[Peace-discuss] Two posts from Israeli newspapers

[David Green]

Ha'aretz is Israel's liberal, elite daily, sometimes
referred to as the Israeli NY Times. The Jerusalem
Post is a right-wing publication for the English
speaking.

Message: 1         
   Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:16:18 -0600
   From: Mehrene Larudee <mlarudee at depaul.edu>
Subject: Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin returns to
work; & about 
AIPAC...

The most interesting thing in this piece is not so
much Larry Franklin  
but the part, especially toward the end, about AIPAC
getting the cold  
shoulder from its usual friends.
It suggests this is a good time to drive a wedge into
that gap.

Mehrene



http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?

itemNo=556863

Last update - 04:54 25/03/2005

Pentagon analyst Franklin returns to work

By Nathan Guttman, Haaretz Correspondent

  WASHINGTON - Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin was
reinstated a few  
weeks ago, after sitting at home for half a year and
being barred from  
returning to his job on the Iranian desk in the
Department of Defense's  
policy division. Franklin was at the center of a
lengthy FBI  
investigation after suspicions arose that he
transferred classified  
information about U.S. policy on Iran to members of
the pro-Israel  
lobby AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs
Committee).

In the seven months since the affair made headlines on
the CBS evening  
news, the investigation has been kept under tight
wraps, but its  
ramifications are already being felt.

While Franklin is back at work, and, say well-placed
sources, is  
expected to reach a plea bargain, the spotlight has
moved to the AIPAC  
officials - two senior members were suspended for the
duration of the  
case and four other senior officials were forced to
testify at length  
before the special investigative jury in Virginia
)whose proceedings  
are classified (appointed for the case.

Even if the investigation is nowhere near completion,
it has definitely  
reached a crossroads, at which investigators must
decide on the  
suspects in the case - Larry Franklin alone; Franklin
and two AIPAC  
officials, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman; or whether,
on top of those  
three, the entire AIPAC organization has acted
unlawfully.

Sources close to the investigation suggested recently
that it would end  
in a plea bargain. Franklin would plead to a lesser
crime of  
unauthorized transfer of information, Rosen and
Weissman would be  
charged with receiving classified information
unlawfully, and AIPAC  
would remain unstained. Franklin's lawyer, Plato
Cacheris, Thursday  
denied the reports, stating: "We have not entered any
plea of defense  
with the Justice Department."

AIPAC refused to say anything about the possibility of
a plea bargain.

As for Franklin's reinstatement, a Pentagon spokesman,
Maj. Paul  
Swiergrosz, confirmed that "Dr. Franklin is still a
U.S. government  
employee," bud declined to identify his position.
Haaretz has learned  
that Franklin has been moved to post different from
the one he held  
previously and kept from handling classified
information.

 From AIPAC's standpoint, the issue at hand is
containment: can the  
affair be limited to Rosen and Weissman, or is the
investigation  
directed at the lobby as a whole? It is clear that the
FBI has as its  
objective an extensive investigation against AIPAC.
Investigators have  
been looking into AIPAC's entire manner of operating,
not just in the  
Franklin instance. An official questioned twice by the
FBI, as a  
witness, was astounded by investigators' intimate
familiarity with  
AIPAC. "They know everything there. They asked very
precise questions  
regarding the organization's operations," he said.

The intended breadth of the investigation is also
evident from the  
FBI's dramatic moves - raiding AIPAC offices in
December and issuing  
subpoenas to its four top executives. Executive
Director Howard Kohr,  
Managing Director Richard Fishman, Research Director
Rafael Danziger  
and Communications Director Renee Rothstein appeared
before the  
investigative jury and were questioned at length.

Investigators also reportedly tried to use Franklin,
after the affair  
erupted, to incriminate as many senior AIPAC officials
as possible. The  
Jerusalem Post reported four months ago that
investigators informed  
Franklin of the suspicions against him and asked for
his cooperation.  
In a sting operation, he received information from the
FBI agents that  
Iran was planning to attack Israelis operating in the
Kurdish region in  
Iraq. Franklin, at the FBI's instructions, telephoned
AIPAC's Rosen and  
Weissman and gave them the information, and they
rushed to pass it on  
to Israeli diplomats, thereby falling into the FBI
trap.

AIPAC refuses to comment on the case, saying, "We do
not comment on  
personnel matters." A spokesman for AIPAC, Patrick
Dorton, said  
Thursday that "it would not be appropriate for AIPAC
to comment on  
issues that have to do with an ongoing federal
investigation."

The suspension of the two AIPAC officials, though
never officially  
explained, is certainly a key turning point in the
case. According to  
one assessment, AIPAC understands that regardless of
whether a plea  
bargain is reached, it will be tough to get those two
off the hook, so  
AIPAC is keeping its distance for now. Their lawyer,
Nathan Lewin,  
refused requests from Haaretz for a comment.

A source close to the case said that since the
investigation began,  
AIPAC's ability to maintain good ties with U.S.
administration  
officials has suffered. While Congress was quick to
express support for  
AIPAC, its activists began having trouble getting
appointments.  
"Obviously, after a case like this blows up, no one's
in a hurry to  
return your calls," said the source.



