by Jim Lobe

In a remarkable demonstration of the the increasingly vulnerable state into which AIPAC appears to have thrown itself, the Israel lobby’s premier group released a new statement this afternoon clarifying that it still supports the Kirk-Menendez “Wag the Dog” Act less than 24 hours after announcing [...]]]> via LobeLog

by Jim Lobe

In a remarkable demonstration of the the increasingly vulnerable state into which AIPAC appears to have thrown itself, the Israel lobby’s premier group released a new statement this afternoon clarifying that it still supports the Kirk-Menendez “Wag the Dog” Act less than 24 hours after announcing that it no longer supported an immediate vote on the legislation.

The statement came as two hard-line neoconservative (and Republican) groups — Bill Kristol’s Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI) and the Republican Jewish Coalition — implicitly denounced AIPAC for its retreat. The latest AIPAC statement, issued in the name of its president, Michael Kassen, suggests that it is being whipsawed between its Republican neoconservative supporters, who are used to getting their way in the organization, and its desire to remain in the good graces of key Democrats who have been increasingly alienated and angered by the degree to which Republicans are aggressively seeking to make Iran (and Israel) a partisan issue.

One very interesting question raised by the latest developments is whether AIPAC sought Bibi Netanyahu’s blessing before its statement yesterday opposing immediate action on the Kirk-Menendez bill. That AIPAC should feel compelled to make such a public statement just three weeks before its annual policy conference here will likely add to the impression among its members — 14,000 of whom are supposed to attend — that the group was not only defeated — at least for now — in its biggest legislative fight against a president of the past two decades, but that it also suffers from an indecisive and uncertain leadership typical of large organizations that have grown overconfident in their power when suddenly confronted with a major setback.

Here’s AIPAC’s latest:

I am writing today to correct some mischaracterizations in the press regarding our position on the Senate Iran bill. Some have suggested that by not calling for an immediate vote on the legislation, we have abandoned our support for the bill. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, we remain strongly committed to the passage of the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act. This legislation is one important part of a broad strategy that we have pursued over many years to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. As negotiations for a final agreement with Iran begin, we must—and will—continue our efforts on every front to ensure that any deal with Iran guarantees the dismantlement of its nuclear infrastructure and blocks its path to a bomb.

Yesterday, Senator Menendez—who along with Senator Kirk is the lead sponsor of the legislation—delivered a forceful speech on the Senate floor, in which he outlined what such a deal must include. In response, we issued a statement applauding Chairman Menendez’s leadership. We strongly support his assessment of the threat, his commitment to the critical role Congress must play, and his path to passage of the legislation, which includes building broad bipartisan support.

I want to thank you for your hard work thus far in earning the support of 59 senators for the Menendez-Kirk bill. We still have much work to do over the coming months. It will be a long struggle, but one that we are committed to fighting.

We will continue to work closely with friends on both sides of the aisle, in both the House and Senate, to ensure that everything is done to prevent a nuclear weapons-capable Iran.

Sincerely,

Michael Kassen
AIPAC President

Now, I personally didn’t see any press reports that asserted that AIPAC was withdrawing its support for the bill; only that it had withdrawn its support for an immediate vote on it. So what provoked this “correct[ion]?” I assume it was the remarkably hasty way in which AIPAC beat its retreat — less than two hours after Sen. Menendez delivered his floor speech in which he rued the attempt by his Republican colleagues to use the bill as a bludgeon against Democrats even as he himself stood it. While I had assumed that Menendez and AIPAC had choreographed the sequence of statements in advance — after all, Menendez was the Senate’s biggest beneficiary of pro-Israel PACS associated with AIPAC in 2012 — AIPAC’s announcement appeared to leave a number of its critical allies, such as The Israel Project (TIP), United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI), and not least the American Jewish Committee (AJC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) — all of which have lobbied for immediate passage of the bill, hanging out there with a position that it had abandoned — hanging out to dry. (Remarkably, TIP’s “Daily Tip” — its news digest — completely ignored Menendez’s speech and AIPAC’s statement.)

But while those groups maintained silence Friday, ECI and RJC came out swinging, suggesting that AIPAC’s concerns about maintaining its bipartisan appeal were foolish. Here’s ECI’s statement “on the withdrawal of Democratic support for a vote on the Senate Iran sanctions bill,” issued in the name of Kristol himself:

We commend 42 [Republican] Senators for their strong letter demanding a vote on S. 1881, the bipartisan Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act, which has been cosponsored by more than half of the Senate. The bill is simple and reasonable. It would reimpose existing sanctions suspended under the interim agreement if Iran cheats; it would ensure that a final agreement requires Iran to dismantle its illicit nuclear infrastructure; and it promises to impose additional economic sanctions in the future should Iran fail to agree to a final deal that dismantles its nuclear infrastructure.

As the Senators put it in their letter to the Majority Leader, ‘Now we have come to a crossroads. Will the Senate allow Iran to keep its illicit nuclear infrastructure in place, rebuild its teetering economy and ultimately develop nuclear weapons at some point in the future?’

The answer to this question must be no. The Senate should act now to deliver that answer. It would be nice if there were universal bipartisan support for acting now to stop a nuclear Iran. But there apparently is not. And it would be terrible if history’s judgment on the pro-Israel community was that it made a fetish of bipartisanship — and got a nuclear Iran. [Emphasis added.]

And here’s what the RJC, speaking through the voice of its Congressional Affairs Director, Noah Silverman, put out:

As you know, the RJC has been the most consistent voice urging Congress to enact strong new legislation that will maximize pressure on Iran’s rogue regime to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons capability.

When Senator Kirk and Senator Menendez introduced their bipartisan bill to lock in new, crippling sanctions on Iran if the regime failed to follow through on its obligations under the Geneva accord, we launched an all-out effort to win support from Republican Senators.

Within days – thanks in large part to our efforts – 95 percent of the Senate Republicans had signed on as cosponsors of the Kirk/Menendez bill. Considering that the bill (S. 1881) has numerous Democrat cosponsors, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had pledged to permit Senate action soon when he delayed a vote on sanctions last year, success seemed within reach.

What happened next should trouble every pro-Israel American deeply. The Obama administration unleashed an unprecedented campaign to portray Kirk, Menendez and their backers as ‘warmongers.’

And they enlisted Democratic members of non-partisan pro-Israel organizations to work from within to undermine the push for Kirk-Menendez.

The Obama White House’s tactics have been disgraceful. But they’ve clearly had an effect. Democratic Kirk-Menendez cosponsors endorsed delaying a vote on the legislation they ostensibly support. Liberal news outlets attacked Republicans as ‘partisan’ for demanding a vote on bipartisan legislation.

And now the most prominent organization in the coalition of activist groups supporting Kirk-Menendez – the American Israel Public Affairs Committee – has reversed itself and is calling for Senate action on Kirk-Menendez to be delayed.

We still believe this legislation is urgently needed if there is to be any hope of convincing the Iranians to alter their course. And the good news is that Senate Republicans overwhelmingly understand this. Earlier this week, 42 GOP Senators sent Harry Reid a letter making it clear that Republicans who support Kirk-Menendez are determined to get a vote.

Now more than ever, Republican leaders in Congress will need our help. We want to thank you for everything you’ve already done – and to assure you that, no matter what others do, we are not going to give up on this effort. The stakes for our national security and for the survival of Israel are just too high.[Emphasis in the original.]

So now we have two hardline neoconservative Republican groups attacking AIPAC, albeit not by name, for mak(ing) a “fetish of bipartisanship,” as Kristol put it. And we no doubt have Democrats, like Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who can’t be happy with the organization due to the kinds of pressure it exerted on them to oppose their own president and the fact that AIPAC had effectively aligned itself with the Congressional Republican leadership for so long. Nor can groups like TIP or UANI or the AJC be happy with AIPAC’s probable failure to consult with them before staking out its latest position. And then there’s the fact that AIPAC, which, as this blog has noted before, prefers to act behind the scenes, had not only been forced into the limelight as a result of its advocacy for the Kirk-Menendez bill, but has, through its back-to-back public statements, moved itself to center stage, even as it finds itself buffeted by both right and left. This can’t be a comfortable place for it to find itself. Indeed, it suggests not only weakness on the part of its leadership, but also the possibility of serious internal conflict.

There’s still the question of what motivated it to change its position so publicly and so ineptly? Was it the fact that the Clintons came out for delaying a vote? After all, it’s one thing to alienate Obama, who will only be around for another three years and may face a Republican majority in both houses of Congress less than a year from now; it’s another to embarrass Hillary who, it may think, has a virtual lock on the nomination with no Republican in sight who can beat her. Or was it that letter signed by the 42 Republicans, thus transforming the bill into a more clearly partisan issue, provoking Menendez, a generally very loyal Democrat (except on Cuba), to change his position, that persuaded AIPAC’s leadership that they had to move if they were going to retain any claim to bipartisanship (in which case Kirk, who appears to have organized the letter, made a very, very serious mistake)? Or did Netanyahu, whose national security establishment appears increasingly reconciled to and comfortable with the possibility of a limited Iranian nuclear program, come to a similar realization? Or did the White House say it wasn’t going to send any Cabinet-level official to the AIPAC conference March 2-4 unless it backed off the bill, as Peter Beinart suggested  in Haaretz last week? Or all of the above?

Posted with permission of Think Progress

The Washington- and Jerusalem-based pro-Israel lobby organization The Israel Project (TIP) claims to be dedicated to “get(ting) facts about Israel and the Middle East to press, public officials and the public.” But it appears that the group is not [...]]]> also by Ali Gharib

Posted with permission of Think Progress

The Washington- and Jerusalem-based pro-Israel lobby organization The Israel Project (TIP) claims to be dedicated to “get(ting) facts about Israel and the Middle East to press, public officials and the public.” But it appears that the group is not always particularly interested in getting the facts out. A ThinkProgress investigation has revealed that not only is TIP connected to an Iran-focused media group allegedly based in London, but also the pro-Israel group appears to be trying to cover up those ties.

Last year, a LobeLog investigation of TIP revealed ties between the group and a European media organization called Réalité-EU, a group that “focuses on developments in Iran and the Middle East which pose a global threat.” When asked about Réalité-EU’s connections to The Israel Project, TIP co-founder and president Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi intimated that the reporter (this post’s co-author, Eli Clifton, now at ThinkProgress) was a conspiracy theorist and asked that he “pls [sic] check your facts before you make me/TIP into some scary boogie man.”

Now, ThinkProgress has learned that in 2008, the Réalité-EU project received a quarter-million dollars through a donation made to TIP by the Marcus Foundation. According to the foundation’s tax filings [PDF], TIP, at its K Street address, received the $250,000 for “Iran Media Project – Realite-EU,” which was listed as the “Project Title.” A screen capture of the grant can be viewed below:

While TIP is focused on Israel first and foremost, the group also regularly focuses on the Iranian threat to Israel and the U.S. However, Réalité-EU is more narrowly focused on the Iranian threat in general. TIP has made no secret of its pro-Israel leanings and its mission of giving a “more positive public face” to Israel and Israeli government policies. But Réalité-EU has never presented itself as a pro-Israel organization or publicly associated with pro-Israel organizations like TIP.

Despite this clear evidence of TIP’s connection to Réalité-EU, neither side will admit the relationship exists. ThinkProgress asked all parties involved about the Marcus Foundation grant to TIP for the Réalité-EU project, but no one proffered answers to repeated inquiries. Gerlinde Gerber, a communications associate at Réalité-EU, answered a London, U.K. telephone number for the project, but said she was in Washington, D.C. When asked about connections between Réalité-EU and TIP, Gerber told ThinkProgress she is “not authorized” to speak about the topic.

