Chapter 7 – The New Anti-Semitism52 min read

Excerpt from Guilt By Association—How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War (2008) State Street Publications, pp. 123-146.

The new anti-Semitism appears in the guise of ‘political criticism of Israel’….

—Natan Sharansky, Likud Party[1]

I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel….

—Barack Obama, Democratic Party[2]

In October 2004, President George W. Bush signed into law the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act directing the State Department to “monitor and combat acts of anti-Semitism” in foreign countries. He announced the signing during a campaign event in Florida whose Jewish population is the third largest in the world after Israel and New York. The State Department opposed the legislation, saying it already compiles such data in its annual reports on human rights and religious freedom. Sponsored by Representative Tom Lantos, the legislation included a finding that “anti-Semitism has at times taken the form of vilification of Zionism, the Jewish national movement, and incitement against Israel.”[3]

Both the Lantos legislation and the State Department press release naming Gregg Rickman as envoy for anti-Semitism highlighted an October 2003 incident involving Malaysian Prime Minister Mahatir Mohammad who told the Organization of the Islamic Conference that Jews “rule the world by proxy.”[4] Describing the worldwide Jewish population as between 13 and 14.6 million, U.S. diplomats mocked Mahatir’s claim that the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims “cannot be defeated by a few million Jews.”

Redefining Anti-Semitism

The use of anti-Semitism to discredit critics of Israeli policy dates from the 1967 Six-Day War. Prior to that conflict, the American Jewish community was not much interested in Colonial Zionism with its toxic mix of fundamentalist fervor and an expansionist agenda. A similar phenomenon emerged after the Holocaust. Though the Zionist movement had sought broader support for many years, the Holocaust was the catalyst that rallied the Diaspora around the proposal for a Jewish homeland in the Middle East with Jerusalem its capital.[5]

Soon after the 1967 War, any variation from the pro-Zionist “party line” met with harsh criticism. Dissenting Jews were scorned as “self-hating” while non-Jew critics of Zionism were smeared as “anti-Semitic.” After the Six-Day War, critics of Israeli policies faced an added barrier: Policies crafted in Tel Aviv matched those in Washington. That alliance made Zionism appear respectable, particularly with the “echo effect” of those policies being portrayed in a favorable light by mainstream media and pro-Israeli think tanks.

After President Lyndon Johnson (with the assistance of Admiral John S. McCain, Jr.) covered up Israel’s killing of 34 Americans aboard the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, it became clear there was no extreme to which Tel Aviv could go that would endanger White House support. From a game theory perspective, the Six-Day War fulfilled its strategic purpose. It not only rallied moderate Jews who were lukewarm to Colonial Zionism but the success of that territorial expansion also confirmed throughout the Middle East that America was firmly on the side of Israeli expansionism, Zionist extremism and fundamentalist Judaism.

As moderate and liberal Jews migrated politically rightward, those involved in the U.S. civil rights movement faced a moral dilemma: How could they promote equal rights for minorities in the U.S. and fail to oppose Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians? Rather than pressure Tel Aviv to reform, many of them dropped their opposition to Zionism. Thus began a paradox for moderate Jews that remains unresolved: How to reconcile a commitment to human rights with the inhumane policies of the Jewish state and its expansionist agenda for Greater Israel?

The Internal Diaspora

Absent the horror of the Holocaust, President Harry Truman could not have recognized Zionism as a legitimate basis for a sovereign state in May 1948 over the vehement opposition of Secretary of State George C. Marshall, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the State Department’s director of policy planning and the Central Intelligence Agency.

Truman was lavish in his praise of Marshall, conceding: “He won the war.”[6] Yet in the aftermath of the Holocaust and with the Balfour Declaration having been endorsed by Democrats Wilson and Roosevelt, Truman also felt responsibility for the survivors and their claim as displaced persons to a homeland in Palestine. Critics suggest that Truman risked the welfare of the U.S. in return for pro-Israeli campaign contributions to his cash-starved 1948 presidential campaign, which he was expected to lose.

While the politics of campaign finance clearly played a role, Truman also acted out of humanitarian and moral concerns informed by his Christian Zionist upbringing in rural Missouri where he famously read the Bible cover-to-cover five times by age 15. His decision was also shaped by opinions, sentiments and predispositions developed as a young man steeped in Baptist theology that emphasized the Jews’ return to Zion as a prerequisite for the return of the Christian messiah.[7]

In an Oval Office meeting of May 12, 1948, two days before the British mandate in Palestine expired, Marshall assured Truman that, if he followed the advice of White House counsel Clark Clifford and recognized the Zionist state, Marshall would vote against him in the November election.[8] After Truman recognized Israel, Marshall never again spoke to Clifford. Not until 1984 was it revealed that Abe Feinberg and a network of Zionist Jews financed Truman’s nationwide whistle-stop campaign for which Feinberg arranged to have Jewish delegations meet and financially “refuel” the train with $400,000 in campaign cash ($2.9 million in 2007 dollars).[9]

In the minds of those who comprise the Diaspora, the Six-Day War reactivated the psychological insecurity associated with the Holocaust. In combination, those two events catalyzed an internal Diaspora based on:

  • Nationalism—a shared emotional bond among Jews worldwide as a dispersed form of nationalism (the Diaspora) bound to Israel those who may never set foot there. After the Six-Day War, the state of Israel became the Land of Israel based on the more expansive area it occupied and the additional territory it still intends to take.
  • Insecurity—a shared sense of vulnerability and victimhood as Jews worldwide defended themselves against anti-Semites. Whenever Israeli policies came under attack (as now), media campaigns claimed another outbreak of anti-Semitism.[10]

Bound by a common anxiety and the allure of a “promised land” offering refuge through a “right of return,” Israel emerged as a shared mental state also available as a physical “homeland” for anyone the Jewish state deemed “Jewish.” In combination, the Holocaust and the Six-Day War made Zionism a geopolitical possibility. Without the Holocaust, Truman’s recognition of Zionism as a legitimate sovereign state would have proven impossible. Absent the 1967 war, moderate Jews would have continued their opposition to a Jewish state as an impediment to assimilation.

The anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism knew that an enclave of Jewish fundamentalists would subjugate the Arabs, provoking cycles of violence. They also understood that recognition of an expansionist Jewish state would imperil their faith tradition worldwide by enabling even anti-Zionist Jews to be portrayed as foreign agents of an aggressor state. Charges of “dual loyalty” could be used to impugn even those Jews most appalled at what Israel has become as pressure from the Israel lobby discredited the U.S. worldwide by ensuring official indifference to Palestinian suffering.

The Holocaust catalyzed the emotional and political reaction required for Truman’s recognition of Israel as a sovereign nation. The Six-Day War re-catalyzed the perception of vulnerability required to ensure that Israel became the well-armed ally of a superpower then led by Lyndon Johnson. Tel Aviv’s 1967 land grab also enabled the “Israelites”—with support from their Christian Zionist allies—to seize more territory that Jewish fundamentalists had long claimed was theirs because they are Jews.

