ZUCKERMAN, MORTIMER BENJAMIN

Biography

November 3, 2001, Saturday Surveys WUS1

SECTION: GLOBAL INVESTING; Pg. 24

LENGTH: 805 words

HEADLINE: A bull built to bear a downturn: Despite his dour view of the future, property investor Mortimer Zuckerman believes the sector will benefit from a check on supply, writesAlison Beard

BYLINE: By ALISON BEARD

BODY:
Spend five minutes withMorti-mer Zuckerman, the billionaire property and media investor, and you will realise his attention is almost constantly divided.

It is not just that Zuckerman heads Boston Properties, one of the largest US property investment trusts, as well as owning media organisations such as the New York Daily News and US News & World Report.

He also seems to have at least two conversations running in his head at all times. He answers a reporter's questions in one breath, then asks an assistant about materials he needs for another meeting in the next.

One dialogue is in the present with you, the other is about the future with himself.

But even Zuckerman acknowledges that preparing for the future is more difficult due to the terrorist attacks on the US, the war in Afghanistan and the worsening economy. A notorious bull, his recent projections for 2002 have turned decidedly dour.

"It's the worst crisis in business confidence since I've been in the business, which is about 40 years," he says. On the media side, "we're talking about a depression, not a recession, in advertising".

The property sector is better positioned because developers have kept supply in check. And Zuckerman insists that Boston Properties, which holds mainly Class A offices in New York, Washington, Boston and San Francisco, will benefit from its selective strategy.

But there is trouble looming. "Real estate, like the media business, is based on business decisions not consumer decisions, and businesses have slowed down their decision-making," he says.

Two Boston Properties markets have already been hit by the technology downturn. In Boston, slipping demand has lowered rents by 10 per cent, prompting the company to shelve several planned projects. San Francisco rents are down 40-50 per cent - "a real estate disaster".

However, because Boston Properties is so active in forward-leasing its space, it has locked many tenants into premium rents. Over the next two years, only 13 per cent of the company's 40.6m sq ft will come up for renewal.

Zuckerman does not expect weakness in Washington, where increased government spending is expected to boost demand, or in New York, where his company holds midtown properties, a safe distance from any World Trade Center fallout.

In fact, his New York projects - two towers in Times Square, totalling 2.3m sq ft - are expected to benefit from the flow of displaced downtown tenants.

The first building, 47 storeys scheduled to open in early 2002, is already 100 per cent pre-leased by Arthur Andersen. Half the 37-storey second building has been claimed by Ernst & Young, but because it opens in 2004, Boston Properties is not yet actively courting other tenants.

Some market watchers have speculated that the WTC attacks and downtown destruction will prompt an exodus from Manhattan, which would hurt Boston Properties. Zuckerman disagrees. "People have had fears about high-rise urban-centre properties, but I think that will disappear," he says. "There are enormous economies and efficiencies that go with concentrating your people . . . and New York still has great strength. It's still one of the most attractive cities to live in and it attracts the best talent."

Zuckerman, who says he is an "urban alcoholic", decided early on to focus on new developments or trophy acquisitions in select cities. It is expensive; the cost for buying the Times Square properties and building the towers will total about Dollars 1.8bn. But the profit potential is great.

"We limit our activities to markets where there are constraints on new supply, (because) the rate of increase in rental prices is so much more dramatic than you would get in places like Chicago," Zuckerman explains. "Subleasing is an issue but it's not as competitive to new spaces as other new spaces."

Boston Properties will not begin a project until it has let the building or is certain it can do so quickly. The strategy worked in 1988, when Zuckerman halted new construction and saved his company from the bursting of the property bubble. "I didn't start building again until 1995."

Zuckerman became a property tycoon almost by accident. After earning an MBA at Wharton and a law degree at Harvard, he joined a Boston property company to avoid becoming a lawyer. He rose to chief financial officer in two years, when a colleague suggested he ask for stock in the company. "They ended up giving me 10 per cent, and that was how I developed my first equity interest," he said.

In 1970, he launched Boston Properties with partner Ed Linde. The company went public in 1997 at Dollars 21 a share, and it now trades at about Dollars 35. Zuckerman has invested outside the property and media sectors: "But, I've made more money in real estate than I've lost in the stock market."

LOAD-DATE: November 2, 2001

September 28, 1999, Tuesday

SECTION: Section B; Page 10, Column 4

LENGTH: 33 words

HEADLINE: MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN SELLS ATLANTIC MONTHLY TO DAVID G BRADLEY

JOURNAL-CODE: WSJ

ABSTRACT:

Mortimer B Zuckerman has sold Atlantic Monthly magazine to David G Bradley, chairman of National Journal Group Inc; says he wants to pare down his holdings and concentrate on fewer businesses (S)

LOAD-DATE: September 28, 1999

September 29, 1996, Sunday, Late Edition - Final

SECTION: Section 1; Page 52; Column 3; Society Desk

LENGTH: 232 words

HEADLINE: WEDDINGS;
Marla Prather, Mortimer Zuckerman

BODY:
Marla Prather, the curator and head of the 20th-Century Art Department at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, and Mortimer Benjamin Zuckerman, the chairman and co-publisher of The Daily News in New York, were married on Friday evening in Washington. Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer of the Supreme Court performed the ceremony at the Decatur House, a museum.

The bride, 40, is currently organizing the museum's retrospective of the sculptor Alexander Calder, scheduled for 1998. She was an editor of "Paul Gauguin: A Retrospective," published by Hugh Lauter Levin Associates in 1987. She graduated from the University of Kansas, where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and from which she received a master's degree in art history. The bride is a daughter of John Prather of Salina, Kan., and the late Jane Prather.

Mr. Zuckerman, 59, is also the chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report, as well as the chairman of The Atlantic Monthly magazine and the chairman and co-founder of Boston Properties, a real-estate company. He graduated from McGill University, from which he also received a law degree. He later earned an M.B.A. degree at the University of Pennsylvania and a master's of law degree at Harvard University.

The bridegroom is the son of the late Esther and Abraham Zuckerman. His father owned a candy and tobacco business in Montreal.

LOAD-DATE: September 29, 1996

September 28, 1996, Saturday, Late Edition - Final
Correction Appended

SECTION: Section 1; Page 26; Column 1; Metropolitan Desk

LENGTH: 413 words

HEADLINE: Mortimer Zuckerman Marries National Gallery Curator

BYLINE: By KAREN DE WITT

DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Sept. 27

BODY:
One of New York's most eligible millionaires is eligible no more.

Mortimer B. Zuckerman, the real estate developer and publisher, was married today to Marla Prather, the new curator of 20th-century art at the National Gallery. Associate Justice Steven Breyer of the Supreme Court, a longtime friend of Mr. Zuckerman's, officiated at the ceremony at the historic Decatur House, which was attended by some 60 media and art-world friends of the couple who flocked from New York, Washington and Los Angeles for an event they thought would never happen.

Mr. Zuckerman, 59, who was born in Canada, is known as a ruthless businessman and tough negotiator. He made millions in real estate by age 29 and built a media empire that now includes The New York Daily News, U.S. News & World Report and The Atlantic magazine.

Ms. Prather, 40, of Salina, Kan., is an expert on the works of Willem de Kooning. The couple met in March at an exhibition Ms. Prather organized at the National Gallery. The engagement became public just last week.

"This is the only secret Mort ever kept," said Harry Evans, the president and publisher of Random House.

Among the guests were Peter G. Peterson, Secretary of Commerce in the Nixon Administration, and his wife, Joan Ganz Cooney, founder of the Childrens Television Workshop; Howard Stringer, chairman and chief executive of Tele-TV; Irwin Winkler, the movie producer, and Linda Janklow, former chairwoman of the Lincoln Center Theater.

Over the years, Mr. Zuckerman has dated a string of prominent women, including the writer Gloria Steinem, the television reporter Betty Rollin, the actress Blair Brown, the writer and commentator Arianna Stassinopoulos Huffington and the screenwriter Nora Ephron.

"I've been witness to lots of Mort's serious romances," said Tom Brokaw, the NBC anchor and a friend of Mr. Zuckerman's. "Betty Rollin. With Gloria Steinem in cheek-to-cheek ballroom dancing and romance of a different order than I would have expected from Gloria. Lots of other knowns and unknowns."

"I'm a little bit stunned." Mr. Brokaw said of the wedding.

Jeff Greenfield, the ABC-News commentator, said that Mr. Zuckerman had exhibited all the normal pre-nuptial anxieties at a dinner party in New York last week. "It was a small dinner party; he was a guest and people toasted him," said Mr. Greenfield, who did not attend the wedding. "He seemed genuinely moved, happy and a little nervous "just the way people should be."

CORRECTION-DATE: October 3, 1996, Thursday

CORRECTION:
An article on Saturday about the wedding of Mortimer B. Zuckerman referred incorrectly to a position held by a guest, Linda Janklow. She is the current chairwoman of Lincoln Center Theater, not the former chairwoman.

LOAD-DATE: September 28, 1996

February 28, 2003, Friday

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 1A

LENGTH: 623 words

HEADLINE: 'Forbes': Arafat worth $ 300m.

BYLINE: Melissa Radler

BODY:

NEW YORK - Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat made Forbes magazine's list of the world richest people in a new category reserved for kings, queens, and despots.

With a personal fortune of at least $ 300 million stashed away in Swiss banks, Arafat is featured in Forbes special annual issue on the world's top 500 billionaires.

Arafat placed No. 6 on a list of world leaders in the "kings, queens, and despots" category. Saudi Arabia's King Fahd topped the list at $ 20 billion, and Saddam Hussein was fourth with $ 2b. Forbes wrote that Arafat has "feasted on all sorts of funds flowing into the PA, including aid money, Israeli tax transfers, and revenue from a casino and Coca-Cola bottler. Much of the money appears to have gone to pay off others. New Finance Minister Salaam Fayad is cleaning up the PA's finances, cutting off much of Arafat's cash flow."

The Forbes figure is modest in comparison to other estimates of Arafat's riches. In a briefing delivered last August to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, OC Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Aharon (Farkash) Ze'evi reported his net worth at $ 1.3b. In 1990, the CIA reportedly estimated that Arafat and the PLO had between $ 8b. and $ 14b. worth of assets at their disposal. In 1995, the US General Accounting Office compiled a report on Arafat's finances, but it was kept secret due to "national security interests."

