Weekly Rogues Gallery

By Richard Edmondson

In all of our previous Rogues Galleries we have covered a lot of different rogues involved in a lot of criminal activity—there are of course many such rogues out there—but today I’d like to cover the biggest, the baddest of them all. The rogue I am referring to is that one which has done more damage to America as a whole, and by extension the rest of the world, than any other rogue I could possibly mention. Perhaps even more than all the other rogues put together. Destroying careers, instigating wars, sending people to their graves—these are just a few of the things this rogue excels at, and for this reason it would have to be viewed as the most ruinous, the most extirpative rogue of them all. The rogue I am speaking of, quite naturally, is the one Chuck Hagel once referred to as the Jewish Lobby—and the fact that Chuck doesn’t dare call them that any more is some mighty persuasive testimony as to how destructively powerful this rogue has become.

In fact, we’re going to take a look at the Lobby through the prism of Hagel’s confirmation process, as he endeavors to become the next secretary of defense. Recently the good bloggers (should I call them the “good Jews”?) at Mondoweiss published a piece highlighting some rather explicit, barefaced groveling Hagel has done before two key members of the US Senate—Charles Schumer of New York and Barbara Boxer of California, both of whom just happen to be Jewish. And as in the case of former CNN news anchor Rick Sanchez, the groveling displayed seems to be achieving the desired results. The headline over the Mondoweiss article reads, “Hagel prostrates himself before the lobby, gets votes.” Here is an excerpt:

The drama around Chuck Hagel's nomination for Secretary of Defense seems to be heading into its predictable third act. While much attention has been given to Hagel's heterodox views (for D.C.) on the Middle East, and the threat that several Democrats might oppose his nomination over Israel, both the nominee and the party seem to be getting in line behind the President (and conveniently the lobby).

The article, by Adam Horowitz, discusses in detail a letter by Hagel to Boxer, dated January 14, 2013, in which the former Nebraska senator addresses questions concerning his views on Hezbollah, the Lebanese resistance group, as well as the issue of sanctions on Iran. As Horowitz points out, Hagel had previously opposed the US engaging in any unilateral campaign of sanctions against Iran, favoring sanctions only if they were imposed in conjunction with other nations. Ah, but that was then. This is now. Now it seems Mr. Hagel has done a complete about-face. The entire letter can be viewed here. Its tone is pretty fawning and conciliatory throughout. Here is but one example:

Per your questions on my policy regarding Iran, including whether I support efforts by the United States to impose unilateral sanctions on Iran, I appreciate the opportunity to share my views with you. I have long supported economic sanctions that are applied in concert with allies and partners. I strongly supported the Obama Administation's approach which has brought to bear unprecedented multilateral sanctions on Iran, including UN Council Resolution 1929. Regarding unilateral sanctions, I have told the President I completely support his policy on Iran. I agree that with Iran's continued rejection of diplomatic overtures, further effective sanctions, both multilateral and unilateral -- may be necessary and I will support the President.

As I said above, the letter also goes into the subject of Hezbollah, whose arms are the main—practically the only—defense the people of Lebanon have against Israeli attacks. Hagel lets it be known that, like all good Americans, he loathes “terrorists,” and goes on to state his obligatory and unequivocal support for the Israel.

You asked if I believe that the United States should continue to encourage the European Union to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. I have always believed that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and often stated so in my 2008 book and in many public remarks. On the Senate floor in July 2006, I condemned Hezbollah as terrorists and spoke out in favor of Israel’s right to defend itself, as I have done on many occasions. In a February 2007 speech at University of Nebraska, I was unequivocal, “Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and provides material support to Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist groups.”

In the same July 2006 Senate remarks where I condemned Hezbollah as terrorists and supported Israel’s right to self-defense, I also spoke about the importance of another American friend, the Government of Lebanon. I have always been supportive of a strong U.S.-Israel strategic relationship and always supported Israel’s right to defend itself against attack. In addition to my Senate floor speeches, I spoke at the Brookings Institution in July 2006 stating that Israel has an “undeniable right to defend itself against aggression” and I reaffirmed our commitment to defending Israel, calling the bilateral relationship “a special and historic one.” I declared, “Hezbollah is a threat to Israel, Lebanon, and to all who strive for lasting peace in the Middle East.” In 2006, Israel was defending itself, confronting non-state elements located inside Lebanon that conducted attacks on Israel. These attacks were not perpetrated by the Lebanese Government, which remains an important partner to the United States. The costs borne by the Lebanese people during the 2006 conflict ignited by Hezbollah are a reminder that Hezbollah is a threat to Israel and Lebanon alike.

But as if gibbering about the “special and historical relationship” and Israel’s “right to defend itself” (the latter he managed to mention three times in two paragraphs) were an insufficient level of groveling, Hagel goes on to bow and truckle even further, in the process offering an apology for his use of the term “Jewish lobby.”

As to my use of the phrase "Jewish lobby" to describe those who advocate for a strong U.S.-Israeli relationship, I've acknowledged that this was a very poor choice of words. I've said so publicly and I regret saying it. I used that terminology only once, in an interview. I recognize that this kind of language can be construed as anti-Israel.  I know the pro-Israel lobby is comprised of both Jewish and non-Jewish Americans. In the Senate, I was a strong supporter of Defense appropriations, which provided enduring support for Israel’s security. Most Americans, myself included, are overwhelmingly supportive of a strong U.S.-Israel strategic and security relationship.

America’s relationship with Israel is one that is fundamentally built on our nations shared values, common interests and democratic ideals. The Middle East is undergoing dramatic and historic changes, ones which surround Israel with tremendous uncertainty. We are working together daily, hand in hand, in unprecedented ways, to counter old, new and emerging mutual threats. I fully intend to expand the depth and breadth of U.S.-Israel cooperation.

After receiving his letter, Boxer announced she will support Hagel’s nomination, and as Horowitz comments, “Caving to political pressure sure pays quick dividends.”

The interplay between Hagel and Schumer is reported in a January 15 article in the New York Times:

In a boon for the Obama administration’s efforts to advance the nomination of Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense, Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York told President Obama on Tuesday that he was optimistic that he could vote for Mr. Hagel’s confirmation based on his grilling of Mr. Hagel on a variety of issues pertaining to Israel and Iran.

After a 90-minute meeting in the West Wing of the White House on Monday, Mr. Schumer appeared to be mollified on a number of concerns he has with some votes Mr. Hagel made while serving in the Senate and myriad comments he has subsequently made regarding the nuclear threat of Iran and other matters.

Notice the descriptors “grilling,” “90-minute meeting,” and “mollified.” One imagines some rather regal bun smooching taking place at this meeting. Indeed, the word “mollified” seems to be an appropriate choice. “Based on several key assurances provided by Senator Hagel, I am currently prepared to vote for his confirmation,” said Schumer. “I encourage my Senate colleagues who have shared my previous concerns to also support him.” But perhaps the most telling part of the story is the following:

While the nod is unsurprising, having the support of Mr. Schumer, the most influential Jewish member of the Senate, may be helpful to Mr. Hagel’s pursuit of the defense job, effectively neutralizing the idea that he is somehow anti-Israel. His nomination has been met with suspicion, and even outright hostility, among Republicans and Democrats who are strongly aligned with pro-Israel groups.

Mr. Schumer himself appeared cool to the prospect of Mr. Hagel’s nomination in December interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

The Mondoweiss article does not quote the above, but does give us the following excerpt, also from the New York Times story:

Of deepest concern to Mr. Schumer and many Israel advocacy groups, are Mr. Hagel’s positions on the nuclear threat posed by Iran, particularly his suggestions in the past that a military strike against Iran would be counterproductive. It is a position that is out of step with the Obama administration, which became increasingly hawkish on Iran during the 2012 campaign.

“On Iran, Senator Hagel rejected a strategy of containment and expressed the need to keep all options on the table in confronting that country,” Mr. Schumer said. “But he didn’t stop there. In our conversation, Senator Hagel made a crystal-clear promise that he would do ‘whatever it takes’ to stop Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons, including the use of military force.”

As a senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel voted against several rounds of sanctions against Iran that ultimately passed the Senate, citing unilateral sanctions are ineffective. On this matter too, Mr. Schumer seemed to find comfort. “Senator Hagel clarified that he ‘completely’ supports President Obama’s current sanctions against Iran,” Mr. Schumer said. “He added that further unilateral sanctions against Iran could be effective and necessary.”

On nearly every other issue that Mr. Schumer brought up with Mr. Hagel — his views on the militant Islamist groups Hezbollah and Hamas, his prior comments about gays, his use of the term “Jewish lobby” to refer to Israel advocacy groups — all seemed to be tamped down in the meeting.

“I know some will question whether Senator Hagel’s assurances are merely attempts to quiet critics as he seeks confirmation to this critical post,” Mr. Schumer said. “But I don’t think so. Senator Hagel realizes the situation in the Middle East has changed, with Israel in a dramatically more endangered position than it was even five years ago.”

Another perspective on the Hagel nomination can be found in the Jewish Daily Forward, in an article by Nathan Guttman, who also mentions the Hagel-Schumer meeting.

The new image Hagel is fashioning for himself is less contrarian than the persona he adopted during his years in the Senate. On January 15, in a meeting with New York Senator Charles Schumer, the former Republican senator from Nebraska, who earlier criticized U.S. sanctions against Iran as counterproductive, and military action against it as potentially ruinous, “rejected a strategy of containment and expressed the need to keep all options on the table in confronting that country,” Schumer said in a statement after the meeting. “But he didn’t stop there,” Schumer added. “In our conversation, Senator Hagel made a crystal-clear promise that he would do ‘whatever it takes’ to stop Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons, including the use of military force.”

Guttman then goes on to comment:

This does not make Hagel an Iran hawk. Washington analysts still see him as a member of the war-averse faction in Obama’s future Cabinet, at a time when the president has gradually inched toward more openness to the use of military force against Iran if talks and sanctions fail to stop its nuclear program. But it does bring him closer in line with today’s Washington consensus — a consensus that is itself more war-averse compared with the days shortly before President George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, when an administration official told Newsweek: “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.”

“Real men want to go to Tehran.” The Bush administration official who made that statement was Dov Zakheim. Here’s what the website Wikispooks reports about Zakheim, who also is a rabbi:

Many researchers believe that the planes which struck the twin towers were precision guided by remote control. Although science fiction-sounding at first blush, remote control technology of airplanes has been around for decades. SPC Corporation provided the flight termination system and command transmitter system, the technology that allows planes to be remote controlled should the pilots be incapacitated or the plane hijacked.

Rabbi Dov Zakheim was the appointed Undersecretary of Defense and Comptroller from 2001 to 2004 under the George W. Bush administration. Zakheim is the man responsible for the disappearance of $2.6 TRILLION that went missing from the Pentagon books which was announced by Donald Rumsfeld on 10th September, 2001. The story was buried under 9/11's rubble.

The specific section of the Pentagon that was "hit" or "blown up" contained the years budgetary information, as well as accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts; many of whom died on 9/11.

In May 2001, when Zakheim served at the Pentagon, it was an SPS (his firm’s) subsidiary, Tridata Corporation, that oversaw the investigation of the first “terrorist” attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. This would have given them intimate knowledge of the security systems and structural blueprints of the buildings complex

Now let’s return to the Guttman article:

Doubts regarding Hagel’s willingness to lead the Pentagon into a military campaign in Iran stem to a great extent from an April 2006 interview he gave to a reporter from Pakistan Press International. In it, he was quoted as saying that a military option against Iran “is not a viable, feasible, responsible option.”

Hagel also voted against several pieces of legislation extending sanctions by the United States against Iran, and opposed a resolution calling for the inclusion of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps on America’s list of terror organizations.

But Hagel’s stands then were influenced by his strong opposition to America’s war in Iraq and by his reservations about the way the Bush administration had conducted the American war in Afghanistan. In an interview with CNN earlier in 2006, Hagel explained: “I think, before we charge off in going off to another war — we’re in two of them now, in Afghanistan and Iraq — we’d better think through this one carefully and clearly. I think it’s going to require an engagement directly with the Iranians.”

But the writer offers some reassurances for those Jewish lobbyists who avidly long for a war with Iran. He quotes another former Defense Department official, who reminds us that, hey, in the final analysis it isn’t really the defense secretary’s decision to make anyway. So not to worry:

“In this administration, foreign policy, and specifically policy on Iran, is set at the White House,” said Colin Kahl . Now an associate professor at Georgetown University, Kahl formerly served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East from 2009-2011, and has also been affiliated with the Council on Foreign Relations. “It is not an issue in which the president is seeking the counsel of the secretary of defense, or an issue he is willing to have his mind changed on.”

In other words, as long as the Jewish Lobby controls Obama, they don’t really have to worry so much about Hagel. So it’s kind of a moot point, anyway. Now…doesn’t that make you feel better?

Finally, we have a ringing endorsement of the nominee from liberal Israeli and former Knesset member Uri Avnery, who finds Hagel “eminently likeable,” as he puts it.

Many years ago he [Hagel] called the pro-Israeli lobby in Washington (would you believe it?) the “Jewish lobby”. Until then, it was understood that AIPAC is mainly composed of Buddhists and financed by Arab billionaires like Abu Sheldon and Abel al-Adelson.

However, Hagel’s most heinous sin is not often mentioned. While serving as the Republican senator for Nebraska, he once uttered the unspeakable words: “I am an American senator, not an Israeli senator!”

That is really the crux of the matter.

US senators are nearly all Israeli senators. Ditto for US congressmen.

It seems Hagel is on track to become the next secretary of defense. What skills or talents he brings to that job I have no idea, but he does seem to be surpassingly adept at appeasing the rogue he once referred to accurately as “the Jewish Lobby.”

Update on Jewish Pedophilia Cases

In our last Rogues Gallery, posted just prior to the Christmas break, I reported extensively on two cases of sexual molestation of children, one involving a prominent rabbi in Brooklyn and the other centered on Yeshiva University, a prestigious Jewish educational institute with six campuses in New York and one in Israel. Some of this stuff is pretty disturbing, and in fact that was why I took a break for the holidays—because I just didn’t want to be posting material of this nature during the Christmas season. But I would now like to give you a couple of updates on what has been going on in this arena in the interim.

As I’ve said a time or two before, Jewish pedophilia is not covered to any great degree in the mainstream media, and to find out about it you almost have to go to the Jewish media. And within the later, it is the Jewish Daily Forward that has perhaps been the most up-front in its reporting on the issue. This has certainly been true with the Yeshiva University case. As you may recall, that controversy centers not so much on the university itself, but upon the boy’s prep school it administers, Yeshiva University High School for Boys, located in Manhattan, and particularly around two former school officials—Rabbi George Finkelstein and Rabbi Macy Gordon, who worked at the school 27 and 28 years respectively. Both men have had charges of sexual impropriety leveled at them, though also at issue are the actions of Rabbi Norman Lamm, former YU president (who today serves as chancellor), who has admitted publicly that he became aware of a number of cases of teachers sexually abusing students, but that he failed to turn the offenders into the police. Instead, he made a policy of allowing them to leave the school quietly with no blemishes on their record.

Now The Forward has begun to shine a spotlight on Richard Joel, who holds the position of YU president today, this in an editorial published January 14, 2013. The editorial starts off by citing last year’s sex scandal at Penn State University, contrasting the way that was handled with the way YU is now dealing with its own in-house turpitude:

Last year, when Pennsylvania State University finally acknowledged that it needed to thoroughly probe allegations that one of its top coaches had abused boys in his care, it turned to former FBI chief Louis Freeh to conduct the investigation. Eight months later, after he and his team interviewed 430 witnesses and examined 3.5 million emails and documents, Freeh issued a 267-page report and discussed it at a televised news conference. Openness, personified.

Contrast that with the way Yeshiva University is responding to the allegations reported in the Forward that two of its staff members repeatedly abused students at its Manhattan high school for boys, and then allowed the alleged abusers to leave quietly. Y.U.’s board of trustees hired a respected international law firm, which in turn hired an abuse expert, to conduct what it calls a “full and completely independent investigation.” But the university will not say what will happen to the final report, whether it will be delivered orally or in writing, or whether it will ever be made public.

The editorial also cites the case of Rabbi Baruch Lanner, who was investigated for sexual abuse as well as financial improprieties in connection with his role as a youth leader for the National Commission of Synagogue Youth, or NCSY. The body carrying out the investigation became known as the Lanner Commission and was convened by the Orthodox Union (OU) following charges, in 2000, that Lanner had abused both boys and girls in his care. And here’s the clincher: the chairman of the Lanner Commission was none other than Richard Joel, who today is president of YU. As The Forward notes, “If anyone should know about the need for a truly independent investigation of charges involving harm to children and young adults, it is he.” Yes, one would reasonably think so. But…

So the Forward asked Joel in an email: “How can the public be assured that the investigation conducted by Sullivan & Cromwell will be as independent as the Lanner report?” He declined to answer.

There’s another issue here that needs addressing. The allegations against the Y.U. high school rabbis concerned incidents from the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s. Some of those who apologize for the school’s apparent indifference to the charges say that’s because it was a different time, a time when our society was not as sensitive to child sexual abuse and was less inclined to believe such stories from youngsters.

There’s no doubt that awareness has heightened after scandals at Penn State, and before that, within the Catholic Church. But to imply that such actions were universally acceptable and therefore understandably ignored is not only a moral abdication. It defies federal and state law.

According to Sandi McLeod, a technical specialist at the Child Welfare Information Gateway, “by 1967, an estimated 44 states had adopted some form of legislation requiring professionals to report suspected child abuse and neglect.”

New York State was one of them. Then in 1974, the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act required all states to implement mandatory reporting of abuse by appropriate professionals. Teachers and school administrators, of course, are among those professionals.

The argument that “it was a different time back then” (Macy’s and Gordon’s acts were supposedly carried out in the late 1970s and early 1980s) is termed a “deplorable” one by The Forward, and the editorial concludes that YU “has much more to do if it is genuinely going to come clean about its past and protect its future.”

But whether that will happen or not is at considerable question. A major part of the problem apparently is that there is enormous pressure, particularly, it seems, within the Orthodox Jewish community, not to cast aspersions or testify on the criminality of fellow Jews, for also in our previous Rogues Gallery I discussed the trial of Rabbi Nechemaya Weberman, who last month was convicted by a Brooklyn jury on 59 counts of sexually abusing a young girl from the Brooklyn Orthodox community. As I mentioned at the time, Weberman enjoyed widespread support from within that community—from a sea of supporters who seemed almost to turn morality on its head, as they heaped praise upon the perpetrator…while maliciously attacking and condemning the victim. One lone voice from within the community, a rabbi by the name of Nuchem Rosenberg, had his priorities straight enough to come out in support of the victim—and for his trouble had a vial of bleach thrown in his face.

Now comes another story—of a man who, much like Nuchem Rosenberg in the Weberman case, went to bat for a sexual abuse victim. The man’s name is Sam Kellner. The victim in the case is his son. His story is told in an article published January 14, 2013 in The Jewish Week. Here’s an excerpt:

“They took everything from me,” Kellner says. “They’ve killed me on the street, kicked me out of my shul. I have no job, no money, no friends. And the DA is going after me. All because I committed the sin of fighting for my son.”
In 2008, when Kellner reported his teenage son’s alleged molester to the authorities, he knew he would make enemies in his chasidic community, despite having secured permission to do so from rabbis. What he never expected was that one of the people turning against him would be the Brooklyn district attorney.

This is the same Hasidic/Satmar community (in the borough of Brooklyn) that Weberman was from, and the article, which is quite lengthy, provides a unique glimpse into the dark—one might almost say macabre—culture of that world. You’ll read of the Vaad Ha Tznius, the modesty patrols, that essentially function as a police force within the community, as well as a community judicial system, replete with its own court, called “beit din,” that operates completely independent of the government’s judicial system (though which may, as the story hints, have some shadowy connections to it).

The full article, if you can stomach it all, is available here. But just to give you a basic summary, what happens is Kellner goes public, bringing charges against one Baruch Lebovits—the alleged abuser of his son—only to find he has become, and been made into, a target himself—by members of his community, and even by the Brooklyn District Attorney’s office. This would be the same district attorney, Charles Hynes, that prosecuted the case against Weberman, but as the article notes:

Some observers maintain that the climate in the Orthodox community is changing when it comes to reporting sexual abuse to law enforcement, and that Hynes’ office has shed its seeming reluctance to prosecute ultra-Orthodox sex abuse cases rather than settle them with plea deals involving little or no jail time. (The recent conviction of an unlicensed counselor and well-connected member of the Satmar community, Nechemya Weberman, for sexually abusing a teenage girl has been hailed as evidence of Hynes’ new resolve, as has his arrest not just of four men for witness tampering in the case, but of others who took photographs of the victim at trial).

But Kellner’s case complicates the picture. It and the Lebovits case unfolded before pressure on Hynes’ office intensified to take these cases to trial rather than dispose of them with plea deals. In a strange irony, those who support Kellner believe that it is precisely because the Lebovits case actually went to trial and resulted in a conviction and long prison sentence that Kellner is now under indictment.

As he awaits trial, Kellner, a man who did the right thing — at least by the standards of secular society — by reporting the crime of child molestation to the police, now stands accused of being an alleged criminal, while those who tried to stop him remain unpunished.

My basic take on it all? You definitely don’t want to live in New York, especially if you have children. And that’s going to do it for our Rogues Gallery this week. Join us next time.

 
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!