Hoenlein says Obama will pick Hagel for ‘Ministry’ of Defense — whoops, make that Defense Department

Israel/Palestine
on 23 Comments

Politico reports that Obama hints that Chuck Hagel is in the running for Secretary of Defense, in speaking to David Gregory on Meet the Press today:

President Barack Obama says he hasn’t decided on a nominee for defense secretary, but suggested former Sen. Chuck Hagel is still in the running.

Asked by NBC’s David Gregory if anything disqualified the Nebraska Republican from the post, Obama said “Not that I see.”

“I’ve served with Chuck Hagel. I know him. He is a patriot,” Obama said during an interview broadcast Sunday on NBC’s ”Meet the Press.” ”He is somebody who has done extraordinary work both in the United States Senate, somebody who served this country with valor in Vietnam – and is somebody who’s currently serving on my intelligence advisory board and doing an outstanding job.”

People are buzzing about Malcolm Hoenlein’s statement last night during a radio interview that Hagel will be nominated for Secretary of Defense by Obama on Monday. Buzzfeed’s Rosie Gray tweeted last night: “couple sources indicate that Malcolm Hoenlein told this Hagel thing to attendees of the Agudah convention tonight in Jersey.”

Below is a partial transcript of the interview of Malcolm Hoenlein, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, by Zev Brenner, a Jewish talk show host.

Notice that Hoenlein refers frankly to the “Jewish lobby,” a term that Hagel has been lacerated for using, and says that the Jewish lobby took no official position visavis Hagel. Hoenlein identifies the Defense Department as the Ministry of Defense before correcting himself. The Ministry of Defense is in the Israeli government. 

Also notice that in the latter part of the interview (which I only began to transcribe below), Hoenlein’s entire focus is Iran and the changes in the Middle East, and how these matters affect Israel.

Also notice that he believes Tom Friedman has alienated himself from the community, meaning the Jewish community, through his criticism of the Israel lobby. But that Friedman maintains establishment credibility. 

The interview:

Hoenlein: It’s not a scoop, I’m saying that it’s most likely on Monday they will announce that Hagel will be the choice…. It’s something that raised a lot of concern.  [because Defense is independent.]  I think it is something that you know we’ll live with and we’ll work with, whoever is in office. The concern is…. not just Jewish issues, but American issues…

Brenner: Tom Friedman said it’s the pro-Israel lobby that opposes Hagel.

Hoenlein: I think Tom Friedman has gone off the cliff… the political cliff. I think his columns have increasingly become hostile and frankly unjustifiable. You can differ with a view on Israel. But his position– it was not the Jewish lobby– unfortunately one of the early articles in a major publication spoke about this as the Jewish problem, when many other groups and many people because of [Hagel's] positions on the military… raised many more concerns than this…

There’s no reason why Jews as Americans can’t express their views. But it was never a Jewish campaign, it was never intended to be. And the lobby actually I think was pretty silent, the quote official lobby was silent on this. It was an unfortunate characterization.

[But in wake of Friedman column] At that point I understood that Hagel would get the job.

It comes from Friedman so they think it has credibility, even though I think his credibility in the community has diminished a great deal.

It’s very important who gets the Ministry of… the Defense Secretary’s position. The Department of Defense is critical on a lot of issues, and with the challneges we’re likely to face in the next year.. it makes it all the more important. Obviously I’m referring to Iran, and decisions on Iran, where in the past, he [Hgael] has not been let us say in line with a lot of positions of other members of the Senate, and people I think who have taken the right positions. There will be other decisions vis a vis what’s happening in the Middle East. The changes in the Middle East, the new technologies, the relationship with Israel. I think ultimately the relationship with Israel will maintain. I think that as Secretary of Defense he will see the realities of the importance of Israel to the United States, the commonality of interests that they have.

But individuals do make a difference, in terms of the tone and the attitudes that they take.

