Paul Findley - the Israel Lobby

Paul Findley: In my experience, Hisham Sharabi was one of the great people of this city and of humanity because of the leadership he gave without stint, without hesitation, without qualification for the human rights of Palestinians and other Arabs. And when I entered this building today, it brought back memories of the occasions when I had a chance to be here in years past and have a discussion with Dr. Schraube. He certainly lives on and this institution which I understand he arranged for his funding continues improving his work every year. I enjoyed especially the discussion that occurred before we were introduced given by truly expert intelligent people about what can be done about the Arab-Israeli dispute from nations in the region. I'm from Mid-America, specifically the heartland of the land of Lincoln and Illinois. It's far from the oceans. It's far from Eastern or Western influence. It is, I think, typically Mid-America. And I was reared in that atmosphere, and except for an excursion in World War II in the South Pacific, that's where my home has always been. So I come here before a group of people who have such international experience and knowledge and understanding. And I've been given the assignment of talking to you for a few minutes. And the theme that was discussed so thoroughly just a few minutes ago was the prospect for peace in the Middle East. And I must just admit my simple Midwestern conviction that the road to peace in the Middle East still lies through Washington, D.C. I believe there's no No escape for that fact. I don't come to that conclusion because of any special merit that our country has, but because of its very deep, deep-seated, high-cost relationship with the State of Israel. In other words, the bias that we have pursued for about 40 years in our relationship with the State of Israel. And this bias is well understood here in Washington. It was certainly well understood among my colleagues in the Congress. But it is not recognized beyond the city. If you visit the hamlets and small villages and major cities of the Midwest and elsewhere in this country, you'll find very few people that are aware of bias in the US policy that favors the state of Israel. My guess is that maybe 90% of the US population is totally unaware of the bias in our government policy towards Israel. They don't see any relationship between the behavior of the state of Israel and what's happening in their own household. They don't feel that they have a major stake in whether this bias continues or not. In fact, if the question is raised, most of them will simply say, well, there's Israel. It's had a tough time. The Holocaust, you know, we have to support them. They don't understand the implications of what U.S. policy has been. Now, the other 10% the people that do comprehend the enormity of this bias, the enormity of the cost it places on every household in America, those who know, those who understand, simply are, for the most part, afraid. They can find some excuse for not speaking up plainly and loudly and resolutely about this bias. I use the word fear because I can't think of any other word to express it properly. It seems endemic in our society. And it applies not just to the average Joe Sixpack, as Governor Palin has described it, but to the people in academia, the people in public schools, the clergymen for the most part, and sadly the journalists for the most part. Mr. Shatter is a rare exception. The voice of the Washington Post is so often clear about bias, but the Washington Post sadly is not normal reading matter for most of the country. Perhaps it was once. There was a day when the New York Times Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, were circulated widely around the country. That day has so far or temporarily disappeared. So these voices are heard by very few people. I use the word to describe the people in academia. Almost all of them are fully aware of what's going on in the Middle East and what's going on in the U.S. relationship to the Middle East. And yet, it's hard to find anyone in the field of academia who will speak out resolutely. Now, one such person I was with last night, Stephen Walt of Harvard, and his colleague John Mearsheim, who wrote a splendid book about the Israeli lobbying, what it means to American foreign policy. But they are so few in number, and I not have had a chance for a candid discussion with Professor Wald, but my hunch is that his relationship with his colleagues in academia is a big change now that he and Mearsheimer have written this book. I'd like to say that the Congress of the United States is a great center of open and free debate on any topic, But it's not. They too are fearful. I guess they see what happened to me when I spoke out. They want none of that themselves, so they remain silent. They're afraid of the punishment that may be meted out to them by the lobby for the State of Israel. That punishment may be simply a guarded but nevertheless plain punishment link with anti-Semitism, which is just about the worst stain anyone could have placed upon him or her. I have felt that sting. I know what it's like. And of course, they read the political books. Many of them read my book, They Dare to Speak Out, and they saw the problems I encountered and the problems that I encountered on election day. So this has but you can go to the Department of Defense and find the same thing there, in the State Department, the same thing there, in the White House, the same thing there, as if any criticism of the State of Israel is verboten. It cannot be tolerated. It's indecent. It's simply not done in polite company. The result is that the 10% of the people, by my estimate, who really know the facts about the difficulty in our relationship with the Middle East, are for the most part unwilling to speak up and even less willing to act to do something to hurt. Now, is that a hopeless situation? I would like to think not. I