Israel, Big Money and Obama

Mr. Crown and the President

By MARGARET KIMBERLEY
CounterPunch
August 20 - 22, 2010

“Barack Obama has established a strong record as a true friend of Israel, a stalwart defender of Israel’s security, and an effective advocate of strengthening the steadfast U.S.-Israel relationship, publicly stating that Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state should never be challenged.”

– Lester Crown

Lester Crown is a Chicagoan with a net worth of four billion dollars. He owns a large stake in and is a former president and board chairman of defense contractor General Dynamics. He also has held large holdings in Hilton Hotels, Maytag (now Whirlpool), and the Chicago Bulls and New York Yankees.

Crown was an early supporter of Barack Obama’s candidacy first for the U.S. Senate, and then for president. He is one of the first and one of his most prodigious fundraisers. As the Obama presidential campaign website says, the candidate “… systematically built a sophisticated, and in many ways quite conventional, money machine.” The Crowns were an integral part of that machinery. One of Lester Crown’s children, James Crown, personally bundled $500,000 in campaign contributions for Obama and served as chairman of the Illinois fund raising effort. Lester Crown and his wife Renee hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 2007 at their home. The event invitation made it clear; their support for Obama was due to his support of Israel, its “right to exist“ and his willingness to strike militarily against Iran.

Every American president has wealthy individuals and families dedicated to getting them elected. The reliance of candidates for public office on the largesse of the rich may be common and expected, but it is nonetheless extremely dangerous. This corruption insures access for the rich, which guarantees that their interests are at the top of any president’s agenda, usually at the expense of what is good for everyone else.

For Lester Crown the top issue on his agenda is Israel. As he has said himself, "While my involvement in politics is motivated by a variety of issues, there is one issue that is fundamental: My deep commitment to Israel and to a strong U.S.-Israel relationship that strengthens both Israel's security and its efforts to seek peace."

According to a recently published article in The Atlantic, Israeli general Amos Yadlin traveled to Chicago in an effort to enlist Crown’s help in convincing the administration to attack Iran. White House visitor logs show that Crown did in fact visit the White House in April of this year to meet with Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu applied “hidden pressure” on Obama which came “from Chicago.”

When asked about this report, Crown denied only that Yadlin traveled to Chicago. He confirmed that the two spoke and were in agreement about wanting the United States to attack Iran. “ ‘I support the president,” Crown said. ‘But I wish [administration officials] were a little more outgoing in the way they have talked. I would feel more comfortable if I knew that they had the will to use military force, as a last resort. You cannot threaten someone as a bluff. There has to be a will to do it.’ ”

Lester Crown’s opinions are not like anyone else’s two cents. He is a defense contractor, meaning he has a personal interest in maintaining the state of permanent war for the United States. He is also a very wealthy man who worked hard to get Barack Obama elected. Crown’s October 1, 2007 fundraiser was directed primarily at Jewish contributors who may have been insufficiently convinced of Obama‘s support for maintaining the status quo in America‘s relations with Israel. The event invitation read in part, “The purpose of the evening is to show Barack how appreciative we are of his steadfast, honest and proud support of Israel.”

Those are the words out of Crown’s own mouth. No one should be squeamish about questioning his actions and his motives and the very fact that a private citizen conducts foreign policy in secret. Lester Crown was not elected to any office, he was not appointed to pursue foreign policy on behalf of the government, he hasn‘t been confirmed by the United States Senate. If congress had even a small amount of courage, Crown would be subpoenaed to testify about his communications with Yadlin and with the president and his advisors.

The story of a presidential campaign contributor’s contacts with a general of a foreign nation’s military ought to be front page news. Sadly, that lack of coverage is not surprising. The corporate controlled media would reveal too much about themselves if they told us the truth about the little bit of democracy we have left. No one becomes a serious presidential contender without first passing muster with the Lester Crowns of the world. All of which means that American style democracy is little more than a sham. Iowans and New Hampshirites don’t determine who will be president. The Crowns and their ilk are the ones who get to choose before anyone pulls a lever in a voting booth.

The story of Lester Crown’s foray into foreign policy will not make headlines as it should. Congress will not question him under oath. Only individuals who are interested enough and savvy enough will know a little of the tale of how a nation’s people gave up their rights so the rich might have their way. The issue at hand for Lester Crown is Israel, but the CEOs and board chairmen of other industries hold sway in their spheres as much as Lester Crown does in his.

There will always be people of great wealth who influence what happens to people in the rest of world. Today Israel, tomorrow big pharma, and big oil the day after that. BP poisons the Gulf of Mexico with impunity and Lester Crown wants to commit a crime of his own. The only crime worse than an attack on Iran is acquiescence in the face of corporate control of our lives.

Margaret Kimberley is a columnist for the Black Agenda Report. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgandaReport.Com.

The Secrets in Israel's Archives

Evidence of Ethnic Cleansing Kept Under Lock and Key

By JONATHAN COOK
CounterPunch
August 20 - 22, 2010

History may be written by the victors, as Winston Churchill is said to have observed, but the opening up of archives can threaten a nation every bit as much as the unearthing of mass graves.

That danger explains a decision quietly taken last month by Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, to extend by an additional 20 years the country’s 50-year rule for the release of sensitive documents.

The new 70-year disclosure rule is the government’s response to Israeli journalists who have been seeking through Israel’s courts to gain access to documents that should already be declassified, especially those concerning the 1948 war, which established Israel, and the 1956 Suez crisis.

The state’s chief archivist says many of the documents “are not fit for public viewing” and raise doubts about Israel’s “adherence to international law”, while the government warns that greater transparency will “damage foreign relations”.

Quite what such phrases mean was illustrated by the findings of a recent investigation by an Israeli newspaper. Haaretz revisited the Six Day War of 1967, in which Israel seized not only the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza, but also a significant corner of Syria known as the Golan Heights, which Israel still refuses to relinquish.