Kept off the official billionaires list because, according to the accompanying text, "they don't exactly represent success stories of entrepreneurial capitalism," Arafat, Saddam Hussein, and Fidel Castro, worth $ 110m., made it onto the list of rogue rich instead. The section features a two-page spread titled "Auditing Arafat," which surmises he "may be brought to heel by, of all things, honest financial accounting."

While dictators were amassing fortunes last year, Forbes found that regular billionaires were losing money. Over the past year, the number of billionaires dropped to 476 from 497, and the net worth of the new not-as-rich dropped $ 140b. to $ 1.4 trillion, equal to the GDP of England.

Microsoft chief Bill Gates took first place as the world's wealthiest man, with a declining worth of $ 40.7b., down from $ 52.8b. last year and $ 90b. in 1999. Warren Buffet, who lost $ 5b. over the past year, kept his No. 2 slot, with $ 30.5b.

"It was a sad year," said Forbes senior editor Peter Newcomb. The US lost 30 billionaires and $ 98b. in wealth; still, 222 billionaires, 47% of the world's, call the US home.

"The US is still a great place to make money, and I expect a turnaround," Newcomb said.

In the Middle East, spikes in oil prices resulted in increased wealth for Saudi royalty and Gulf emirates. Israel, however, which had three billionaires in the 2002 list, saw a dip in its billionaire status with the loss of Check Point's Gil Schwed, who was worth $ 1b. last year.

In addition, ranks were downgraded for Shari Arison Dorsman, who lost $ 900m. last year and dropped from No. 112 to 158, and Sammy and Yuli Ofer, shipping magnates worth $ 1.6b. and ranked at 256, down from $ 2b. and 208 a year ago.

"Clearly, the conflict has a debilitating impact on the creation of wealth," said executive editor Paul Maidment.

American Jews on the 2003 list include New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose $ 4.8b. net worth rose by 10% despite earning just $ 1 per year in public service; Mortimer Zuckerman, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, whose $ 1.1b. fortune remained unchanged, and movie producer Steven Spielberg and cosmetics heir and Jewish National Fund president Ronald Lauder, who tied for 177th with $ 2.2b. each.

LOAD-DATE: March 3, 2003

Business

View Related Topics

April 26, 1998, Sunday, Final Edition

NAME: MORTIMER B. ZUCKERMAN

SECTION: FINANCIAL; Pg. H01

LENGTH: 2824 words

HEADLINE: The REIT Stuff; Mort Zuckerman Again Revels in His Mastery of Market Timing

BYLINE: Maryann Haggerty, Washington Post Staff Writer

BODY:
For Mortimer B. Zuckerman, the master of real estate timing, this is an especially fun moment.

The business is back from its long depression, there are office buildings waiting to be built, and he's got billions of dollars to spend.

"We are all amazingly energized and having a great time," he exults. "There's so much happening."

Zuckerman is probably best known as a media mogul -- the hands-on owner of the New York Daily News, Fast Company and Atlantic Monthly magazines, and U.S. News & World Report, for which he writes a weekly opinion column. As befits the owner of a New York tabloid newspaper, he's also a fixture of gossip columns. Questions continually pop up about whether the Daily News takes local political stands that benefit Zuckerman's other holdings. And in such glossy venues as Vanity Fair and New York magazines, he's been criticized as self-absorbed and a meddler.

But while the media properties command a lot of Zuckerman's time, the base of his fortune -- and his greatest success -- has come from real estate development. He has a reputation for knowing when to get into the market, when to get out. He avoided the worst of the early-1990s crash, for example, and was one of the first big developers to get back into the current expanding market.

Now, investors are buying up shares of Zuckerman's empire.

Boston Properties Inc., the company he and his longtime partner, Edward Linde, founded in 1970, is a major office landlord in New York, Boston and Washington. Last year the company went public, following a trend that's reshaping the commercial real estate industry. The vehicle is the real estate investment trust, or REIT, through which real estate developers who once did their deals in private are selling chunks of their businesses to stockholders.

For the developers, going public translates into money -- money to buy buildings, money to build buildings.

"I remember how difficult it was to put together $ 500,000," said Zuckerman, recalling his start in the real estate business in Boston. "Well, we have raised $ 1.7 billion in equity in the last seven months. . . . That's a staggering financial base to work with. It's unprecedented, in my experience." Borrowing will leverage that money to billions more.

"The same philosophy we used to invest Mort and Ed's money, we now apply toward the investments of others," said Raymond Ritchey, executive vice president at Boston Properties, who has long run the company's Washington office. "We just have a whole lot more of it."

The First Offering

When Boston Properties went public in June 1997, the company raised $ 903 million -- at that time it was the largest public offering ever by a real estate investment trust. Zuckerman, the chairman, and Linde, president and CEO, kept shares then valued at $ 399 million. The company also paid them back tens of millions of dollars they had lent earlier and repaid $ 92 million of debt to others that carried their personal guarantees.

Their record was soon outstripped by a rival company, Equity Office Properties of Chicago, run by Sam Zell, perhaps the nation's best-known real estate investor. But in January of this year, Boston Properties was back, issuing $ 702.5 million in stock, the largest REIT secondary offering yet.

So far this year, REIT stocks as a class have lagged far behind the stock market as a whole. The price of Boston Properties stock has yet to go more than a little above the $ 35.12 price of the secondary offering; in recent days, the price has fallen below $ 34 per share, closing Friday at $ 33.06 1/4.

The shift of real estate company ownership from private to public hands, unprecedented in the industry, has taken place entirely within an improving real estate market. How shareholders and public companies will fare as the up-and-down business moves through its cycles is a hot topic within real estate circles. Will Wall Street provide developers with a discipline they have seldom mustered themselves? Or will stockholders be badly burned when the industry crashes again?

Zuckerman believes that well-run companies will reward public shareholders just as they have rewarded their private owners -- and he considers his company one of the well-run ones, because it has already survived several real estate cycles. "It's only when the tide goes out that you find out who's wearing a bathing suit," he said.

Currently, Boston Properties is among the public companies most aggressively pushing into developing new buildings rather than buying existing ones, a reflection of its history. The portfolio that Zuckerman and Linde have built, mostly top-of-the-line office buildings in and near Boston, New York and Washington, is widely regarded as one of the nation's choicest.

Here, the company's portfolio includes more than 30 buildings in the District, Maryland and Virginia. The company has succeeded by picking strong locations before other developers moved in -- the Southwest and West End neighborhoods of the District, for example, outside the traditional downtown and K Street corridors.

'Tiffany' of Real Estate

When the New York Times last year referred to Boston Properties as the Tiffany of real estate, Zuckerman started picking up the term, too -- jokingly, but proudly.

Still, the first offering drew skepticism from some analysts, who expressed doubt that Zuckerman would get his asking price of $ 24 to $ 26 a share. But the stock sold initially at $ 25 a share and has climbed since. At the stock's current value, Zuckerman and Linde's stake is worth $ 528 million. Of that, about $ 296 million is Zuckerman's, all earned from scratch since he entered the real estate business.

A pretty good record, he points out, for an immigrant. (He's Canadian-born.)

On the personal side, Zuckerman's life is perhaps more settled now than it has ever been. For years he was a visible man about town, dating a string of high-profile women -- most prominently feminist Gloria Steinem, who later ripped him in one of her books. But in 1996 he met and married Marla Prather, a curator at the National Gallery of Art in Washington; last year the couple had their first child, a daughter.

At 60, Zuckerman is trim and energetic, a round-the-clock worker who splits both his business and personal lives between New York and Washington and dictates his columns at all hours to a longtime assistant. One recent afternoon in Washington, in between meetings and phone calls, lunch was an apple at his desk in a corner office at the U.S. News building, one of a cluster of Boston Properties buildings in the District's West End. (U.S. News will soon vacate those offices for space in Georgetown; the space is being leased to an unrelated company.)

Although he's soft-spoken, almost diffident, in conversation, Zuckerman has a reputation for a volcanic temper, especially among the ex-editors that have clashed with him at his various publications. He'll poke fun at himself, but he is known as thin-skinned: Rare is the published profile of him that doesn't draw a lengthy letter-to-the-editor response from the aggrieved subject.

Zuckerman was born in Montreal, the son of a tobacco and candy salesman. His father, Abraham, suffered from cardiac problems through most of Mort's youth and died when his only son was 17.

The young Zuckerman came to the United States in 1961, already a graduate of McGill University's law school. He earned an MBA from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania and another law degree from Harvard, although he has never taken the bar exam or practiced law.

"What do lawyers do? They write papers and they shuffle papers. Their product gets lost in the ultimate product of their client," Zuckerman said.

After law school he entered the old-line Boston real estate firm Cabot, Cabot & Forbes. (His first year's salary was $ 8,750, he recalls.) During seven years there, he worked his way up to senior vice president and chief financial officer. He also became friends with co-worker Linde. The pair left and founded Boston Properties in 1970.

They started their new venture with what would become one of Zuckerman's trademarks: a lawsuit, this one against his old employer over a real estate project. Zuckerman won and got $ 4 million.

Zuckerman is a few years older than Linde and takes top billing in the company -- he has the bigger title and more stock. But he says Linde does more of the work. "He's a much more complete and talented real estate man than I am," Zuckerman said.

Linde is the inside man, Zuckerman says; he's the outside man. His high profile, he said, "has value" for a public company. "On the first road show," when he and Linde were pitching Boston Properties stock last year, "a number of leading institutional investors came in, not to talk about the offering but to talk about my editorials," he said. And they bought stock, which was the whole point.

And while he may leave the intricacies of the business to Linde, he still keeps track of what's going on. For instance, Ritchey, head of the Washington office, recalls when they were in negotiations for a group of suburban Washington properties. Zuckerman called him on a Sunday night with a question.

"Then he calls me at 10 a.m. Monday and wants to know what's new!" Ritchey said.

According to Boston Properties' public filings, Zuckerman has spent less than half his working time over the past 20 years on the real estate business. The rest of the time has gone to his media properties -- he started that business with his purchase of the Atlantic Monthly in 1980 -- and to his other graphics and direct-mail companies.