Meantime, Glenn Greenwald has a post up at the Guardian saying that the full-page ad against the Hagel possibility signed by the Log Cabin Republicans was funded by outside donors. Greenwald hints that these are pro-Israel donors surreptitiously using the gay issue against Hagel–Hagel’s 1998 anti-gay slur, for which he has lately apologized.

As a result, I posed several questions to LCR about the funding and motive behind this ad. In response, the group’s Executive Director, R. Clark Cooper, confirmed that LCR did not pay for the ad out of its existing funds. Rather, he said, the ad campaign “is being funded by a number of donors”. But he not only refused to identify any of those donors, but also has thus far refused to say whether those “donors” are from the self-proclaimed “pro-Israel” community and/or are first-time donors to LCR: in other words, whether these donors are simply exploiting gay issues and the LCR to advance an entirely unrelated agenda as a means of attacking Hagel.

As for why LCR would suddenly object to the anti-gay record of Hagel despite a history of supporting more virulently anti-gay Republicans, Cooper claimed that “LCR is particularly concerned about Chuck Hagel as a potential Defense Secretary because of the role he would play in continuing to oversee the implementation of open service of the military.” But he did not respond to my follow-up inquiry about why, then, LCR endorsed Mitt Romney – who has long supported Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and other anti-gay measures – as President.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

23 Responses

  1. atime forpeace
    December 30, 2012, 11:16 am

    I am glad to hear Mr Hoenleins prediction that Chuck Hagel will be the nominee, I want the American establishment to have at least one victory over this zionist lobby. Mr Hoenlein has his finger on the pulse and has for many years now, he has known that the tide started to turn a few years back and this is just another brick in the wall of resistance against the non existent lobby’s power.

    this excerpt below is from the jewishforward going back about five years or so.

    “Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, addressed the fears head-on last week in an address to Israel’s prestigious Herzliya Conference. Lamenting what he called „the poisoning of America,” Hoenlein painted a dire picture of American public discourse turning increasingly anti-Jewish and anti-Israel in the year ahead.

    Hoenlein dated the trend to the 2005 arrest of two former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, on charges of passing classified national security information. Hoenlein argued that the Jewish community made a major mistake by not forcefully criticizing the arrests.

    Speaking via video, Hoenlein listed several events that had occurred since then: the release of the essay criticizing the Israel Lobby by two distinguished professors, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer; the publication of former president Jimmy Carter‚s best-selling book, „Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid”; the suggestion by former NATO supreme commander and Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark that „New York money people” were pushing America into war, and claims by former U.S. weapons inspector Scott Ritter that Israel is pushing the United States to attack Iran.

    „In the beginning of the Iraq war they talked about the neocons‚ as a code word,” Hoenlein said. „Now we see that code words are no longer necessary.” He warned that the United States is nearing a situation similar to that of Britain, where delegitimization of Israel is widespread.

    „This is a cancer that starts from the top and works its way down,” he said. „It poisons the opinions among elites which trickle down into society.”

    According to Hoenlein, such critics tend not only to delegitimize Israel but also to „intimidate American Jews not to speak out.” He called on American Jews to take action against this phenomenon, saying that Christian Zionists seemed at times more willing than Jews to fight back.

    • American
      December 30, 2012, 1:04 pm

      “This is a cancer that starts from the top and works its way down,” he said. „It poisons the opinions among elites which trickle down into society.”..quoting Hoenlein

      I dont’ know that I totally agree with that. People aren’t always impressed with the elite’s opinions unless they already tilt toward the same position or philosophy. However they will jump on a expose revealing something to them they didn’t know and conclude was deliberately concealed from the public for some political or special interest groups ulterior motives.

      The value of the elites like M&W in ‘The Israel Lobby” was … 1) educating the public on the Lobby and 2) legitimizing the criticism of Israel and the Lobby with real facts. And I agree as Elites with Gravitas they really busted the dam on the Lobby and put it in play.

      Naturally to Hoenlein revealing agendas and educating the public are posion to the Lobby and Israel. And of course he wants to make this sound like the Nazi’s propaganda movement against Jews.

