- "No special foreign-based interest, like Zionism,
should ever be placed above the interest of our Republic. Lieberman must
be forced to come clean with the Senate about all his Zionist connections.
Senate Rule 37 requires it and so does the future security of our nation."
- On May 2, 2002, the Senate of the U.S. passed a notorious
pro-Israel Resolution (S. Res. 247), with respect to the Mid-East controversy.
Its co author was Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT). In pushing the measure,
he barked, "You are either with us or the terrorists" (Washington
Times, May 3, 2002). Who is this "us" he is talking about?
- The measure falsely equated the U.S.'s post-9/11 fight
against terrorism with Israel's brutal occupation of the Palestinian people
in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. It also condoned Israel's vicious military
attacks on Jenin, Ramallah and Bethlehem.
- Black's Law Dictionary (5th Ed.) defines a conflict of
interest as a "Term used in connection with public officials and their
relationship to matters of private interest or gain to them."
- The Senate Code of Official Conduct, "Conflict of
Interest," Rule 37, Par. 2, states:
- "No Member...shall engage in any outside business...which
is inconsistent or in conflict with the conscientious performance of official
- The legislative history of this provision says, "It
should be read to prohibit any outside activities which could represent
a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest (See,
Senate Ethics Manual, Select Committee on Ethics, United States Senate,
- The Congressional Directory, (107th Congress, 2001-2002),
list the official biography for Lieberman. It is silent about his membership
or association with any Zionist organizations or his adherence to a Zionist
- Lawmaking is built on trust. Lieberman has an obligation
to his fellow senators to disclose fully his agenda to the members of the
Senate. Almost all elected political entities abide by these ethical rules,
which are centered on revealing any conflict of interest, appearance of
a conflict of interest, prejudice, or bias.
- Like all members of the Senate, Lieberman is required
to file an annual "Financial Disclosure Statement" with the Secretary
of the Senate. In his May 15, 2001 submittal, he again failed to mention
any official membership in any Zionist organizations. Although, he does
disclose his significant connection, as an advisory board member, to three
Israeli-based non-profit organizations: "The Peres Center for Peace"
at Tel Aviv; "Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies" at Bar-Ilan
University, and the "Natural History Museum," located in Jerusalem.
- Lieberman's membership in these Zionist affiliated groups
does raise, on its face, an appearance of a conflict of interest on his
part with respect to an issue, like S. Res. 247, since it advances the
cause of Zionism and/or Zionist Israel. If he is in fact a Zionist, then
the conflict between his public duties and his private interests becomes
even more pronounced.
- The Anti-Defamation League, a hot air organ for Israel,
defines Zionism as, "The guiding nationalist movement of the majority
of Jews around the world, who believe in, support and identify with the
State of Israel." Does Lieberman subscribe, as a matter of personal
political philosophy, to the ADL's definition of Zionism? If so, shouldn't
he put that fact on the public record, whether he is a card carrying Zionist
- Actually, Zionism is an alien based political movement,
global in scope, racially restrictive, with its spiritual headquarters
in Tel Aviv, and not Washington, D.C. It aspires to a land grabbing "Greater
- On another disturbing front, Israel Radio (Kol Yisrael),
reported on Oct. 3, 2001, that Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, had
boasted at a Cabinet meeting, "I want to tell you something very clear,
don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control
America, and the Americans know it."
- In light of the above, I feel the Senate had a right
to know any relevant information about Lieberman's Zionist political ideology,
memberships, and associations in order to weigh the value of endorsing
or opposing his pro Israel resolution. He should have, at a minimum, disclosed
to the Senate any and all of his Zionist connections, and then, if appropriate,
recused himself on the matter of S. Res. 247.
- Our country is at high risk for terrorist attacks, partly,
because of its flawed policy of giving unconditional support to a hawkish
Israel, presently led by a man universally-loathed for his brutality. This
policy, unfortunately, also includes unfairly demonizing and punishing
Muslims and Arabs leaders in general; for example, the economic sanctions
against Iraq, which have caused the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent
Iraqi children, fall into the latter category (CASI, 01/02).
- During the 2000 election, Lieberman received $86,000
from Pro-Israel PAC contributors towards his Senate re-election campaign,
(See, Janet McMahon, WRMEA, Oct/Nov. 2000 issue). What effect did that
financial contribution, and others like it, have on his voting record and
on his hidden political agenda?
- Let me make this clear: Lieberman's religion is no one's
business but his own. His politics, however, and any foreign links to it,
are the public's business. I am pro-America. I am also an anti-Zionist
and against Sharon's colonial policies.
- S. Res. 247, which passed the Senate by a 94-2 vote,
will only increase the hostility towards America in the Arab and Muslim
world. It also, more importantly, will send a green light to the blood
stained Sharonists to continue their killing spree against innocent Palestinians.
Thankfully, Senators Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) and Ernest F. Hollings (D S.C.)
had the courage to oppose the Resolution.
- No special foreign-based interest, like Zionism, should
ever be placed above the interest of our Republic. Lieberman must be forced
to come clean with the Senate about all his Zionist connections. Senate
Rule 37 requires it and so does the future security of our nation.
- William Hughes is a Baltimore attorney and the author
of "Andrew Jackson vs. New World Order" (Authors Choice Press),
which is available online.
- From Pam
- Thanks for featuring this article. Before the last Presidential
election, I emailed the Democratic Party (I'm a Democrat, at least officially),
asking about this very topic. I was concerned that Lieberman's orthodox
views or donations from Zionists might turn US policy toward the sort of
blood-thirsty human rights violations that we're supporting today.
- Unlike Hughes, I think Lieberman's conflict of interest
is only a minor problem. The real issue is that he's actually working
for Israel, a foreign power, within the US Federal government. It's beyond
forcing him to choose which country he's works for; he needs to resign.
- Of course, no reply from the Dems, so I voted for Nader.
Honestly, I would have voted for Nader anyway, because he was the only
candidate who wasn't entirely bought off by large corporations. Unfortunately,
our policy today isn't much different than what would have happened under