The media business has meant controversy for Zuckerman, who's known for taking an interest in the details of what his magazines and newspaper publish. He clashed with the former owners at Atlantic Monthly, a union at the Daily News and a string of editors at all his publications. Volatile turnover in top editorial posts led to him being dubbed the George Steinbrenner of publishing. Most recently, Tom Evans, the president and publisher of U.S. News, left the magazine for a post at an Internet service.

But that's not the case throughout his business empire, he points out, citing the long tenures of some of his associates. His partnership with Linde has lasted 32 years. Fred Drasner, his partner in the media operations, has also been with him for ages. And the top 17 officers of Boston Properties have an average of more than 16 years each with the company.

That's particularly notable in the real estate business, where the market swings of the past decade have devastated the management teams at many development firms.

Like its competitors, Boston Properties flourished in the development-happy 1980s. Unlike many of those competitors, the firm called a relatively early halt to the go-go years, retreating from speculative development in 1988 and thus avoiding being stuck when the music stopped in 1989 and 1990.

Instead, Boston Properties concentrated on what's called "fee development" -- that is, handling the details of development for someone else. Between 1989 and the end of 1997, the company completed eight third-party development projects, work that kept the management team together during years in which other companies disbanded.

That business decision bolstered Zuckerman's standing among investors, said Cydney Donnell, who watches real estate stocks for European Investors Inc. in New York. "He has a reputation of being long-term in his approach, solid in his approach," she said.

Of course, Zuckerman didn't make it through the early 1990s unscathed -- in real estate, nobody did. His net worth fell enough to knock him off Forbes magazine's list of the nation's richest people. In 1990, he made the list at $ 375 million. In 1991, with his estimated worth down to $ 265 million, he was off. Now, his fortune is likely back up to the old level, but the bottom of the list has climbed -- you had to be worth more than $ 460 million to make the Forbes 400 in 1997.

Boston Properties was left with one particularly big mess from the crash, a property known as the Coliseum on Columbus Circle in Manhattan. The land, regarded as one of the choicest sites in New York, is owned by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

In 1985, Boston Properties won a competition to develop the site. The firm would pay $ 455 million for the land and develop it into a huge office-hotel-condo-retail complex. The plan drew vociferous opposition from community activists, including such well-connected people as Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and Bill Moyers.

The deal stalled for years in court and in New York's political labyrinth; it finally fell apart in 1994, a victim as much of the dormant real estate market as anything else. The collapse was far from amicable, with Zuckerman and the transit authority blaming each other. The authority is still stalled in its effort to pick another developer.

But that deal, and the lean times that subverted it, are history for now. It's boom time for developers.

Said Zuckerman: "Those of us who, like Job, continued to believe, after seven long years ended up with twice as much cattle and twice as many olive trees and indeed twice as many children."

Boston Properties and the other newly public REITs have been on buying binges, ofttimes engaging in bidding wars for trophy properties. The REITs' desire for growth is the major reason prices of office buildings have climbed an estimated 20 percent over the past year or so. Just four REITs -- Boston Properties, Equity Office, Crescent Real Estate Equities Inc. and Vornado Realty Trust -- have spent about $ 12 billion on acquisitions in the past year.

Boston Properties' buys have included showcase properties in Richmond, Baltimore and New York. The company also purchased the nine-building suburban Washington portfolio of local developer Mulligan/Griffin. Its biggest announced acquisition, which has yet to close, is the $ 700 million purchase of the Prudential Center in Boston.

Zuckerman dismisses worries that he and his competitors are paying too much. He answers the question -- as he habitually does -- with a quotation: "Oscar Levant once said, 'People always talk to me about my drinking; they never talk to me about my thirst.' . . . People are always talking about prices going up, but rents are going up, interest rates are going down, and the inevitable result of that is real estate prices are going up."

But it's not buying that truly fascinates Zuckerman. It's building. Developing is riskier than acquisition, but when it works, profit is higher.

Just as Boston Properties was one of the first companies to halt speculative construction before the bust, it was one of the first to dive back in when it appeared that times were good again. The firm currently has properties under development outside Boston and in Northern Virginia, where it plans to complete three buildings in Reston by the end of 1999.

Moreover, Boston Properties is acquiring with an eye to future development. The Mulligan/Griffin portfolio included six tracts of land. The giant Pru Center has space for new construction. And last month, the company outbid about a dozen others for the right to buy the last two remaining development sites in the Times Square area of New York City for $ 330 million.

"Development -- that's the best part of the business. It is a great feeling; I've always loved it," Zuckerman said.

"Since I was a teenager I've loved it. I've described myself as an urban alcoholic. I just love city life and cities. To build buildings in cities is just a great feeling. I still go by buildings that I was involved with in Boston -- I literally sit outside and watch people walk in the building. They have no idea of the drama that went into building it."

Mortimer B. Zuckerman

Born: Montreal

Age: 60

Education: Undergraduate and law degrees, McGill University; MBA, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania; master of law, Harvard University

Business interests: Chairman, Boston Properties, which he founded with partner Edward Linde in 1970; chairman, Applied Graphics Technologies; board member, Snyder Communications; chairman and editor-in-chief, U.S. News & World Report; chairman, Atlantic Monthly; chairman and co-publisher, New York Daily News

Homes: Washington, New York City and East Hampton, N.Y.

Family: Married to Marla Prather, curator, National Gallery of Art; one daughter, born in July 1997 ("I'm ecstatic over it; I don't even have the grammar to explain it.")

Favorite building he developed: Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Office Building, Second and E streets NE, next to Union Station. Federally owned building developed on a fee basis; completed 1992. "I think it's a beautiful building ... so wonderfully responsive to the urban context."

GRAPHIC: Photo, susan biddle;ph,,boston properties inc.;map,,The Washington Post, Zuckerman's Boston Properties developed the Democracy Center complex in Bethesda, above, as well as the headquarters office building of the U.S. International Trade Commission at 500 E St. SW, at left.

LOAD-DATE: April 26, 1998

View Related Topics

June 30, 1998, Tuesday, Final Edition

SECTION: STYLE; Pg. C01

LENGTH: 1196 words

HEADLINE: James Fallows Fired After Stormy Tenure At U.S. News; Top Editor Attributes Action To Repeated Clashes With Owner Mort Zuckerman

BYLINE: Howard Kurtz, Washington Post Staff Writer

BODY:
James Fallows, the acerbic media critic and magazine writer who was elevated to editor of U.S. News & World Report, has been fired after 22 months.

Stephen Smith, a former editor at Newsweek, Time and Knight Ridder who now runs National Journal, has been tapped as Fallows's successor, according to a knowledgeable source.

In a meeting yesterday that prompted some tears among staffers, Fallows attributed his ouster to his disagreements with owner Mortimer Zuckerman. These included Zuckerman's cutting of the magazine's editorial budget and pushing for more rehashing of the previous week's news, Fallows said. And there were other clashes: Three staffers say Fallows resisted Zuckerman's attempt to have a piece on Hispanic culture assigned to celebrity socialite Bianca Jagger, whom Zuckerman once dated.

Harold Evans, the former Random House presi dent who is now Zuckerman's editorial director, insisted he made the decision to replace Fallows, although he said Zuckerman was "supportive."

But much of Fallows's staff blamed Zuckerman. "It is just sort of a pathology on Mort's part," said senior writer Timothy Noah. "He just couldn't stand Fallows making the magazine his own magazine. . . . The bottom line is that Mort has been sabotaging his own magazine, and it's been sickening to watch."

"The better the magazine got, the angrier Mort got," said Steven Waldman, the national affairs editor. "That's the psychology here I can't pretend to understand."

Zuckerman was incensed, staffers said, when Fallows abruptly announced his dismissal, which came after negotiations over a separation agreement broke down. Fallows spoke to Zuckerman afterward and then sent out an e-mail message saying Zuckerman wanted it known that his firing was Evans's decision.

Among the decisions forced on Fallows was a plan for U.S. News to run a 10-part serialization of Evans's forthcoming book on American history. "Jim's been struggling with his conscience over this for some time," a Fallows confidant said. Evans said Zuckerman acquired the serial rights when Evans was hired last fall but that the plans were not final.

Fallows, 48, declined to comment yesterday. In reading a 19-page speech to his staff, he said: "When an owner and an editor 'disagree' about a magazine's direction, the owner's view prevails. . . . I will always be proud of what we have done together."

After the shooting of fashion designer Gianni Versace, Fallows said, several newsmagazines gave the killing "15 pages or more, and Mort was highly critical that we had given it only a few." (Actually, U.S. News ran a one-page story.) But Fallows said the magazine avoids "celebrity news" and that "it was not worth rehashing last week's events to that degree." He said his philosophy "has been mischaracterized -- often by people who have been fired -- as an aversion to news in general."

Ironically, the ax fell after Fallows was all over television last week promoting what was probably the magazine's biggest scoop ever, a report on two hours of previously undisclosed Monica Lewinsky tapes.

Zuckerman, a developer who also owns the New York Daily News and the Atlantic magazine, did not respond to a telephone message yesterday. He went through four editors in five years after buying Washington-based U.S. News in 1984, and last year fired Daily News Editor Pete Hamill.

Evans said he was "not prepared to go into detailed criticisms of Jim, who has made a contribution to the magazine." He said only that "it's time for a change." Earlier this month, after months of review, "I made it clear to Jim that he should be prepared to relinquish his position."

Maintaining that the decision was his, not Zuckerman's, Evans said: "I have not been known simply to be a lapdog." He said it was his contractual responsibility to hire and fire editors: "Otherwise, what's the point in having me?"

U.S. News (circulation 2.2 million) has remained the No. 3 newsmagazine under Fallows, trailing Time (4.2 million) and Newsweek (3.2 million). It has the smallest staff, the fewest pages and the earliest deadlines. While advertising sales have been rising for two years, Noah and other staffers say Zuckerman has cut the budget for travel and part-time stringers and closed three of the five foreign bureaus, in London, Jerusalem and Beijing.

Fallows, a protege of Washington Monthly Editor Charlie Peters, is a former Jimmy Carter speechwriter who became Washington editor of the Atlantic and a National Public Radio commentator. Many in Washington's media establishment regard him as sanctimonious for his criticism, particularly in his book "Breaking the News," of journalists who sound off on television and rake in big speaking fees. And many were rooting for him to fail.