The consensus in Israel is that the country’s right to hold on to the Golan is even stronger than its right to the West Bank. According to polls, an overwhelming majority of Israelis refuse to concede their little bit of annexed Syria, even if doing so would secure peace with Damascus.

This intransigence is not surprising. For decades, Israelis have been taught a grand narrative in which, having repelled an attack by Syrian forces, Israel then magnanimously allowed the civilian population of the Golan to live under its rule. That, say Israelis, is why the inhabitants of four Druze villages are still present there. The rest chose to leave on the instructions of Damascus.

One influential journalist writing at the time even insinuated anti-Semitism on the part of the civilians who departed: “Everyone fled, to the last man, before the IDF [Israel Defence Forces] arrived, out of fear of the ‘savage conqueror’ … Fools, why did they have to flee?”

However, a very different picture emerges from Haaretz’s interviews with the participants. These insiders say that all but 6,000 of the Golan’s 130,000 civilians were either terrorised or physically forced out, some of them long after the fighting finished. An army document reveals a plan to clear the area of the Syrian population, with only the exception of the Golan Druze, so as not to upset relations with the loyal Druze community inside Israel.

The army’s post-war tasks included flushing out thousands of farmers hiding in caves and woods to send them over the new border. Homes were looted before the army set about destroying all traces of 200 villages so that there would be nowhere left for the former inhabitants to return to. The first Jewish settlers sent to till the fields recalled seeing the dispossessed owners watching from afar.

The Haaretz investigation offers an account of methodical and wholesale ethnic cleansing that sits uncomfortably not only with the traditional Israeli story of 1967 but with the Israeli public’s idea that their army is the “most moral in the world”. That may explain why several prominent, though unnamed, Israeli historians admitted to Haaretz that they had learnt of this “alternative narrative” but did nothing to investigate or publicise it.

What is so intriguing about the newspaper’s version of the Golan’s capture is the degree to which it echoes the revised accounts of the 1948 war that have been written by later generations of Israeli historians. Three decades ago – in a more complacent era – Israel made available less sensitive documents from that period.

The new material was explosive enough. It undermined Israel’s traditional narrative of 1948, in which the Palestinians were said to have left voluntarily on the orders of the Arab leaders and in the expectation that the combined Arab armies would snuff out the fledging Jewish state in a bloodbath.

Instead, the documents suggested that heavily armed Jewish forces had expelled and dispossessed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians before the Jewish state had even been declared and a single Arab soldier had entered Palestine.

One document in particular, Plan Dalet, demonstrated the army’s intention to expel the Palestinians from their homeland. Its existence explains the ethnic cleansing of more than 80 per cent of Palestinians in the war, followed by a military campaign to destroy hundreds of villages to ensure the refugees never returned.

Ethnic cleansing is the common theme of both these Israeli conquests. A deeper probe of the archives will almost certainly reveal in greater detail how and why these “cleansing” campaigns were carried out – which is precisely why Mr Netanyahu and others want the archives to remain locked.

But full disclosure of these myth-shattering documents may be the precondition for peace. Certainly, more of these revelations offer the best hope of shocking Israeli public opinion out of its self-righteous opposition to meaningful concessions, either to Syria or the Palestinians.

It is also a necessary first step in challenging Israel’s continuing attempts to ethnically cleanse Palestinians, as has occurred in the last few weeks against the Bedouin in both the Jordan Valley and the Negev, where villages are being razed and families forced to leave again.

Genuine peacemakers should be demanding that the doors to the archives be thrown open immediately. The motives of those who wish to keep them locked should be clear to all.

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.

For Whom The Bell Tolls

by Ralph Nader
Published on Saturday, August 21, 2010
CommonDreams.org

Bell, California, a working-class town of some 38,000 ten miles outside of Los Angeles, is a unique place. Its local government has proven to be citizen-proof, media proof, city-council proof and even leak-proof from inside its self-enriching top officialdom.

Get this: Bell city manager. Robert Rizzo resigned a month ago after a Los Angeles Times exposé revealed that he was being paid $800,000 a year, plus 28 weeks of vacation and sick time worth $386,000. He was also expecting to make $600,000 a year in guaranteed pension payouts. Mr. Rizzo also borrowed $160,000 from the city.

Mr. Rizzo had clever political protection. The Police Chief was getting $457,000 a year and members of the City Council of this small city were making, for very part time work, about $100,000 each per year.

Mr. Rizzo's assistant manager was making a $376,288 base salary a year with a total compensation package substantially larger.

The average per capita income in Bell is $25,000 a year. More than a quarter of its population lives below the poverty line.

Expressions of shock and dismay erupted from the expected quarters-state legislators, other city officials of much larger cities, and the president of the League of California Cities, Robin Lowe. He said: "the reported abuses are an embarrassment to the thousands of hard-working men and women in city government," and offered the League's assistance to the Los Angeles County District Attorney and the California State Attorney General in their investigations.

The League should start by explaining to the two prosecutors why it did not know about the staggering pay scale of its member town, especially since there is a state Open Meetings and Public Records Act for ready utilization.

Bell Mayor Oscar Hernandez unpersuasively tried to make the best of the multiple pay bonanzas. He told the Los Angeles Times that: "Our streets are cleaner, we have lovely parks, better lighting throughout the area, our community is better. These things just don't happen, they happen because he had a vision and made it happen."

Let's pause momentarily to observe the variety and depth of abdication by the governmental and civic culture in beleaguered Bell. The city has fallen behind on its bond payments, and acknowledged it overcharged its residents' property taxes by $3 million to pay for those exorbitant pensions.

At least a dozen employees in City Hall had to know of these excesses and chose not to talk or leak the news over the years. The nearby newspapers, TV and radio stations did not dig it out. The city council knew but was compromised by its own huge payments. Still, political gossip is supposed to be irresistible. None of the citizens, including the usual town gadflies or skeptics, bothered to find out. All that was needed to bring this to light was one or two people blowing the whistle. After all, this information is not opinion. It's arithmetic-crisp numbers that invite everyone's howl.

The greater Los Angeles area is the very definition of sprawl: a lack of community that promotes more citizen slackers. It is inconceivable that such outrageously bold and self enriching formal compensation could escape the notice of citizens of a New England town-even one without a town meeting type of government. Ask them in Lowell, Mass., Torrington, Conn., Newport, R.I., Portsmouth, N.H., Burlington, Vt. and Bangor, Maine. I'll bet their reply would be a version of: "Are you kidding?"

Californian largesse also resides in Vernon, California (pop. 91) an industrial-commercial center of 5.1 square miles of territory and nearby to Bell. It is now revealed by the Los Angeles Times, whose reporters have found a new exciting town-by-town beat, that the city administrator, Eric T. Fresch, was paid $1.65 million in total compensation in 2008. Last year was a bummer; Mr. Fresch, who calls himself an experienced finance attorney, received nearly $1.2 million.

Granted, Vernon's businesses have over 50,000 workers and the town owns its electric utility. But getting paid four times the salary of the President of the United States, who has considerably greater supervisory responsibilities, seems to be an over-reach.

Last year, the Vernon city administrator, Donal O'Callaghan, was paid nearly $785,000, but that included being the director of the municipally-owned utility. Still, together they were just one full-time job. He also had help. The city attorney, Jeffrey A. Harrison, earned $800,000 last year, down from $1.04 million in 2008, while the City Treasurer/Finance Director, Roirdan Burnett had to make do with $570,000.

The former city administrator, Bruce Malkenhorst Sr., made $600,000 in 2005 and is awaiting trial on public corruption charges. He still draws a $500,000 a year pension.

All this information about salaries and benefits is public information, but no one in the public was interested enough to find out why nobody was minding the store.

The saving grace in Bell is that, once they found out, some folks were outraged, rushed in protest to the crowded city council meeting and, around town, handed out 10,000 leaflets to engage more residents.

This local movement calls itself BASTA (Bell Association To Stop The Abuse), which means "enough" in Spanish. They strive to arouse the citizenry about where their tax dollars are going, and recall the Council members, if necessary to clean house. They have had enough, finally, at last!

The BASTA organizers must believe there is a limit to the anomie caused by the disintegration of a community's standards of conduct and norms.

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book - and first novel - is, Only The Super-Rich Can Save Us. His most recent work of non-fiction is The Seventeen Traditions.

Real Americans, Please Stand Up

By DICK CAVETT
The New York Times
August 20, 2010, 9:00 pm

All this talk about the mosque reminds me of two things I heard growing up in Nebraska.

I had a 6th grade teacher who referred to American Indians as “sneaky redskins” and our enemies in the Pacific as “dirty Japs.” This abated somewhat after I asked one day in class, “Mrs. G., do you think our parents would like to know that you teach race prejudice?” She faded three shades.

The rest of that year was difficult.

As a war kid, I also heard an uncle of mine endorse a sentiment attributed to our Admiral “Bull” Halsey: “If I met a pregnant Japanese woman, I’d kick her in the belly.”

These are not proud moments in my heritage. But now, I’m genuinely ashamed of us. How sad this whole mosque business is. It doesn’t take much, it seems, to lift the lid and let our home-grown racism and bigotry overflow. We have collectively taken a pratfall on a moral whoopee cushion.

Surely, few of the opponents of the Islamic cultural center would feel comfortable at the “International Burn a Koran Day” planned by a southern church-supported group (on a newscast, I think I might have even glimpsed a banner reading, “Bring the Whole Family,” but maybe I was hallucinating). This all must have gone over big on Al Jazeera news.

I like to think I’m not easily shocked, but here I am, seeing the emotions of the masses running like a freight train over the right to freedom of religion — never mind the right of eminent domain and private property.

A heyday is being had by a posse of the cheesiest Republican politicos (Lazio, Palin, quick-change artist John McCain and, of course, the self-anointed St. Joan of 9/11, R. Giuliani). Balanced, of course by plenty of cheesy Democrats. And of course Rush L. dependably pollutes the atmosphere with his particular brand of airborne sludge.

Sad to see Mr. Reid’s venerable knees buckle upon seeing the vilification heaped on Obama, and the resulting polls. (Not to suggest that this alone would cause the sudden 180-degree turn of a man of integrity facing re-election fears.)

I got invigorating jolts from the president’s splendid speech — almost as good as Mayor Bloomberg’s
— but I was dismayed, after the worst had poured out their passionate intensity, to see him shed a few vertebrae the next day and step back.

What other churches might be objectionable because of the horrific acts of some of its members? Maybe we shouldn’t have Christian churches in the South wherever the Ku Klux Klan operated because years ago proclaimed white Christians lynched blacks. How close to Hickam Field, at Pearl Harbor, should a Shinto shrine be allowed? I wonder how many of our young people — notorious, we are told, for their ignorance of American history — would be surprised that Japanese-Americans had lives and livelihoods destroyed when they were rounded up during World War II? Should all World War II service memorials, therefore, be moved away from the sites of these internment camps? Where does one draw the line?

I just can’t believe that so many are willing to ignore the simple fact that nearly all Muslims were adamantly opposed to the actions and events that took place on 9/11, and denounced them strongly, saying that the Islamic religion in no way condones it.

Our goal in at least one of our Middle East wars is to rebuild a government in our own image — with democracy for all. Instead, we are rebuilding ourselves in the image of those who detest us. I hate to see my country — and it’s a hell of a good one — endorse what we purport to hate, besmirching what distinguishes us from countries where persecution rules.

I’ve tried real hard to understand the objectors’ position. No one is untouched by what happened on 9/11. I don’t claim to be capable of imagining the anguish, grief and anger of the people who lost their friends and loved ones that day. It really does the heart good to see that so many of them have denounced the outcry against the project. A fact too little reported.

And it seems to have escaped wide notice that a goodly number of Muslims died at the towers that day. (I don’t mean the crazies in the planes.) What are their families to think of being told to beat it?

