Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman:
A Conflict of Interest?
by William Hughes
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 duties.”
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, p. 66).
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
political ideology.
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 or
not?
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
Israel.”
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.
Buy the related book (s) now:
by courtesy & © 2002 William Hughes