Fallows caused considerable turmoil even before moving in by firing two top editors and political writer Steven Roberts; others, including columnist Michael Barone and investigative reporter and editor Brian Duffy, left soon afterward. Now an exodus of Fallows loyalists is widely expected.

"People are really shaken," Waldman said. "Everyone's sort of assessing their options."

"I'm deeply disappointed because Jim had an enormous commitment to putting out an interesting and engaging magazine and he gave every drop of blood he had," said Ronald Brownstein, the political columnist lured from the Los Angeles Times. "If that's not good enough, it's hard to see what would be."

Reviews of the brief Fallows era were decidedly mixed. The magazine drew praise for some of its trend-setting reporting on science, religion and social policy, but was ridiculed for a cover story on how Julia Child changed American society. After U.S. News devoted one page to last summer's attempted coup against House Speaker Newt Gingrich, talk grew louder that Zuckerman felt Fallows was blowing off important stories.

"I thought it was a thoughtful magazine, but probably drifted a bit far from the news," said Time Managing Editor Walter Isaacson.

While many journalists criticized Fallows for focusing on "policy-wonkery," as one former reporter put it, some on his staff praised him for standing up to meddling by Zuckerman, who holds the title of editor in chief. "Everything I've seen of Mort's editorial instincts has suggested to me that while he's a brilliant real estate tycoon, he does not have very good news sense and it's dictated by cocktail party chatter," Noah said.

Rumors about Fallows's impending unemployment had reached the point that the magazine was having trouble recruiting staff, prompting Fallows's announcement yesterday. Waldman said it was hard "to ask people to break their back and work their hearts out and have the owner either taking shots at you in the press or being unwilling to correct criticisms made of us."

Fallows, who had never been a news manager, has told friends he would probably return to some combination of magazine work, book writing and radio commentary. The selection of Smith, 49, who has transformed National Journal by hiring such high-profile columnists as Michael Kelly and Stuart Taylor Jr., will probably be announced this week.

GRAPHIC: Photo, bill o'leary, James Fallows's tenure as editor of U.S. News lasted 22 months.

LOAD-DATE: June 30, 1998

September 9, 1999, Thursday, Final Edition

NAME: DANIEL M. SNYDER

SECTION: SPORTS; Pg. G07; FOOTBALL '99: THE PROS

LENGTH: 1217 words

HEADLINE: New Builders; As Team Rings In New Season, Snyder Tries to Ring Up Sales

BYLINE: Liz Clarke, Washington Post Staff Writer

BODY:
Daniel M. Snyder's $ 800 million purchase of the Washington Redskins and 80,116-seat Redskins Stadium is testament to his passion for the team. But the record transaction, the most ever paid for a U.S. sports team, also saddles Snyder with a tremendous financial burden that will demand almost immediate success to simply break even, much less turn a profit.

For now, Snyder and his partners, real estate and publishing magnate Mortimer Zuckerman and publisher Fred Drasner, hold the distinction of having by far the heaviest debt burden in the NFL -- estimated at roughly $ 50 million a year. Most NFL teams turn a profit of less than $ 20 million a year.

If Snyder is to meet his debt payments and ultimately transform the Redskins into a high-performing business, he must not only lead the building of the team that takes the field, he also must build the team that works on marketing, sales, sponsorship, advertising and local radio and television deals.

Although NFL teams compete fiercely on the field, they share equally in much of the revenue their competition creates. Each team gets an equal share of the national TV rights fees (the current eight-year deal is worth $ 17.6 billion). Teams also equally divide income from NFL Properties and NFL Films, regardless how well their particular T-shirts, jerseys, caps or videos sell.

Most ticket revenue from each game is shared, too, with the home team taking 66 percent.

To generate additional revenue -- over and above that which must be shared with other teams -- NFL owners have few places to turn: the stadium's club seats and luxury suites, which are exempt from revenue-sharing; local TV and radio rights fees; and local sponsorships and advertising.

"Virtually all of it has to come from his stadium," said Mark S. Ganis, founder of SportsCorp. Ltd., a Chicago-based consulting firm that specializes in sports marketing. Snyder "has got to sell local sponsorships that are significantly greater than what has been there before. He needs to sell the naming rights, complete the sale of club seats and potentially expand the suites. National revenues [primarily from the NFL's TV contracts] will increase as they are scheduled to, but most of that gets eaten up by player salaries. So you've got to look to your local revenue."

That is precisely where Snyder, 34, who built his fortune in marketing and communications, has begun making his mark. Much as Cowboys owner Jerry Jones did in Dallas decades ago, Snyder must find new ways of leveraging Washingtonians' love for the Redskins and corporations' desire to be associated with the team.

"He's in the right market," Ganis said. "If it can be done anywhere, I think, New York, Chicago, Dallas and D.C. are the markets where that kind of local revenue can be generated. It has to do with demographics, the wealth of the population, the need for entertainment-type activity and the passion for the team."

Snyder started drawing up a business plan for the Redskins even before his $ 800 million purchase closed. As he did his due-diligence on the team and stadium, he concluded marketing efforts to date were moribund. He looked at empty spaces in the stadium and saw opportunities for advertising. He looked at unsold club seats and imagined how amenities such as wait service and catered meals would enhance their appeal.

He tapped longtime associate Steve Baldacci, then a senior vice president of Snyder Communications, to develop a strategy for injecting new life into the Redskins' marketing operation even before top executives could be hired. Baldacci now is a leading candidate to become the next team president. By the time the sale closed, Snyder knew essentially where he wanted to go and who he wanted to bring aboard to take him there.

He began by firing roughly two dozen front-office employees, including the stadium manager, and hiring David Cope, who had built an impressive resume with the Baltimore Ravens, to be the Redskins' executive vice president.

Cope, 35, brought a wealth of experience and contacts in Washington-area sports marketing. Before joining the Ravens, he negotiated the MCI Center naming-rights deal as general sales manager for Abe Pollin's Washington Sports & Entertain-ment. He began his career with the Baltimore Orioles and was part of the team that opened Oriole Park at Camden Yards and organized baseball's first All-Star Week in 1993.

Cope was so valuable to the Ravens, his hiring by the Redskins prompted Ravens owner Art Modell to file a grievance with the NFL office.

Modell declined to offer an opinion for this article on how Snyder has done so far as an NFL owner. "It's new for him," said Modell, who bought the former Cleveland Browns for $ 4 million in 1961. "He'll find it's not a bed of roses."

But within two months of Cope's arrival, the Redskins' annual advertising revenue soared, according to Snyder, from roughly $ 5 million to $ 15 million. Snyder is tight-lipped about individual deals, but a cursory scan of stadium signs confirms several new "official" Redskins marketing partners: Cadillac, the new Amtrak high-speed train known as "acela," Bacardi rum, adidas and Bell Atlantic Mobile. The team also struck a deal with US Airways, now its official airlines.

To complete the sale of the stadium's roughly 2,000 remaining club seats, Snyder hired Dan Cohen, who had worked with the Washington Wizards, as vice president of sales. After staging two open houses that gave fans a chance to pick their seats and tour club-level amenities, team officials say fewer than 300 club seats remain. Snyder is considering installing more club seats this fall.

Like many NFL owners, Snyder also brought the production of the Redskins' local TV broadcasts, such as those for preseason games, and radio broadcasts in-house. That way, he can sell the shows' advertising and keep the proceeds. So he brought in Mark Burdett, formerly an executive at WJLA-TV-7, to handle broadcasting issues. Snyder also is considering creating a local Redskins' TV show, shopping its potential air time among local stations.

Snyder also has sought to make the former Jack Kent Cooke Stadium, which he recently described as "a fixer-upper," more hospitable.

Already carrying more than $ 600 million in debt, he invested several million dollars more to improve the game-day experience for fans. He got rid of railings that obstructed many views in the upper deck, upgraded the sound system, added concession stands and will introduce wait service for club-seat patrons at Sunday's season opener.

He changed the venue's name to Redskins Stadium and is seeking a buyer for its naming rights, which is expected to generate more than $ 100 million over the next 20 years.

A Redskins fan since childhood, Snyder was stunned to find that the team had no official fan club. So he will introduce one, in conjunction with a snappy upgrade of the Redskins' Web site, with an eye toward building relationships with future season-ticket holders.

But the surest formula for an NFL team's marketing success, Ganis added, is winning on the field.

"You can abuse fans' passion if you don't win," Ganis said. "So that's where the added pressure of fielding a championship-caliber franchise comes in."

LOAD-DATE: September 09, 1999

January 22, 2003, Wednesday ,THIRD EDITION

SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. C2

LENGTH: 114 words

HEADLINE: EARNINGS ROUNDUP;
BOSTON PROPERTIES

BODY:
BOSTON PROPERTIES INC.'S FOURTH-QUARTER EARNINGS MORE THAN QUADRUPLED, BOOSTED BY THE THIRD-LARGEST OFFICE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST'S $1.06 BILLION ACQUISITION OF CITIGROUP INC.' S MANHATTAN HEADQUARTERS.

Income from continuing operations increased to $254 million, or $2.70 a share, from $56.2 million, or 60 cents, a year earlier, Boston Properties said in a press release. Revenue rose to $345.9 million in the period ended Dec. 31 from $270 million.

The Boston REIT, led by real estate and publishing executive Mortimer Zuckerman, completed the largest purchase of a single building in 2002 when it bought Citigroup's tower at 399 Park Ave.

LOAD-DATE: January 23, 2003

Palestine

August 6, 2001, Monday SPORTS FINAL EDITION

SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. 27

LENGTH: 1384 words

HEADLINE: ARAFAT IS THE OBSTACLE TO PEACE IN MIDEAST

BYLINE: BY MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN

BODY:
How much longer will the violence persist in the Middle East? As long as lies are believed and responsibility is evaded.

The present sorry chapter in which Palestinian suicide bombers indiscriminately slaughter Israelis and Israel retaliates began in one place and one place only. It began with Yasser Arafat's betrayal at Camp David. Virtually every fair-minded observer noticed that Arafat's rejection won lousy reviews around the world. The result? Arafat opened a new campaign of violence, as if it were the Palestinians who had been betrayed.

