On March 30 Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan found it
"neither logical nor plausible" for the CIA to claim it
had no intelligence budget expenditure data of support
to Israel between the years 1990 and 2015. The court
then ordered the Department of Justice legal counsel to
"meet and confer" about responding to the original
Freedom of Information Act request for the data and file
a response by April 24.
The original FOIA request sought public disclosure of
the secret portion of US taxpayer-funded foreign
assistance delivered to Israel. (PDF) Although
"memorandum of understanding" packages, the most recent
guaranteeing $3.8 billion per year over a decade, and
additional Israel-bound appropriations passed by
Congress are publicly known, secret US intelligence aid
is not.
On September 11, 2013 journalist Glenn Greenwald
revealed that the National Security Agency was pumping
electronic intercepts of communications of American
citizens to Israel, with no legally binding limits on
how the data could be used.
On August 5, 2015 President Barack Obama quantified the
possible dollar value boundaries of intelligence aid
during a speech at American University, claiming "…due
to American military and intelligence assistance, which
my administration has provided at unprecedented levels,
Israel can defend itself against any conventional
danger…" Given historic military aid is publicly known,
secret intelligence aid to Israel in 2015 was either an
additional $1.9 billion per year or $13.2 billion if the
president adjusted for inflation. These are the amounts
Obama would have had to provide to meet "unprecedented"
combined levels of military and intelligence assistance.
More
WASHINGTON (CN) – A federal judge called it “neither
logical nor plausible” Thursday that the CIA has no
information about intelligence budget-line items
earmarked for Israel between 1990 and 2015.
The March 30 ruling
came in response to a Freedom of Information Act request
from the director of the Institute for Research: Middle
Eastern Policy who asked for the information back in
March 2015.
Citing the underlying
complaint, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan says Grant
Smith originally sought “the information ‘for use in
vital public interest research into how nuclear weapons
related know-how, material and technology have been
unlawfully diverted into Israeli entities conducting
clandestine nuclear weapons-related research and
development.'”
In response to Smith’s
request, the CIA issued what is known as a Glomar
response, neither confirming or denying the existence of
such information.
More
Solid majorities of Americans do not approve of major
Israel/lobby programs, how they are won, and the vast
amount of unconditional US diplomatic commitments and
funding they consume. However, only by transforming into
active opposition, rather than passive opposition, will
Americans be able to get their government into the
business of representing them, rather than the small—but
unquestionably influential—Israel/lobby. For news media
and analysts to be taken seriously, they must begin to
discuss the Israel/lobby as the primary force behind
outcomes most Americans—quantifiably—oppose.
Title: American attitudes about Israel/loby
programs
Surveys fielded through Google Analytics Solutions
Principal Investigator: Grant F. Smith
8:00-9:00 AM Registration and “Two Blue Lines”:A
documentary film screening in the Ballroom. Exhibition
hall opens in adjacent Holeman Lounge.
9:00 AM Conference Organizer Welcoming Remarks
9:10 AMGrant
Smith:The
series of stunning—but underreported—polls revealing
true American attitudes about U.S. aid toIsraeland
other topAmerican
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) programs.
9:40 AM Keynote—ProfessorJohn
Mearsheimer:What
has changed in the decade since his bookThe
Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policywas
published.Subsequent
findings, foreign policy choices the U.S. makes that it
otherwise would not—if not for Israel—and what the new
administration could do differently in the future that
would better serve broader American interests.
10:30 AM ProfessorMaria
Lahood:Recent
legislation that threatens the First Amendment rights of
Palestinian solidarity activists in the U.S. and the
legal challenges thereto.
11:00 AM Morning Break
11:15 AM Former CongressmanJim
Moran(D-VA):What
it takes to beat the Israel lobby in Congress.
11:40 AM Former CongressmanNick
Rahall(D-WV):How
to support the members of Congress who are beginning to
listen to their constituentsonMiddle
Eastpolicy
issues.
12:15 PM Lunch Break &
Screening of selections from the four-part Al Jazeera
six-month undercover investigative series “The Lobby.”Jack
Shaheen and John Mearsheimer book signings.