Thus the strategic motivation fueling charges of a “New Anti-Semitism” to impugn anyone opposing the retention of occupied Palestinian land and the seizure of more territory for the steadily expanding Land of Israel. Or, as fundamentalist Jews maintain, the “redemption” of land that is rightly theirs. Thus also the need for an aggressive strategy meant to discredit, isolate, ostracize or marginalize anyone critical of Tel Aviv’s expansionist policies. With the 1967 war, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (Hebrew for sons of the covenant) increased its funding and re-focused its operation.

When Jimmy Carter published Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (2006), the ADL was ready. National director Abraham Foxman promptly attacked the former president, a loyal friend of Israel, as “anti-Semitic.”[11] Martin Peretz, editor of The New Republic, quickly claimed the Christian Zionist Nobel peace laureate “will go down in history as a Jew-hater.”[12] As sponsor of the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace process, Carter arguably did as much as any U.S. president to improve Israeli security. Yet the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting (CAMERA), an AIPAC-related media watchdog, published full-page ads in The New York Times attacking Carter and urging that readers complain to the publisher whose phone number was included in the ad.

Attack on the Academies

Efforts to shield Israel from criticism routinely target not just policymakers but also professors, authors, columnists and other opinion-shapers. In an irony seldom lost on the target, the attacker typically cites the right to free speech while seeking to silence the critic. Norman Finkelstein, an anti-Zionist Jew, has long irritated ADL. His 2000 book, The Holocaust Industry, merely rankled ADL.[13] With its extended critique of Chutzpah by Harvard-Zionist Professor Alan Dershowitz, Finkelstein’s 2005 book, Beyond Chutzpah—The Misuse of Anti-Semitism, caused Zionists to hit the panic button.

Dershowitz, a self-described loyal defender of human rights, sought to halt the book’s publication.[14] Finkelstein, 55, recently was denied tenure at Chicago’s DePaul University following pressure from Jewish organizations and individuals, including Dershowitz. On May 23, 2008, Israel’s Shin Bet security service detained Finkelstein for 24 hours at Ben-Gurion International Airport. Akin to behavior found in Soviet bloc countries, entry was denied an outspoken critic of state policy. Though Jews worldwide are assured a right of return to the Jewish homeland, this Jewish son of Holocaust survivors reports he was told that he could not return for 10 years.[15]

None of this is new. In They Dare to Speak Out (1985), former Congressman Paul Findley devoted an entire chapter to attacks on academics who criticize Israeli policies.[16] As the target of a successful AIPAC congressional campaign in 1982, Findley is an experienced veteran of such attacks. In detailing coordination among AIPAC, B’nai B’rith and ADL, he described how Hillel Foundation student groups target on-campus speakers known to be critics of Israeli policy.

Findley quotes a professor who encountered the “silent covenant within the academic community concerning Israel” and the costs imposed on those who criticize its policies. He described how a Middle East studies program was discontinued in a campaign organized by ADL, the Jewish Relations Council and Ira Silverman of the American Jewish Committee. One observer compared their intimidation campaign to “the Great Fear sweeping across France during the French Revolution.”[17]

In a chilling account of an early 1980s campaign meant to intimidate academics nationwide, a network of pro-Israeli organizations targeted Mazher Hameed, a research fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Though the scholar’s report on Saudi Arabian oil field security was widely praised, Tel Aviv sought to discredit the author in order to halt the sale to Saudi Arabia of a high-tech AWACS airplane featuring the U.S. Air Force’s most sophisticated airborne radar.

The analysis pointed out the risk that Israel could mount a preemptive attack, roiling world oil markets. Since 1976, Israel Defense Forces had routinely engaged in practice bombing runs over the Saudi airbase of Tabuk, dropping empty fuel cannisters to prove their point. Tel Aviv also let it be known they could create their own “oil embargo” by disrupting Saudi oil operations.

The Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AWACS) offers a plane-mounted radar system designed to detect aircraft from hundreds of miles away. With an AWACS deployed over that theater of operations, it would be far more difficult for Tel Aviv to induce policymakers to believe that Israel was not an agent provocateur but a perennial victim living in an anti-Semitic neighborhood.[18] Not only did the scholar lose his job, The New Republic threatened to publish a series alleging petrodollar donations to CSIS, insinuating the research was biased and “fixed” and challenging its tax-exempt status. In response, CSIS retroactively amended the researcher’s contract to withdraw budgeted funds and force his departure.

Shortly after learning that CSIS had been successfully intimidated and his position terminated, Hameed returned to his office to find it had been burgled. The next day his personal post office box was broken into. To ensure he had no doubt that he was being stalked, items that were not his began appearing in his home.[19]

The Intimidation Effect

Intimidation is routinely deployed against critics, whether Jewish or otherwise. Abe Rosenthal, for years the managing editor of The New York Times, sought to protect U.S. military technology when, in October 1999, he wrote a column exposing Israeli collaboration with their counterparts in Beijing. Citing “obsequious Israeli speeches praising the Chinese minister of defense,” Rosenthal described Tel Aviv’s visitor as “one of the ranking Tiananmen killers” who sought Israeli assistance to upgrade Russian-made MiG-21 fighter jets for the Chinese military.[20]

Though a staunch supporter of Israel, Rosenthal cautioned that Tel Aviv’s transfer of U.S. military technology to China could endanger U.S. interests and make Israel an American political target. After putting U.S. national security ahead of the Zionist state’s geopolitical agenda, he abruptly left the Times in a public dispute with Max Frankel, his successor as executive editor.[21] For 17 years, the nation’s most influential editor, Rosenthal was a key architect of the modern New York Times and was then writing a popular column for the paper.[22]

In the insular media industry, Rosenthal’s abrupt departure had the same shot-across-the-bow impact as AIPAC’s success in removing Congressman Paul Findley and targeting two chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: Democrat William Fulbright of Arkansas in 1974 and, a decade later, Republican Charles Percy of Illinois.[23] Just as the Israel lobby’s display of political power intimidated a generation of policymakers, the sudden departure of a legendary newspaper editor served notice on a generation of editors and journalists: do not challenge Tel Aviv, period. And do not challenge the impact of Israeli policy on U.S. national security or your career will disappear. In the parlance of organized crime: You work for us and we can prove it. Look at Findley, Fulbright, Percy, Rosenthal and others.

On October 28, 1981, the Senate voted 52 to 48 against a resolution that would have blocked the AWACS sale to Saudi Arabia. After that (rare) loss by the Israel lobby, Paul Findley’s Congressional seat was targeted in 1982 along with a gubernatorial race by Adlai Stevenson III. Both elections were in Illinois, Barack Obama’s home state. Political insiders understood that those losses marked a major victory for Tel Aviv in an electorally critical state.[24]

Following Israel’s success with those elections, a conclave convened in Manhattan in 1983 to better coordinate pro-Israeli political operations. That group included James Wolfenson, Martin Peretz, Rita Hauser, Barry Diller and developer George Klein.[25] In 1984, AIPAC targeted a third Illinois policymaker (Percy) and then touted its victory when executive director Thomas A. Dine boasted to a Jewish audience in Canada:

All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And American politicians—those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire—got the message.[26]

The message of electoral intimidation was an inescapable signal from Tel Aviv to anyone interested in public service. The impact of the message was magnified by the fact that Percy was Republican chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations with a popular Republican president in the White House (Reagan). Dine reemerged during the Clinton administration as a senior Madeleine Albright appointee to the European and Eurasia office of the U.S. Agency for International Development where he oversaw the Harvard-advised Ashkenazi-ation of Russia. He was then appointed president of Radio Free Europe.