  2. seanmcbride
    December 30, 2012, 11:44 am

    Answering Malcolm Hoenlein:

    I think Tom Friedman has gone off the cliff… the political cliff.

    Hoenlein has this completely backwards: it is Hoenlein and the lobby he leads and represents (the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations) that has gone off the cliff by siding with an increasingly extreme Israeli government against the best interests of the United States as defined by the American government.

    It comes from Friedman so they think it has credibility, even though I think his credibility in the community has diminished a great deal.

    Hoenlein may come to realize that he belongs to a shrinking community that has been abandoned by many Jews — especially bright young Jews whose minds haven’t been completely captured by narrow ethno-religious nationalism. They have bigger fish to fry. They define Jewish values and the Jewish interest in more expansive terms than does Hoenlein’s aging clique.

    Regarding the Log Cabin Republicans ad: my first thought was that the Israel lobby was probably behind it. I would bet the bank that this is the case while awaiting more news on the subject.

    Most gays I know wouldn’t have expressed this kind of mean and ignorant vindictiveness towards Hagel, given the full set of facts about the situation. The views of Steve Clemons and Andrew Sullivan are more in line with the open-minded temperament of that cultural bloc.

    • Shingo
      December 31, 2012, 7:05 am

      Hoenlein has this completely backwards

      Worse than that, he’s desperate. How many times did he keep deflecting attention away from the Israeli lobby by talking about “lots and lots” of other groups that had concerns about Hagel. Of course, he didn’t bother to name any of them because they are all the same group. The gay community has quietened down since Hormel accepted the apology and endorsed Hagel.

      So who are all these groups he is alluding to?

  3. piotr
    December 30, 2012, 11:45 am

    The simplest explanation for LCR is that a part of the gay community is masochistic-submissive. They have a solid list of two (yes, two! more precisely, three, but Sen. Collins will be gone soon) Congressional supporters, one of them is Ros-Lehtinen, and they clearly they have to show concern for gay issues at least sometimes.

    LCR have little visibility and renting their name for an ad is a good opportunity.

    • American
      December 30, 2012, 12:03 pm

      As per Greenwald’s column I think we can guess who fronted the LCR the money for their Hagel attack ad.

      link to guardian.co.uk

      Who paid for the Log Cabin Republicans’ anti-Hagel NYT ad?
      The gay GOP group confirms the ad was funded by outside donors, but refuses to identify them or their cause

      President Barack Obama with Senator Chuck Hagel in 2009; until controversy erupted, Hagel was thought to be the president’s likely nominee to be the next secretary of defense. Photograph: Jim Young/REUTERS
      Last Thursday, the gay GOP group Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) placed a full-page ad in the New York Times that attacked Chuck Hagel as anti-Israel and anti-gay and urged President Obama not to appoint him as Defense Secretary. This was quite a strange event for multiple reasons.

      First, full-page ads in the NYT are notoriously expensive, particularly for a small, poorly-funded group like LCR; published rates indicate that such an ad can cost well in excess of $100,000, though some discounts are possible with flexible dates (five years ago, the published rate for a black-and-white full-page political ad was $142,000). Second, LCR – which touts itself as “the only Republican organization dedicated to representing the interests of LGBT Americans and their allies”- has virtually no demonstrated prior interest in Israel; the only mention of that country on its entire website is as part of a laundry list of nations which allow gay and lesbians to serve in the armed forces, while its only substantive position on Iran policy is a tepid 2010 statement advocating a single 2010 bill for increased sanctions, something which Obama supported and signed (the group did lend its name to a coalition against Iranian nuclear proliferation). Third, since when does LCR – which endorsed McCain/Palin in 2008 and Mitt Romney with his abundant anti-gay advocacy in 2012 – oppose GOP officials on the ground that they have some anti-gay aspects to their record?

