In case you thought that Amnesty only promoted supporters of the Islamist far Right, but kept its distance from White racists and kooks, you’d be wrong.
We have previously written about Amnesty’s hosting of Kathleen and Bill Christison: a pair of far Right 9/11 “Troofers” who have made their livings out of pushing the notion of a world wide “Zionist” conspiracy, which controls the US Government, and dominates much of civil society.
Here is an example of their thesis, that American Jews present a “dual loyalty” problem, taken from the pages of the extremist Counterpunch:
“Dual loyalties” has always been one of those red flags posted around the subject of Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict, something that induces horrified gasps and rapid heartbeats because of its implication of Jewish disloyalty to the United States and the common assumption that anyone who would speak such a canard is ipso facto an anti-Semite. (We have a Jewish friend who is not bothered by the term in the least, who believes that U.S. and Israeli interests should be identical and sees it as perfectly natural for American Jews to feel as much loyalty to Israel as they do to the United States. But this is clearly not the usual reaction when the subject of dual loyalties arises.)
First to the cast of characters. Beneath cabinet level, the list of pro-Israel neo-cons who are either policy functionaries themselves or advise policymakers from perches just on the edges of government reads like the old biblical “begats.”
Here is another example of the Christisons in action, on the pages of Middle East Monitor:
Zionist lobbyists continued to work as assiduously, with results as “miraculous,” throughout the twentieth century, gaining influence over civil society and ultimately over policymakers and, most importantly, shaping the public discourse that determines all thinking about Israel and its neighbors. As Alam notes, “since their earliest days, the Zionists have created the organizations, allies, networks, and ideas that would translate into media, congressional, and presidential support for the Zionist project.” An increasing proportion of the activists who lead major elements of civil society, such as the labor and civil rights movements, are Jews, and these movements have as a natural consequence come to embrace Zionist aims.
Alam’s conclusion—a direct argument against those who contend that the lobby has only limited influence: “It makes little sense,” in view of the pervasiveness of Zionist influence over civil society and political discourse, “to maintain that the pro-Israeli positions of mainstream American organizations . . . emerged independently of the activism of the American Jewish community.” In its early days, Zionism grew only because Herzl and his colleagues employed heavy lobbying in the European centers of power; Jewish dispersion across the Western world—and Jewish influence in the economies, the film industries, the media, and academia in key Western countries—are what enabled the Zionist movement to survive and thrive in the dark years of the early twentieth century; and Zionist lobbying and molding of public discourse are what has maintained Israel’s favored place in the hearts and minds of Americans and the policy councils of America’s politicians.
This is a critically important book.
The Director of Middle East Monitor is Daud Abdullah, who signed the Istanbul Declaration: a document which threatened attacks on those who “stand with” Israel, and upon “foreign navies” enforcing the Gaza War ceasefire.
The partnering with jihadists and the sacking of Gita Sahgal is a symptom of a far greater problem at Amnesty.