Well, in a way they were - by Arafat. He chose to walk away from the best settlement the Palestinians could ever hope to get because he refuses to relinquish his long-term aim of eliminating Israel. Now Arafat seeks to rewrite history through a propaganda campaign being waged by his underlings. Arafat isn't to blame, these courtiers say. It was former President Bill Clinton and former Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

It is all such a manifest lie, contrived yet again to confuse public opinion and justify Arafat's cynical intifadeh. It is astonishing that it gets any credence at all. Unfortunately, it does. The New York Times has published a long article by its outgoing Jerusalem correspondent, Deborah Sontag, which basically implies that everyone was to blame for the negotiation failures and that therefore no one really, and especially the Palestinians, can be held accountable.

This is an unlovely example of False Objectivity Syndrome. The way it works is this: Truth lies somewhere in the muddled middle, so everything is on the one hand, on the other hand, and everyone, happily, is absolved of responsibility. This is folly, and it can only prolong the agony.

Fortunately, two leading Times columnists, William Safire and Tom Friedman, have a very different view. Safire rightly asserts that Arafat and only Arafat launched the violence. And Friedman wrote earlier this year: "There was an Israeli leader for a fair historic compromise, but no Palestinian equivalent." The Palestinians "are leaderless today," says Friedman. "Deep down," he says, world leaders "know it and admit it to each other in private." Now that's objectivity.

And those with a closer view of the peace process agree. Clinton has concluded that Arafat "can only act as a victim." Ambassador Dennis Ross, the senior State Department official on the Mideast, suggests that Arafat avoids making hard decisions "even when by doing so he could achieve all but total victory. . . . Progress toward peace was never really made."

Barak, who went to historic lengths to meet Palestinian demands, recognizes now that there will never be a peace deal with Arafat: "He has cheated us all." Sad, but true. With the Oslo accords of 1993, Arafat promised to accomplish his goals by negotiation, not violence. The violence after Camp David, says Barak, "was the moment of truth." It was an end to what Arafat has done for years; namely, talk glibly in English about his readiness to make peace, then ominously in Arabic about erasing Israel from the map.

The fact is that American and Israeli leaders so badly wanted the peace process to work that they refused to see Arafat was deceiving them. They never held him accountable for his serial violations of Oslo, and the media went along with the soft soap. They cast the Palestinians as the underdogs and victims, accepting at face value Arafat's statements of moderation without pointing out that, behind the mask, Palestinians were issuing exhortations of jihad, urging their Arab brethren to eliminate Israel as an independent state.

In The Times, Sontag makes haste to point out tactical mistakes by the Americans and the Israelis. No doubt there were such mistakes, by both parties. But that is not the point. It is akin to a historian arguing that World War II could have been avoided if only someone had made one more concession to Hitler or dealt with him more soothingly on a personal basis.

Sontag's revisionist history is extraordinary. At Camp David, she says, the Israelis offered "a proposal that the Palestinians did not believe would leave them with a viable state." Not so. The fact is that proposals offered more than 90% of the West Bank to the Palestinians, on a contiguous basis.

But there's more. During the talks at the Egyptian resort of Taba, Sontag writes, "Mr. Arafat never turned down 97% of the West Bank." This view is flatly repudiated by the Americans. Arafat effectively turned down the Clinton proposals, observers say, by attaching so many conditions that were known by all the parties to be unacceptable. Incredibly, this rejection came in the face of the support for the Clinton proposal by the Saudis, Egyptians, Moroccans and Jordanians.

What's more, it was accompanied by repeated promises from Arafat to various intermediaries in the Arab world that he would sign off on the proposals. Yet another hollow promise. And instead of committing to the proposals, Arafat resorted to violence on a scale that made it impossible for the Israelis to continue to negotiate or push for public support for the far-reaching proposals at home.

Arafat had a historic opportunity. He knew it. He called Clinton days before he left office and called him a great man. Clinton's response was: "I am not. I am a colossal failure, and you made me one."

At the end of his presidency, Clinton had finally come to a conclusion: Arafat was a liar and a completely unreliable partner in the peace process. On the day he left the White House, Clinton personally conveyed this message to a leading member of the incoming Republican administration, Secretary of State Powell.

That is why the actions of Arafat at Camp David and afterward, when he launched his terrorist war, have proved to most Israelis, and many Americans, too, that Arafat is unable or unwilling to make peace with Israel. He is now, in fact, the single greatest obstacle to a peace agreement with the Palestinians.

So now what? What should be the purpose of American diplomacy today? First of all, it should be to end the violence. That should happen before negotiations of any kind resume. To open talks on substantive issues now would simply invite a repetition of the post-Camp David scenario.

Shouldn't the Israelis, too, stop the violence? Of course. But let us distinguish between the arsonist and the firefighter. The Israelis will be glad to stop their punitive raids when the Palestinians stop the insane provocation of murdering Israeli citizens and inciting hatred every day.

It would be the height of hypocrisy if pressure were put on the Israelis to preclude them from going after the terrorists before, rather than after, their terrorist acts. Preemptive action, based on intelligence, is the only way to minimize the dangers terrorism poses to a civil society. Imagine how we Americans would react if we had to endure the equivalent of thousands of people being murdered by terrorism. No American leader could survive if he failed to take preemptive action against terrorist groups.

It would be a huge mistake if the Bush administration shifted its policy in any way from supporting the Israeli government's insistence on a total halt to the violence as a precondition to commencing negotiations. As long as the Palestinians do not genuinely embrace diplomacy as the sole means of achieving their goals, there should be no negotiations.

Indeed, if Arafat succeeds and his war of terror is rewarded either by new talks or the employment of observers or monitors, it will be even more difficult to restrain him from serving up more of the same bloody cocktail.

What the international community must do is impress on Arafat that this charade of talking peace and fomenting violence is a disgusting sham. Just think about it. Sharon offered to start the talks if there were just seven days of peace; Arafat still hasn't taken up the offer. In his meeting with Arafat, Powell reiterated the need for this one week of a cessation of hostilities. Just seven days of peace!

Even if Arafat were capable of such statesmanship, alas, there will be no incentive for him or any of the Palestinians to act differently when their evasions of responsibility are repaid in such cheap, easy currency.

GRAPHIC: ILLUSTRATION

LOAD-DATE: August 6, 2001

July 21, 2000, Friday SPORTS FINAL EDITION

SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. 51

LENGTH: 620 words

HEADLINE: LAST CHANCE AT CAMP DAVID

BYLINE: BY MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN

BODY:
Can there be a new peace between old enemies, or will new enemies regress to an old state of war?

The question is still open because the Camp David summit, after nearly collapsing, goes on. It remains a last-ditch effort, because if Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat and President Clinton fail, the Middle East will again be a flash point for terrorism and war.

Clinton is near the end of his term. Barak has put his entire political career at risk on the concessions he has made, and Arafat could lose power to extremists because he has never prepared the wider Arab world for the compromises necessary for peace.

Hanging over the talks is the Palestinian threat to declare an independent state Sept. 13, which would kill the Oslo accords and provoke the Israelis to annex parts of the West Bank, where its citizens reside. Violent protests against the Israelis undoubtedly would occur, provoking more violence. That is why Clinton worked so hard Wednesday night to keep the summit going - and why it is so important that he succeeded.

Israelis and Palestinians are losing confidence in each other's intentions. Because of Arafat's failures to disarm the terrorists and the vitriolic anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic rhetoric of his supporters, many Israelis believe the Palestinians simply want to get as much territory as possible without a final resolution of the conflict so they can continue their assaults on the very existence of the Jewish state.

Israelis fear ending up with an enemy not just at their gates, but at their living room doors, an armed Palestinian police force adjacent to Israel's most vulnerable sectors.

Barak understands that the Israeli concessions are bound to be greater because Israel is the stronger partner. The concessions he proposed even before Camp David are dramatic - on territory, sovereignty over the mosques and holy places in Jerusalem, ultimate control over the Jordan Valley, elimination of dozens of Israeli settlements and expanded Palestinian authority in East Jerusalem.

Barak believes that peace with Israel's neighbors is a prerequisite for a stable and secure region.

Palestinians, on the other hand, do not believe the Israelis want to give them the land and legitimacy they believe they are entitled to.

The Palestinians have much to gain from renouncing all claims against Israel. They would gain an enhanced country with territorial contiguity, minimum Israeli settlement enclaves, control of their country's resources, common borders with Arab countries and control of passage into these countries, an independent state recognized by Israel and the world, Muslim flags over holy places in Jerusalem, guaranteed employment of thousands within Israel, billions for the resettlement of Arab refugees.

If the Palestinians balk, they stand to lose much when the world assesses the rejection of an extremely generous offer by the Israelis.

To get an agreement may require a new presidential effort - a stick as well as the carrots. Clinton well understands that Arafat cannot accept an Israeli offer, no matter how generous, given the maximalist demands of the many extremists and the rejectionist Arab street. But Clinton also knows that Arafat might well accept a proposal if it is presented by the U.S.

America must tell Arafat that he must agree to a hard compromise - that the U.S. will never recognize a unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence, that such an act would trigger the termination of U.S. aid and that in this context the American public would sympathize with an Israeli decision to annex limited areas. Arafat will not soften unless the U.S. toughens.Arafat needs some tough talk

LOAD-DATE: July 21, 2000

June 6, 2000, Tuesday SPORTS FINAL EDITION

SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. 39

LENGTH: 752 words

HEADLINE: THE MENACE OF ARAB HATE

BYLINE: BY MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN

BODY:
HOPE IN THE Middle East peace process was a good breakfast but is today a poor supper.

The hope in the Oslo agreements was that a new generation of Arabs, seeing dramatic progress, would deal with the Israelis as neighbors instead of throwing rocks.

Seven years later, Israel has transferred to Palestinian control virtually all of Gaza and half the West Bank. Some 99% of the Palestinians live under Yasser Arafat's authority. Yet the Arabs are raising a new generation of haters whose hostility is intensified by a fanatic Islamism that has become the staple of official propaganda and popular culture. If anything, the animus toward Israel has grown deeper.

The hope was that a new, armed Arab police force would maintain order. Instead, they aim their rifles at Israeli soldiers.