      All of those facts made me deeply curious about what prompted LCR to place this ad and, especially, who funded it. That curiosity was heightened by another fact: a favorite tactic of neocons – who have led the smear campaign against Hagel – is to cynically exploit liberal causes to generate progressive support for their militaristic agenda. They suddenly develop an interest in the plight of gay people when seeking to demonize Iran, or pretend to be devoted to women’s rights when attempting to sustain endless war in Afghanistan, or become so deeply moved by the oppression of Muslim factions – such as Iraqi Shia – when it comes time to justify their latest desired invasion.

      As it so often does, this tactic has worked magically here, as numerous progressives who do actually care about gay issues – from Rachel Maddow to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force – dutifully popped up to attack the neocons’ number one public enemy. Andrew Sullivan is right that this is a classic technique of the neocon smear campaign – recruit progressives to their cause with exploitation of unrelated issues – and he’s also right that Hagel’s record on gay issues is hardly uncommon or unusually disturbing for DC officials (particularly given his apology and disavowal). Indeed, very few of these progressives had difficulty supporting Obama in 2008 despite his opposition to same-sex marriage on this warped ground: “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union. God is in the mix.” But the LCR ad is designed to rile up progressives against Hagel by making it appear that Good Liberals oppose the former Senator for reasons having nothing to do with his heresies on Israel (just as so many Good Liberals were convinced to support the attack on Iraq, and will do the same with an attack on Iran, on the ground that the war advanced their Liberal Values).

      As a result, I posed several questions to LCR about the funding and motive behind this ad. In response, the group’s Executive Director, R. Clark Cooper, confirmed that LCR did not pay for the ad out of its existing funds. Rather, he said, the ad campaign “is being funded by a number of donors”. But he not only refused to identify any of those donors, but also has thus far refused to say whether those “donors” are from the self-proclaimed “pro-Israel” community and/or are first-time donors to LCR: in other words, whether these donors are simply exploiting gay issues and the LCR to advance an entirely unrelated agenda as a means of attacking Hagel.

      As for why LCR would suddenly object to the anti-gay record of Hagel despite a history of supporting more virulently anti-gay Republicans, Cooper claimed that “LCR is particularly concerned about Chuck Hagel as a potential Defense Secretary because of the role he would play in continuing to oversee the implementation of open service of the military.” But he did not respond to my follow-up inquiry about why, then, LCR endorsed Mitt Romney – who has long supported Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and other anti-gay measures – as President. Why would this group be so moved by concerns about a possible Defense Secretary’s anti-gay record that they take out a full-page ad against him in the New York Times, but just three months ago endorsed someone who is at least as anti-gay for the position of Commander-in-Chief, which obviously has far more influence on such policies than a Defense Secretary?

      What makes this all the more inexplicable is that, a couple of weeks before the LCR ad was placed, the very same R. Clark Cooper spoke out in praise of Hagel to the Gay City News:

      “I recall working with Senator Chuck Hagel and his staff during the Bush administration and he was certainly not shy about expressing his criticisms. But despite his criticisms, Hagel voted with us most of the time and there was no question he was committed to advancing America’s interests abroad. As for his nomination to be secretary of defense, it is well worth noting that Senator Hagel is a combat veteran who has hands-on experience in the field. The battlefield is not just theory for him.”

      At some point thereafter, LCR decided not only that Hagel must be publicly smeared as anti-gay and anti-Israel, but that the group just had to take an extraordinary and incredibly expensive step – a full-page ad in the New York Times – to do so. And then magically, the substantial funding for that anti-Hagel ad materialized.

      While I agree with those who insist that a Hagel nomination would not meaningfully change administration policy, the goal of the anti-Hagel smear campaign is to ensure that there can be no debate and no diversity of views on Israel when it comes to top government officials. That was the same objective that drove the successful effort to torpedo the 2009 appointment by Adm. Dennis Blair of life-long foreign service diplomat (and periodic Israel critic) Chas Freeman to a position within the National Security Council. Gay advocates are the exploited tools in this effort. We should at least have some transparency about that fact.”

