@@ Update on Jew spies in America @@
Arash
September 7, 2004
AIPAC Spy Case involves Intelligence on Iranian WMD
Juan Cole
jri...@yahoo.com
James Gordon Meek
(http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/politics/9595471.htm)
reports that both FBI investigations of leaks from the Pentagon concern in
part secret US intelligence on Iranian weapons of mass destruction programs.
The FBI suspects that this intelligence was leaked to AIPAC and the Israelis
on the one hand, and to Ahmad Chalabi on the other. Chalabi in turn is
suspected of passing the information on to Tehran, playing the role of
double agent. Although the FBI seems to be keeping the two inquiries
separate, there is strong circumstantial evidence that there was a
behind-the-scenes connection between Chalabi and the Israelis. That is, the
information circuit may have been ingrown among the Neoconservatives, the
Israelis and Chalabi's people.
It should be noted that Chalabi, the Neoconservatives, and Israel's Likud
Party were allied in wanting to get up a US war against Iraq. But they were
divided on the next stage, which was to get Washington to attack Iran, as
well. Chalabi hates Saddam, but as an Iraqi Shiite has strong ties to
Tehran, so he was not actually on board with Stage Two, and may have helped
derail it, for which he is now hated in some Neoconservative circles.
The reasons for the iron lock AIPAC has on US congressional Middle East
policy is covered by Eric Fleischauer of the Decatur Daily
(http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/040905/davis.shtml). He
writes
' Members of a lobbying group accused of channeling classified information
from an alleged spy in the Pentagon to the Israeli government were
instrumental in putting an Alabama congressman in office.
A probe by the FBI targeted Larry Franklin, a senior analyst in a Pentagon
office dealing with Middle East af-fairs. Officials accused him of providing
classified information about Iran's nuclear program to two officials
employed by the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee . . .
The major beneficiary of pro-Israel campaign contributions in this state
has been U.S. Rep. Artur Davis, D-Birmingham.
According to an estimate by the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics,
Davis received $206,595 in pro-Israel contributions in advance of the 2002
election. This despite the fact he was not an incumbent, and despite the
fact his five-term incumbent opponent, Earl Hilliard, was also a Democrat.
Even under the conservative CRP estimate, Davis' 2002 pro-Israel receipts
were more than double his total contributions from his previous try at
Hilliard's seat, in 2000.
Seventy-six percent of Davis' contributions during the 2002 election cycle
came from outside Alabama, most from New York City.
AIPAC is not a political action committee and does not give out money
itself. But it is a sort of central coordinating committee that tips Jewish
American organizations as to where it thinks campaign contributions neeed to
go. Because a lot of wealthy individuals contributed to Hilliard as
individuals, the true amount AIPAC directed his way was probably double the
conservative estimate above. Fleischauer writes, "Davis' receipts
skyrocketed. By May 15, 2002, Davis was up to $446,821. Of the 517
individual contributions to Davis in the weeks surrounding the fundraisers,
only four came from Alabamians."
The reason for AIPAC's New York-based raid on an Alabama congressional race?
Davis's opponent in the Democratic primary, Earl Hilliard, took a more
even-handed position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than AIPAC would
stand for.
Fleischauer writes of Hilliard,
' He said Tuesday he believes pro-Israel money won Davis the 2002
election. The congressman-turned-lobbyist said his main concern is that
pro-Israel money tends to crowd out the voice of Arab countries, a result he
said could eventually lead to more wars in the Middle East. '
It ought to be illegal for congressional contests to be interfered with to
this extent by money from another state. The technique of targeting
congressmen for un-election has given enormous power to all single-issue
lobbies, and not just AIPAC. But Hilliard is entirely correct that AIPAC's
activities do contribute to bloodshed in the Middle East. By arranging for
the far rightwing Likud coalition to have a free hand in dispossessing
millions of Palestinians, AIPAC contributes to the hatred for the United
States in the Muslim world that breeds terrorism against US citizens.
There is a long hit list of US politicians who were insufficiently
obsequious toward the policy of Israeli hawks in the Occupied Territories,
whom AIPAC helped unseat by encouraging donations to their opponents. The
Charles Percy case (http://www.aaiusa.org/wwatch_archives/081693.htm) became
legendary in Congress, and discouraged senators and congressmen from taking
on AIPAC.
* Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan.