7 September 2004
James Gordon Meek 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. 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 became legendary in Congress, and discouraged senators and congressmen from taking on AIPAC.
Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan http://www.juancole.com/