      • seanmcbride
        December 30, 2012, 12:23 pm

        As it so often does, this tactic has worked magically here, as numerous progressives who do actually care about gay issues – from Rachel Maddow to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force – dutifully popped up to attack the neocons’ number one public enemy.

        Rachel Maddow, who is a simpleton, is of course easily taken in by these sleazy tactics. An earnest silly billy. Not even a liberal Zionist — a tool of liberal Zionists.

  4. Krauss
    December 30, 2012, 11:50 am

    There is now a furious effort on part of the lobby and the neocons to sink this. It is mixed with a dose of fatalism. Dan Senor is working overtime to get negative quotes on Hagel by as many Republicans as possible in as short of time as possible.

    Also, why is Matt Brooks leaking this openly on Twitter? He is spreading rumors that Jewish organizations have been getting systematically called by the WH and being told that Hagel is a ‘done deal’, yet when reporters call the mainstream organizations, many of them said no. Even Hoenlien was called up by Zeke Miller at Buzzfeed and denied being called(of course he could have lied). There’s a tremendous amount of internal confusion with the lobby right now.

    My guess is that Hagel will still be dropped, but if he is nominated, the lobby will work overtime to make sure he is destroyed quicker than Susan Rice.

    If Hagel does get nominated then the lobby isn’t merely fightning for Israel(as it ususally does), then it fights for its own credibility, its own reputation to being able to smear and destroy people it does not like. Because if he would not only get the nod, but go through the nomination process, the lobby would look very weak.

    In such a scenario, the nomination fight takes on an existential glimmer for the lobby.

  5. piotr
    December 30, 2012, 12:49 pm

    Jewish Lobby has some problems now. The lobby logic pushes it toward maximal goals and eternal struggle, the lobby lives of donations which have to be “needed now more than ever”. And the problem it has is that was only too successful over the years. The myths grown to the degree that are defying common sense of relatively uninformed people and even more for those who are informed.

    One of the tactics of the lobby is to pick a loosing fight to document dire needs for more activity (and funding, remember the funding), and on its website AJC cites the opposition to the sales of advanced aircraft to the Saudis as such example (which pitted them against the military-industrial complex, clearly unwinnable, but profitable for the lobby). But I do not think that this is the case here. Clearly, no intellectuals will rebel in the defense of the right of the Kingdom to throw money away at military boondogles. But now we have a new meme, “extremists in the charge of the Lobby”. This angle has to be maintained, and salt rubbed into the wound.

    One aspect that is confusing to the outsiders is this: why now? Opposition to Obama’s call to conduct negotiations while maintaing settlement freeze was at least as extremist as the opposition to Chuck Hagel, and yet it was totally successful. It seems that the position of extremist is eroding, and we see some cumulative effects on the level of Washington establishment. This is a good subject for an essay, perhaps after Hagel is nominated, and we will need more salt for the Lobby wound.

    • Shingo
      December 31, 2012, 7:10 am

      and on its website AJC cites the opposition to the sales of advanced aircraft to the Saudis as such example (which pitted them against the military-industrial complex, clearly unwinnable, but profitable for the lobby)

      It wasn’t necessarily unwinnable based on previous cases when they have successfully torpedoed such deals. During the Thatcher years, the British won what was the biggest arms deal of all time because the lobby killed the US bid.

  6. doug
    December 30, 2012, 1:27 pm

    Krauss,

    I believe Obama took the opportunity to defend his friends, Susan and Chuck. There simply is no way Hagel can be confirmed and the Lobby has much to lose. The problem with fear based control, and I agree with MJR that is the case, is that it can’t continue unless continuously enforced. At some future time it may break down but I don’t believe we are there yet.

  7. piotr
    December 30, 2012, 2:37 pm

    Ministry of Defense? It reminds me Kudzu comic strip that among many other characters featured “ministry to the fabulously well-to-do.” Just look at the “leaders” displayed at AJC web site. All of them look fabulous.

  8. a blah chick
    December 30, 2012, 5:17 pm

    Who represents the Minor Jewish organizations?

