sinister aspects of US support is Israel’s access to advanced US intelligence facilities:
‘The United States gives Israel access to intelligence that it denies its NATO allies and has turned a blind eye towards Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.’
‘According to the American‐Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) website,
“the United States and Israel have formed a unique partnership to meet the
growing strategic threats in the Middle East . . . . This cooperative effort provides significant benefits for both the United States and Israel.” This claim is an article of faith among Israel’s supporters and is routinely invoked by Israeli politicians and pro‐Israel Americans.’
This — on the surface — gives the impression of a sound stable relationship between the US and Israel. But there’s a catch. The US wants to maintain its influence in the Middle East, with the support of Arab allies. But US support of Israel during the 1973 war ‘triggered an OPEC oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage on Western economies.’
During the 1991 Gulf war, the US could not deploy forces in Israel, otherwise it would have lost the coalition support against Saddam Hussain’s Iraq. Similarly, the so called ‘war against terror’ that followed the twin tower attacks on 9/11, was in a manner of speaking, the closing of a circle generated by US support of Israel:
‘According to the U.S. 9/11 Commission, bin Laden explicitly sought to punish the United States for its policies in the Middle East, including its support for Israel, and he even tried to time the attacks to highlight this issue.’
Israel likes to paint itself as the underdog, surrounded by hostile Arabs and exaggerating the threat posed by Palestinians. But Israel’s military prowess out-guns just about every country in the Middle East put together. This has been the case right from the beginning when Israel deflected the Arab offensive after Israel was created. And the Palestinians have no military capability whatsoever. Indeed:
‘According to a 2005 assessment by Tel Aviv University’s prestigious
Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, “the strategic balance decidedly favors Israel, which has continued to widen the qualitative gap between its own military capability and deterrence powers and those of its neighbors.” If backing the underdog were a compelling rationale, the United States would be supporting Israel’s opponents.’
Then of course there’s the argument that Israel is a democracy. But that’s knocked on the head:
‘Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this conception of citizenship, it is not surprising that Israel’s 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second‐class citizens, or that a recent Israeli government commission found that Israel behaves in a “neglectful and discriminatory” manner towards them.’
As noted above, the holocaust played a critical role in Israel’s existence. The report suggests that this and historic persecution of Jews serves as a moral justification for Israel’s existence. That may be debatable. But does the ends justify the means?
Israel attempts to cover up its past misdemeanour’s and will deny displacing the Palestinians and committing ethnic cleansing. Yet the early leadership in Israel admitted as much:
‘The mainstream Zionist leadership was not interested in establishing a bi‐
national state or accepting a permanent partition of Palestine. The Zionist
leadership was sometimes willing to accept partition as a first step, but this was a tactical maneuver and not their real objective. As David Ben‐Gurion put it in the late 1930s, “After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.”
To achieve this goal, the Zionists had to expel large numbers of Arabs from the territory that would eventually become Israel. There was simply no other way to accomplish their objective. Ben‐Gurion saw the problem clearly, writing in 1941 that “it is impossible to imagine general evacuation [of the Arab population] without compulsion, and brutal compulsion.” Or as Israeli historian Benny Morris puts it, “the idea of transfer is as old as modern Zionism and has accompanied its evolution and praxis during the past century.” ’
Ben-Gurion went on to say:
“If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. . . . We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti‐Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?”
The report is frank about the atrocities that Israel has committed. To document everything in detail would fill a separate article. But suffice to say those atrocities were both confirmed and affirmed by the Israeli leadership:
‘These facts about Israel’s conduct have been amply documented by numerous
human rights organizations — including prominent Israeli groups — and are not disputed by fair‐minded observers. And that is why four former officials of Shin Bet (the Israeli domestic security organization) condemned Israel’s conduct during the Second Intifada in November 2003. One of them declared “we are behaving disgracefully,” and another termed Israel’s conduct “patently immoral.” ’
And:
‘As former Prime Minister Barak once admitted, had he been born a Palestinian, he “would have joined a terrorist organization.” ’
Israel’s influence is not restricted to the US. It very much operates on a global scale, thanks on large part to the ‘Israel Lobby’, which the Report goes into in some detail (see below).
The UK is a productive hunting ground for the Israel lobby. In 2013, a report was published in collaboration by Spinwatch and Middle East Monitor, The Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre: Giving peace a chance? The Report scrutinises the activities of the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM).
In short:
‘BICOM is an important pro-Israel grouping that focuses on managing the British media. It is important because it is at the more sophisticated end of the pro-Israel lobby and because it works behind the scenes to cultivate elite opinion on Israel. BICOM is primarily about taking standard pro-Israel arguments, but repackaging them in ways that resonate with opinion-forming elites, and teaching other activists to do the same. So, although it focuses on the media and communications its main audience is not public opinion but a political elite that is insulated from the public.’
BICOM emerged during the second intifada, with Finnish financier Poju Zabludowicz at the helm. Its roots stem from his father’s role in the arms trade, during which Shlomo Zabludowicz forged links with key contacts within Israel.
Shlomo Zabludowicz was a Polish holocaust survivor from Aucshwitz. After repatriation he moved to Israel. But subsequently moved to Finland, where he got involved with arms company Tampella. This eventually led to deals being forged with Israel.
Over the years he developed close relationships with Israeli politicians, including Shimon Peres. This ultimately became very lucrative and as a result Shlomo Zabludowicz amassed a fortune and a well established business base that was succeeded by his son following his death in 1994.
However, following the end of the cold war and the breakup of the Soviet Union, the global arms industry had gone into decline. This also impacted Israel. The result was a diversification of the business into other areas such as property.
The 1990’s also saw other changes taking place. There was the steady expansion of the global neoliberal economic system that began to consolidate itself following the cold war. Indeed Israel itself became host to over 600,000 Russian immigrants. This provided the impetus for change within Israel.
Israel had an image problem. From a Global economic perspective, Israel was regarded as a war zone. Israel wanted to join the neoliberal ‘club’. When the Oslo peace process began during this period this presented an opportunity for Israel to ‘normalise’ itself. In addition there was the Arab league boycott of Israeli companies that has been in effect practically since Israel’s inception:
‘A key objective for the business sector was the lifting of the Arab League’s boycott of Israeli companies and especially the so-called ‘secondary boycott’, under which companies doing business with Israel or Israeli companies were barred from business with Arab countries and companies. Shafir and Peled note that: Many Israeli business leaders realized that the Arab boycott was an obstacle on the road to integrating the Israeli economy into the world market; that while it was in effect all efforts in this direction would yield only limited results. Similarly, only the stability ensured by peace could bring foreign investment and foreign corporations into Israel in significant numbers.’
This was the image of Israel of a country seeking peace that was fostered during the Oslo peace process. But the underlying objective was economic expansion and Israel’s integration into the global economy.
With agreements secured between the PLO and Israel, with both factions recognising each other, it wouldn’t be long before Israeli’s could order Big Macs in their local McDonald’s or buying western cars and investing their money in global financial institutions. Not everyone in Israel agreed with the peace accords. But the economy took off.
During this period, relations between Israel and the UK strengthened. In 1995, Prime Minister John Major ‘visited Israel with a group of British business people and jointly with the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin
established the Israel-Britain Business Council, which was backed by public funds and tasked with promoting business relations between the two countries.’
Poju Zabludowicz became involved in the process. He became chair of the Britain-Israel Parliamentary Group’s (BIPG) newly formed business advisory group, ‘a ‘lobbying forum’ established to promote commercial and technological links between Israel and the UK.’ He also joined the advisory board of the Israel-Britain Business Council. This allowed him to link up with well placed people in the business community as well as political.
The original business set up by his father had became absorbed into the Tamares Group, now run by Poju Zabludowicz, that consists of various holding’s around the world that includes real estate and media interests. The main centre of operations though appear to be based in Israel.
From 2002 to 2007, Tamares Capital was managed by Pinchas Buchris, a retired Israeli Brigadier General who headed the IDF’s Unit 8200 (also called the Central Unit of Technology Intelligence). He left when he was appointed Director-General of the Israeli Defense Ministry.