When asked if she was based at TIP’s Washington office, Gerber again refused to answer. ThinkProgress then called TIP’s main switchboard and asked for Gerber. We were told, “Sure, hold on one second.” After a couple minutes on hold, the line went dead. On a second try, a new receptionist answered and told ThinkProgress no one with that name was at TIP.

TIP president Mizrahi also did not answer direct e-mail inquiries or multiple messages left with her organization regarding the Marcus Foundation grant and TIP’s communications director Alan Elsner refused to discuss the issue and hung up.

Mizrahi had previously lashed out when asked by LobeLog about Réalité-EU’s connection to TIP, writing, “I goggled [sic] you and it seems you are a blogger who sees war mongering Jews all over the place. Oh, what a danger! I hope the world will be safe from them!” Mizrahi claimed she was a “peace activist” and pleaded that she not be painted “as some right-wing crazy.” She then passed along a quote from the organization’s “web guy” saying the two groups are “not connected.”

But Mizrahi has a history of associations with right-wing activism. In her personal capacity, Mizrahi gave $25,000 to the neoconservative think tank the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD). Staff members at FDD, which is heavily focused on Iran, regularly advocate for a military strike against Iran. And generally, TIP has espoused extreme views on Israel. Recently, the organization has suggested that talking heads should refer to the effort to end settlements in the West Bank as “ethnic cleansing.” And a guide produced by the group instructs its American allies to stoke fear of immigrants and 9/11 when discussing Israel’s “right of return” debate.

Separately, a ThinkProgress investigation recently revealed that TIP has paid at least $140,000 to disgraced Christian right lobbyist Ralph Reed, who is currently promoting right-wing Israeli policies in the Republican Party.

Just as Mizrahi’s associations with advocates for war with Iran and far-right-wing opponents of a two-state solution should raise questions about her bona fides as a “peace activist,” TIP and Réalité-EU’s inability to answer basic questions about their organizations and their ties to each other should raise questions about their mission to inform media and the public about the “facts” in the Middle East.

Two important talking points are making the rounds today.

First, The Israel Project (TIP) and the Emergency Committee for Israel’s (ECI) Noah Pollak seem to be running [...]]]> The response from hawks in Washington to the unraveling situation for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak after nearly thirty years in power has been rather telling.

Two important talking points are making the rounds today.

First, The Israel Project (TIP) and the Emergency Committee for Israel’s (ECI) Noah Pollak seem to be running with the strategy of highlighting the contrast between Tunisia, Lebanon, and Egypt’s instability with Israel’s stable, democratic government.

An Israel Project press release (H/T Justin Elliott) observed:

All this illustrates, perhaps more dramatically than ever before, how different Israel is from all its neighbors. As a lively, boisterous democracy, the events unfolding on Arab streets across the region would be unthinkable in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.

TIP concludes:

There are no easy answers to Washington’s dilemma. But the overall lesson is clear. The United States needs more democratic friends in the region. Friends it can rely on. Friends like Israel.

Noah Pollak tweeted:

I hope the “realists” who think the U.S. should end its alliance w/ Israel are learning who is genuinely stable & strong in the ME.

TIP’s condemnation of authoritarian Arab leaders overlooks the fact that a number of them have been backed by the U.S., in no small part due to leaders like Mubarak being willing to make peace with Israel.

While TIP and Pollak prefer to portray the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as having played no role in shaping the region’s political landscape—such an acknowledgment might let the dreaded “linkage” argument out of the box—others, such as The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, are torn between a commitment to liberal democracy and their jobs as hawkish pro-Israel advocates.

At 10:51am, Goldberg decided to run with a linkage-denying argument that “these uprisings are offering proof that Israel isn’t the central Arab preoccupation.”

“Fifty years of peace has meant [the U.S.] propping up dictators for fifty years,” he observed.

He elaborated:

Is that such a bad thing? Friends of mine like Reuel Gerecht believe that Arabs, given their druthers, might choose Islamist governments, and that would be okay, because it’s part of a long-term process of gradual modernization. I’m not so sure. I support democratization, but the democratization we saw in Gaza (courtesy of, among others, Condi Rice) doesn’t seem particularly worth it.