believe there are people of commitment, of spirit, of anxiety about this throughout the country that if rallied behind a program of publicity can really get the message through. It won't be easy. It won't be cause-free. And so far, I have not found anyone who has really grappled with this single problem It may be that we have learned something in the presidential campaign that will help guide us to the right answer. That answer could well be the internet and emails. I've heard that Barack Obama's supporters have over a million email addresses on their solicitation list. Probably quite a few more than that. Well, there are very few publications, one of them is the Washington Post, the other is the LA Times, the other is the New York Times, that can really represent or reach a million people. But the internet can. And surely there is a way that the message can be formulated in such a dramatic and effective way that it will reach A lot of people, a lot of households that have been totally uninformed up to now. The only hope for a change in public policy on the Middle East by the United States is a grassroots movement, stirrings from the grassroots. If the constituents are more fearful of continuation of the bias towards Israel for their own families, Then they are concerned about the welfare, as some would present it, for the state of Israel. Then there will be change. There will be new faces in Congress, and the new faces hopefully will bring about change. I guess I'm a dreamer. I was in the House for 22 years. That didn't happen in my time. And the chambers of government are today more silent even then, in my era, about this fundamental question. We have never had a president since Dwight Eisenhower who was willing to call a spade a spade in the Middle East, and when he felt that Israel was doing the wrong thing, he insisted that Israel stop. And Israel stopped. It stopped the war against Egypt. It stopped the war against France. In England, all three nations had worked together during World War II, but they acted unwisely. And we had a president who had the wisdom and the courage to do something about it. He acted. He threatened expulsion of Israel from the United Nations, and he got results. In the absence... Of a grassroots movement, I'm deeply pessimistic about change coming. I'm a Republican. I voted for every Republican presidential candidate, beginning with Wendell Willkie. Can anybody match me in this crowd? Until George Bush's quest for a second term, and I voted against him. And this year I will vote for Barack Obama. I know you didn't come to hear me give you advice on how to vote. But I see Barack as a person who can bring differing parties together. He can be a healer, a uniter. And that is exactly what we need in the Middle East. I know he's made despicable remarks. One of your representatives from this table use that word to describe Haramah's remarks about the Middle East, and I cringe every time I hear those remarks. But I know also that he wouldn't have a chance to be nominated by either party if he did not show his clear allegiance to the State of Israel prior to Election Day. Now, will he change after the election? Will John McCain change after the election? It's hard to tell. Who would have thought that in the last month, our country would be in the throes of a threatening financial collapse? Who would guess that the stock market would plunge as radically as it has? The world looks different. when you are a candidate and when you are in office. And I'm sure it looks very different when you step into the Oval Office as President of the United States. Presidents change while in office. They achieve understanding. Most of them mature, in my opinion. My favorite constituent in all my campaigns was Abraham Lincoln. He was a big help to me, too. And I think a bit of Lincoln history is pertinent. Lincoln would never have made it to the White House had he been seen as a man who had abolished slavery. He would not have been nominated. He was nominated because he was not an abolitionist. Now, he wasn't a supporter of slavery, but he would support the containment of slavery beyond the existing government. limits of slavery in the Union. And when he served one term as a member of Congress, he never said a word about slavery. But he did write a bill to outlaw slavery within the District of Columbia, which certainly should be viewed as a rather modest reform. But he never introduced it. He never argued for it. Action on slavery was a topic yet to be faced for Abraham Lincoln. And when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, that proclamation didn't free one single slave because it applied only to slaves in states then under rebellion. But Lincoln chose to call it an act of necessity of military necessity. That was the motivation he gave for his Emancipation Proclamation. Military necessity. And who knows what the next president will find in the way of military necessity. Military or economic or just plain political necessity. Obama's despicable words will probably be forgotten by then And if he's president, it's my fond hope that he will rise to the occasion, that he will disenthrall himself from such comments in the past and set a new course for the nation that will benefit not just America, not just the Palestinians, not just the Lebanese, but also the Israelis, because they face a grim future unless a solution to this problem comes about. And as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, I have always felt that the road to peace in the Middle East has to go through Washington. There has to be a change there in public policy. There has to be a change in the presidential outlook on the Middle East. And I believe that just the simple facts of life should impel any president, even John McCain, to change his mind. For example, the war in Iraq was a war for Israel. There's no doubt about it. And it cost a billion dollars, many billions of dollars. It's now up to a trillion dollars