‘This revolving door, whereby individuals traverse multiple public and private roles, is familiar in the UK and the US and is an indication of closely intermeshed networks operating between business and the state.’
Zabludowicz also moved into the venture capital and Hedge fund sector. Some of his contacts there would go on to become involved with BICOM. Zabludowicz had now positioned himself as a key business operator between the UK and Israel. Indeed:
‘In March 2011, he hosted secret talks between Shimon Peres and the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas at his North London home. The meeting was one of several reportedly arranged by the venture capitalist Sir Ronald Cohen, the UK’s leading exponent of Peres-style neoliberalisation through peace.’
Although it would appear that Zabludowicz’s relationship with the political elites in London and Tel Aviv are primarily business oriented, he nevertheless has integrated himself well. Even though current Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu is a hard liner and no great fan of the peace process, Zabludowicz ‘compares him favourably to Thatcher and Reagan.’
Although the peace process had the intended effect of improving Israel’s image on the global stage, the Palestinian’s did not benefit. On the ground it was business as usual as far as the occupation went. Indeed the economic position of the Palestinians stagnated during this period.
The closer relationship with the UK:
‘ended the arms embargo on Israel imposed by the Thatcher Government in 1982, and worked to end the Arab boycott (encouraged in both initiatives
by business orientated pro-Israel groups in the UK). Economic relations with Israel were stepped up, with imports and exports more than doubling during the decade, and a relationship ‘blossomed’ between the UK and Israeli arms
industries.’
Ironically during the peace process, the Israel lobby had declined somewhat:
‘Organisations working to secure support for the country in the UK were increasingly considered redundant. In 1999, the forerunner to BICOM, the British-Israel Public Affairs Committee (BIPAC), was closed.’
However, trouble was brewing. Discontent was simmering amongst Palestinians:
‘The Oslo process did not bring an end to Israel’s occupation or to the construction of illegal settlements on occupied land. The Netanyahu government had demolished Palestinian houses in East Jerusalem and approved plans for new settlements in the area around the city.’
‘Under the Oslo Accords Israel had pledged to withdraw from 90 per cent of the occupied territories by the beginning of 2000, but by that time they had in fact withdrawn from only 18 per cent. The ‘final status’ talks held at Camp David in July 2000 ended with no agreement between Barak and Arafat, each side blaming the other for the failure.’
The Second intifada was about to erupt. A provocative visit to the Al Aqsa mosque by Ariel Sharon triggered widespread protest that was initially non violent. But these were ‘met with excessive and lethal force by Israel, whose reaction to the uprising has been characterised as one of ‘brutal repression’.’
The force implemented by the IDF against the Palestinians triggered terrorist reprisals from Palestinian extremists. It wasn’t until 2005 that the violence began to recede.
‘Taking stock, human rights groups concluded that the vast majority of Palestinians killed had been unarmed civilians. Most saliently for our purposes, the intifada had also been a ‘public relations disaster’ for Israel.’
The Israel lobby was about to crawl back out of the woodwork. The establishment of BICOM would be an important vehicle for a UK based PR network that would develop ‘a war room to ensure correct information and solidarity with Israel is maintained.’
The report sums up BICOM’s creation:
‘As a permanent organisation, it emerged out of the Emergency Co-ordinating
Group’s ‘British Israel Communications Office’, which had used the acronym ‘BICOM’ for several months before the organisation was formally created. Mick Davis, chair of the United Jewish Israel Appeal, later recalled: ‘Poju had a vision of a new era in Israel advocacy for the UK. He took the fledgling crisis room created in response to the outbreak of the second intifada and turned
it into the renowned and respected organisation that BICOM is today.’ ’
The key figures involved in its founding were:
‘Poju Zabludowicz, Philip Rubenstein (a marketing consultant who at that
time worked at the accountancy firm BDO), David Green (a businessman who became the organisation’s treasurer) and the joint chairs of the Emergency Co-ordinating Group, Jo Wagerman and Brian Kerner.’
Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks was also closely associated with BICOM. It was also supported by the Israeli Embassy in London and the ‘ ‘highest level’ of the Israeli foreign ministry.’
The Israeli PR machine would begin its global march, lobbying the UK, the US and Europe, with the EU as an important target.
In an article published by Spinwatch in 2014, David Cronin investigates the European Friends of Israel: Founded by Tories, funded by big business. Its perhaps not surprising that a key PR group in the EU has its roots in the UK.
In 2006, the European Friends of Israel (EFI) was founded. It was modeled on the UK Conservatives Friends of Israel (CFI). Driving its formation was Stuart Polak, a former director of CFI.
Other key figures involved with EFI are Hannu Takkula, a Finnish Liberal MEP. Three Tory MEP’s; Charles Tannock, Geoffrey Van Orden and Timothy Kirkhope.
Tannock was a foreign affairs specialist who ‘sat on the EFI’s political board between 2006 and 2011.’
Van Orden was ‘a retired brigadier-general in the British Army who served in NATO’s headquarters during the 1990s.’ He was ‘a strong advocate for UK industry, including the arms industry’.
Timothy Kirkhope is the Chair of CFI.
To sum up:
‘Papers filed with the Belgian authorities state that EFI was officially established as a not-for-profit association by Stuart Polak, along with Marc Cogen, a Belgian academic, and Jean-Pierre Haber, a veteran Brussels official. Its stated objective was to ‘unify’ the various pro-Israel groups within the national parliaments of EU countries by coordinating their activities. Such groups would be linked to one in the European Parliament, according to these papers.’
Cogen, a professor of international law, has a rather chequered history. He supports the ‘war on terror’ and he ‘signed a letter to Flemish newspapers defending Israel’s attack on Gaza’ in 2008. Although he left the EFI (along with Polak). However:
‘Cogen remains in contact with the Zionist lobby. The 2013 annual report of NGO Monitor lists him as a member of its legal advisory board. Run by Israeli academic Gerard Steinberg, NGO Monitor is dedicated to preserving Israel as an apartheid state, in which Palestinians face systematic discrimination. It campaigns against the public financing of human rights and peace activists who promote a ‘one-state solution’ based on full equality for Jews, Muslims, Christians and non-believers, accusing such activists of striving to ‘eliminate’ Israel.’
After the end of the second intifada, the Israeli arms industry picked up again. The EFI received support from the (re)emerging industry:
‘During the first nine months of 2006, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) reported a profit of $115 million, a 247 per cent increase over the same period in 2005. As one of the largest suppliers of weapons to the Israeli military, IAI evidently did well from the attack on Lebanon in the summer of that year. The offensive enabled Israel to ‘battle-test’ its armed drones for the first time. Since then IAI has become one of the world’s top drone manufacturers.
IAI (then called Israel Aircraft Industries) was among the sponsors for the EFI’s launch; the company’s information stall can be seen in a video taken at the event. Stuart Polak, meanwhile, doubles up as an arms industry lobbyist. The Westminster Connection, a consulting firm that he set up, puts ‘defence’ at the top of the list of the sectors to which it has provided advice. Elbit, another Israeli warplane-maker, has been named by The Sunday Times as one of his clients.’
One of the most influential lobbying Groups in the US is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC has had some influence on EFI. Ranaan Eliaz a former staff member of AIPAC in 2004 was involved in the creation of EFI. Dimitri Dombret, EFI’s first director confirmed ‘that he had met AIPAC representatives in Washington a number of times. More recently, EFI has sent as many as 70 delegates to the annual AIPAC conference.’ Elinadav Heymann, the group’s current director, had spoke ‘at a side event held during the conference in March 2014.’
As EFI gained a secure foothold within EU affairs it started attracting some big business backers. Yaron (Ronny) Bruckner, one of EFI’s founders had become administrator of the Group before his death. He had founded a company called Eastbridge. At the same time ‘Marc Grosman became EFI’s vice-president and treasurer.’ He had served on Eastbridge’s supervisory board.
Another prominent member of EFI is Vladimir Sloutsker, the EFI’s president. He is also a co-founder and President of the Israeli Jewish congress and was vice president of the European Jewish congress:
‘A Russian senator from 2002 to 2006, he has a background in banking and private equity. He also has a reputation for giving generous assistance to causes and individuals. He reportedly donated $250,000 per year to the Russian Jewish Congress in 2005 and 2006.’
Another key supporter of EFI was Liberal Democrat MEP Sarah Ludford, who defied party policy by aligning herself with the far right in the EU. She is also involved in a pro Zionist faction within the Lib Dems.
EFI began to focus on achieving closer trade ties between the EU and Israel. This was achieved with the Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAA), which was the culmination of a sequence of agreements designed to pivot Israel into the EU single market. It has also established close relations with openly racist politicians from Israel:
‘In April 2014, EFI hosted a lunch for Naftali Bennett, Israel’s economy minister. The leader of the Bayit Yehudi (Jewish Home) party, Bennett had been a vociferous opponent of EU moves during 2013 to bar firms and institutions based in Israel’s West Bank settlements from receiving scientific research grants. Settlers should respond to such efforts with ‘more kids, more trees, more vineyards, more homes’ on occupied Palestinian land, he argued. Bennett’s advocacy of perpetual colonisation did not deter Sarah Ludford from dining with him in a gesture of solidarity despite how she had previously acknowledged that the settlements are illegal.’
David Rotem was another close ally of EFI. He represents the far-right Yisrael Beitenu (Israel Our Home) party and is a Knesset member:
‘Described as a ‘one-man legislative machine’ in Max Blumenthal’s book Goliath, Rotem has authored a series of measures aimed at making Palestinians face new types of discrimination. Among them were a bill requiring Palestinian citizens of Israel to sign an oath of allegiance to a ‘Jewish and democratic state’ and a ban on funding organisations deemed to clash with Israeli values. The latter initiative was originally known as the ‘Nakba law’ after the Arabic word for catastrophe; it targeted Palestinian groups who held events which recognised that some 750,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes in the Nakba, the wave of ethnic cleansing at the time of Israel’s establishment in 1948.’
Rotems’ association with EFI was arranged by Dutch MEP Bastiaan Belder, a Christian Zionist, who ‘has supported almost every Israeli act of aggression. Israel, he has claimed, displayed a ‘real concern for Palestinian lives’ when it bombed Gaza for three consecutive weeks in late 2008 and early 2009. ‘Look at all the precautions they [Israel] took during the operation,’ he added.’
He was also serving chair of the European Parliament’s committee, tasked with handling its relations with the Knesset, along with other members of EFI, who sit on the Parliament’s official delegation to Israel.
EFI is closely linked to the Israeli Embassy in Brussels:
‘At least three of the staff in Israel’s Brussels embassy have been assigned the task of cultivating a good relationship with MEPs. One of the three, David Saranga, has trained EFI staff on how to make optimal use of ‘social media’ websites like Twitter and Facebook. And when Israel began a new round of airstrikes against Gaza in October 2012, Saranga travelled to Strasbourg, where the Parliament was meeting, so that he could brief EFI stalwarts. His key messages were that Israel was seeking to avoid harming civilians and that it was providing Gaza with humanitarian assistance. Both messages were dishonest: Israel soon launched an all-out attack, while Israel’s siege of Gaza has created a situation where 80 per cent of its inhabitants have become dependent on aid for survival.’
Saranga has also been ‘portrayed as a ‘rebranding’ specialist by The Jewish Chronicle. During a previous stint as a media officer in Israel’s New York consulate, he placed a feature in ‘lad’s magazine’ Maxim in which women who had served in the Israeli military were photographed in skimpy swimwear.’
By 2013, EFI had adopted the ‘tricks of the trade’. It went out of its way to push ‘brand Israel’. In so doing it hosted ‘a conference within the European Parliament titled ‘Humanitarian aid — Israel as a world leader’.’
As part of its PR campaign it claimed that ‘whenever disasters occur around the world, Israel has teams ready to assist rescue efforts. One of these teams was first on the ground after an earthquake devastated Haiti in 2010, invitees were informed’. The PR blurb is also played out on social media.
The EFI has now become a powerful voice and vehicle for the pro Israel lobby within the EU. As Cronin sums up in his article:
‘Its ability to convince elected representatives to bolster an apartheid state indicates it is a very dangerous organisation.’