Goldberg’s policy of playing the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Reuel Marc Gerecht off as an expert on Arab streets and a progressive (Gerecht jokes that his own mother thinks he writes too much about bombing Iran) is rather telling of Goldberg’s own beliefs. Even more telling is Goldberg’s torn relationship with democracy when it doesn’t go his, or Israel’s, way.  His argument, it would seem, is that backing strongmen who are friendly—or at least complicit in sealing off Gaza—is more important than human rights or democracy.

By 3:50pm, Goldberg was accepting that Mubarak’s days in power could be limited but was still concerned about what role the Muslim Brotherhood might play.

I’m not downplaying the threat the Muslim Brotherhood poses, to America or to Israel. And I fear for the future of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty.

The Weekly Standard‘s Thomas Joscelyn voiced similar concerns, suggesting that Mubarak might be the lesser of two evils. He wrote:

Hosni Mubarak’s regime is no friend of freedom, even though it is certainly an ally against al Qaeda.

In all likelihood, an Egypt dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood (if that is how the turmoil plays out) would be neither.

At the end, both of the arguments we’ve seen emerge today—Israel is stable while Arab states can’t maintain stability; backing U.S./Israel-friendly dictators might just be worth it—tells us a lot about the logical contortions required by those who espouse an ideology of linkage-denial, or “reverse linkage.”

Egyptians are taking to the streets because of disgust with the failed economy, corruption, and abuses associated with Hosni Mubarak’s rule. But Mubarak’s ability to maintain a grip on power is directly related to backing from the U.S — a source of foreign aid that is in no small way connected to Egypt’s peace with Israel.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has warped the region’s political landscape and, as hinted at by Goldberg, led the U.S. to back authoritarian rulers. When the only positive thing TIP and Pollak can say about Israel’s role in the situation is that Israel is “stable,” it’s worth examining what cost Israel’s peace with its neighbors–and assistance in maintaining a siege on Gaza–has incurred on the the U.S.’s broader foreign policy interests in the Middle East.

Réalité-EU is a group which claims to be [...]]]> A little over a year ago, SpinWatch introduced evidence indicating that, supposedly, London-based Réalité-EU had links to The Israel Project, a pro-Israel organization based in Washington, DC, and Jerusalem. Now we have further evidence to suggest that the two organizations are deeply intertwined.

Réalité-EU is a group which claims to be “a website and e-newsletter for journalists, leaders and key analysts that focus on developments in and around the Middle East which pose a threat to Europe and beyond,” and “is supported by individuals concerned with the growing threat of Iran and extremism in Europe and the Middle East.” The group gained prominence in 2007 when it compiled a “backgrounder” of radical and inflammatory statements made by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The compilation found an audience on a number of right-wing and anti-Islam websites.

Réalité-EU’s website serves a clearinghouse, of sorts, providing information for journalists about sanctions and Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. Réalité appears to have a European management and target audience, judging from its list of “expert sources” who are primarily based in the EU.

But a closer examination of their website raises questions about whose interests the organization is representing.

First, the domain name “realite-eu.org” has the following registration details:

Registrant Name:Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi
Registrant Organization:The Israel Project

Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi is the president and founder of The Israel Project (TIP), a group which describes its mission as giving a “more positive public face” to Israel.

TIP often presents right-wing and neoconservative views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and, in recent years, has spearheaded a push for escalating measures against Iran.

A 2007 TIP press conference on the “Iranian threat” included a number of neoconservatives including Frank Gaffney—who was recently deemed too Islamophobic for the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), a venue with a history of tolerating bigotry against Muslims.

I asked Mizrahi for an explanation of why she had registered Réalité-EU’s domain name.

She contacted her webmaster who told her:

Realite isn’t registered to TIP. Both Realite-eu.org and theisraelproject.org are registered under an account with register.com (a company that millions of organizations and corporations use to register thier domains). They are not connected, but are listed as separate domains under an umbrella account.