just for that one Act of Assistance to the State of Israel. The Christian Science Monitor has kept tabs on the growing cost of U.S. aid to Israel, something quite apart from the war. The last time the updated tab reached $1.4 trillion forms of aid to Israel from the U.S. Treasury compounded annually as they should be. Beyond that, think of the lives that are blighted by our war. Certainly, at least 30,000 Americans who've been maimed for life or killed, and at least 100,000 lives among Iraqis, victims of the war we fought for Israel. And if those will be put properly in the right column, then the financial cost of Israel, the cost in lives is simply overpowering. And if somehow we can send the message throughout the country The message of the just colossal cost of our aid to Israel so that we become the enabler of criminal activity on the part of the state of Israel, that reality, if somehow it can be presented to the households of the nation, I think will surely bring an uprising And perhaps one of the byproducts of the dreadful financial plight we're going through today will be to reinforce the need to bring our financial, our budgetary, our outlay house back in order. I would love it if Great Britain, France, The low countries, Germany, Scandinavian countries, and others would combine to put heavy economic pressure on Israel to bring an end to their illegal behavior in respect to the occupied territories. But I don't see that happening because they probably rationalized that until a basic change comes in U.S. policy, why should they bother? That they could not prevail with this new line of policy if we continue our uncritical support for Israel, a support that I think has to be used as complicity, as enabling criminal behavior. Now I've used plain language here. Maybe it's because I'm getting old, and certainly I'm getting old. Nothing works in my body like it used to or should. I don't hear very well. I don't see very well. I can't read these words on the page right now. And I hope I haven't overstayed my welcome, and I feel so grateful

Speaker 2: Many Americans first learned about the Israel lobby when they read our next speaker's groundbreaking book, They Dare to Speak Out, People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby, first published in 1985. It has subsequently been translated into Arabic, German, Urdu, Malaysian, and Indonesian, so one can truthfully say that the word has spread far and wide. Paul Finley served the 20th District of Congress as its Republican representative from 1961 to 1983. He became involved in Middle East issues after helping a constituent who had been imprisoned in South Yemen. As Congressman Finley heard complaints about U.S. bias in the region and began to learn the reason behind that bias, he became a target of the Israel lobby in this country. Paul Findlay lost his bid for reelection in 1982 after his congressional district was redrawn, another tactic used to eliminate critics of Israel. Since then, he has continued to speak out, writing numerous books, speaking to audiences around the world, and co-founding the Council for the National Interest. It is indeed an honor to introduce Congressman Paul Findlay. Thank you, Janet.

Paul Findley: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm very pleased to have this opportunity, a special treat to hear the others on the panel. And I'd like to recommend, first of all, that Nick, you reconsider and run for election again, and I'll either support you or oppose you, whichever will help you the more. I congratulate the people who founded the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and those who have survived and have initiated what I hope will become an annual conference like this. I'm delighted to be here. I appreciate the cooperation of my son, Craig. I couldn't travel without him. So he took off three days to enable me to be here. And I appreciate the contribution to public understanding of the Arab world that I believe was the main motivation of Dick Curtis and Annie Kilgore and starting the American Educational Trust and the magazine, the bi-monthly that is sponsoring this event. They have served their country well. And I think the initiative represented here in this room is a good one that I hope will be repeated in the years to come. Of recent months, the U.S. government has displayed on enormous international television for all to see the shameful subservience to Israel and its lobby. That's what brings me here tonight. Turn your thoughts back to last October. The thundering assault on Gaza, that tiny open-air prison where people have to struggle just to live from one day to the other. The toll of death, 2,200. The toll of injured, 11,000 more. Shattered schools, hospitals, almost everything that made up the struggling economy of Gaza was shattered in just a few hours. World leaders thundered their All except one leader, and that was Mr. Obama. A reporter finally accosted him and said, what do you say about the Gaza war? I was watching television that night, and I was struck by the grim countenance of President Obama. All he said was the Israelis have the right of self-defense, period, nothing else. It seemed to me that that was all he was permitted to say by higher authority. and no reporter pressed him for elaboration. To me, that's said that the reporters of the major media in this country are just as overwhelmed and paralyzed by the Israel lobbyists our government seems to be most of the time. A month ago, as Nick said, an amazing event took place on Capitol Hill. And I know that Nick Rahal feels, as I do, and Jim Moran feels the same way, that there is something sacred in the House of Representatives Chamber. It's one of the cherished heirlooms for our republic. the symbol, if there is one single outstanding preeminent symbol of liberty and free speech, it's the House Chamber. And it was a sad moment for me when I realized that the lobby for Israel has sufficient power to gain control