| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:01 am Post subject: AIPAC probe leads to Zionist (Israel first) neocon doorstep |
| Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:46:35 -0800
From: "Jeffrey Blankfort" <jblankfort@earthlink.net>
Subject: AIPAC probe leads to neocon doorstep
Washington Post columnist David Ignatius added another element to the
equation in his piece last week - the FBI's investigation into the
activities of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
According to Ignatius, the investigation has landed on the doorstep of
a
number of senior neo-conservatives in the administration, and at least
six administration officials have been forced to take on the services
of
attorneys in an effort to ward off charges that they leaked information
to the pro-Israel lobby.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=537319
w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last update - 01:24 08/02/2005
Analysis / Winds of change from Washington
By Nathan Guttman
WASHINGTON - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's calculated absence from the Sharm el-Sheikh summit clearly demonstrates the new American policy formulated during the course of her visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority over the past two days. The U.S. administration is making it clear that it is there to assist and accompany, but that it is standing on the sidelines and not on the playing field itself.
Rice and President George Bush have spoken of the U.S. commitment to moving the process forward and being involved, but the term "involved" is now taking on new meaning. Gone are the days of the Americans sitting between the two conflicting sides; the involvement now is more cautious, distant and general.
The relatively low rank of the special envoy whose appointment Rice announced, coupled with the limited scope of his position, are evidence of the same sentiment - assistance and support, but not the management of the process.
But this isn't the only change in U.S. policy vis-a-vis the conflict. Bush's second term in office opened with a change in tune toward the two sides in the Middle East. Following four years of a distinctly pro-Israeli policy, both among the administration and in Congress, recent weeks have produced numerous signs of a toning down in this approach.
This tendency has found _expression in Bush's announcement with regard to $350 million in aid to the Palestinians, in the praise Bush and Rice are heaping on Mahmoud Abbas, and in the somewhat rare decisions of the two houses of Congress last week that expressed support for the Palestinian elections and esteem for the elected leadership.
One should also add to all this the fact that in one of her first talks on matters of the Middle East with Foreign Ministry officials, Rice made clear that "without a Palestinian state there will be no peace." No, it was not a new statement, but the emphasis placed upon it is what makes the difference.
Washington Post columnist David Ignatius added another element to the equation in his piece last week - the FBI's investigation into the activities of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). According to Ignatius, the investigation has landed on the doorstep of a number of senior neo-conservatives in the administration, and at least six administration officials have been forced to take on the services of attorneys in an effort to ward off charges that they leaked information to the pro-Israel lobby.
The widening investigation could further hamper the promotion of Israel's interests in Washington, and restrict the activities of its supporters in the administration.
The United States is not becoming pro-Palestinian, that's for sure; but the end of the Yasser Arafat era also brought an end to the automatic hostility toward the Palestinian issue in the corridors of power in Washington.
In the newly created reality, the administration is far more cautious: it is not gushing enthusiastically about progress in the field; it is not leaping to its feet with proposals of its own to move the process forward; and it is no longer always adopting the Israeli approach.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=537319
Last edited by Alpha on Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:53 am; edited 1 time in total | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:18 am Post subject: AIPAC Comes Under Scrutiny as FBI Intensifies Israeli Espion |
| Former Republican Congressman Paul Findley Sticks AIPAC Lobby:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/02/08/former-congressman-findley-nails-pro-israel-aipac-lobby.php
The following article appears in the latest (December, 2004) issue of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs magazine (www.wrmea.com ):
http://www.acjna.org/article_view.asp?article_id=336
AIPAC Comes Under Scrutiny as FBI Intensifies Israeli Espionage Probe
Allan C. Brownfeld, Editor
Special Interest Report
September - October 2004
It has been widely reported that the FBI is investigating the possibility that Lawrence Franklin, a Pentagon analyst , passed classified material to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), who then handed the information over to the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
The Economist (Sept, 4, 2004) reports that, “The unfolding saga surrounding Lawrence Franklin is ... that he gave classified, documents on Iran to Israel. But there is growing speculation that the FBI investigation of Mr. Franklin is the tip of an iceberg. The reported anger of federal agents at the leaking of the story indicates a bigger probe that may have been under way for at least a year. ... Mr. Franklin allegedly passed draft documents on American policy towards Iran to AIPAC, a hugely influential lobbying group in Washington, which in turn allegedly passed them to Israeli officials. Both AIPAC and Israel have denied any wrongdoing. The Israelis maintain that they have been ultra-careful since the huge embarrassment in 1985 when Jonathan Pollard, an American intelligence analyst, was caught spying for Israel. ... The scandal is difficult for Israel, which wields considerable influence on American foreign policy ... It is hard to put a positive spin on a spy in the Pentagon, even if he is talking to your friends.”
Writing in The American Conservative (Oct. 11, 2004), Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, notes that, “The Franklin case stems from investigations of Israeli diplomats that developed from the prosecution of spy Jonathan Pollard. Pollard’s conviction in 1987 provided little in the way of a resolution; the Israeli government never cooperated in the inquiry and did not provide an inventory of the documents that Pollard had stolen. The FBI also knew that a second spy, believed to be in the Pentagon, passed Pollard classified file numbers that were desired by the Israelis. Hoping to catch the second spy, the FBI continued its probe. Two years ago, the investigators began to suspect that highly sensitive National Security Agency documents were winding up in Israeli hands, possibly with the connivance of AIPAC. In the judgment of counterintelligence specialists, the Israelis did not wish a repeat of the Pollard case, so they decided against recruiting another U.S. official and turning him into a salaried spy. Instead, they opted to establish relationships with friends in the government who would voluntarily provide information. ... AIPAC would have served as a useful intermediary or ‘cut out’ in such an arrangement, limiting the contact between the American government official and the Israeli embassy.”
The entire affair, writes Ori Nir in The Forward (Sept. 3, 2004) “has cast light on the fine line that AIPAC walks between advocating a strong American-Israeli alliance and acting as the representative of a foreign government . Both activities are legal , but serving a foreign government requires registration with the Department of Justice and entails severe legal restrictions, not applied to pro-Israel groups, including AIPAC. AIPAC’s defenders ... insist that no evidence has emerged suggesting that AIPAC either violated American espionage laws or even crossed the line requiring it to register as a representative of a foreign agent. AIPAC enjoys the support, admiration and even awe of Jewish organizational officials, many of whom raced to AIPAC’s defense. Still, some pro-Israel activists in Washington are privately suggesting that the current scandal provides AIPAC with a chance, in the words of one communal official, for ‘some soul-searching and reappraisal’ regarding its general modes of operation.”
According to Nir, “some critics in the Jewish community say that AIPAC’s leadership is too closely identified with Israel’s ruling Likud Party ... Critics also have accused AIPAC of adopting an agenda that too closely mirrors the hawkish agenda of neo-conservatives in the Bush administration, thereby fueling conspiratorial notions that President Bush was duped into invading Iraq in order to advance Israeli interests. Now, critics say, with its increasing focus on Iran, AIPAC risks fueling the claims of those who would accuse the Jewish community of working with Washington neoconservatives to convince the White House to pursue regime change in Tehran.” Several Jewish communal leaders complain that AIPAC officials have not done enough to maintain a clear wall between the lobbying group and Israel. AIPAC officials have left the organization to serve in the Israeli government. Lenny Ben-David, formerly known as Leonard Davis, for example, worked at AIPAC for 25 years — first in Washington, then in Jerusalem — before he was tapped by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1998 to be the deputy chief of mission in Israel’s Washington embassy.
Many Jewish leaders have risen to AIPAC’s support. Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, says: “The leaks are more serious than the charges because once you look at the charges, they don’t amount to anything. When things quiet down, we would be calling for hearings and investigations into the leaks.”
AIPAC and some of its supporters have suggested that the FBI and the CIA are pursuing a vendetta against Israel, the Pentagon, neoconservatives, and possibly Jews in general. The neoconservatives have lashed out in a memo drafted by Michael Rubin, of the American Enterprise Institute, alleging that the probe is motivated by anti-Semitism.
The Forward (Sept. 10, 2004) reports that, “Several Jewish activists, speaking on conditions of anonymity, cautioned against what they described as a defiant reaction on the part of some communal leaders who raised the specter of anti-Semitic conspiracy. ‘If every single time we get into trouble we cry anti-Semitism, no one is going to believe us when we confront the real problem of anti-Semitism,’ a senior official of a Jewish organization said. Another organizational official said: ‘It’s ridiculous to react like that before you know what happened there. In the absence of accurate knowledge, any comment is just silly.’”
The fallout for AIPAC, writes Doug Bloomfield in Washington Jewish Week (Sept. 9, 2004) could be serious: “There have been persistent charges ... that AIPAC directs the network of pro-Israel political action committees (PAC), campaign finance bundlers and individual contributors. AIPAC has successfully fought such accusations all the way to the Supreme Court to avoid being designated a PAC because of the impact that would have on the way it operates and raises money. The current probe could renew calls from the organization’s critics for new investigations by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) and demands to know what has been uncovered by the FBI. ... There will be questions about AIPAC’s operations and internal accountability. A penchant for hubris and institutional mindset of secrecy — reflected in its hostile and contentious relationship with the media — add to the suspicion that there is something to hide. ...”
-Allan C. Brownfeld, Editor
Additional articles appear at the following URL:
http://www.acjna.org/article_result.asp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treason in High Places: AIPAC, Zionist Pentagon Neocons and Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2004/09/08/treason-in-high-places-pentagon-zionists-aipac-and-israel.php
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Israel Corrupts and Controls US Govt and Media
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/06/01/how-israel-corrupts-and-controls-the-us-congress-and-media.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIPAC (Israel Lobby) Statement on Re-Election of Bush...