[This message contained attachments]



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2         
   Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 09:25:29 -0600
   From: Martha Reese <martha at martinreese.com>
Subject: Jerusalem Post: Calling All Christians (Mar
15, 05)

Calling all Christians
Michael Freund
THE JERUSALEM POST Mar. 15, 2005

Is George W. Bush missing a couple of pages from his
Bible? In a speech 
last
week at the National Defense University, the president
repeated what 
has
become one of his primary foreign policy mantras.

Asserting that the only way to bring about tranquility
in the Middle 
East is
through the establishment of a Palestinian state, Bush
said, "We seek 
two
democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living
side-by-side in peace 
and
security." 

In addition, Bush insisted that Israel must "freeze
settlement 
activity" and
"ensure that a new Palestinian state is truly viable,
with contiguous
territory on the West Bank," meaning that he expects
the Jewish state 
to
withdraw not only from Gaza and northern Samaria, but
from large chunks 
of
the rest of the territories as well.

The president's state ment, of course, is nothing new.
It is a theme he 
has
harped on for the past few years, laying down his
conviction that the 
Land
of Israel should be partitioned between Arabs and
Jews.

But what is truly remarkable, and as yet inexplicable,
is that a man so
committed to his Christian faith and to belief in the
Bible could 
possibly
be unaware of the inherent contradiction in his policy
toward the 
region.
Indeed, how is it that the most devoted Christian to
sit in the White 
House
in decades is the same person pressing to divide God's
Holy Land, the 
very
same land promised exclusively to the Jewish people by
Divine right?

Now, I am neither a theologian nor a Christian, but I
do know that the 
words
"Palestine" and "Palestinians" do not appear anywhere
in the New 
Testament.
So Bush could not have gotten the idea to establish
"Palestine" while
attending Sunday school. Did he not learn that Jesus
was a Jew who, 
like the
Jews who today are called "settlers," lived in l and
given by God to 
the
Jews, the same land in which he would now create a
hostile Palestinian
state? 

To be fair, Bush has been a great friend of Israel,
deflecting 
international
criticism over the Jewish state's efforts to defend
itself while 
pushing to
reform and democratize some of our nasty neighbors.

Nonetheless, his insistence on pressing for the
establishment of a
Palestinian state remains baffling, if not
incomprehensible, as it 
would
appear to conflict with both his religious and his
ideological 
worldviews.
Even in terms of the war on terror, Bush's stance on
the Middle East is
laden with inconsistency. In that same National
Defense University 
speech
last week, Bush said, "The theory here is
straightforward: Terrorists 
are
less likely to endanger our security if they are
worried about their 
own
security. When terrorists spend their days struggling
to avoid death or
capture, they are less capable of arming and training
to commit new 
attacks.
We wi ll keep the terrorists on the run, until they
have nowhere left 
to
hide." 

And yet, when it comes to the Palestinians, that is
precisely the 
opposite
of Bush's policy, as the creation of a Palestinian
state would 
inevitably
give terrorist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad
a perfect place 
"to
hide." 

In light of the president's position, as well as his
religious beliefs,
there is one group in particular that should seize the
moment now and 
come
out against the current drive toward Israeli
withdrawal and retreat:
American Christians.

As the core group of Bush's Republican constituency,
and as a growing 
factor
to be reckoned with on the American political stage,
evangelical 
Christians
have the clout, the numbers and the conviction to help
forestall the
creation of "Palestine."

Efforts by Bush and by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon to carve up 
the
Holy Land and turn over parts of it to the Arabs
should offend anyone 
who
takes the Bible seriously, i ncluding evangelicals. To
stand by and 
watch
this process unfold without speaking out is simply
unthinkable.

There are three things âEUR" the three P's âEUR" that
US Christians can 
and
should do to make their voices heard: protest,
pressure and pray. They
shouldn't wait for a divided American Jewry to take
the lead, because 
time
is of the essence, as the planned withdrawal from Gaza
is just four 
months
away. 

Hence, there is no reason why American Christians
can't start taking to 
the
streets to organize rallies and protests under the
banner of "Don't 
Divide
the Holy Land." What a powerful message it would send
to 
decision-makers in
Washington and Jerusalem to see hundreds of thousands
or even millions 
of
non-Jewish Americans speaking out on this important
issue.
 
US Christians can also apply pressure on their elected
representatives. 
Next
Thursday, March 24, when Jews mark the Fast of Esther,
a grassroots 
effort
is being planned to get as many American Jews and Chri
stians as 
possible to
phone, fax and e-mail the White House, with the
central theme being
"President Bush: Honor God's covenant with His people.
Stop 
Disengagement."
Lastly, it is time for Jews and Christians to pull out
the most potent
weapon in their arsenal, the power of prayer. The Land
of Israel is in
danger, and there can be no better way to influence
events than by 
turning
in prayer to the One who guides all human events.

There is still time to act, to make a difference.
American Christians 
have
been put in a unique position, one in which they can
have a direct 
impact on
the future of Israel and its land. At this critical
hour, when the 
integrity
of the Holy Land is at stake, they cannot and must not
be silent.

The writer served as an aide to former prime minister
Binyamin 
Netanyahu.