“Insulting to the dead” is a favorite phrase thrown about by opponents of the center. How about the insult to the dead American soldiers who fought at Iwo Jima and Normandy, defending American citizens abiding by the law on their own private property and exercising their freedom of religion?

Too bad that legions oppose this. A woman tells the news guy on the street, “I have absolutely no prejudice against the Muslim people. My cousin is married to one. I just don’t see why they have to be here.” A man complains that his opposition to the mosque is “painting me like I hate the whole Arab world.” (Perhaps he dislikes them all as individuals?)

I remain amazed and really, sincerely, want to understand this. What can it be that is faulty in so many people’s thought processes, their ethics, their education, their experience of life, their understanding of their country, their what-have-you that blinds them to the fact that you can’t simultaneously maintain that you have nothing against members of any religion but are willing to penalize members of this one? Can you help me with this?

Set aside for the moment that we are handing such a lethal propaganda grenade to our detractors around the world.

You can’t eat this particular cake and have it, too. The true calamity, of course, is that behavior of this kind allows the enemy to win.

What it took to get Israelis and Palestinians to agree to talks

By David Ignatius
The Washington Post
August 20, 2010; 1:38 PM ET

The Israeli-Palestinian direct peace talks planned to open next month in Washington have been framed, of necessity, with ambiguity about what guidelines, if any, will shape the negotiating process.

The Palestinian side agreed Friday to come to the talks based on a statement of principles that was issued by the Quartet, a group of nations that includes the U.S., Russia and the members of the European Union. That document calls on the parties “to resolve all final status issues,” such as Jerusalem and refugees. It also affirms the goal of “a just, lasting and comprehensive regional peace as envisaged in the Madrid terms of reference, Security Council resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative.”

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, however, has not affirmed these Quartet principles in agreeing to join the Washington talks. He is responding to the invitation issued by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, without endorsing any terms of reference. Indeed, Netanyahu is said to have explicitly rejected the language of the Quartet statement as a framing document.

It’s a classic piece of diplomacy: One side is responding to one letter of invitation; the other is responding to a subtly different request. It’s a finesse that has succeeded in getting both to the table, but it also highlights the huge differences that exist between the two sides -- and could scuttle the talks.

The Obama administration is also finessing the question of whether the moratorium on Israeli settlement-building, which is set to expire in late September, will be extended. Administration officials had hoped Netanyahu he would agree to an extension as a confidence-building measure before the talks started. But he hasn’t given any formal assurance. Now, American officials are evidently hoping that once talks are rolling, the Israeli prime minister won’t want to blow them up by resuming settlement activity -- and won’t want the political onus of being seen as having undermined the U.S.-led peace effort.

The Arab side has feared that Netanyahu would drag out negotiations without delivering major concessions. In a nod to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Friday’s announcement said there would be a one-year time limit on the talks.

After opening meetings in Washington on Sept. 1 and 2, U.S. officials plan to move the talks to a venue where the parties can bargain without intrusion. Camp David in Maryland and the Wye Plantation on the Eastern Shore have provided such hideaway meeting places in the past. This time U.S. officials have looked at a range of sites, from White Oak in Florida to retreats in the Middleburg area of Virginia. The final location hasn’t been set, but senior officials favor a spot that’s relatively close to Washington.

The opening of direct Israeli-Palestinian peace talks will be a milestone for President Obama, who came to office with high hopes that he could achieve a breakthrough but quickly discovered the pitfalls of peacemaking. It’s the culmination of a process that included unusual outreach to the Arab world, including his speech in Cairo last year. It also follows the withdrawal of the last official U.S. combat troops from Iraq and Obama’s defense of the right of Muslims to build a mosque in the neighborhood of “ground zero” in lower Manhattan -- all steps aimed in part at engaging Arab and Muslim critics of the U.S.

From the first, the administration has been divided over the question of whether the talks should be framed by an opening statement of principles (as the Arabs wanted) or be open-ended (as the Israelis insisted). In the end, they appear to have had it both ways.

But if it was this hard to get people to agree to come to the table, that surely doesn’t bode well for the larger issues that need to be resolved.

Sweden seeks Wikileaks founder arrest in rape case

The Associated Press
Saturday, August 21, 2010; 8:11 AM

STOCKHOLM -- WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is suspected of rape in Sweden, where authorities have issued a warrant for his arrest, officials said Saturday.

The 39-year-old Australian denied the allegations on WikiLeaks' Twitter page, saying they "are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing."

Assange, who has sought Swedish legal protection for the whistle-blower website, is suspected of molestation and rape in two separate cases, said Karin Rosander, a spokeswoman for the Swedish Prosecution Authority.

"He should get in contact with police so that he can be confronted with the suspicions," Rosander told The Associated Press.

She said a prosecutor in Stockholm issued the arrest warrant on Friday. The move means police are ordered to seek his arrest as part of an investigation but doesn't necessarily mean that criminal charges will be filed.

"The next step is that we interrogate him," Rosander said. "Then we'll see what happens."

WikiLeaks has angered the Obama administration by publishing thousands of leaked documents about U.S. military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Assange said Wednesday that WikiLeaks plans to release a new batch of 15,000 documents from the Afghan war within weeks.

He was in Sweden last week partly to apply for a publishing certificate to make sure the website, which has servers in Sweden, can take full advantage of Swedish laws protecting whistle-blowers.

He also spoke at a seminar hosted by the Christian faction of the opposition Social Democratic party and announced he would write bimonthly columns for a left-wing Swedish newspaper.

WikiLeaks commented on the rape allegations on its Twitter page. Apart from the comment from Assange, the page had a link to an article in Swedish tabloid Expressen, which first reported the allegations.

"We were warned to expect 'dirty tricks.' Now we have the first one," one Tweet said.

"Expressen is a tabloid; No one here has been contacted by Swedish police. Needless to say this will prove hugely distracting," said another.