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2004/11/22/aipac-israel-lobby-statement-on-2004-election-of-bush.php
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Zionists and Torture in Iraq
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2004/09/09/the-zionists-and-torture-in-iraq.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zionist Neocon Pentagon Turns Heat Up on Iran
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2004/11/23/zionist-neocon-pentagon-turns-heat-up-on-iran.php
Last edited by Alpha on Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:00 am; edited 1 time in total | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:05 am Post subject: Which Foreign Policy? |
| http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62109-2005Feb3.html
washingtonpost.com
Which Foreign Policy?
By David Ignatius
Friday, February 4, 2005; Page A17
Are the neoconservatives "up" or "down" in the second Bush administration? Will their agenda of transformational regime change in the Middle East be dominant in Bush II, or will their influence be reduced?
The truth is that nobody knows except George W. Bush. And the fact that nobody in Washington can be sure who really has the president's ear on foreign policy illustrates the delicate balance -- and potential for internal conflict -- that will shape the president's second term.
Certainly Bush's two big speeches this year have embraced the ambitious rhetoric of the neocons. When the president talked in his inaugural address about America's global mission to spread liberty, and when he admonished Syria and Iran in his State of the Union address Wednesday night, he certainly sounded like the neoconservative in chief.
Bush even seemed to be putting down a neocon marker for regime change when he proclaimed: "And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."
Yet there are reasons not to take these bold words entirely at face value. Behind the rhetoric, the changes of personnel in Bush II seem, in fact, to be turning Bush more toward the neoconservatives' rivals, the foreign policy school known as the "realists." At the State Department, Condoleezza Rice has been signaling that she wants to follow Colin Powell in the GOP foreign policy mainstream; meanwhile, the leading neocon at State, Undersecretary John R. Bolton, is expected to leave that post soon.
At the Pentagon, one of the most powerful of the neocon figures, Undersecretary Douglas Feith, will be leaving this summer for personal reasons. And at the National Security Council, Rice's successor, Steve Hadley, appears to be steering a pragmatic "realist" course. He authored an op-ed piece in The Post last Saturday about Iraq that eschewed grand rhetoric altogether in favor of a nuanced discussion of that country's fragile ethnic balance.
Richard Perle, the neocons' intellectual godfather, certainly doesn't see the second Bush administration as neoconservative territory. "Bush is very much himself," Perle says. The advice reaching the president, Perle contends, "is probably not advice that would align him with the neoconservatives. Most advice would be quite contrary to that -- advice from the CIA, the State Department, the NSC. He gets conventional wisdom from the bureaucracy."
What adds a sharp edge to the Bush II ideological debate is the fact that the FBI is continuing an investigation of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, which, like the neoconservatives, is strongly supportive of Israel. The investigation appears to have touched some prominent neoconservatives who are friendly toward AIPAC. Journalist Edwin Black discussed the fallout in a Dec. 31 article in the Forward newspaper, headlined "Spat Erupts Between Neocons, Intelligence Community." He described an apparent effort by the FBI to use the Pentagon official whose contacts with AIPAC triggered the investigation, Larry Franklin, in an unsuccessful "sting" operation to draw Perle into passing information to the neocons' favorite Iraqi leader, Ahmed Chalabi.
The FBI investigation has received surprisingly little publicity in the mainstream press, but it continues to rumble along. A prominent former government official with access to highly classified information told me this week that he was interviewed in late January by two FBI agents and quizzed about his luncheon meetings with Steve Rosen, AIPAC's director of foreign policy issues. He said he told the agents that he had never given Rosen classified information and that Rosen had never asked for it. The FBI investigation seemed, to this former official, to be largely a "fishing expedition."
The FBI has raided AIPAC's offices twice, most recently on Dec. 1, and at least four of its officials have reportedly been asked to testify before a grand jury. (AIPAC officials declined my request that they comment on the investigation. An FBI spokesman said the bureau couldn't comment on an ongoing investigation.) Meanwhile, I'm told that more than a half-dozen officials in the Bush administration who are apparently suspected of leaking classified information to AIPAC have had to retain defense lawyers.
"We do not want to cover up; if there was wrongdoing, let it be exposed. We are confident that there was none, and that the allegations will prove false," Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said in a recent statement. But he cautioned, "Neither AIPAC nor the Jewish community will be cowed into silence."
The FBI probe is a reminder of the subterranean battles that often take place in Washington. Even in an administration that appears united on policy, bitter fights sometimes swirl beneath the surface. The one thing that's certain with this administration is that nobody truly speaks for it, in the end, except the president himself. And as Perle rightly says, "George Bush's presidency is a response to 9/11, not to neoconservatives." It's the president's show, but where he will take it is still anybody's guess.
davidignatius@washpost.com | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