1:00 PM Keynote—Hanan
Ashrawi:The
Israel lobby and the “peace process" from a Palestinian
perspective.
1:40 PMTom
Hayes:Challenges
and changes in 25 years working on Israel-Palestine
issues and advice for independent filmmakers. The
documentary producer screens and comments on selections
from his latest film, “Two Blue Lines.”
2:10 PMJack
Shaheen:Strategies
to successfully push back against harmfulHollywoodstereotypes
about Arabs and Muslims, and the work new generations
must now take on.
2:40 PMWajahat
Ali:The
intersection of pro-Israelorganizations
& donors and Islamophobia uncovered as the lead author
and researcher of the report "Fear, Inc: The Roots of
the Islamophobia Network in America."
3:15 PM Afternoon Break
3:30 PMKhalil
Jahshan:The
Israel lobby and “fake peace processing.”
4:00 PM Conference organizer remarks
4:15 PM Keynote—ProfessorIlan
Pappé:Thevalue
of viewingIsrael-Palestinethrough
the lens of settler-colonialism, how Zionist myths have
been shaped and/or perpetuated by theIsraellobby,
and what framework is necessary to overcome these myths
and ensure that efforts to resolve the "conflict" are
grounded in reality.
5:00 PMClayton
Swisher:The
director of investigative journalism for Al Jazeera
Media Network screens and comments on selections from
“The Lobby," the four-part series about the Israeli
Embassy’s covert influence campaign in Britain. This
undercover investigation reveals how the Israeli Embassy
sought to establish supposedly "independent” pro-Israel
groups in England, AIPAC's efforts to establish itself
in London, unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism lodged
against Labour Party members, and discussions by
disgraced former Israeli diplomat Shai Masot to "take
down" UK lawmakers deemed hostile to Israel.
5:30-7:30 PM Networking Reception & Book
Signings:Wajahat
Ali, Hanan Ashrawi, Ilan Pappéand
Clayton Swisher.
$254 Billion in Unconditional US Aid to Israel Is Unique
- 2/23/2017
On February 10, 2017
Professor Hillel Frisch of the Begin-Sadat Center for
Strategic Studies staked a claim. Contrary to many media
reports – some aimed at discrediting Israel claims
Frisch – Israel is in fact not the biggest beneficiary
of U.S. military aid. According to Frisch, Israel trails
far behind Japan, Germany, South Korea and Italy. Israel
aid more resembles that given to Kuwait and Bahrain,
according to Frisch...
...The process by which Israel obtains aid – through the
activities of a vast domestic lobby it helped establish
– reveals why the funds it extracts from taxpayers
should not be compared to equally troubling military
alliance expenditures. A $3.7 billion, 14,000 employee,
353,000 volunteer Israel affinity nonprofit ecosystem
has been built in the United States to provide Israel
with the support that following America’s own interests
would not. The approaching annual spectacle of thousands
of AIPAC lobbyists subtly threatening to withhold vast
amounts of campaign contributions from members of
Congress if they don’t provide billions in unconditional
taxpayer-funded aid – portrays an entirely accurate
picture about the means through which it is obtained.
This Israel lobby-driven process and lack of reciprocity
is why US aid to Israel cannot seriously be compared to
mutual expenditures – equally unpopular and in need of
reexamination – with treaty-bound US allies.
More
An IRmep poll fielded by
Google Consumer Surveys January
27-29 reveals 56.2 percent of the US adult Internet user
population prefers the US keep its Israel embassy in Tel
Aviv. Only 38.3 percent prefer moving it to Jerusalem,
while 5.5 percent are either uncertain or have other
responses. The statistically-significant survey has an
RMSE score of 3.3%.
Israel’s policy since its founding in 1948 has been to
locate foreign embassies in Jerusalem rather than Tel
Aviv. However, the original 1947 UN agreement
partitioning Palestine into Arab and Jewish states
required that Jerusalem be “internationalized.” Israel’s
US lobby began laying the groundwork for moving the US
embassy—in hopes that others would follow and stay—in
the late 1970s. In 1979, the Zionist Organization of
America (ZOA) submitted a petition with 100,000
signatures to President Jimmy Carter—who had campaigned
in favor of a move—asking him to formally withdraw the
US from the 1947 UN Agreement and relocate the embassy.