of the House chamber and to put on what is nothing more than a campaign speech for the benefit of Netanyahu 10 days before his bid for a fourth term. Our government cooperated in that desecration of that heirloom of our great republic, the Alice Chamber. Another demonstration. And as a background for this choreographed performance, 90% of the Senate and 90% of the House showed up to take part as a part of the cheering section. It was a rude and crude moment for our country. The massive worldwide television audience that day received shocking evidence of APEC's towering political clout over our government. I can't see it any other way. It was done in precise defiance of the US president, done in defiance of the presidency itself. It makes me wonder what overcame the Republicans in the House of Representatives to bypass tradition and decorum. But it's a pity also that our president had not sent a word notifying Netanyahu that he would not be welcome in America until after election day. It didn't happen. You know, do any of you remember the Canadian episode that involved Charles de Gaulle, the president of France, and Quebec, the French province in Canada? It was all sort of about the possibility of secession of Quebec. And Charles de Gaulle, a man I admire intensely, made a big mistake. He decided to rally the troops and he was on a boat going up the St. Lawrence River to Quebec to take part in the celebration. Lester Pearson, the Prime Minister of Canada said, Mr. Charles de Gaulle, turn back. This is not the right time for the President of France to make an appearance. What a model that was because Charles de Gaulle immediately turned around, he didn't get on Quebec soil. He got on the lawns, turned around, went back, as he should, and as Lester Pearson directed him to do. Quite a difference in the reaction of the President or the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States. And if he had ordered If Obama had ordered Netanyahu not to come until after election day, I'm sure that the masses of the American people would shout with joy at his term. But it didn't happen. AIPAC even then showed its immense power over our government. That's the tip of the iceberg, the show on Capitol Hill and the silence of President Obama about the desecration of Gaza. And yet, I saw on television just the other day Netanyahu said, I respect the president of the United States. I respect the presidency of America. What a lie, what a contemptible lie to come from the head of a government. Now I'd like to turn to Israel's biggest massacre Excuse me. I have very little eyesight. I am using water pills, and not many of you young people know what that's all about. But I've departed twice, but I'm determined to stick this out. The tips of the iceberg give no hint of the suffocating influence of the lobby for Israel across America. It's as if a blanket, a suffocating blanket, had been spread across the entire nation. It's not just what happens in Washington, what happens on Capitol Hill. What happens in other places? I doubt if many people realize the extent of the paralyzing influence that reaches across the nation. not just in big cities, but in small towns and hamlets. There are people that are willing to spend time to guard the gates, so to speak, for Israel every day. They're on the alert for anyone who might say something or do something that would show disapproval of Israel. These agents exist by the hundreds and hundreds throughout the country. And of course they are concentrated heavily as well in Washington. I'll give you just one example. Harold Saunders, A great diplomat that I worked with quite closely over the years told me that if he wanted to get a letter to the Secretary of State, his boss, that dealt with misbehavior by Israel, he said, I have to sit down, type the letter myself, go to the secretary's office and hand it to him personally. If I would put the letter in the usual desk-to-desk transition up to the top of the State Department building, it would emerge emasculated so thoroughly that the intention would never appear. Imagine that. couldn't depend on a letter emerging, arriving as intended to the Secretary of State. He was very upset when he told me that. There are hundreds of people in our government who feel that they have a duty to guard Israel against any mischief or any harm. They aren't paid by the APAC or paid by the taxpayers, but they feel this total obligation to defend Israel. And I, in a sense, admire people like that, but it has resulted in the destruction of free speech about Israel and the U.S. throughout the nation. This is a rare occasion here tonight, people openly discussing the misbehavior of the State of Israel. criticizing the lobby for the State of Israel. It's a remarkable occasion because you would search the city over and you won't find another like this. And it's great credit to the leadership of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs that this meeting is being held. Now, they act out of fear. They fear that Israel will be hurt. Others act out of fear for a different reason. They fear that they might be accused even by indirection of being antisemitic. The charge of antisemitism is still the most powerful instrument of intimidation that Israel's lobby has. And it exists among these people that feel duty-bound to protect Israel every step of the way. And if you think back about your home country, your home village in the past, you can be sure that someone in every village, every city, every hamlet is there to protect the interests of the State of Israel. And it's a very scary scene, one that is not receiving any attention in our government at all. It's not fear of bodily harm that causes people to Watch what they say about Israel. It's the fear that they might be considered a border case, at least, of anti-Semitism. And most of the people in this country still believe that that's the worst stain any person could have on his or her reputation, anti-Semitism.