News Corp’s number-two shareholder funded ‘terror mosque’ planner

By John Cook
Yahoo News
Fri Aug 20, 2010 3:59 pm ET

The opponents of the proposed Cordoba Initiative Islamic center planned for Lower Manhattan are fond of suggesting, by way of lengthy and often confusing chains of causation and association, that its principal planner, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is connected to terrorism. "The imam has been tied to some shady characters," Fox Business Channel's Eric Bolling recently said, "so should we worry that terror dollars could be funding the project?" Blogger Pamela Geller, who has become a regular talking head on cable-news channels to denounce the mosque, has noted Rauf's involvement with a Malaysian peace group that funded the group that organized the Gaza flotilla under the headline, "Ground Zero Imam Rauf's 'Charity' Funded Genocide Mission."

On last night's "Daily Show," Jon Stewart skewered these antics as a "dangerous game of guilt by association you can play with almost anybody," and proceeded to tie Fox News to al-Qaida by connecting Fox News parent News Corp's second-largest shareholder, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, to the Carlyle Group, which has done business with the bin Laden family, "one of whose sons — obviously I'm not going to say which one — may be anti-American." But Stewart didn't need to take all those steps to make the connection: Al-Waleed has directly funded Rauf's projects to the tune of more than $300,000. If Fox newscasters can darkly suggest "terror dollars" are sluicing into the Islamic center's coffers via "shady characters," then are Al-Waleed, and News Corp. leader Rupert Murdoch, by the same logic, also terror stooges? (The "Daily Show" video appears after the jump.)

Indeed, as none other than Rupert Murdoch's New York Post reported last May, the Kingdom Foundation, al-Waleed's personal charity, has donated a total of $305,000 to Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow, a leadership and networking project sponsored jointly by two of Rauf's organizations, the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative. Al-Waleed owns a 7 percent, $2.3 billion stake in News Corporation. Likewise, News Corporation owns a 9 percent, $70 million stake — purchased in February — in Rotana, Al-Waleed's Saudi media conglomerate. Put another way: Rupert Murdoch and Fox News are in business, to the tune of billions of dollars, with one of the "Terror Mosque Imam's" principal patrons.

As Geller helpfully notes on her blog, Al-Waleed donated $500,000 to the Council on American-Islamic Relations — which has been repeatedly denounced on Fox News's air by Geller and others as a terror group — in 2002. Indeed, Rauf's "numerous ties to CAIR" alone have been cited by the mosque's opponents as a justification for imputing terrorist sympathies to him, yet few people seem to be asking whether Murdoch's extensive multi-billion business collaboration with the man who funds both Rauf and CAIR merits investigation or concern.

Other beneficiaries of Al-Waleed's largess include the Islamic Development Bank, a project designed to "foster the economic development and social progress of [Muslims] in accordance with the principles of Shari'ah." The IDB funds the construction of mosques around the world, and has been implicated by frequent Fox News guest Stephen Schwartz in an attempt to spread radical Wahhabism (a fundamentalist branch of Islam) throughout the United States.

Geller has worried in the past on her blog about Al-Waleed's ownership of News Corporation shares, but never on anything like the scale of outrage she's mustered in opposing the mosque. We asked her why Rauf's tenuous connections to radical Islam disturb her so, while Rupert Murdoch's direct ties to a man who funds what Geller regards as terrorism have spurred no such outcry: "I'm not aware that News Corp. has any such close connection with anyone connected with CAIR, and despite the involvement of Al-Waleed bin Talal in News Corp., I don't believe that the two connections are analogous. ... Fox ... has been much more honest and objective about Islamic supremacist initiatives, including this Ground Zero mega-mosque, than have the other networks. Consequently, I would say that while Al-Waleed's stake in News Corp. should indeed be a matter of concern for free Americans, at the same time a matter of much greater concern should be the funding of the other networks, and the possible influence that funding has had upon their unrelenting Leftist and pro-Islamic supremacist bias."

Fox News had no comment. An email to Al-Waleed's Kingdom Holdings was not returned.

Israel to buy world's most advanced warplane

Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:14 am ET

JERUSALEM (AFP) – Israel's Defence Minister Ehud Barak on Sunday approved the purchase of a fleet of US-built F-35 strike fighters in a move set to ramp up the capabilities of the Israeli Air Force.

The minister "approved in principle" a recommendation by the military to purchase the F-35 or Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a statement from his office said.

Israel is initially expected to buy 20 of the aircraft in a deal worth an estimated 2.75 billion dollars, the top-selling Yediot Aharonot daily said in several reports published last week.

Should the deal be approved by the security cabinet, it will be the most expensive weapons deal ever signed by the Jewish state, it said.

"The F-35 is the fighter plane of the future which will give the air force better short-range and long-range capabilities which will help state security," Barak said in the statement.

Delivery of the first F-35s, which are still not yet operational, is expected only in 2015, the paper said.

The price includes the cost of setting up a logistical infrastructure in Israel to allow local firms to assemble the fighter plane and manufacture spare parts for it.

Udi Shani, defence ministry director general, said a key element of the deal was an agreement which would allow Israeli industries to get involved in the assembly of the plane and the manufacture of spares.

"The considerations for approving the deal were not just about the operational abilities of the plane but the agreements for involving Israeli industries in the assembly of the plane," the ministry quoted him as saying.

Acquisition of the F-35, which is made by US aerospace and defence giant Lockheed Martin, will give Israel access to stealth technology that will provide it with air superiority over enemy anti-aircraft defences.

Republicans attack Obama over Muslim center comments

Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:09 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Republicans attacked President Barack Obama on Sunday for his comments on a controversial plan to build a Muslim cultural center in New York, saying he was "disconnected" from the nation in an election year.

Obama waded into the debate on Friday when he appeared to offer his backing for the center called Cordoba House to be built two blocks from the "Ground Zero" site of the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York City.

On Saturday, seeking to clarify his position, Obama said he supported the right of Muslims to build the center but would not comment on the "wisdom" of deciding its location in Lower Manhattan.

Prominent Republicans have opposed the proposed site of the center, saying it was insensitive and reopened the wounds of the attacks. On Sunday, several criticized Obama for what they said was his support of the center's construction and subsequent waffling on the issue.