Carter refused. Full Analysis
Lawsuit: Israel nuclear gag order part of an unlawful
foreign aid scheme - 1/18/2017
On
January 18 IRmep urged Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan to
block unlawful US foreign aid disbursements to Israel.
We also further exposed and refuted the Justice
Department's legal campaign to protect an unlawful
legislative rule that attempts to punish all who speak
or write about Israel's clandestine nuclear weapons
program.
The delivery of U.S. foreign aid to Israel depends on
the federal government's ability to silence internal and
external dissenters who raise the issue of Israel's
nuclear weapons program as a disqualifying factor. On
Wednesday, IRmep filed its most important motion to
date—questioning the Justice Department's claims that
the president and his agencies can plead "willful
ignorance" about Israel's nuclear weapons program—by
claiming what is broadly known in the public domain is
"government classified information." Read the entire
41-page brief from the
Center for Policy and Law. (PDF)
Former
Defense Department
analyst Lawrence A. Franklin was convicted of
felonies for passing in 2004 classified military
information to two American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) lobbyists and an Israeli diplomat.
Franklin worked for Under Secretary of Defense Douglas
Feith, a major proponent of the disastrous US Iraq
invasion. The AIPAC officials tried to use Franklin’s
information to get
the US to militarily “pivot” toward Iran by getting
coverage that Iran was attacking the US in the
Washington Post.
The two AIPAC officials—Steve Rosen and Keith
Weissman—were charged but avoided conviction. Shortly
after Obama took office, the Department of Justice
abruptly dropped a very solid criminal case developed by
the FBI.
Israel affinity organizations
and their leaders generally lobby hard to get
non-prosecution (urging “prosecutorial
discretion”) for cases of major U.S. crimes that
benefitted Israel. When that fails, coordinated efforts
are made to overturn felony convictions.On October 18, 1961 JFK pardoned “Hank”
Greenspun’s felony conviction for smuggling arms during
Israel’s War of Independence after intense lobbying. On
January 20, 2001 Bill Clinton pardoned “Al” Schwimmer,
founder of Israel Aircraft Industries, for similar
crimes.On
January 1, 2009 George W. Bush issued a posthumous
pardon for B-17 bomber smuggler Charles T. Winters after
intense lobbying by more than 28 members of congress,
the American Jewish Committee, and Jewish federations.
Many of
them argued that crimes committed for Israel should not
be punished and that many others had done much more and
not been punished.
In December, the US Pardon
Attorney took a hard line and refused to release any
correspondence under the Freedom of Information Act for
a handful of convicts who recently attempted to engage
in similar activities. After an appeal, the Pardon
Attorney did disclose that
only Lawrence
Franklin (PDF) currently has an open petition
seeking a pardon from President Obama before he leaves
office. Others petitioning in support of his pardon have
not gone public—as
was the case of Jonathan Pollard—and will likely
remain unknown absent a speedy FOIA remand from the
Department of Justice Office of Information Policy.
US
Aid Package to Israel Incentivizes War -
1/2/2017
...That MOU, like its predecessor, continues to permit
lavish subsidies for basic supplies – food and fuel –
core to the offensive needs of the IDF, rather than the
purely high-tech "defensive" infrastructure touted by
the White House, is troubling. At its worst, the MOU
could incentivize Israel to engage in offensive war, in
order to be permitted to lobby congress for funding
framed as "key to its survival." In the MOU, Israel
pledges not to seek additional funding "except in
exceptional circumstances…such as in the event of a
major armed conflict involving Israel." The MOU is
silent on whether Israel is allowed to seek addition
funding if it is clearly the aggressor. The only
requirement is that it is "jointly agreed by the US
administration and Israel" that there are indeed
"exceptional circumstances" that demand MOU limits be
broken. In the decades spanning Israel’s existence since
1948, military conflicts have been much more the rule
than exception.
More
Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy, Inc.
Copyright 2002-2017 IRmep. All Rights Reserved.
Content may not be reprinted or retransmitted in whole
or part without the expressed written consent and
citation of IRmep unless otherwise directed.