  9. gingershot
    December 30, 2012, 6:23 pm

    I don’t know how many of you saw the spectacle last week Dec 23rd of the orchestrated Meet the Press attack on Hagel – where David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell conspired to put the Israeli Lobby Whammy on the Hagel nomination – basically ‘saying it was over’ by the end of show

    Does everyone see how much raw power this takes to do this?

    It was rank red meat Israeli Lobby hit job – Gregory (or his producers) lined up all the usual suspects – Chuck Schumer, Lindsay Graham, Andrea Mitchell and Joe Lieberman (on CNN)- and echoed chambered Hagel out of contention as best they could – serving up the next week’s worth of Israeli lobby ammunition against Hagel

    Somebody tell me that lining up Chuck Schumer, Lindsay Graham, and Joe Lieberman on CNN wasn’t a PLAN

    It was the old ‘Neocon college try’ – so to speak

    David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell are the WORST because their connections are the least well known to the average /above average American

    And yeah – sure, this were just some random Senators talking about ‘gun control’, who all ‘just happened’ to be asked about the un-nominated Hagel.

    I couldn’t have handpicked better notorious neocon hatchet men for last ‘Get Hagel Sunday’ if I’d tried

  10. dbroncos
    December 30, 2012, 11:58 pm

    The Israel Lobby is clearly suspect in providing the financing for the LCR ad in the Times. What’s not clear is why the LCR decided to rake Hagel in such a splashy way. It leaves me wondering what the LCR got in return for both posting the ad and for their silence about who paid for it.

    • piotr
      December 31, 2012, 11:33 am

      May I suggest (a) cash, e.g. 10% overhead, (b) name recognition, LCR is not exactly a household name except for political junkies.

  11. DICKERSON3870
    December 31, 2012, 3:50 pm

    ● RE: “There’s no reason why Jews as Americans can’t express their views. But it was never a Jewish campaign, it was never intended to be. And the lobby actually I think was pretty silent, the quote official lobby was silent on this. It was an unfortunate characterization.” ~ Hoenlein

    ● M.J. ROSENBERG:

    “When I worked there [at AIPAC] in the ’80s . . . they had a big war room where all they did was assemble every bit of data on members of Congress, on candidates, but also on writers, celebrities – anyone in the public eye. That stuff would be given to reporters if something came up. . .
    . . . They still operate that way. In those days they did it directly; now they have former staffers and people who are close to the organization in the blogging world and political world who do it for them. They do it so much. When you read that someone is anti-Israel they’re [AIPAC is] the ones putting it out there. . .”

    ● SEE: “Why the U.S. Media Barely Covered Brutal Right-Wing Race Riots in Tel Aviv”, By Joshua Holland, AlterNet, 6/17/12