For the past 25 years, pro-Israeli influence has been expanding across key industries, including media, popular culture (Diller was then CEO of Paramount Pictures),[27] academia and think tanks (Peretz was then editor of The New Republic) and finance: Wolfensohn served 10 years (1995-2005) as World Bank president where he focused on globalizing the Washington consensus certain to create oligarchies worldwide. Hauser was appointed to the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board during the war-planning period (2001-2004) when fixed intelligence induced the U.S. to invade Iraq.

The intimidation factor remains robust. As this account neared completion, Palestinian journalist Mohammed Omer was assaulted in June 2008 by eight armed officers of Shin Bet, Israel’s security service. Returning from London, he had just received the Martha Gellhorn prize for journalists who expose establishment propaganda. Crossing into Gaza, he was threatened, forced to strip at gunpoint and then dragged naked by his heels after being beaten unconscious, fracturing several ribs and causing internal injuries. Tel Aviv insisted he was smuggling suspect and that he lost his balance during interrogation.[28]

As Gaza correspondent for the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, he had just published an assessment of Israel’s situation:

Israel’s international support, after all, depends on how it is viewed by the world. Promoting an acceptable image requires thousands of advocates, from editors and journalists to diplomats, politicians, advertising and public relations agencies and a network of grassroots activists dedicated to making sure very little about Israel’s policies and actions makes it into the consciousness of the world community.[29]

The Progression of Anti-Semitism

Anyone critical of Israeli policies is now routinely portrayed as an anti-Semite. Even the survivors of Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty are labeled anti-Semitic for urging a Congressional investigation of the circumstances surrounding the killing of 34 U.S. servicemen by Israel Defense Forces in 1967. The survivors ask: “How does seeking an inquiry become ‘anti-Semitism’?”[30]

In February 2006 the Church of England voted to review its investment in Caterpillar, Inc. when the Church discovered that Israel uses Caterpillar equipment to destroy Palestinian homes. Concerned at the ethical implications of profiting from that policy, the church resolved to study the issue. Even that expression of moral concern was quickly portrayed as “anti-Zionist—verging on anti-Semitic.”[31]

The misuse of that toxic charge is beginning to backfire, however. The court of world opinion has grown weary of Tel Aviv conceding no wrong in its treatment of those displaced and their lands occupied to create a Zionist state—particularly when its behavior has been far different than what was promised and anticipated when Truman recognized Zionism as meriting sovereign status in the heart of the Muslim Middle East. That behavior includes official discrimination reflected in at least 20 laws that disadvantage Arab-Israeli citizens in key areas such as education, housing and employment.

In November 2006 ADL’s Abe Foxman condemned as an “overwhelming failure” efforts to reform the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, claiming it was a tool of Arabs and Muslims.[32] The next day, Foxman attacked the U.N. Human Rights Council (successor to the commission) for appointing Nobel peace laureate Desmond Tutu, Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, to lead a fact-finding mission to Beit Hanun, a town in the Gaza Strip where Israel Defense Forces shelling killed 19 Palestinian civilians. Claiming the council “has never operated with any moral authority,” Foxman helped Tel Aviv justify its denial to Bishop Tutu of any cooperation with the inquiry.[33]

In March 2008 the U.N. Human Rights Council dispatched Richard Falk, an emeritus professor of international law at Princeton University, as special investigator on Israel-Palestine human rights. Israel’s Foreign Ministry denied him a visa when Falk, a Jewish critic of Tel Aviv’s policies, defended his statements comparing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians with the Nazis’ genocidal treatment of Jews, claiming Israel had been unfairly shielded from criticism.[34] The council’s previous investigator, John Dugard from South Africa, compared that treatment to apartheid, the policy used by South Africa’s white regime to disadvantage blacks in key areas such as education, housing and employment.

Over a 17-month period (November 2006 to April 2008), Israeli policymakers progressed from being compared to racist South Africans to being compared to the racial purists of Nazi Germany. Meanwhile Tel Aviv refused to cooperate with an international fact-finding mission led by a black Nobel peace laureate and leader in the Anglican Church. By mid-April 2008, Gaza-based Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar decried Judaism as having “corrupted itself in the detour into Zionism, nationalism and apartheid.” Writing in The Washington Post as Jimmy Carter traveled the region urging that peace talks include the elected Hamas government, Zahar likened the plight of Gazans to Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto during WWII, saying Gazans can do “no less” than rise up against Israel.[35]

The day before Zahar’s commentary described Gaza as “the world’s largest open-air prison,” Israeli forces supported by U.S.-provided aircraft invaded central Gaza and killed 14 Palestinians including five under age 16 along with a Reuters cameraman when an Israeli tank fired on his clearly marked “Press” jeep.[36] That same day, while a Hamas delegation was enroute to Cairo to meet with Carter, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described how the mass murder of 9/11 aided Israel:

We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq….[These events] swung American public opinion in our favor.[37]

Prior to the 9/11 attack, both Netanyahu and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had lamented the seeming inability of Americans to identify with the plight of Israelis and their experience with terrorism.

The Logic of Anti-Semitism

As successive Israeli governments drifted ever further to the political right, the American Jewish Congress, B’nai B’rith and the Anti-Defamation League led a campaign to equate anti-Zionists with anti-Semites, as reflected in the Tom Lantos-sponsored Global Anti-Semitism Review Act. The logic runs like this: In a world where there is only one Jewish state, to oppose its policies endangers Jews and is therefore anti-Semitic.[38] That logic suggests that Jews critical of Israeli policy are also anti-Semites.

December 2006 brought that paradox more clearly into focus as several anti-Zionist rabbis appeared in Tehran alongside Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who urged that Zionism be erased from history. In agreement, the few thousand Jews of the ultra-Orthodox Neturei Karta community reminded those who would listen that the Iranian President is not an anti-Semite but an anti-Zionist. While applauding the contribution that Jews have long made to Iran, Ahmadinejad asked why Palestinians should suffer for an atrocity in which they played no part and why people not alive during the Holocaust should bear its cost.

Founded in the 1930s to counter the Zionist movement, members of Neturei Karta (“guardians of the city”) routinely burn the Israeli flag and attend Manhattan’s annual Salute to Israel parade holding signs that read “Israel is a cancer for Jews.” Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss explained that Ahmadinejad “understands the difference between the Zionists and the Jews who do not embrace the state of Israel.”[39]

Asked if the Iranian President is an enemy, Rabbi Weiss replied, “We don’t look at him as an enemy. But is he a potential enemy? Well, every person who continues to be excited is one, but even when we’re dealing with an enemy we’re supposed to approach them with dialogue and try to placate them. Aggression is not going to be successful.” To describe the source of their concerns about the Zionist state, members of Neturei Karta explain in wall posters:

It is known to everyone that the hand of the Zionists was in the murder of millions of Jews in the days of holocaust and rage, both by provoking the fury of the despotic Germans, and by interfering with all manner of rescues….The Holocaust happened because of the Zionists. They wanted it….Zionists are able to convince the world that they represent Jews and Judaism, and everybody who speaks against it is anti-Semitic.[40]

The New Anti-Semitism failed as a strategy for discrediting rabbis who were neither anti-Semites nor Jew-haters. Rather than Holocaust deniers, they blamed the Holocaust on those who corrupted Judaism with Zionism, nationalism and its Palestinian progeny: apartheid. Rather than interview dissenting rabbis on CNN’s Situation Room, former Jerusalem Post reporter Wolf Blitzer featured David Duke, a former head of the Ku Klux Klan. Instead of associating the Iranian president with anti-Zionism, his interview of Duke associated him with racism and anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism by Association

In January 2008 the U.N. marked its second international day to remember the victims of the Holocaust. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon used the occasion to describe Holocaust deniers as “misguided individuals.”[41] With the Iranian President branded globally for Holocaust denial, anyone doing business with Iran became guilty by association. Three months later ADL published ads condemning the Swiss government as misguided for signing an energy contract with Iran.[42] The Holocaust did not need to be mentioned.

Similarly, Haaretz interviewed Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk just prior to his April 2008 arrival in Israel on the first visit by a Polish leader in nearly a decade. The interview featured his grandfather’s forced service in Hitler’s army during World War II. By the time Tusk arrived in Tel Aviv (after publication of that guilt-by-association article), he was prepared to issue a strong rebuke of Tehran, announcing, “Iran’s words toward Israel cancel its right to a place in the international community.”[43]

In another paradox facing purveyors of the New Anti-Semitism, a group of progressive Jews called “J Street PAC” emerged in Washington in April 2008.[44] Their goal: to counter AIPAC and the rightward march of Israeli politics. With “anti-Semite” repackaged to disparage anyone critical of Israel, J Street members cannot credibly be cast as anti-Semites. Because many of them are prominent in the Jewish community, “self-hating Jew” will need to be re-defined to include any Jew critical of Israeli policies. That strategy appears to be underway.

Harvard undergraduate Paul Katz was a target of this tactic when, in April 2008, he organized an exhibit exploring the effect on Israelis of their military service enforcing the occupation in the West Bank and Gaza. Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, accused Katz of “inciting hatred of Israel.” Katz questions how a pro-Zionist Jewish college student became a self-hating Jew “playing into the hands of Israel’s enemies”[45] by mounting what The Jerusalem Post portrayed as “a ferociously anti-Israel exhibition.”

Online Identification and Intimidation

In June 2004, after including the singular noun “Jew” in an Internet search, Google sent the author a warning from its automated search engine featuring this text:

“If you use Google to search for ‘Judaism,’ ‘Jewish’ or ‘Jewish people,’ the results are informative and relevant. So why is a search for ‘Jew’ different? One reason is that the word ‘Jew’ is often used in an anti-Semitic context. Jewish organizations are more likely to use the word ‘Jewish’ when talking about members of their faith…. Someone searching for information on Jewish people would be more likely to enter terms like ‘Judaism,’ ‘Jewish people,’ or ‘Jews’ than the single word ‘Jew.’ In fact, prior to this incident, the word ‘Jew’ only appeared about once in every 10 million search queries.… Sincerely, The Google Team

…p.s. You may be interested in some additional information the Anti-Defamation League has posted about this issue at In addition, we call your attention to the Jewish Internet Association, an organization that addresses online anti-Semitism, at Error! Hyperlink reference not valid..”

In fact, an Internet search using ADL-approved words (Jewish, Judaism and Jews) failed to identify materials that were either informative or relevant. No automated warning was generated by searches that used other faith-related nouns such as Buddhist, Muslim, Methodist, Hindu and Catholic. Contemporary news accounts suggest the automated ADL response was aimed at defusing charges that Google was anti-Semitic even though co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page are Jewish.[46]

Google explained that ADL and other Google users were concerned that Jew Watch emerged as the first-listed website whenever a search included the word “Jew.” Google has since reconfigured its search algorithms so that listings by Wikipedia (the online encyclopedia) appear second and third while the first is titled “Offensive Search Results” where the ADL warning now appears on-screen rather than being sent, at ADL’s direction, to the web-searcher’s personal computer. ADL’s Abe Foxman reports: “we are extremely pleased” that users will be “alerted when they are about to enter into a hate zone.”

In January 2008 Shimon Peres, Israel’s 84-year old president, proposed an extension of ADL’s anti-Semite identification strategy, “You can fight anti-Semitism using social networks, like Facebook.”[47] Peres then met with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg (age 23) at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland where they discussed implementation. With today’s sophisticated search engines, all 66 million active Facebook users could be monitored 24-7 for any ADL-designated evidence of anti-Semitism. For instance, anyone detected using the singular noun “Jew” for any purpose could automatically be portrayed as an anti-Semite and that behavior posted online as evidencing hateful and socially aberrant conduct (one in 10 million).[48]

For an indication of Israeli domination of security systems in information technology, see Appendix A (“Canadian & Israeli Security Companies”). Note, for instance, the prevalence of Israeli firms providing security for email.[49]

The Commissars

In December 2004, the author sent an inquiry to Noam Chomsky at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology when Professor Chomsky was described in The New York Times as a “self-hating Jew” after he published a critique of Israeli policy. The inquiry read, in part:[50]

Due to the factual nature of this account, I assume that personal credibility will be the issue that is raised as a way to misdirect attention from the confirmed facts. As I’m not Jewish, the self-hating charge won’t work. As I was a partner in the South’s largest Jewish law firm, on the board of Tikkun (regular contributor, etc.), I don’t expect the anti-Semitic schtick will stick though I anticipate a strong run in that direction. Based on your experience, what other types of mud are likely to be slung?

Professor Chomsky’s response (in part):

You’ll get the same thing: anti-Semite, Holocaust denier, want to kill all the Jews, etc.  It doesn’t matter what the facts are. Bear in mind that you are dealing with intellectuals, that is, what we call “commissars” and “apparatchiks” in enemy states.

Chomsky went on to explain how the Six-Day War marked a turning point in the use of anti-Semitism as a means to deflect attention from Israeli policy.

After 67, any deviation from the Party Line was met with a hysterical flood of vituperation, slanders, lies, mostly from intellectuals, with the left often in the lead. As usual. Where did you find the most vocal Stalinists? The difference is that in this case they were taking a stand very close to US government policy, therefore the media, so were “respectable.”

The challenge faced by critics of Israeli policy poses a quandary: how does one prove a negative? How does a “self-hating Jew” prove he or she is not? How does someone portrayed as “anti-Semitic” prove otherwise? Are the accused required to demonstrate their support for Israel regardless of its policies?[51] Once that charge is associated with someone, how can they dissociate from the guilt that charge is meant to imply? Is there a rehabilitation process once that slur attaches to its target? How do you prove you are not something that you never were?

Separate on the Inside

A true anti-Semite thinks Jewish people are somehow different and should be treated differently—a notion repugnant to democracy’s equal protection under the law. Yet Orthodox Jews often are firm believers in separating Jews from their fellow citizens in order to perpetuate the group. Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, a prominent neoconservative, argues in his 1997 book Faith or Fear that steps should be taken to prevent “prolonged and intimate exposure to non-Jewish culture.”