The hope was that Israel's right to exist, recognized at Oslo, would be enduring. Instead, the Palestinians chose no less than the anniversary date of the founding of the State of Israel for yet another riot. Imagine what would happen if the Israelis, who lost 1% of their brethren during the 1948 war of independence (the equivalent of 2 million dead in America) celebrated their day of remembrance by beating up Arabs.

The hope was that the peace process, with the prospect of regaining still more land, would constrain terrorism. But it continues to be tolerated and even encouraged by Arafat. The hope was that the Oslo accords would engender an atmosphere of trust and compromise. Instead, the Arabs have merely deferred, but never reduced, their demands.

The Oslo agreements now have an air of falsity and deceit. How else to explain the unending litany of Arab and Palestinian hate, propagated in official newspapers and schools and from every public platform. At the end of the millennium they labeled Jews "the disease of the century." They refer to them as "the seed of Satan." Pages could be filled with expressions of their demonization of Jews and Israel.

More recently, the Arabs have indulged in Holocaust denial, claiming that the mass murder of the Jews was a myth. This, very simply, is an attack on the moral foundation of Israel.

These rantings intensify Arab anti-Semitism in the minds of the next generation and give fresh impetus to the next wave of terrorists who seek to destroy Israel.

A recent poll, with 1,600 respondents, by an Arab political scientist found that Arabs, by a ratio of more than 4 to 1, denied the Holocaust, rejected the idea of doing business with the Israelis, even after a total peace, rejected learning about Israel and supported the attacks by Islamic groups against Israel.

No wonder the Israelis fear that words of incitement are sure to be followed by acts of belligerence.

The Clinton administration responds to the Arabs' incendiary rhetoric and treaty violations with humiliating silence. Instead of condemning the violence and the threat of more violence, the Clinton administration uses Arab intransigence to put additional pressure on the Israelis to make even more concessions.

There is not a single senior adviser to the President who argues against the pro-Arafat impulses in the administration. Ironically, the administration welcomes to the White House and the State Department the very Arab Muslim organizations in America that support the most extreme positions against Israel.

Even when Israel was negotiating in good faith with Syria and when the Palestinian police turned their guns against the Israelis, the administration pressured Israel to appease Arafat instead of providing the political and moral support that Israel needs and deserves.

IF THERE IS TO BE a new peace agreement between the Arabs and the Jews, it must provide closure, not a cheap excuse for another round of maximum demands. It must be binding. The Palestinians must reject the notion that they can undo concessions and compromises once the balance of power changes.

The issues of Jerusalem and the Palestinian refugees cannot remain unresolved. Were all the territorial issues to be resolved except for Jerusalem, Jerusalem itself would become the focal point for a future conflict - and a Jerusalem-centered conflict will become a religious war between the Jews and the Muslims.

The Israelis must insist on such a full agreement. They must be prepared to stand up to Arafat of necessity - and to the Clinton administration, if necessary.

The Israelis will have to live with the consequences of an agreement, long after the Clinton team has left the White House.

LOAD-DATE: June 6, 2000

November 03, 1999, Wednesday

SECTION: Editorial; Pg. 43

LENGTH: 601 words

HEADLINE: ISRAELIS ARE WARY OF PEACE PROCESS FOR GOOD REASONS

BYLINE: BY MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN

BODY:
DESPITE President Clinton's efforts to pump new life into the process, real peace in the Mideast remains a mirage.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak has been following the path of his mentor, the late Yitzhak Rabin, whose assassination four years ago was commemorated in Oslo yesterday. Barak has turned over territory to the Palestinians, freed hundreds of prisoners and opened a safe-passage corridor between the Palestinian-controlled Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

What has Israel got for his efforts? Insults. From Yasser Arafat and those close to him, there continues a cascade of shameless anti-Jewish poison incompatible with a commitment to ending the conflict once and for all. Hatred is heard daily at every possible level of official communication, including schools, television, radio and the print media. Their maps of Palestine include the entire State of Israel. Children are encouraged to speak of the honor of killing Jews for Islam.

It is of a piece with the continued espousal of violence by Arafat and his senior aides. He gives the Palestine Liberation Organization's highest award to a terrorist convicted of murdering an Israeli policeman. He recruits into his security forces hundreds of former terrorist prisoners released by Israel. Is it any wonder the Arab street feels that the peace treaties are but a temporary truce rather than an end to hostilities?

Most of the Arabs refuse to consider themselves bound by the agreements. They feel they were made under the pressures of the Israeli superiority of power and the collapse of their support from Russia and Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein.

A recent poll of some 1,600 people in the Arab world is stunning. Consider:

54% believe Israel eventually will disappear as a sovereign state.

More than 75% don't believe Barak wants peace.

57% don't believe the Wye pact will endure.

81% would not continue to support peace if the balance of power tipped in favor of the Arabs.

58% would support the use of force against Israel if the Arab military situation permitted it.

80% believe the conflict must go on. If it comes to conflict, two-thirds believe the Arabs should destroy the State of Israel.

82% reject empathizing with the Jews, especially the victims of the Holocaust; 53% believe the Holocaust never occurred.

87% support the militant activities of Islamic Arabs against the State of Israel.

Real peace is made between people, not just governments. Assume that Arafat genuinely wants peace. Then why isn't he countering all this in every way he can instead of encouraging it? He is allowing an atmosphere to harden that makes the compromises needed for a real peace impossible.

And what does the world, and America, do to counter this hatred? Nothing. Arab threats of violence and the depiction of Jews and Zionists as enemies of Arabs and Islam are met with silence.

The Wye agreement established an anti-incitement committee to end this campaign of vilification. But this panel has failed miserably. It has even failed to agree on a definition of incitement.

Israelis are doing no more than prudence dictates in insisting they can't rely on peaceful professions by Palestinians but must have the secure, recognized borders called for in United Nations resolutions to protect against such hostility.

They know what real peace is. Real peace is the way leaders address their nations, teachers teach students, religious leaders inspire followers. Real peace means an end to threats of violence, an end to disdain and defamation. Real peace is worth taking risks for; suicide is not.

LOAD-DATE: November 03, 1999

July 16, 1999, Friday

SECTION: Editorial; Pg. 47

LENGTH: 641 words

HEADLINE: KEY TO PEACE: TRUST BARAK

BYLINE: BY MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN

BODY:
Two Arab traders who understood no Hebrew and two Israeli businessmen were bargaining in rough Arabic. On the fourth day, one of the Israelis lapsed into Hebrew to tell a joke to his partner.

One of the Arabs laughed. The other turned to him in puzzlement. "Why are you laughing? You don't understand a word," he said. His associate agreed, "You're right but I trust these people!"

Trust is the coin of the realm in the Mideast. The new Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, inspires it just as did the late Yitzhak Rabin so much so that even Hafez Assad, the ever-suspicious leader of Syria, publicly describes Barak as a "strong and honest man." Without trust in Barak who is in the U.S. now there can be little hope for success in the final-status negotiations to set up a Palestinian state and define its size and borders.

The Israelis will have to trust him when he yields certain land. The Arabs will have to trust him when he rejects other claims to land. And America will have to trust him when we can't quite understand why he insists on holding on to a few miles of uninhabitable desert.

Barak knows in his bones what is crucial for Israel and what is negotiable. Like Rabin, he is a former chief of the Israeli defense forces. He has gone to bed worried that he might be wakened with the news that an enemy thrust, gaining only a few kilometers, has deprived him of the ability to mobilize and equip his reserves, the backbone of Israel's defense.

Americans have difficulty understanding how little there is to Israel. A marathon runner can get from one pre-1967 Israeli border to another and back again and still not have finished the course. Israel has to have the early-warning intelligence stations on the heights east and west to know what the enemy is doing, and the air power to abort an attack on day one. It cannot wait for rescue from outside.

Israel, in short, has to deter, rather than fight, a conventional extended war. It cannot survive by returning to the indefensible pre-'67 borders. All risks and dangers cannot be eliminated, but the final settlement will have to provide a margin for the unforeseen.

The Israelis, under Barak, are ready to negotiate. Some 80% of them will support a final deal, even one that includes a Palestinian state, provided that they are not asked to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, divide Jerusalem or accept the right of return to Israel for Palestinian refugees.

What should be America's role? We should see that the talks are properly launched on both the Palestinian and Syrian tracks but not try to micromanage them. We should encourage private bilateral channels between Arabs and Israelis to deal with crises. We should be prepared to offer security guarantees and economic aid.

But, most of all, we must stop being partial. The Clinton administration, which began its tenure as perhaps the most pro-Israeli administration ever, is perceived by many Israelis as the most pro-Palestinian. It has tolerated Yasser Arafat's failures to contain terrorism and his inflammatory rhetoric against Israel and at the same time pressured Israel to move with reckless speed on territorial concessions.

This is not merely unfair. It is counterproductive. It has given Arab hard-liners no reason to compromise, but, on the contrary, good reason to escalate their demands. And it discourages Israelis from taking one final leap of faith.

The election of Barak puts pressure on the Palestinians to negotiate in earnest. They no longer have Benjamin Netanyahu to blame for failure. But long-sought peace will come only if both sides understand each other's legitimate needs.

America has the opportunity to make this happen. We can restore the balance between Israel and its neighbors and foster the trust that Barak brings, like a gift, to the negotiating table.

LOAD-DATE: July 16, 1999

September 13, 2001, Thursday

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 4

LENGTH: 717 words

HEADLINE: Jewish leaders spotlight Palestinians' support of attacks against America

BYLINE: Melissa Radler; Miriam Shaviv Adds

BODY:

NEW YORK - Lashing out at Palestinians who celebrated Tuesday's carnage and skyrocketing death toll in New York, American Jewish Congress president Jack Rosen urged the international community to "reign in terror and demand justice for these vicious attacks." "I don't think Palestinians celebrating the death of thousands of Americans should go unchallenged," said Rosen, after images of Palestinians on the streets of Nablus and Jerusalem rejoicing and handing out candy after the attacks were broadcast around the world.

The celebrations were quickly followed by Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat's official condemnation of the attack.

As recently as Tuesday, however, Palestinian Media Watch reported that suicide bombers were being lauded in a variety of PA-controlled newspapers. In its September 11 edition, the Gaza daily Al-Hayat al-Jadida called suicide bombers "the salt of the earth, the engines of history... They are the most honorable (people) among us." The statement was documented by Palestinian Media Watch in a special report released yesterday. "I think we need to go beyond identifying terrorists and the usual list of rogue states and get to the root of the problem. Arafat has got to be put in a position of arresting terrorists. There need to be consequences to their actions," said Rosen.