"This is not about freedom of religion because we all respect the right of anyone to worship according to the dictates of their conscience ... but I do think it's unwise to build a mosque at the site where 3,000 Americans lost their lives as the result of a terrorist attack," Texas Republican John Cornyn said on the "Fox News Sunday" program.

"To me it demonstrates that Washington, the White House, the administration, the President himself seems to be disconnected from the mainstream of America," Cornyn said.

Peter King, a Republican congressman from New York who opposes the location of the center, told CNN's "State of the Union" program that Obama clearly gave the impression he supported its construction but then backed off the next day.

"If the President was going to get into this, he should have been much more clear, much more precise and he can't be changing his decision from day to day on an issue which does go to our Constitution ..."

Obama's remarks put him in the middle of a heated political debate months before November elections, which are expected to result in big losses for Obama's Democrats and a potential power shift in Congress in favor of Republicans.

Earlier this month a New York City agency cleared the way for the construction of Cordoba House, a 13-story building that would include meeting rooms, a prayer space, an auditorium and a pool.

Some of the families of those killed in the attacks have mounted an emotional campaign to block it, calling the center provocative and a betrayal of the memory of the victims.

"It does put salt on the wound," King said. He urged Muslim leaders behind the project to reconsider the location.

Supporters of the right to build the center, including New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, argue that religious tolerance is the best answer to religious extremism.

"The fallacy is that Al Qaeda attacked us. Islam did not attack us," Jerrold Nadler, a Democratic congressman whose district includes the "Ground Zero" site, said on "State of the Union."

"We were not attacked by all Muslims. And there were Muslims who were killed there."

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll showed a majority of Americans across the political spectrum opposed the project being built near the site of the attacks.

The survey, released on Wednesday, showed nearly 70 percent of Americans opposed it, including 54 percent of Democrats, 82 percent of Republicans and 70 percent of independents.

Republicans said the November elections will be about jobs, and that the president should be addressing high unemployment in the United States instead of speaking about religious freedom.

"Intellectually the President may be right. But this is an emotional issue and people who lost kids, brothers, sisters, fathers, do not want that mosque in New York and it's going to be a big, big issue for Democrats across this country," Ed Rollins, a Republican strategist, told CBS' "Face The Nation" program.

Longshot US Senate candidate from SC indicted

By MEG KINNARD
The Associated Press
Friday, August 13, 2010; 8:42 PM

COLUMBIA, S.C. -- Longshot Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Alvin Greene was indicted Friday on two charges, including a felony charge of showing pornography to a teenage student in a South Carolina college computer lab.

Greene surprised the party establishment with his primary victory in June. His arrest in November was first reported by The Associated Press the day after he won the nomination.

Authorities said he approached a student in a University of South Carolina computer lab, showed her obscene photos online, then talked about going to her dorm room.

A Richland County grand jury indicted Greene, 32, for disseminating, procuring or promoting obscenity - a felony - as well as a misdemeanor charge of communicating obscene materials to a person without consent.

If convicted, Greene could face up to three years in prison for the misdemeanor or up to five years for the felony.

Greene declined comment at his home in Manning. He has refused to talk about the charge in past interviews, and his attorney did not immediately return messages seeking comment.

Greene had visited the computer lab at the Bates House dorm in Columbia several times before his arrest, using an old student ID card to gain admission, according to campus police records. Dorm staffers told police they had asked security staff not to let him in, but reports did not give any more details.

Greene graduated from South Carolina in 2000 with a political science degree.

Greene, an unemployed military veteran, handily defeated Vic Rawl, a former lawmaker and judge who had been considered an easy win by Democrats.

Up to that point, Greene had done no visible campaigning and had no website, fundraising or staff.

After AP reported Greene's arrest, South Carolina Democratic Party leaders called on him to withdraw his candidacy. South Carolina law prohibits convicted felons from serving in state office, but there is no such rule for the U.S. House or Senate.

Greene has said he's staying in the race. In the months since his victory, Greene has given a series of awkward interviews to reporters clamoring for more information on the man who lives in Manning with his ailing father. In one interview, he suggested that the state's economy could be improved by making and selling action figures depicting him in his uniform.

Earlier this summer, the state Democratic Party upheld his nomination, denying a challenge filed by Rawl alleging voting abnormalities.

State police also cleared Greene of any impropriety involving his $10,440 filing fee. Greene has said he saved up his military pay for two years, a claim police said was backed up by his bank records.

Last month, Greene gave his first public speech, a 6 1/2-minute recitation of his previous comments and commitment to jobs and education. On Thursday, he gave brief remarks to the executive committee of the state Democratic Party and asked them to support his campaign, according to executive director Jay Parmley.

Greene now has a website and says he has raised less than $1,000. He faces Republican U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint in the fall. The popular incumbent has raised more than $3 million.

Green Party candidate Tom Clements will also be on the November ballot. He has reported no fundraising.

At Ramadan dinner, Obama defends plans for Ground Zero mosque

By Michael D. Shear and Scott Wilson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, August 14, 2010; A01

President Obama on Friday forcefully joined the national debate over construction of an Islamic complex near New York's Ground Zero, telling guests at a White House dinner marking the holy month of Ramadan that opposing the project is at odds with American values.

"Let me be clear: as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," Obama said at a White House iftar, the traditional breaking of the daily Ramadan fast.

"That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he continued. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable."

Obama expressed sympathy for the families of those killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by al-Qaeda terrorists purporting to act in the name of Islam. But he told the gathering that included Muslim and other religious leaders that blocking the mosque, as some leading Republicans have angrily demanded, would undermine the country's claim to respect the free practice of religious expression.

The president's statement puts him once again at the center of a cultural clash just as his party enters the final stretch of a difficult congressional campaign. Polls suggest that most Americans disagree with his position; a recent CNN poll found 68 percent opposed to building a mosque near the Sept. 11 site.