According to Abrams, President Bush’s senior adviser for “global democracy strategy,” Jewish law “does indeed separate Jews from their fellow citizens and bind them to each other.” His concerns with secular government trace their origins to the idea that Jews “are in a permanent covenant with God and with the land of Israel and its people,” he explains. “Their commitment will not weaken if the Israeli government pursues unpopular policies.”[52]

Much as an anti-Semite should be scorned, Abrams argued, so should any Jew who breaks with that “covenantal community with obligations to God.” There lies the faith-based duty that binds a nationwide corps of sayanim willing to sacrifice U.S. national security on the altar of their covenant. As Abrams explains:

Outside the land of Israel, there can be no doubt that Jews, faithful to the covenant between God and Abraham, are to stand apart from the nation in which they live. It is the very nature of being Jewish to be apart—except in Israel—from the rest of the population.

What Abrams describes is not dual loyalty. That covenant mandates a singular loyalty—resulting in a propensity to treason by any Jew living outside the “land of Israel” who shares his belief in a covenant with the Jewish state. As Israel Shahak explains in Jewish History, Jewish Religion:

The main danger which Israel, as a “Jewish state” poses to its own people, to other Jews and to its neighbors, is its ideologically motivated pursuit of territorial expansion and the inevitable series of wars resulting from this aim. The more Israel becomes Jewish or, as one says in Hebrew, the more it “returns to Judaism” (a process that has been under way in Israel at least since 1967), the more its actual policies are guided by Jewish ideological considerations and less by rational ones. My use of the term “rational” does not refer here to a moral evaluation of Israeli policies, or to the supposed defense of security needs of Israel—even less so to the supposed needs of “Israeli survival.” I am referring here to Israeli imperial policies based on its presumed interests….

My own early conversion from admirer of Ben-Gurion to his dedicated opponent began exactly with such an issue. In 1956 I eagerly swallowed all of Ben-Gurion’s political and military reasons for Israel initiating the Suez War, until he…pronounced in the Knesset on the third day of that war, that the real reason for it is “the restoration of the kingdom of David and Solomon” to its Biblical borders. At this point in his speech, almost every Knesset member spontaneously rose and sang the Israeli national anthem.[53]

The mindset of those who subscribe to such a “Jewish ideology” displaces the singular focus required to defend U.S. national security. As Shahak observes, that worldview also makes Israeli policies “incomprehensible to foreign observers who usually know nothing about Judaism excerpt crude apologetics.”[54] Such a belief is not just inconsistent with secular governance, that faith-based allegiance also ensures that anyone sharing that viewpoint will always be obliged to put Israeli interests ahead of American ones.

Abrams’ explanation of Judaism’s “covenant with God” eloquently captures the “passionate attachment” that George Washington cautioned Americans to avoid in its foreign alliances. In his farewell address, the nation’s first president urged an avoidance of “entangling alliances” such as now imperil the U.S. due to its “special relationship” with a theocratic and racist enclave whose leaders induced Truman to believe that Zionism was a legitimate basis for sovereignty and democracy.

This “covenant” differs from the U.S. commitment to protect those who choose to retain and celebrate their cultural, ethnic, racial or national origins. That pride brings to civil society the diversity and vitality on which America’s melting pot culture historically has thrived. That pride is very different from those whose primary allegiance lies with another nation state whose exclusivist policies and expansionist goals conflict with American values and jeopardize U.S. national security.

Faith-based Treason

Abrams’ allegiance to the Land of Israel without regard to its policies (“my country, right or wrong”) is the belief-based mindset from which treasonous conduct can be evoked by the people in between. That mindset provides the fertile ground from which sayanim can be recruited as operatives to support Israel’s “cause.”

Nor is such faith-based treason limited to U.S. residents. The risks of such a covenant endanger the security of any nation—be it Russia, Malaysia, Libya, Iran, etc.—where this covenant is found. That risk, moreover, is intuitively well understood. In a 2002 survey of attitudes toward Jews commissioned by ADL, 51% of respondents in 10 European countries agreed with the statement, “Jews are more loyal to Israel than to this country.”[55] ADL portrayed this response as an “anti-Semitic stereotype.” Yet Abrams’ concession confirms a rational basis for those concerns.

Anyone who believes that his “covenant with God” includes “restoration of the kingdom of David and Solomon” is a Colonial Zionist unable to faithfully serve America’s interests first. Nor can such a believer reliably serve any nation other than the Land of Israel and its expansionist policies for Greater Israel. Such people need not be Jewish Zionists, of course; they can also be Christian Zionists.

In April 2008, American evangelist John Hagee, a fundamentalist Christian Zionist, joined Likud Party stalwart Benjamin Netanyahu at a rally in Israel to support the entirety of Jerusalem remaining under control of the Jewish state.[56] Daniel Kurtzer,[57] former U.S. ambassador to Israel and an adviser to Barack Obama, agrees with Hagee that Jerusalem, as the “cultural capital of the Jewish people,” must be central to the peace process.[58]

Fundamentalist Christian support for Israel’s retention of Jerusalem and all of the West Bank endears Christian Zionists to Israeli hardliners such as Netanyahu. An outspoken McCain supporter, Hagee announced that his group, Christians United for Israel, donated $6 million to Israeli causes during the April 2008 pilgrimage that he led to Jerusalem following a visit by McCain and Lieberman. Hagee claims he has given $30 million to Jewish fundamentalist causes.[59] Touting a perspective sharply at odds with U.S. foreign policy, he argues: “Turning part or all of Jerusalem over to the Palestinians would be tantamount to turning it over to the Taliban.”[60] Such faith-based policy influences lie at the core of this fact-displacing modus operandi.

After dismissing Christian conservatives as “agents of intolerance” during his 2000 presidential campaign, McCain actively courted Hagee’s endorsement due to Hagee’s support for Israel and because he leads a mega-church with a congregation in the tens of thousands, with an even wider television audience.[61] In a July 2007 speech to Christians United for Israel, Joe Lieberman had this to say about Hagee:

I would describe Pastor Hagee with the words the Torah uses to describe Moses, he is an Eesh Elo Kim, a man of God because those words fit him; and, like Moses he has become the leader of a mighty multitude in pursuit of and defense of Israel.[62]

In mid-May 2008, McCain rejected Hagee’s months-old endorsement after an audio recording surfaced in which the televangelist argued, “God sent Adolph Hitler to help Jews reach the promised land.” In late-May, Lieberman agreed to address a Christians United for Israel summit held in Washington in July 2008. Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, called Hagee’s group “a vital force in supporting the war against terrorism and defending our ally, Israel.”[63]

The New Segregationists

According to the New Anti-Semitism, an “anti-Semite” is anyone who challenges Israeli policy. Confirming how freedom can be turned against those determined to defend it, anyone who challenges Abrams’ qualifications to advise on U.S. national security because of his beliefs is likely to be portrayed as an anti-Semite—even though those beliefs are irreconcilable with his constitutional oath of office. Similarly, any Jew must necessarily be “self-hating” if he criticizes Israeli policy or the impact on national security of devotees, such as Abrams, committed to expand the Land of Israel in order restore the kingdom of David and Solomon.