Rosen also called on Arab countries considered moderate by the US, including Jordan and Egypt, to stand firm against terror, and he called on United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan to take action against nations sheltering terrorists.

"Those states that harbor (terrorists) and finance them, leaders who promote or permit terrorists to exist, those states need to stop funding them. I think it's time for our friends around the world to demand that this kind of activity end or we're going to stop doing business and take action," said Rosen.

At the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Rabbi Marvin Hier also urged Americans to take notice of those celebrating Tuesday's attack. "Make no mistake about it, those people who find joy amidst our suffering are the cheerleaders who keep international terrorism alive," Hier said in a release.

Contacted Tuesday afternoon in Paris, the chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Organizations, Mortimer Zuckerman, expressed shock at film he saw of Palestinian children dancing in the streets after hearing of the horrible attacks.

"It brings home again that this is not an Arab-Israeli conflict. It is a conflict that has been widened to include Western civilization and culture," said Zuckerman.

Miriam Shaviv adds:

The Associated Press yesterday refused to comment on reports that it had refrained from broadcasting film of Palestinians celebrating the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on Tuesday following pressure from the PA.

"I have nothing to say about this matter at this time," said AP Israel bureau chief Dan Perry.

A foreign correspondent, who refused to be identified, however, told The Jerusalem Post that PA cabinet secretary Abdel Ahmed Rahman had threatened the AP producers that if they broadcast their pictures, "they would not be able to guarantee their safety." Rahman was not available for comment.

The film showed Palestinian policemen celebrating and shooting into the air, in addition to civilians dancing, senior Israeli sources said.

The film was reportedly shot in the West Bank town of Nablus, where more than 3,000 demonstrators took to the streets, and in the Balata refugee camp.

Pictures broadcast by other foreign media outlets of Palestinians celebrating the terror attacks were mostly from east Jerusalem. No foreign crew captured on film other parades of celebration reported to have taken place in Bethlehem, Tulkarm, or the Gaza Strip.

The PA made threats to stop foreign press from broadcasting scenes it felt reflect poorly on the Palestinians before, when Italian TV correspondent Riccardo Cristiano captured on film the lynching of two reserve soldiers by a mob of Palestinian rioters in Ramallah in October 2000. Riccardo lost both his GPO press card and his Jerusalem posting after sending a letter to the Al-Hayat al-Jadida in which he denied that the film had been shot by his own station.

LOAD-DATE: September 13, 2001

Copyright 2003 Financial Times Information
All rights reserved
Global News Wire - Europe Intelligence Wire
Copyright 2003 Sunday Business Post
Sunday Business Post

June 1, 2003

LENGTH: 839 words

HEADLINE: THIS ROADMAP WILL QUICKLY LEAD NOWHERE

BYLINE: Alex Cockburn

BODY:

Don't waste your time fretting over the fortunes of the "roadmap" to peace in the Middle East. It's all a fraud, following the contours of all the other frauds down the years, back to such museum pieces as the Rogers Plan conceived in Nixon's time.

The recipe is unvarying. The Palestinians are required to pledge that they will instantly abandon all vestige of resistance to Israel's onslaughts on their persons, children, houses, land, crops, water, trees, livestock, roads, schools, universities, graveyards and public buildings. In return, Israel agrees that a few years down the road the government of Israel will begin to ponder the outlines of a dim possibility of formal ratification of a Palestinian statelet of whatever tiny sliver of territory they haven't already appropriated.

Amid choruses of approbation for its courage from Israel's vast lobby of politicians and opinion makers in the US, Israel gouges a couple of extra billion out of Uncle Sam and gets on with the day to day business of making life hell for Palestinians.

Any time Israel wants to suspend whatever "peace" charade is in progress, it acts with more than its habitual savagery, elicits a terror bomb or two, and then says the Palestinians have not abandoned terror and can't be dealt with.

Are we seriously to believe that Ariel Sharon wants to surrender a square metre of land now inhabited by Jewish settlers? We're talking about a man whose entire life has been spent trying drive Palestinians out of what he sees as divinely ordained Greater Israel.

And are we likewise to believe Israel's lobbying groups here in the US, primarily AIPAC, have suddenly had a change of heart and would now welcome a vigorous little Palestinian state? Of course they don't.

If it can avoid it, AIPAC has no burning desire to go head to head with Bush on his roadmap, so it has turned down the volume on its rhetoric, while simultaneously urging its creatures in Congress to insist that the roadmap be set in the context of George Bush's June 24 speech of last year, now elevated to the dignity of a "statement of principles".

This same June 24 speech sounded at the time as though it had been written by Sharon, and probably was. It hedged Palestinian aspirations with so many restrictions and caveats that it ended up as a binding guarantee by the US government (as if an other one was needed) that at no time in the foreseeable future would the Palestinian national flag be permitted to fly over any real estate more substantial than a few football fields of rubble, denied water and surrounded by freeways restricted to Israeli settlers and the IDF.

An "aid package" to a putative Palestinian entity, put up by Lantos and a couple of other congressmen who should be getting their pay cheques from Tel Aviv, is loaded with similar caveats and provisions.

Mortimer Zuckerman, outgoing head of the Organisation of Presidents of Major Jewish Organisations has dispensed with the tactical soft soap of AIPAC and has flatly denounced the Roadmap as an outrage to Israel, as have spokesmen for the Christian right.

The more liberal Peace Now American-Jewish have urged support for the Roadmap, but its clout is minimal.

The mystery is why, after all the years of abortive missions to the Middle East (do you recall the Zinni Plan and the Tenet Plan to name only two of the more recent ones?), anyone pays serious attention to this nonsense, beyond cynical recognition that every couple of years the United States has to pretend an interest in a "just and lasting settlement" to throw a sop to world opinion - or, since world opinion has mostly wised up to reality, to people like Tony Blair.

But the charade goes on. The Sunday talk shows and the editorial pages are freighted with earnest punditry about Sharon's historic shift.

To find equivalent drivel you have to go back to the New York Times's respectful editorials of the mid-1930s about Hitler's constructive vision of the future of Europe.

Hold the following truths to be self-evident. Members of the US Congress live in mortal terror of AIPAC and the larger pro-Israel lobby. These members know vividly the fate of those who defied the lobby and aroused its enmity, most recently Rep Cynthia McKinney of Georgia.

The lobby would like to see Palestinians removed to Jordan, or some small space elsewhere in the world, such as the space between runways at Dallas-Fort worth airport.

For its part, Israel knows that at its current rate of onslaught, it's only a matter of a few short years before it will have seized every useful acre of the occupied territories.

It's all over, and to pretend otherwise is to partake in a ritual long since purged of everything, save bad faith on the part of Israel and the United States.

Alexander Cockburn has worked in the US as a journalist for the past 30 years and is the author of two books. He is coeditor of the Newsletter and website Counterpunch and writes for the Nation. His column appears fortnightly in Agenda

JOURNAL-CODE: FSBP

LOAD-DATE: June 6, 2003

February 18, 2003, Tuesday

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 4

LENGTH: 497 words

HEADLINE: Central Asian states say they're not radical Islam - Zuckerman

BYLINE: Elli Wohlgelernter

BODY:

There are two separate Muslim worlds, and the Central Asian countries of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan are making every effort to show that they are not part of the radical Muslim world of the Middle East, according to Mortimer Zuckerman, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

"They don't have the same attitudes that you find here in this region, in the Arab Middle East, and they want to demonstrate that," Zuckerman told a news conference Monday, describing the Presidents Conference trip to Kazakhstan last week.

"It was almost like a Muslim firewall. I do think there are different views within the Muslim world, which are not dominated by the Muslim extremists to the degree that they are here, and they wanted to make that clear so that people would realize that there is a difference between this region, in terms of their attitude, and the rest of the Muslim world." The Presidents Conference - representing 52 US Jewish organizations - attended a forum on Thursday that Zuckerman described as a "so-called conference of peace and order, which really was a euphemism for a conference that was intended to speak out in favor of what they called the dialogue of civilizations and not a clash of civilizations, and in which they included the Jewish world."

The invitation to the Presidents Conference, which was attended by the presidents of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan and the foreign ministers of Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, and Turkey, was an indication that these Central Asian Muslim nations understand what they must do to maintain relations with the West.

"I think they want to reach out to the US as a principal sources of both management and financial support, and I think they believe that they cannot stand there in blind opposition to the Jewish community and the Jewish world and accomplish that," Zuckerman said.

On a separate topic of security threats in the US, of Presidents Conference executive vice chairman Malcolm Hoenlein said that warnings of a very general nature have been falsely interpreted as being more specifically directed at the Jewish community than is the reality.

"We have been in regular contact almost daily, even during our travels, with the New York Police Department, the commissioner, the deputy commissioner for intelligence, with the FBI, and others, because each day we get reports of another new alert or rumor, which does create great concern and fear in the community," he said.

"But this is part of the tactic. Terrorism is called terror because of the fear it instills, not the damage that it does. It's because it creates panic among the people."

Nevertheless, he said, there is a danger, "and we have constantly urged the community to be on alert. There is valid reason - we believe there are sleeper cells, we believe there are agents, and we believe the Jewish community could be a target, but not necessarily the target."