    [EXCERPTS] Several weeks back, Israel was rocked by a night of right-wing race-riots targeting African refugees in Tel Aviv. . . The story received very little coverage in the United States. . . Recently, Middle East analyst MJ Rosenberg appeared on the AlterNet Radio Hour to discuss the Tel Aviv riots, the stand-off over Iran’s nuclear program and how the Israel lobby helps narrow the discourse around Israel in the United States. Below is a lightly edited transcript of the discussion (you can listen to the whole interview AlterNet Radio Hourhere.)
    [EXCERPTS]
    • JOSHUA HOLLAND: . . .Speaking of our discourse, I want to talk about an issue that came up recently that’s gotten very little coverage in the United States. There were a series of violent race riots by right-wing Israelis against African immigrants in Tel Aviv. This was a big deal. I was looking at the US coverage and it was amazing at how little attention these riots received. . .
    • MJ ROSENBERG:
    . . .This is a common thing. When there are bad things going on inside Israel — the way they treat the Palestinians and in this case the way they’re treating these poor African refugees from loathsome regimes who wind up in Israel — these stories are … I don’t want to say suppressed in the United States, but it’s striking how much coverage they get in Israel itself and how a paper like the New York Times is too scared to touch it.
    I have to say they’re afraid to touch it. The reason is when an American outlet talks about Israel in any way that’s negative, or reports on anything negative about Israel, they will be inundated with complaints from powerful people who will tell them, “why are you picking on Israel?” They always say, “why is it that China is doing all these things and you’re not writing about that?” Of course, they do. You even see it in the blogosphere too, the intimidation. If you aren’t utterly secure in your position in the media then you don’t mess with Israel. More to the point, you don’t mess with the people here who are Israel’s enforcers. . .
    • JOSHUA HOLLAND: From your inside perspective on that organization [AIPAC], what did you see as far as their tendency to call out criticism that they think is illegitimate or beyond the pale?
    • MJ ROSENBERG: They [AIPAC] consider all criticism of Israel illegitimate. It’s all beyond the pale. I suppose their definition would be if by some miracle someone like Joseph Lieberman made a statement critical of Israel it would be legitimate. When I worked there in the ’80s, back before everyone had computers, they had a big war room where all they did was assemble every bit of data on members of Congress, on candidates, but also on writers, celebrities – anyone in the public eye.
    In those days they would just put them in these folders. They always had at hand all this negative information — what they considered negative information — to tar people as being anti-Israel or even anti-Semitic. That stuff would be given to reporters if something came up. They were either initiated on their own to give to reporters or some reporter called them because they had a treasure trove of information.
    They still operate that way. In those days they did it directly; now they have former staffers and people who are close to the organization in the blogging world and political world who do it for them. They do it so much. When you read that someone is anti-Israel they’re the ones putting it out there. They’ve got the data. . .

    ENTIRE (LIGHTLY EDITED) TRANSCRIPT – link to alternet.org

    • DICKERSON3870
      December 31, 2012, 4:07 pm

      P.S. ALSO WATCH THIS VIDEO (48:27) – Dispatches: Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby [from the UK's 'Channel 4'] (Full Version) Rating: 3.9/5

      November 16 2009 – Dispatches investigates one of the most powerful and influential political lobbies in Britain, which is working in support of the interests of the State of Israel.
      Despite wielding great influence among the highest realms of British politics and media, little is known about the individuals and groups which collectively are known as the pro-Israel lobby.
      Political commentator Peter Oborne sets out to establish who they are, how they are funded, how they work and what influence they have, from the key groups to the wealthy individuals who help bankroll the lobbying.
      He investigates how accountable, transparent and open to scrutiny the lobby is, particularly in regard to its funding and financial support of MPs.
      The pro-Israel lobby aims to shape the debate about Britain’s relationship with Israel and future foreign policies relating to it.
      Oborne examines how the lobby operates from within parliament and the tactics it employs behind the scenes when engaging with print and broadcast media.

      ● LINK TO VIDEO – link to undergrounddocumentaries.com

      ● ALSO ON YouTube – link to youtube.com

      ● AND HERE – link to niqnaq.wordpress.com

  12. DICKERSON3870
    December 31, 2012, 4:31 pm

    RE: “It’s very important who gets the Ministry of… the Defense Secretary’s position.” – Hoenlein

    MY COMMENT: Hoenlein seems to be stepping on (tripping over) his much too long “Freudian slip”. He might want get his slip shortened so that it no longer reaches the ground, thus keeping him from stepping on it (tripping on it).
    Or perhaps he can just dispense with the slip altogether and “go commando”! ! !

  13. DICKERSON3870
    December 31, 2012, 4:50 pm

    ● RE: “Meantime, Glenn Greenwald has a post up at the Guardian
    saying that the full-page ad against the Hagel possibility signed by the Log Cabin Republicans was funded by outside donors. Greenwald hints that these are pro-Israel donors surreptitiously using the gay issue against Hagel . . .”
    ~ Weiss

    ● MY COMMENT: This is yet another reason that I fear Revisionist Zionism and Likudnik Israel (specifically by virtue of their inordinate sway over the U.S.) might very well be an “existential threat” to the values of The Enlightenment ! ! !

    OTHER EXAMPLES OF ZIONISM’S VALUES TRUMPING (OVERRIDING) THE VALUES OF THE ENLIGHNEMENT HERE IN THE U.S.
    “How We Became Israel”, By Andrew J. Bacevich, The American Conservative, 9/10/12
    LINK – link to theamericanconservative.com
    ‘Israelis are helping write US laws, fund US campaigns, craft US war policy’, by Philip Weiss, Mondoweiss, 6/30/12
    LINK – link to mondoweiss.net
    “America Adopts the Israel Paradigm”, by Philip Ghiraldi, Antiwar.com, 7/05/12
    LINK – link to original.antiwar.com
    “Report: Israeli model underlies militarization of U.S. police”, By Muriel Kane, Raw Story, 12/04/11
    LINK – link to rawstory.com
    “David Yerushalmi, Islam-Hating White Supremacist Inspires Anti-Sharia Bills Sweeping Tea Party Nation”, by Richard Silverstein, Tikun Olam, 3/02/11
    LINK – link to richardsilverstein.com
    “Boston airport security program rife with racial profiling has Israeli links”, by Alex Kane, Mondoweiss, 8/14/12
    LINK – link to mondoweiss.net

    • DICKERSON3870
      December 31, 2012, 4:54 pm

      ● P.S. FOR YET ANOTHER THREAT TO THE VALUES OF ‘THE ENLIGHTENMENT’, SEE: “US Religious Right Propelling Homophobia in African Countries”, by Common Dreams, 7/24/12
      LINK – link to commondreams.org

  14. DICKERSON3870
    December 31, 2012, 5:31 pm

    RE: “[T]he group’s Executive Director, R. Clark Cooper, confirmed that LCR did not pay for the ad out of its existing funds. Rather, he said, the ad campaign ‘is being funded by a number of donors’. But he not only refused to identify any of those donors, but also has thus far refused to say whether those ‘donors’ are from the self-proclaimed ‘pro-Israel’ community and/or are first-time donors to LCR” ~ Greenwald

    MY COMMENT: Fee-fi-fo-fum, I smell the money of the Republican Jewish Coalition!

    FROM WIKIPEDIA Haim Saban:

    [EXCERPT] . . . In March 2008, Saban was among a group of major Jewish donors to sign a letter to Democratic Party house leader Nancy Pelosi warning her to “keep out of the Democratic presidential primaries.”[25] The donors, who “were strong supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign”, “were incensed by a March 16 interview in which Pelosi said that party ‘superdelegates’ should heed the will of the majority in selecting a candidate.”[25] The letter to Pelosi stated the donors “have been strong supporters of the DCCC” and implied, according to The Jewish Telegraphic Agency,[25] that Pelosi could lose their financial support in important upcoming congressional elections.
    On May 19, 2008, it was reported that Haim Saban had “offered $1 million to the Young Democrats of America during a phone conversation in which he also pressed for the organization’s two uncommitted superdelegates to endorse the New York Democrat.”[26] . . . [NOTE: I DO NOT MEAN TO SUGGEST THAT HAIM SABAN IS INVOLVED IN THE CURRENT EPISODE, ONLY THAT SOMEONE ELSE MIGHT BE USING TACTICS SIMILAR TO THOSE HE HAS USED IN THE PAST. ~ J.L.D.]

    SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org

  15. NorthOfFortyNine
    January 1, 2013, 2:33 am

    There was this precious tidbit from Hoenlein’s interview towards the end:

    The real mesage is that we all have to be united. … Jews have to put aside differences today to recognize that we are facing challenges that need all our our resources, every Jew, everybody that cares. And if we are united we can unite the rest of the world around us. But if they see our divisions we drive people away and they get confused and they don’t understand. And it means political leaders and religuous leaders from other sectors – we have to bring everyone together if we are going to meet the challenges that future generations will hold us to account for what we do now because their security – their lives – will be at stake in these decisions.

    Precious. -N49.

Leave a Reply