When asked if her webmaster could explain why Register.com chose to attach her and TIP’s name to the Réalité domain, she responded:

I asked him. He has no idea.

Btw – I know and like Realite and a whole host of other groups that support sanctions on Iran. It is all important lifesaving/war-avoiding work. Sanctions are a true path to peace.

During the 2009 Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, DC, Réalité staff handed out thumb drives to journalists entering the summit’s security checkpoint while TIP blanketed the local CNN broadcasts with this commercial.

After a bit more research, I found that the domain name wasn’t the only piece of Réalité’s website tied to TIP. Réalité hosted conference calls (promoted on Réalité’s homepage) which are recorded as MP3 files and can be streamed to anyone accessing the Réalité website.

It turns out that those MP3 files are stored on tipmedia.org (see here, here and here), a website registered by TIP and used to store TIP media files (see here and here).

I contacted Mizrahi for an explanation for why recordings of Réalité-EU conference calls were stored on a TIP website but I have yet to receive a response. (This post will be updated if and when I receive an answer.)

Back in 2009, SpinWatch identified that Réalité, which claimed to be based out of offices in London, was sending out emails using a mail server registered to the Washington, DC, offices of B’nai B’rith International. B’nai B’rith denied any connection with Réalité when called for comment by SpinWatch.

When pressed about the use of a B’nai B’rith server, Réalité acknowledged that the organization rents “services and space on their server for cost saving reasons.” Réalité did not respond to a call for comment when SpinWatch asked them why their London phone number forwarded to a voicemail box of The Israel Project in Washington. (B’nai B’rith and The Israel Project appear to share office space.)

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Réalité-EU is directly tied to TIP and, as Mizrahi’s name is listed on Réalité’s domain name registration and TIP hosts recordings of Réalité conference calls, there would appear to be far more than just a coincidental sharing of server space for “cost saving reasons.” But there is strikingly little evidence to suggest that Réalité has much of a connection to London or Europe, where it seeks to inform European policymakers and journalists about “developments in and around the Middle East which pose a threat to Europe and beyond.”

A search of the UK’s Companies House and Charity Commission show no record of Réalité ever being registered as a legal entity in the UK. Réalité was reported to be a project of International Media Intelligence Analysis (IMIA) which was a registered entity in the U.K. But as of April 14, 2009, IMIA was dissolved.

Mizrahi, in email correspondence with me, did not respond to questions regarding the relationship or institutional link between TIP and Réalité.

The mounting evidence would appear to suggest that Réalité is either in close partnership with TIP or a project of the organization. Why would TIP be listed on the domain name registration and host MP3 files of conference calls for an organization seeking to promote hawkish Iran policy to European policymakers and journalists? More importantly, if Réalité is indeed a TIP project, why is there no public acknowledgment of the relationship?

Goldberg is indignant that Aslan suggests, based on revelations about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in WikiLeaks cables, that the boisterous president may not be as evil as many commentators in the West — particularly pundits, [...]]]>

Jeffrey Goldberg, a prominent hawkish Israeli-American journalist, has written a post responding to a Reza Aslan piece on The Atlantic website.

Goldberg is indignant that Aslan suggests, based on revelations about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in WikiLeaks cables, that the boisterous president may not be as evil as many commentators in the West — particularly pundits, like Goldberg, close to the Israel lobby — make him out to be. Aslan contends that, according to this new evidence, Ahmadinejad may be more amiable to a nuclear deal and some increased freedoms for Iranians than previously thought.

Goldberg, of course, seizes on Alsan’s passage about Ahmadinejad’s oft-cited quote about ‘wiping Israel off the map.’ Aslan notes that, in the Farsi context, this phrase is not quite as incendiary as it is portrayed in the West — though Aslan admits that a more proper translation would bring little comfort to Westerners.