LOAD-DATE: February 18, 2003

Publications (Appearances according to www.namebase.org/)

Alterman,E. Sound and Fury. 1992 (198)
Auletta,K. Three Blind Mice. 1991 (63, 488-9)
Barnet,R. Cavanagh,J. Global Dreams. 1995 (117)
Council on Foreign Relations. Annual Report. 1988 (48, 105-6)
Council on Foreign Relations. Membership Roster. 2001
Covert Action Quarterly 1997-#60 (42)
Diamond,E. Behind the Times. 1994 (227-8, 389)
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). Extra! 1988-10 (8)
Forbes 400 Richest Americans. 1985
Forbes 400 Richest Americans. 1991
Forbes 400 Richest Americans. 1998
Forbes 400 Richest Americans. 2001
Friedman,R. Zealots for Zion. 1992 (133)
Greider,W. Who Will Tell the People. 1993 (185, 201)
Heilbrun,C. The Education of a Woman. 1995 (358-69, 379, 392-3)
Kurtz,H. Media Circus. 1994 (344-5)
MacArthur,J. Second Front. 1992 (227-8)
NameBase NewsLine 1997-04 (28)
New York Times 1999-09-29 (C1)
New York Times 2001-02-17 (A10)
New York Times 2001-05-14 (C1, 13)
New York Times 2001-06-02 (A10)
Novick,P. The Holocaust in American Life. 1999 (252)
Parenti,M. Inventing Reality. 1993 (62)
Piper,M.C. Final Judgment. 1993 (241)
Resource Center. GroupWatch 1989-CSIS (1)
Rosenblum,M. Who Stole the News? 1993 (202-3)
Soley,L. Leasing the Ivory Tower. 1995 (21)
Stewart,J. Den of Thieves. 1991 (197)
Stich,R. Drugging America: A Trojan Horse. 1999 (477)
Trilateral Commission. List of Members. 1998-03-01 (5)
Trilateral Commission. List of Members. 2002-01 (11)
Washington Post 1987-07-12 (A1, 17)
Washington Post 1989-05-20 (A24)
Washington Times 1996-02-23 (A21)

pages cited this search: 61
Order hard copy of these pages

Other

http://www.jnf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=exec_comm

Board of Director member and Advisor, Jewish National Fund

http://www.jewishsf.com/bk030221/imideast.shtml

Archaeological center dedicated in Jerusalem

JERUSALEM (JTA) -- U.S. Jewish leader Mortimer Zuckerman dedicated an archaeological research center in his daughter's honor in Jerusalem.

Zuckerman, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, opened the Abigail Zuckerman Educational Center on Sunday.

The center essentially is an archaeological dig next to the Western Wall Tunnel that will include educational material on the history of the site and of Jerusalem.

"This is one way that I felt I wanted to celebrate her birth," Zuckerman said of his daughter, who is now 5. The dig to date has uncovered artifacts from the First Temple period; a mikvah, or ritual bath, from the Second Temple period; and a water cistern from the Crusader period. "This is a different kind of real estate than I'm normally associated with," said Zuckerman, a New York-based real estate magnate.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3003likud_usgangsta.html

Mortimer Zuckerman: real estate kingpin, media baron, promoter of Likud and war. Zuckerman owns U.S. News & World Report weekly magazine, and the New York Daily News. In his own U.S. News column, he agitates for war against Saudi Arabia and other targets of Sharon's rage. Zuckerman's Boston Properties firm owns nearly 150 expensive offices—including Citicorp Center, hotels, and industrial sites in Boston, Manhattan, San Francisco, and Washington.

Zuckerman is a director of "Friends of the Israeli Defense Forces."

A few years ago, the powerful media boss sought the honor of succeeding Ron Lauder as chairman of Council of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (CPMAJO), to take over in 2001 when Lauder's term as chairman was to end. In Jewish organizational circles, this position is known familiarly as "King of the Jews." But Mort Zuckerman ran into trouble. It seems his marriage to a non-Jew, art curator Marla Prather, was deemed non-Kosher by the racists in the Council. This was disposed of: in Summer 2000, Zuckerman divorced Prather. He was advanced to the head of the line of candidates, and took over as CPMAJO chairman in July, 2001.

http://www.acj.org/august/August_27.htm#3

West Bank Dreamin'
Eric Alterman
The Nation
August 27

Last night I had the strangest dream...

All of America's wealthy, conservative and safely belligerent pundits had been delivered by a just and beneficent Almighty Power to a Palestinian refugee camp, following the bulldozing of their homes--including vacation homes--and the expropriation of all their possessions. Instead of pontificating between beach walks and vodka tonics in Vineyard Haven, these armchair bombardiers were treated to rivers of open sewage and hopeless lives of beggary. Those who resisted were arrested, tortured and selectively assassinated. Meanwhile, editorial pages across America cheered the "restraint" of their tormentors.

In extremely lengthy articles, the New York Times and The New York Review of Books recently demonstrated beyond any doubt that the Israelis (and the Americans) shared in the blame for the breakdown of peace negotiations and ensuing cycle of violence that now tragically appears to be engulfing the region. To the punditocracy, however, these dispassionately argued, extensively reported stories amounted to an existential insult of near biblical proportions. Marty Peretz's New Republic published a vicious attack on the articles by Robert Satloff, executive director of a pro-Israel think tank. William Safire got so excited, he denounced his own newspaper in a hysterical fit of ad hominemism: "Do not swallow this speculative rewriting of recent events," he warned readers. "The overriding reason for the war against Israel today is that Yasir Arafat decided that war was the way to carry out the often-avowed Palestinian plan. Its first stage is to create a West Bank state from the Jordan River to the sea with Jerusalem as its capital. Then, by flooding Israel with 'returning' Palestinians, the plan in its promised final phase would drive the hated Jews from the Middle East."

Mortimer Zuckerman, in his capacity as chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, insisted, "This is just revisionist history.... There is one truth, period: The Palestinians caused the breakdown at Camp David and then rejected Clinton's plan in January." The baldest comment came from the Zionist Organization of America's president, Morton Klein: "Whether their account is accurate or not is irrelevant.... I reject any discussion of what happened."

In the wake of the suicide bombings, three different Washington Post pundits demanded war three days in a row. Michael Kelly, recently seen complaining about too many fatsoes at the beach, advised the Israelis to unleash "an overwhelming force...to destroy, kill, capture and expel the armed Palestinian forces." The more moderate George Will called only for a "short war." (Charles Krauthammer did not specify a length.) To read these would-be warriors, you would think the Palestinians were summering in Edgartown. A reader would never guess that a regional superpower is carrying out a brutal military occupation, coupled with a settlement policy that directly contravenes Article 49 of the Geneva Convention.

No one with any sense would argue that Arafat and his corrupt cronies do not bear considerable responsibility for the collapse of any hope of peace in the Middle East in the near future. And suicide bombers against civilian targets in Israel are as counterproductive as they are immoral (though those who settle in occupied territory are knowingly putting themselves in harm's way and hence share some responsibility when their families are forced to pay for this fanaticism with their lives). Nevertheless, a conflict where "our team" engages in terrorism, assassination and the apparently routine torture of teenagers to defend a cruel and illegal occupation is one in which neither side holds a monopoly on virtue.

Since a majority of Israelis supports a freeze in the provocative practice of settlement-building, the mindless hysteria of the American punditocracy must have other sources than mere logic. It's dangerous to draw firm conclusions without any special knowledge about the psyches of those involved, but much of the materially comfortable American Jewish community has had an unhappy history of defending the principle of Jewish sovereignty over captured Palestinian lands right down to the death of the last Israeli. Because of the sacrifices they demand of others, many American Jews feel they must be holier than the Pope when defending Israeli human rights abuses. The New Republic's Peretz is a particularly interesting specimen. He reflexively defends everything Israel does and routinely slanders its critics. Peretz, who owes his prominence to money, in this case his (non-Jewish) wife's fortune--which allowed him to purchase his magazine--has never published a single book or written a significant piece of scholarship, reportage or criticism. It's not hard to imagine that his self-appointed role as Israel's American Torquemada--seen in his obsession with smearing the world-renowned Palestinian scholar and activist Edward Said--is inspired as much by guilt and envy as by more rational motivations. (I say this as a supporter of the peace process who has respectfully disagreed with almost all Said has said about the conflict in recent years.)

Whatever the reason, the net result is the same. For a brief moment in recent history, when Israel had a government that was dedicated to finding a way to make peace, the warrior pundits were placed on the defensive and the Palestinians received a reasonably fair shake from the nation's elite media. More recently, a review of leading editorial pages by the ADL found that "the major newspapers across the country are viewing the situation in the Middle East in a realistic and objective manner." The authors of the study helpfully defined their terms. To the ADL "realistic and objective" means "critical of and hostile to Arafat...directly blaming him for the continuing violence and creating a climate of hatred" along with the dismissal of all Palestinian peace overtures as "calculated tools for his goal of gaining further concessions from Israel."

In a rational world, the ADL report would at least complicate efforts by Safire, TNR and others to charge the media with "pro-Arab" and "anti-Israel" bias. Alas, I'm betting bubkes...

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0197/9701047.html

Media Gatekeeper for Israel Gets the Gate

First it was real estate, then the media, and after that tycoon Mortimer Zuckerman apparently was contemplating getting into big-time national Jewish organization politics. Canadian-born Zuckerman owns U.S. News and World Report and the Atlantic Monthly and recently bought the New York Daily News, the last non-Jewish-owned daily in the Big Apple, after his British media tycoon opposite number, Robert Maxwell, went broke while negotiating the same purchase and then fell, jumped or was pushed off his yacht near the Canary Islands.

After doing all that, except the Maxwell part, Zuckerman took over the America-Israel Friendship League, according to the Forward, a New York Jewish weekly, thus becoming one of the 50-odd, numerically speaking, members of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. That done, it seemed reasonable to infer that he hoped to be elected chairman of the conference, one of the most prestigious and visible positions on the national Jewish scene, and to which he could bring some viable (rhymes with buyable) prestige.

Then something happened, but fortunately not what happened to Maxwell. The American media mogul met and married Marla Prather, who heads the 20th Century Art Department of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC. The problem was that she isn’t Jewish. That’s a big no-no to a community that has concluded it no longer is threatened by progroms or Holocausts or even anti-Semitism. Now the buzz word is “Jewish continuity.” That’s what still is endangered, and intermarriage is the new enemy that has replaced the Cossacks, the Nazis and even the no-nothings.

So somehow the committee appointed by the presidents’ conference to select its next chair overlooked Zuckerman’s possible interest. Asked by the Forward to comment on the oversight, former presidents’ conference chairwoman Shoshana Cardin said she didn’t know anything about Zuckerman’s purported aspirations, but that Jewish leaders should be role models.

“I think we have to be careful when we select leaders for top positions that the message we give is that being Jewish is something special and particularist—that we are something different,” she said. So much for the American melting pot.

The Forward couldn’t reach Zuckerman for comment. We hope he isn’t off honeymooning on a yacht, at least not until he’s paid back whoever he borrowed the money from to buy the Daily News. Those decks can get slippery.