Obama, who has made repairing strained U.S. relations with the Islamic world a centerpiece of his presidency, had remained silent for months about the nonprofit Cordoba Institute's proposal to build the Muslim cultural complex -- which would include a prayer room, the mosque component of the project, and "a Sept. 11 memorial and contemplation space" -- in Lower Manhattan.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based advocacy group, expressed satisfaction that Obama had finally decided to address the controversy.

"There was some disappointment when his press secretaries relegated it to being a local issue. But we're pleased," CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said. "It was something that needed to be done by the president. The level of anti-Muslim hysteria has gotten out of control over this manufactured controversy."

But Dan Senor, a prominent New York Republican who has been a vocal opponent of the project, said Obama's remarks represented a "missed opportunity."

"He sets up a straw man, as if the debate were solely about religious freedom," said Senor, an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "One can respect religious freedom and private property, both of which are protected by the Constitution, and still oppose the plans of the Cordoba Initiative on the grounds they will move New York backward, not forward."

Senor, who worked for the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad in 2003 and 2004, said Obama "had to weigh in, given the emotions this has stirred."

"But he could have embraced a defense of freedom of religion, and still called on the project's leaders to consider whether building it is the right thing to do," he said.

As proposed, the Islamic center, formally known as the Cordoba House, would rise 13 stories on land two blocks from the World Trade Center site. The nonprofit bought the property last year for $4 million and plans to spend $100 million on the complex.

A New York City planning commission unanimously struck down the final barrier to the project on Aug. 3 by refusing to grant the building currently on the site protection as a historic landmark. That structure was damaged by debris in the Sept. 11 attacks.

But what began as a local zoning dispute evolved into a raucous national discussion.

A number of prominent Republicans joined some of the families of those killed on Sept. 11 in opposing the mosque, saying it would inappropriately celebrate the religion that al-Qaeda leaders say inspired the terrorist attacks.

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin asked on Twitter last month of the mosque's supporters: "Doesn't it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland?" Former House speaker Newt Gingrich in July called the mosque proposal a "test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites."

The Anti-Defamation League surprised many by urging the complex to be built somewhere else, saying the "sensitivities" of the Sept. 11 victims should be paramount. ADL Chairman Abraham Foxman said construction of the complex close to Ground Zero would be "insensitive and counterproductive to reconciliation."

But Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam who is the project's sponsor, has promoted the center as a place to foster religious tolerance, Islamic heritage and healing. Rauf has been vilified by some GOP opponents of the mosque, but he was one of the loudest Muslim voices condemning the Sept. 11 attacks and was a frequent guest of and adviser to former president George W. Bush.

Those in favor of the complex received support from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I), who in an emotional speech after the commission vote said that denying the mosque would leave Americans "untrue to the best part of ourselves." Speaking of the firefighters and police officers killed in the World Trade Center, Bloomberg added, "We do not honor their lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting."

In a statement, Bloomberg applauded Obama's remarks, calling them a "clarion defense of the freedom of religion."

Previously, the Obama administration had left the issue to Bloomberg and others, repeatedly calling it a local matter that the White House should not be involved in.

On Friday, though, the president said America's message to the rest of the world must remain one of religious tolerance. He called the country's "patchwork heritage" a strength even though such diversity can lead to disagreement.

"But time and again, the American people have demonstrated that we can work through these issues and stay true to our core values, and emerge stronger for it," he said. "So it must be -- and will be -- today."

Obama made his remarks at a dinner with members of Congress, diplomats, religious leaders, community activists and administration officials. The nearly 100 guests sat at tables draped with gray, silken tablecloths and decorated with four tall, white candles arrayed around simple centerpieces. The White House celebration, which dates back to a similar one 200 years ago hosted by Thomas Jefferson, took place in the State Dining Room.

Former President George W. Bush also attempted to make clear America is not at war with Islam, only with those who invoke the religion to further violent causes. But Bush's invasion of Afghanistan following the Sept. 11 attacks, and the Iraq war after that, inflamed Muslim sentiment against the United States, as did his view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that many in the Arab Middle East viewed as biased toward Israel's position.

Obama took office pledging to repair that image among the world's 1.5 billion Muslims, particularly those in the strategically important Middle East. He has sought to do so with several high-profile international speeches, and by taking steps he says help bring American foreign policy in line with the nation's values.

In April 2009, during his first overseas trip as president, Obama told the Turkish parliament, "We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world -- including in my own country."

"The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans," said Obama, who spent some of his childhood in Indonesia. "Many other Americans have been enriched by Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country. I know because I am one of them."

Two months later, he delivered his address to the Muslim world from Cairo University, calling the speech "A New Beginning." He again explicitly noted Islam's role in the United States, and the values he says protect its practice.

"Freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion," Obama said then. "That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it."

"So let there be no doubt," he continued, "Islam is a part of America."

Powder-filled letters sent to Texas, Ill., Mass.

By DIANA HEIDGERD
The Associated Press
Friday, August 13, 2010; 4:22 PM

DALLAS -- A person who sent threatening letters containing suspicious white powder to several U.S. embassies and governors' offices two years ago recently sent 30 more such letters to churches, mosques and aeronautical and technical businesses in Texas, Illinois and Massachusetts, federal officials said Friday.

The most recent batch of envelopes, which were sent from Aug. 5 up to Friday, contained a powder shown to be nontoxic and a single typewritten sentence in English that is unclear in meaning but that mentions al-Qaida, FBI Special Agent Mark White said. He declined to elaborate on the wording.

"Nobody understands what they're trying to say," White said Friday. "The message itself is unclear. But by taking that extra step and putting that white powdery substance in there, yes it's considered a threat."

Twenty-five of the letters were sent to addresses in the Dallas area, and the other five were sent to locations in Austin, Lubbock, Chicago and Waltham, Mass., according to the FBI and U.S. Postal Inspection Service. They were postmarked in northern Texas.