Ignoring Aslan’s important qualification, Goldberg lashes out. He exaggerates and gives evidence to support his view that Ahmadinejad is a “Holocaust-denying, eliminationist anti-Semitic Iranian president.” There should be ample citable examples to support such a view, but Goldberg doesn’t employ them. Instead, he gives a series of unsourced, unlinked quotes from Ahmadinejad. Some of the quotes seem to be of dubious origin.

First, Goldberg starts out with a hyperbolic interpretation of what Aslan is saying, and pillories it (Goldberg loves his straw-men). He hauls out a laundry list of Ahmadinejad’s statements that call for an end to the “Zionist regime.” But he has pulled out this exact same list twice before–with one new quote added this time around. That strikes me as a bit lazy (it’s the internet, dude, you can link back to your old posts) and a bit dishonest (you could at least acknowledge that you’ve essentially written the same column twice before).

I don’t want to defend these comments from Ahmadinejad, but there’s something here that needs to be unpacked: Calling for the end of the “Zionist regime” is calling for an end to a state that is driven by a particular ideology. This is called ‘regime change’ and people like Goldberg and his allies in the hawkish pro-Israel camp support this concept all the time.

Of course, Goldberg says this that list of pronouncements by Ahmadinejad are things that the president has “said about Israel and Jews in the last several years.” But that’s not exactly true: In the 20 examples, the word “Jew(s)” is never used; “Israel,” or some derivative, is used four times, with three of the four in either parenthesis or brackets (Goldberg, or whoever compiled this list for him some years ago, was not consistent). Instead, the quotes from Ahmadinejad that Goldberg uses refer mostly to the “Zionist regime.”

Goldberg is widely considered a liberal Zionst (as well as “one of the most influential Jewish journalists working in mainstream media”), and Zionism is, of course, an ideology. Goldberg’s fervent Zionism seems to intellectually confine him. It’s not actually so unusual for one state to call for an end to the ideological underpinnings of a hostile state– this is exactly what Goldberg and others of his ilk do from their own perspective. Those pundits, of course, want an end to the Islamic Republic. A reformed Islamic Republic, even one that might be less likely to pursue nuclear weapons or hostility towards Israel, is not good enough — they demand a secular state bereft of an official Islamic religion. That is what ‘regime change’ in the case of Iran is all about.

Back to Goldberg’s list: I am also afraid that I have to question the veracity of his quotes. In none of the three blog posts does Goldberg provide any sources. Each quote is accompanied by just a month and year. So I punched a bunch of the quotes into Google using Goldberg’s wordings. Take this item from Goldberg’s list:

July 2006: “Nations in the region will be more furious every day. It won’t take long before the wrath of the people turns into a terrible explosion that will wipe the Zionist entity off the map… The basic problem in the Islamic world is the existence of the Zionist regime, and the Islamic world and the region must mobilize to remove this problem. It is a usurper that our enemies made and imposed on the Muslim world, a regime that prevented the progress of the region’s nations, a regime that all Muslims must join hands in isolating worldwide.”

If you stick this into Google, without the date intro, you’ll get about 200 hits (not that many, relatively speaking). You might expect the top one to be a well trafficked or reputable news site — well, you’d be sort of right. The first hit is a website for Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), and the Google cache points you to a version of the site with a reprinted  Daily Caller column from August (which could easily be citing Goldberg). The second hit is Goldberg himself. Then comes the blogspots, hokey right-wing websites like EMPACT America (dedicated to the overhyped EMP threat), and the Christian Zionist pages like “The Bible Teaching Ministry of David Hocking“, “Bible Searchers”, and even some Christian Zionist blogspots!

I don’t have time to run through all the quotes, so I’ll just let that one stand, and challenge my esteemed colleague (much more esteemed than I) to give some sources for his oft-used list of quotes (even if they’re from MEMRI). If he’d like to draft a new list, I’d point him to the website for the right-leaning pro-Israel advocacy website The Israel Project. At least when they compile Ahmadinejad quotes, they’re not so lazy, and provide sources and links.

But maybe that’s why Goldberg keeps doing the same post over and over again: If you repeat something often enough, especially on the internet, people will start to think that it’s true.