In a 1937 article titled, “How The Jews Can Combat Persecution,” Winston Churchill argued that Jews are partly to blame for anti-Semitism.[64] The British wartime leader disapproved of their treatment yet noted: “They have been partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer.” Uncovered in 2007 by Cambridge University lecturer Richard Toye, the unpublished article argued that “the wickedness of the persecutors” was not the only reason for the poor treatment of Jews down the ages.

Churchill laid part of the blame on what he called “the separateness of the Jew.” He criticized the “aloofness” of Jewish people and urged an effort to integrate. Yet integration is forbidden to those who believe in the “distinct identity that their covenant imposes on them as an article of faith” according to the senior presidential adviser on global democracy strategy.[65] As Abrams sees it, whether American Jewry survives “depends on whether they still believe they are above all else members of a religious community.”[66]

The Polish-born Israel Shahak cautions that such “Jewish chauvinism” can be a causal factor in anti-Semitism and urges that both be fought simultaneously. In Jewish History, Jewish Religion,[67] he points to the “apartheid character of Israeli behavior in the Occupied Territories” as evidence of the dangers that accompany “fundamentalist Judaism.” He reminds readers: “the State of Israel is not a democracy due to the application of Jewish ideology directed against all non-Jews and those who oppose this ideology.”

A veteran of the Nazis’ Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, Shahak cites historic evidence of “the rabbinical class, in alliance with the Jewish rich, oppressing the Jewish poor in its own interest as well as in the interest of the state—that is, the crown and the nobility.” A resident of Israel at his death in 2001, Shahak charged that Israeli oppression of Palestinians in the West Bank is motivated by “Jewish religious fanaticism.”

“Colonial Zionism” is a natural offshoot of “totalitarian” Talmudic Judaism, he charges, and the attempt to create a closed Jewish community centered on “exclusivism.” As he cautions, “close relations have always existed between zionists and antisemites.”[68] As an example, he cites Rabbi Joachim Prinz who in 1934 published Wir Juden (We Jews) welcoming Hitler’s rise to power because the fascists shared the Zionists’ belief in the primacy of “race” and Nazi hostility to the assimilation of Jews.[69] In 1999, the AIPAC-allied Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) portrayed Shahak as “one of the world’s leading anti-Semites.”


The charge of anti-Semitism was originally meant to protect innocent Jews from bigotry and injustice. By contrast, the New Anti-Semitism obscures a common source not only of bigotry and injustice but also transnational criminality and treason wed to an anti-democratic worldview. No one with Abrams’ depth of commitment to a foreign state should be expected to perform in a way that is reliably loyal to the country of his birth. Just as the Jewish covenant with the Land of Israel forbids such loyalty, U.S. national security should not expect it.

If America is unable to identify those with a faith-based allegiance to Israel, it cannot protect its national security from those obliged—by their belief in a “covenant with God”—to put the interests of the Land of Israel above all else. That interest includes the steady expansion of the Land of Israel to include the entirety of Greater Israel so that Jews can occupy what the Talmud considers rightfully theirs because they are “chosen” by God. Or so they believe.

This nontransparent aspect of Israel’s sayanim operation makes it essential that U.S. national security be insulated from the incapacity of government personnel to adhere to their constitutional oath to defend the United States. To portray as anti-Semites those seeking to address this systemic challenge can only serve to obstruct the investigation required to identify those who fixed the intelligence that induced the U.S. to wage war in the Middle East on behalf of Greater Israel.

In 1991 Abrams was convicted of unlawfully withholding information from Congress in its investigation of the Iran-Contra affair. In 1992 President G.H.W. Bush pardoned him. In 2007 he helped implement “Iran-Contra 2.0,” a covert initiative meant to oust the democratically elected Hamas-led government by provoking a Palestinian civil war with help from operatives in Fatah, the opposition party formerly led by Yassar Arafat. After Hamas’s strong showing at the polls, the plan was to collapse the Hamas government with $1.27 billion in U.S. funding, largely for arms shipments to Fatah from Egypt approved by Israel and paid for largely by the United Arab Emirates.

When the plan leaked, Hamas struck first, capturing most of Fatah’s arms and ammunition, leaving Hamas stronger than ever and ensuring that a peace settlement became even more unlikely between Israel and the Palestinians.[70] For both the U.S. and Hamas, the situation went from bad to worse as the U.S. was portrayed as attempting to destroy political choice while Palestinians in Gaza, where Hamas rules, became even more dependent on Iran. With 70 percent of Gazans living on less than $2 per day, the U.S. was again made to appear guilty by its association with the only winner in this failed strategy: Israel.

America First?

Much as those subjected to the toxic charge of anti-Semitism cannot defend themselves, so America cannot defend itself from those inside government who believe they are obliged to defend the Land of Israel at the expense of U.S. national security. That passionate attachment took political form in May 1948 as an entangled alliance between America and “the chosen people of Eretz Yisrael” (the Land of Israel), the term chosen by President Bush to describe Israel in May 2008.[71]

With the formation of a U.S.-Israeli alliance, treason became inevitable, invisible and systemic. Because the potential of such betrayal lies imbedded in the mind of the believer—and protected by freedom of religion—traitors can operate in plain sight and, thus far, with impunity.

In April 2008, an Israeli think tank published a study that concluded “Muslim anti-Semitism” is a “strategic danger for Israel.” Referring to the “hate industry,” the study concluded that Iranian anti-Semitism poses a threat “unprecedented since Nazi Germany.”[72] The “appeasement” of Iranian “Holocaust Denier” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remained unstated but implied as yet another mental thread was laid to justify an attack on Iran.

The study was published by a research institute that commemorates the fallen of Israel’s intelligence service, the Mossad. In mid-May, on the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, speaking in Jerusalem, added urgency to Tel Aviv’s Iranian psy-ops strategy by claiming that Tehran poses not just a threat to the Land of Israel but “an existential threat to the world.”[73]

