August/September 1991, Page 37

Pro-Israel McCarthyism

Stealth Attacks and Backgrounders For Book Burners: Made in the USA

By Richard H. Curtiss

Over the years I've been handed photocopies of "privately circulated" documents compiled by certain hard-line Jewish organizations. They go to local chapters for use without attribution.

One example was a memorandum from the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith dated Oct. 10, 1983 and containing "background material" on the Costa Gravas film Hanna K "intended to provide you with a means to respond to problems that might arise with regard to the film."

The memorandum provided negative comments from two ADL staffers and two lukewarm media reviews. They were for use with theater owners thinking of scheduling the film or, if attempts to keep the film out of local theaters were unsuccessful, for use with sympathetic local media film critics.

When I received the blacklisting memo I had just been in Paris where the film, starring American actress Jill Clayburgh, was in first-run theaters in the French capital. Back home, I waited in vain to see it in any theater near me. When it didn't come, I knew why. Subsequently, a friend lent the film to me on a videocassette. We viewed it with a family group and, when the lights came on, there wasn't a dry eye in the living room.

Few Americans will ever have the chance to cry over this film, however. It is the fictional story of a Polish-American Jewish immigrant to Israel, orphaned by the Holocaust. She has become a lawyer, is engaged to a ruthless prosecuting attorney, and her precarious psychological adjustment to life in Israel is tested when she undertakes the defense of a simple Palestinian "infiltrator. " Deported from the land of his birth, he stubbornly keeps returning to the farm from which his family has been barred since 1948.

The memo warns ADL supporters that "the cause of PLO propaganda can be well served by this film due to the facile oversimplifications, implications, inaccuracies and ironies which are used to portray the problems of the Palestinian refugee and Jewish conscience. Critiques of the film can be addressed to, among others, the following weaknesses, whether contrived, intuitive or accidental. . ."

Ironically, in the recitation of "weaknesses, " not a single error of fact is cited. Instead, the memo makes such complaints as "Jerusalem appears to be an Arab city, " the fact that Hanna K accepts the Arab's defense only due to his offer of $2,000 presents "an anti-Semitic stereotype," and "snide implications of Jewish racism are evident throughout the film."

Not all such backgrounders for bookbumers are so stealthy. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Israel's principle lobby in Washington, DC makes available a book entitled The Campaign to Discredit Israel. With an appropriate black cover, much of it consists of factual information about listed organizations or biographical material about listed individuals.

A clandestine attempt to shut us up is, apparently, underway.

Probably nothing AIPAC presents in this blacklist is actionable under US libel laws which, basically, require the complainant to prove that a negative comment is untrue, that the person making it knew it was untrue (malice), and that the person libeled suffered actual financial damage as a result.

If the AIPAC book lists unslanted biographical data and then presents an offensive statement a Middle East expert is alleged to have made before a campus audience, the expert doesn't have a case to take to court. First, he or she would have to have a transcript of the entire talk to prove that he didn't make the statement. Second, the AIPAC editor could always claim that since the information came from a trusted campus representative, the editor believed it was true. Finally, the expert would have to prove he or she suffered financially as a result of being included in the book. How can anyone prove lost speaking engagements, government contracts or university tenure because of inclusion in this seemingly obscure book of a statement falsely attributed to him?

The real slander is in the title of AIPAC's book. Learning that a student or faculty group is considering inviting the expert to speak on the Middle East, local pro-Israel activists can warn the university that its invitee has been "listed by a watchdog group as an individual enrolled in a campaign to discredit Israel" and has made "what seems to be an anti-Semitic statement. " It's enough to cause the selection committee to look elsewhere for another speaker, perhaps even to an AIPAC inspired "think tank" like the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. In short, it's pro-Israel McCarthyism.

Is it possible through such attacks to silence someone like the publisher or editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs? Each of us spent more than 30 years in responsible US government positions. We control our own medium. And we write for paid subscribers. Nevertheless, a clandestine attempt to shut us up is, apparently, underway.

Our principal means of reaching potential new subscribers is through television, radio and lecture appearances. Our "honoraria" are subscriptions submitted by members of the sponsoring group, or agreement by radio hosts to mention the magazine's toll-free number for free introductory copies.

If such public appearances can be reduced, the expansion of our magazine can be reduced. To do so, the same tools that are utilized to throttle the expert described above can be utilized.

Three years ago I was invited by a Middle East peace coalition to make a series of talks in a Midwestern state. My topic was the domestic influences that have skewed US Middle East policies. The audiences had been assembled by peace activists working through local clergy and the regional offices of a number of religious denominations.

En route to a morning appearance, in the conference room of a Catholic seminary, my local host, a Protestant minister, told me that of some 15 local rabbis who had accepted invitations, all but one, whom we'll call Rabbi X, had cancelled, without explanation, the previous evening.

"We'll ask Rabbi X what happened, " the minister said casually.

He was surprised, however, when even Rabbi X didn't appear. The minister proposed that we stop at the rabbi's suburban office en route to my next appearance.

"I'm sure something unexpected came up, " my host said with what I can only describe as naive optimism. "Rabbi X and I have become good friends."

The rabbi, in a modem and beautifully appointed suburban synagogue, was a naturally warm and welcoming person. He greeted my host graciously, me warily, and then looked uncomfortable as he led us into his office.

"I just don't understand," my host said, quite emotionally, to his friend. "We promised our speaker a dialogue, but all we got were Christian lay workers and clergy like me who already are 'converted' to support for Palestinian rights. How can I explain to ministers who don't know you why not a single rabbi, not even you, was willing to at least meet to talk about these things?"

By this time the rabbi, clearly every bit as decent a person as my awesomely direct and uncomplicated host, was flushed with both annoyance and embarrassment. I could see that these men really were friends, and neither could quite believe that this was happening. As the inadvertent catalyst for what now was a tableau of sudden and profound mutual disillusionment, I gritted my teeth and prayed to the God both serve that my host would bring this to an end by withdrawing.

A Large Loose-Leaf Notebook

Suddenly, however, the rabbi opened a drawer of his desk and pulled out a large, black loose-leaf notebook, flipping it open to a page marked with a paperclip. Swiveling to face me, rather than his colleague, he cleared his throat and said firmly:

"I can't speak for the others, but here's why I couldn't come to speak with you. It says here you once were an employee of an Arab government. "

Now it was my turn to be astonished.

"What government?"

He named an Arab state with historic ties to the US. One of my offices during my US governmental career had worked with it on educational programs, but I personally had never even served there. Since I saw that he really believed the charge, I told the rabbi that, although since my retirement from the US foreign service I had been employed in consultative, training and traveling capacities by US government agencies (the Department of State and the US Information Agency), and a non-profit group on contract to a US government agency (the Agency for International Development), I had never, before or after my retirement, been employed by any foreign government.

The rabbi looked honestly perplexed. "Then I think you should correct this information sheet about you."

When my Protestant host interjected, "You haven't told us where you got this 'information, "' the rabbi seemed suddenly to snap out of his embarrassment. He glanced at the notebook open on his lap. Realizing we couldn't see whatever was on its cover or spine, he put it back into his desk.

"I can't do that," he said firmly.

My host exploded. "You've just read from a paper what our guest says is a lie. You've told him, in effect, that you'll believe it until he gets it corrected. But you won't tell him who is disseminating the lie."

"I can't tell you, " the rabbi protested, but now his face was flushed with shame. The conversation that followed between the two men of the cloth was intense and painful. Then, suddenly, I realized the minister was promising the rabbi confidentiality. The rabbi looked questioningly at me.

"Of course," I said.

"The information is compiled by an organization called NACRAC, " Rabbi X said, explaining that although the information was prepared in Washington, he personally had received it through the local Jewish Community Relations Council.

"Could I have a photocopy just of the information about me?" I asked.

"I can't give it to you," he said firmly.

As we departed, he said in a tone of forced normalcy: "I hope you can get this misunderstanding cleared up. I'd like to talk with you again."

I used to speak in the same tone when, as a USIA inspector, I would assure an embassy public affairs officer whose operation I was about to dissect, "I'm here to help."

My host bundled me into his car and we drove to meet another clergyman from another denomination for another appearance in another town.

Back in Washington, DC, however, I called the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council, which I assumed was the organization the rabbi had cited. I reached someone who politely told me that no one in Washington put out such information, but that he could not speak for the New York office, which carried out most headquarters functions. I called the New York office and was told that that function, if it existed, would be handled from Washington.

The Same Denials

Back to Washington, and the same denials. I had neither the optimism nor the stamina to continue the quest. I did notice for a time, however, that occasionally a talk show host or a call-in would ask if I'd ever been employed by that government. Because I eventually stopped getting the question, I had forgotten the incident, and the name of the organization, until I received this month a short note from a Jewish friend whose name appears on our regularly published lists of donors.

"The director of the local Jewish Community Relations Council kindly informed me that Washington Report accepts money from oil companies," our donor wrote, tongue in cheek. "I hope this is true."

The letter to my friend cited rather modest contributions, by two petroleum companies, among hundreds of donations to the American Educational Trust, publisher of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. The lists are no secret. They are published regularly in our own magazine.

Not quite so easy to disregard, however, were some other charges about me, and my from Representative Larry Smith (D-FL), possibly the most blatantly pro-Israel McCarthyite in the entire US Congress. This arrogant legislator delights in browbeating US civil servants for exercising fiscal responsibility on matters concerning Israel.

Smith libeled me almost by accident. In seeking to justify reckless charges of antiSemitism he had made against another organization, for which I believe he could successfully be sued if he didn't enjoy congressional immunity, he sought to impugn each of its directors. The publisher of the Washington Report and I were founding directors of that organization, but withdrew after six months. That was a year and a half ago.

Smith's charge against the publisher, a retired US ambassador, was that in 1987 he addressed an organization headquartered in Washington, DC that Representative Smith maintains is anti-Semitic. Since the publisher also had addressed a B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation League audience, that would seem to neutralize guilt by association.

Smith's charge against me was that I addressed the same group at the same time (there were seven speakers, at least three of them Jewish, representing diverse points of view in a two-hour session on US Middle East policy). As I remember it, my necessarily brief remarks were largely devoted to an examination of the record of Senator Jesse Helms (R-NQ on Middle East issues. Members of the audience were unhappy to learn of the means by which their political idol was courting pro-Israel contributors.

Smith's letter, however, contained two statements I was said to have made while speaking to that right-wing audience.

"Richard Curtiss stood before it and repeated an anti-Semitic canard that advocacy of a strong US-Israel relationship is tantamount to dual loyalty, " Smith wrote.

No Quotation Marks

Cleverly, Smith didn't source his material, nor did he put what I was supposed to have said in quotation marks. I know what I actually said, because I say it every time I speak. That is that many American supporters of Israel have convinced themselves that Israeli and US interests are the same, but that this is increasingly insupportable. I listed Henry Kissinger as one example, and Jeane Kirkpatrick as another.

Smith's letter lists statements allegedly made by a number of directors of the organization he attacks. Then, after each allegation, he explains, "This is an anti-Semitic statement because. . . " I pop up a second time in the letter when he quotes the right wing organization's publication as saying I told its panel:

"There's something unique about our government's policies in the Middle East. The uniqueness is, this is the only area where there is a full-time, extremely well-organized lobby working right inside the United States for the interests of another country."

Smith's got me there. It's exactly what I say, to every audience, like-minded or hostile, that will listen. And, he omits from that pan of his letter any implication that the comment is "anti-Semitic." It's not, and even he knows it. But he also knows that putting my name in two places in his letter leaves the reader with the impression that, where there's smoke, there must be fire.

As the author since my retirement from the foreign service 11 years ago of two books, two films, and more than 400 published articles on US-Mideast relations, at least half a million of my words are on the written record. But that was the best that Representative Smith, his researchers, or the mysterious organizations that provide backgrounders for book burners could come up with.

Smith also said in his letter that the group I addressed is an "odious, racist organization " and that "no one can appear on a platform" provided by it without "lending credibility to that organization and its activities."

The Jewish Community Relations Council representative in a West Coast city who forwarded this complaint said of the publisher and of me, "to the best of my knowledge they haven't yet disassociated themselves" from that organization.

I think that kind of crude attempt at guilt by association betrays a profound lack of understanding of the First Amendment. I don't know any of the directors of the organization I addressed, but from the admittedly very little I've seen of its newsletter, I believe that some of its writers, in fact, would fit my personal definition of "racist.”

I also know that two fund-raising letters sent out in two different years by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith and signed by its then-president, Seymour Reich, said that "the Arab presence on the college campus is poisoning the minds of our young people. " Whoever wrote and whoever approved those letters also fits my personal definition of "racist." I don't think however, that anyone who chooses to address either organization is "lending credibility" to its activities. Nevertheless, for the record, I certainly would "disassociate" myself from any of the writers cited if I had ever been "associated" with them.

Anyone who follows my own writing will not be taken in by such labored accusations, unless he wants to be. But what defense does the average victim of pro-Israel McCarthyism have? And if he or she seeks the protection of the courts, how can "actual damages" be proved from unsourced slanders thrown over the transoms of people the victim has never met?

The best defense is suggested by my Jewish friend's written reply to the representative of the Jewish Community Relations Council who denounced us. Noting that the Washington Report publisher and editor "promulgate opinions that you clearly disagree with," my friend asked:

"Why not simply take them on and argue the issues? Such an exchange would be rewarding, especially since I know that you, like me, deplore much of what is going on in Israel today and favor a just peace. But I beg you to waste no more time making vague accusations."

I doubt, however, that we'll ever hear directly from that Jewish Community Relations Council representative on the West Coast, the elusive office somewhere on the East Coast that Prepares "information sheets" to warn Midwestern rabbis of the guilt by association that can flow from dialogue, or even from Representative Larry Smith, right here in River City. Dialogue is not the method pursued by McCarthyites of any persuasion. And these McCarthyites are the real McCoy.