"The letters all have the same postmarks, the same content and similar return addresses that lead us to believe they are coming from the same person or persons," White said. Businesses receiving the letters all seem to be in the aeronautics or tech industries, he told The Associated Press.

FBI investigators believes the same person or group has sent more than 250 such letters since December 2008, including a batch sent in December 2008 to eight U.S. embassies and many governors' offices.

Authorities are offering up to $100,000 for information leading to the arrest and prosecution of those responsible.

Also Friday, an Internal Revenue Service office in Philadelphia was briefly evacuated after a suspicious envelope was found. Police said the envelope contained a vial with a plastic bag over it, but tests showed no harmful materials were inside. The office reopened a few hours later, authorities said.

White said the Philadelphia letter was not related.

Activist group Girifna aims to educate voters in Sudan

By Rebecca Hamilton
The Washington Post
Saturday, August 14, 2010; A07

KHARTOUM, SUDAN -- Like any aspiring pro-democracy movement, the young Sudanese activists needed a name. They picked Girifna, Arabic for "We are fed up." They chose orange for their color and the V-for-victory sign as a logo, then began distributing their first pamphlet.

Challenging the ruling party was risky in a country where political dissent is rarely tolerated, the activists said. But they saw a small opening before elections in April, as the United States and the European Union pressed the government to ensure a free and fair vote.

Girifna now has more than 7,000 members on its Facebook page, a YouTube channel and an online radio station. But members have been tear-gassed, beaten and tortured, the group's leaders say. "We know they can put us in jail at any time," said co-founder Nagi Musa, 23.

Faced with these challenges, Girifna's success at conducting voter education and election monitoring campaigns before the vote was a hopeful sign, suggesting that a lively civil society could emerge in one of Africa's most repressive dictatorships, the group and its supporters say.

"The government's harsh crackdown on Girifna's peaceful organizing activities is a testament to the potential power of youth activism," said Olivia Bueno, associate director of the International Refugee Rights Initiative, an organization that supports human rights advocates across Africa.

* * *

Girifna was established two days before the voter registration process was to begin for the country's first multiparty vote in nearly a quarter-century.

"We were looking forward to the election as an opportunity for peaceful change," Musa said.

Part of Girifna's mission is to encourage Sudanese to learn about their rights and start demanding them through nonviolent protest. The group is tapping into a history of peaceful dissent: Twenty-five years ago, a dictator was forced to step down after a popular uprising. But Girifna is the first effort of its kind under President Omar Hassan al-Bashir.

About 5,000 Sudanese have helped spread the group's message throughout the country, the founders said. Musa closely monitors volunteers' safety, raising the alarm by text message or Skype whenever someone is arrested or abducted.

Ghazi Mohammed Abuzied, 22, joined Girifna on Facebook before the elections and offered to volunteer his time. Like most members, he had never before engaged in any political activity. "I thought: We are in the same fight, we are looking for the same thing," said Abuzied, a chemical engineering student.

Today, he coordinates the movement's activities in Khartoum, arranging when volunteers go to markets and bus stations to speak and hand out leaflets. His father told him he was "wasting his time," but Abuzied said he believes he can help shape the future. "Change will be slow, but we believe it will happen one day."

* * *

The activists say Sudanese living outside the country have played a big role in facilitating their efforts. Many have made donations, sometimes financial but more commonly in the form of expertise. Hisham Haj Omar, a Sudanese man living in New York, helped build Girifna's multimedia Web site. Girifna members carry cellphone-size video cameras to their activities so they can post images of the excited crowds, and often of the police interrupting their activities.

U.S. activists have also offered their support. Musa said that Girifna appreciates the solidarity, in particular from American students, but that Sudan's transformation from dictatorship to democracy must come from the Sudanese people themselves.

The elections, which the International Crisis Group reported were rigged even before voting began, extended Bashir's rule. The U.S. State Department said that the vote "did not, broadly speaking, meet international standards" but that the United States would work with the Sudanese government on the "difficult timetable" ahead -- a reference to a January referendum in which southern Sudanese will vote on whether to become an independent nation. The United States has long supported that vote, a key part of a peace accord that ended Sudan's long-running civil war.

Musa and Abuzied say they want the international community "to stand with the Sudanese people." They said the U.S. government sidelined the Sudanese people's democratic concerns in the interest of ensuring that the 2011 referendum proceeds on time. They are also frustrated that Sudan's opposition parties failed to provide a unified challenge to Bashir, who is wanted on genocide and war crimes charges by the International Criminal Court.

"Bashir is responsible for killing all around Sudan," Musa said. "Even if the election had been free and fair, he should not even have been a candidate."

Three weeks before the elections, a crowd gathered around a Girifna volunteer speaking at a market in Khartoum. The police arrived to stop her from talking, but in a rare display of public defiance, the crowd began chanting for the police to let her continue. She was able to finish, and the event continued for more than 40 minutes. The same would not happen today, Musa said. "After the elections, the atmosphere is very down."

It is a sentiment repeated by other activists in Khartoum. Opponents of the government say the international community's acceptance of the election results has emboldened the government. Press censorship, suspended in the run-up to the elections, has resumed. Human Rights Watch reported that repression of activists and journalists has increased since the elections.

Yet, for the moment at least, Girifna continues to operate.

On July 5, three Girifna activists were arrested while they were distributing the group's first "magazine" in Khartoum North, a suburb of the capital. The two-page, double-sided pamphlet, printed on bright orange paper, contained a statement of the movement's nonviolent aims and photos of students it says have been murdered by Sudan's internal security apparatus.

The activists were charged with calling for a violent opposition to the state and breaching public safety.

What followed was a 48-hour ordeal in which the activists were twice removed from the jail by security agents and taken to other locations, where they were beaten and coerced into agreeing to spy on Girifna for the government, Musa said. The activists are meeting with a lawyer to discuss what to do next.

But as a matter of policy, Girifna speaks out publicly about the government's actions against its members. "We all know if we don't say anything, it will just keep on happening," Musa said.

Hamilton is a special correspondent in Sudan on a grant from the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.