  1. The entire quote reads: “The new anti-Semitism appears in the guise of ‘political criticism of Israel,’ consisting of a discriminatory approach and double standard towards the state of Jews, while questioning its right to exist.” Natan Sharansky, “Anti-Semitism Is Our Problem,” Haaretz, August 10, 2003. A dedicated Zionist, Sharansky immigrated to Israel in 1986 as part of a prisoner exchange after ten years confinement in the Soviet Union. Named minister of industry and trade in 1996 and minister of the interior in 1999, in February 2003 he was appointed minister without portfolio responsible for Jerusalem, social and Diaspora affairs. He resigned from the government in May 2005 to protest Ariel Sharon’s disengagement plan for Gaza. President G.W. Bush lauded his 2004 book, The Case For Democracy. Sharansky was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in December 2006, the first Israeli to receive that award. He received the Congressional Gold Medal in 1986. Only three others have received both awards: Pope John Paul II, Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela. When Sharansky moved to Israel, he formed the Zionist Forum, an umbrella organization dedicated to helping new Israeli immigrants from the former Soviet Union. A $20,000 relocation allowance was provided to Russian Jews. Guilford Glazer of Knoxville, Tennessee-based Glazer Steel, Cin., was reportedly a key financier for this relocation process. Former first lady Nancy Reagan presented Sharansky with the 2008 Ronald Reagan Freedom Award in a June 4, 2008 ceremony in Washington, D.C. “Nancy Reagan Will Present Natan Sharansky 2008 Ronald Reagan Freedom Award,” Jewish Russian Telegraph, February 28, 2008.
  2. Remarks to Jewish leaders in Cleveland, February 25, 2008.
  3. See “Global Anti-Semitism Review Act,” October 8, 2004 (S. 2292) posted online at
  4. The May 23, 2006 press release announced the appointment of Gregg Rickman as the “first special envoy for monitoring and combating anti-Semitism.” Rickman helped investigate the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program and the retention by Swiss banks of assets belonging to Holocaust victims and their heirs.
  5. Email to author of December 4, 2004 from Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Noam Chomsky, available online at
  6. David McCullough, Truman (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), p. 614.
  7. Michael T. Benson, Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel (Westport: Praeger, 1997), pp. 9, 47-49, 53-58, 67, 181. Christian dispensationalism offers a Biblical interpretation of the role played by the return of Jews to Israel as a prerequisite to the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the final assumption of believers into heaven (“rapture”) during the “end-times.”
  8. Memorandum of Conversation by Secretary of State [Recognition of Israel], Top Secret, Washington, D.C., May 12, 1948, reproduced in Donald Neff, Fallen Pillars (Washington, D.C.: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1995), pp. 221-223.
  9. Feinberg received from Truman a personal 17-page letter of thanks and an offer that he declined to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Israel. Grant T. Smith, America’s Defense Line (Washington, DC: Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, 2008), pp. 40-41, 290.
  10. See Norman G. Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah – On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005).
  11. Quoted in James Besser, “Jewish Criticism of Carter Intensifies,” Jewish Week, December 15, 2006.
  12. Martin Peretz, “Carter’s Legacy,” The Spine (weblog of The New Republic), November 26, 2006.
  13. Norman G. Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry (New York: Verso, 2000).
  14. Jennifer Howard, “Calif. Press Will Publish Controversial Book on Israel,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 22, 2006, p. 1
  15. Yossi Melman, “Israel denies entry to high-profile critic Norman Finkelstein,” Haaretz, May 25, 2008.
  16. Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out (Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 1985), Chapter Six.
  17. Ibid, p. 192.
  18. For example, if an AWACS had been in operation in 1967, the preemptive component of the Six-Day War would not be in dispute. Nor would the details of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, including the eight hours of aerial surveillance by Israeli aircraft prior to commencing a two-hour air and naval attack
  19. The Criminal State series will document how such psy-ops are routinely deployed against individuals who have firsthand evidence that incriminates this network of operatives in trans-generational criminality. In the interim, see analyses and postings on
  20. A.M. Rosenthal, “On My Mind: The Deadly Cargo,” New York Times, October 22, 1999.
  21. Stephen Miller, “A.M. Rosenthal, Influential New York Times Editor, Dies at 84,” New York Times, May 11, 2006.
  22. Rosenthal also exposed Loral’s sale of missile guidance systems to China and protested Clinton’s approval of the sale. A.M. Rosenthal, “On My Mind; The Missile Business,” New York Times, April 10, 1998. Bernard Schwartz, Loral’s CEO, was Bill Clinton’s top fundraiser in 1996, the same year Loral stock sold for $72 a share. Loral was fined $20 million. In effect, the 2002 fine punished the shareholders (largely tax-subsidized pension plans). In 2003, Loral declared bankruptcy. The government insider on that theft, Stephen Bryen, was then the deputy under secretary of defense for technology security policy (1981-1988). Bryen now serves on the Advisory Board of JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.
  23. In 1963, Fulbright convened hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations concerning the funding sources for foreign agents influencing public opinion and policy through media campaigns and other propaganda. The hearings confirmed that at least $5 million ($27.5 million in 2007 dollars) were funds directly from the quasi-governmental Jewish Agency. An international thought leader, Fulbright won election to the Senate in 1944 and served five terms, including serving the longest of any chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee (1959-1974). Fulbright’s lengthy absences from the state became a political vulnerability that Governor Dale Bumpers seized to defeat Fulbright in November 1974. Though Bumpers largely refused out-of-state funding for his modest $300,000 campaign, it is also clear that Fulbright considered himself a target of the Israel lobby whose operatives he considered should comply with the Foreign Agents Registration Act. With his removal, Tel Aviv could avoid potentially embarrassing disclosures by a high-profile Senator about foreign funding sources for pro-Israeli political operations in the U.S.
  24. The Criminal State series will describe the interstate node-and-network imbedding of this corruption dating from the Prohibition era. Evidence abounds of the federal/state/local imbedding of this modus operandi across generations.
  25. John J. Fialka, “Jewish Groups Increase Campaign Donations, Target Them Precisely,” Wall Street Journal, August 3, 1983, p. 1.
  26. Quoted in Paul Findley, “Blow to Pro-Israel Lobby in the U.S.,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 1997, p. 16.
  27. From October 1984 to April 1992, Diller served as chairman and CEO of Fox, Inc., parent company of Fox Broadcasting Company and Twentieth Century Fox. In 1978, control of Twentieth Century Fox passed to investors Marvin Davis and Marc Rich. In 1983, Rich was indicted in federal court for evading $48 million in taxes and charged with 51 counts of tax fraud and orchestrating illegal oil sales with Iran during the hostage crisis (1979-1981). In 1985, Rich’s half interest was sold to News Corp. controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Six months later, Davis sold his interest to Fox. Murdoch recruited Diller from Paramount to run the studio and Murdoch implemented Diller’s plan for a television network. After becoming an American citizen in 1985, the Australian Murdoch gained Federal Communications Commission approval to acquire Metromedia’s television properties, creating Fox Broadcasting Company. Though never convicted, Rich was pardoned by President Bill Clinton in January 2001 citing clemency pleas from Israeli officials including Prime Minister Ehud Barak.
  28. John Pilger, “From triumph to torture,” The Guardian, July 2, 2008.
  29. Mohammed Omer, “A Voice for the Voiceless: On Winning the 2008 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, August 2008, p. 15.
  30. “Anti-Semitism and the USS Liberty Inquiry,” html.
  31. Helen Nugent, “Chief Rabbi Flays Church over Vote on Israel Assets,” Times (London), February 17, 2006.
  32. “ADL rips new UN human rights body as tool of Arabs, Muslims,” Haaretz, November 29, 2006.
  33. According to Foxman, “The appointment of Desmond Tutu as head of the fact-finding mission to Beit Hanun is an extension of the anti-Israel kangaroo court tactics used by the UN Human Rights Council.” Quoted in Herb Keinon, “Israel won’t bar Desmond Tutu’s entry,” Jerusalem Post, December 3, 2006.
  34. Associated Press, “Israel to deny UN official entry for comparing Israel to Nazis,” Haaretz, April 9, 2008. In an article that irked his pro-Israeli critics titled, “Slouching Towards a Palestinian Holocaust,” Falk wrote that “it is especially painful for me, as an American Jew, to feel compelled to portray the ongoing and intensifying abuse of the Palestinian people by Israel through a reliance on such an inflammatory metaphor as a ‘holocaust.’” He then asked: “Is it an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with this criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity? I think not. The recent developments in Gaza are especially disturbing because they express so vividly a deliberate intention on the part of Israel and its allies to subject an entire human community to life-endangering conditions of utmost cruelty.” Marc Perlman, “U.N. Taps America Jewish Critic of Israel as Rights Expert,”, March 27, 2008.
  35. Mahoud al-Zahar, “No Peace Without Hamas,” Washington Post, April 17, 2008, p. A23.
  36. Isabel Kershner, “Palestinians Fight Israelis In Gaza; Toll Exceeds 21,” New York Times, April 17, 2008, p. A6. The day before the attack, Avigdor Lieberman, chairman of the far-right Yisrael Beiteinu (Our Home) party urged that Carter cancel his plans, saying such talks would only heighten terror. Reuters, “Lieberman to Carter: Meeting Meshal will only heighten terror,” Haaretz, April 16, 2008.
  37. Reuters, “Report: Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel,” Haaretz, April 16, 2008
  38. Patricia Cohen, “Essay Linking Liberal Jews and Anti-Semitism Sparks a Furor,” New York Times, January 31, 2007, p. B1.
  39. Fernanda Santos, “New York Rabbi Finds Friends in Iran and Enemies at Home,” New York Times, January 15, 2007.
  40. Bradley Burston, “Jews who make Satan look good,” Haaretz, December 15, 2006.
  41. DPA, “UN Secretary General calls Holocaust deniers ‘misguided individuals,’” Haaretz, January 20, 2008.
  42. “ADL unleashes ads condemning Swiss energy deal with Iran,” Haaretz, April 9, 2008.
  43. Yossi Melman, “Polish PM: There is no Polish culture without Jewish culture,” Haaretz, April 9, 2008; Barak Ravid, “Polish PM: Iran’s comment on Israel annuls right to place in int’l community,” Haaretz, April 9, 2008.
  44. Max Deveson, “US Jewish lobby gains new voice,” BBC News, Washington, April 16, 2008.
  45. Klein quoted in Paul Katz, “Breaking ranks with U.S. Jewish ‘establishment’ on the occupation,” Haaretz, April 16, 2008.
  46. Born in Moscow in 1973 to a Jewish couple, Brin and his family left Russia in 1977. “Google co-founder: My family left Russia because of anti-Semitism,” Haaretz, May 18, 2005.
  47. Associated Press, “Peres urges world youth to fight anti-Semitism using Facebook,” Haaretz, January 29, 2008.
  48. See “IT Security” in Appendix A and posted online at
  49. The circumstances whereby this chart was obtained from an Israeli source will be described in the Criminal State. series.
  50. The full text of this email exchange is posted online at
  51. Visible displays of support for Israel are a means to signal potential pro-Israeli fundraisers, particularly for anyone considering a presidential race. Delaware Senator Joe Biden, a potential 2008 presidential candidate announced in December 2006 that he would press for greater access to Nazi-era files, claiming “further delay in release of this archive material would be unjust to Holocaust survivors.” Associated Press, “U.S. Senator presses for greater access to Nazi-era files,” Haaretz, December 29, 2006.
  52. Elliott Abrams, Faith or Fear – How Jews Can Survive in a Christian America (New York: The Free Press, 1997).
  53. Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion (New York: Pluto Press, 1994), p. 8.
  54. Ibid., p. 9.
  55. Responses ranged from a low of 34% in the United Kingdom to a high of 72% in Spain. EU-wide, 42% agreed with the statement: Jews still talk too much about the Holocaust.” “Manifestations of Anti-Semitism in the European Union – Belgium,” posted at jsource/anti-semitism/report_belgium.html
  56. The John Hagee Ministries operate largely in the U.S. and the U.K.
  57. Kurtzer also served as U.S. ambassador to Egypt. As a member of the State Department Policy Planning staff during the Reagan Administration, he was a speechwriter for Secretary of State George Schultz who now serves as co-chair of the Committee on the Present Danger. During his 29 years of public service, he also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research. From 1977-1979, he served as Dean of Yeshiva College. He presently serves as the S. Daniel Abraham Professor of Middle East Policy Studies at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
  58. Anschel Pfeffer, “Dennis Ross, Daniel Kurtzer slam Bush’s Mideast policy,” Haaretz, May 14, 2008. Kurtzer may have been the advisor who inserted in Obama’s June 2008 AIPAC speech a promise that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” Obama had to quickly explain himself when the statement outraged Palestinians, alarmed Muslims and raised concerns among moderates worldwide.
  59. Neela Banerjee and Michael Luo, “McCain Chides Pastor Over Sermon on Holocaust,” New York Times, May 23, 2008, p. A15.
  60. Associated Press, “U.S. evangelist pledges $6 million in contributions to Israel,” Haaretz, April 6, 2008; Associated Press, “Hagee: Israel Must Control All Jerusalem,” Haaretz, April 7, 2008.
  61. On May 22, 2008, McCain announced his rejection of Hagee’s endorsement after an audio recording surfaced in which the preacher said that God sent Adolf Hitler to help Jews reach the promised land. Libby Quaid, “McCain Rejects Pastor’s Endorsement,” ABC News (online) May 22, 2008.
  62. “Lieberman Address to Christians United for Israel,” July 16, 2007, posted on Lieberman’s Senate website:
  63. Andrew Miga, “Lieberman to speak at conference hosted by Hagee,” May 28, 2008, Associated Press online.
  64. Reuters, “Pre-WW2 Churchill article says Jews partly to blame for anti-Semitism,” Haaretz, November 3, 2007.
  65. Elliott Abrams, Faith or Fear (New York: Free Press, 1997), p. 196.
  66. Ibid., p. 193. (emphasis in original)
  67. Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion (New York: Pluto Press, 1994).
  68. Ibid., p. 71.
  69. Prinz migrated to the U.S. in 1937 with the sponsorship of Rabbi Stephen Wise, an adviser to Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. Prinz lectured widely for the United Jewish Appeal established in the 1920s by Golda Meir and others intent on funding the Zionist movement. Settling in Newark, New Jersey, Rabbi Prinz helped organize the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. In the fall of 1963, the conference reportedly offered the funding to help Senator John F. Kennedy finish his presidential campaign provided he would turn over to them control of U.S. policy in the Middle East, an account that will be chronicled in the Criminal State series. Prinz served as conference president, 1965-67. The Conference membership is made up of 51 Jewish organizations dedicated to mobilizing support for Israel.
  70. David Rose, “The Gaza Bombshell,” Vanity Fair, April 2008.
  71. The text reads: “We gather to mark a momentous occasion. Sixty years ago in Tel Aviv, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel’s independence, founded on the ‘natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate.’ What followed was more than the establishment of a new country. It was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David – a homeland for the chosen people of Eretz Yisrael.” Associated Press, “Text of President Bush’s speech to the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, as provided by the White House,” May 15, 2008.
  72. “Israeli think tank: Muslim anti-Semitism is strategic danger for Israel,” Haaretz, April 22, 2008.
  73. Ora Koren, “Kissinger: Timetable required to combat global nuclear threat,” Haaretz, May 14, 2008.Chapter 8— Would Obama Be Better?