AIPAC endorsed 362 candidates and won in every primary we had a candidate on the ballot!

We helped our friends win and defeated 11 anti-Israel candidates.

Being pro-Israel is good policy and good politics! 🇺🇸🇮🇱 pic.twitter.com/XEHPYWN3L2

— AIPAC 🇺🇸🇮🇱🎗️ (@AIPAC) November 6, 2024

A lot of right-wing Trump supporters who are against immigration and trannies and so on think they won the US election.

Someone else also thinks they won.

Nordic Times:

The US election was not only a major victory for Donald Trump and the Republicans – but also for the already very influential Israel lobby, led by AIPAC.

On social media, they boast how almost all of their candidates won their respective elections – while managing to “stop” a number of anti-Israel candidates.

It has long been known that the lobby group has a huge, and according to many observers very destructive, influence on American politics, where any voice that in any way expresses criticism of Israel’s actions is demonized, fought and character assassinated.

The advocacy campaigns waged by AIPAC and similar groups are widely seen as crucial to ensuring that the US continues to pump money and arms into Israel and give it its full support – regardless of the abuses and war crimes committed by the Israeli regime.

After last week’s election, they openly boast of their influence on American politics, proudly declaring that almost all the candidates they funded also won their respective elections.

“AIPAC endorsed 362 candidates and won in every primary we had a candidate on the ballot! We helped our friends win and defeated 11 anti-Israel candidates. Being pro-Israel is good policy and good politics”, they wrote on X.

…

In some countries, lobby groups and similar organizations that clearly serve foreign powers are banned, precisely because their interests often tend to go against the interests of the host country, but in the United States there seem to be no plans for such a ban.

On the contrary, The Nordic Times has previously reported how the libertarian congressman Thomas Massie has testified that all Republican congressmen, and probably many Democratic ones as well, have their own contact person from AIPAC who tells them how to vote on various issues.

However, the fact that American leaders in practice serve powerful lobbyists is not something they want to talk about openly.

“It doesn’t benefit anybody. Why would they want to tell their constituents that they’ve basically got a buddy system with somebody who’s representing a foreign country? It doesn’t benefit the congressman for people to know that. So they’re not going to tell you that”, Massie explained.

Maybe it will all work out and this entire government won’t be only about Israel.

Who knows?

I mean, Bitcoin’s doing good.

That’s good, right?

Does this quote from Pelosi sound like a declaration of "allegiance" to you? pic.twitter.com/UGF3FZk2eO

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) March 5, 2019

At an Israeli event in Florida with Jewish Senator Chuck Schumer and Jewish billionaire Haim Saban last December, Nancy Pelosi declared:

I have said to people when they ask me, if this capitol crumbles to the ground, the one thing that will remain is our commitment to our aid – and I don’t even call it aid, our cooperation – with Israel. That’s fundamental to who we are.

Some people will say this sounds like a pledge of allegiance.

However, it is really just her saying that she really appreciates all of the things Israel does for America.

Just think of all of these important things that Israel does for us.

It’s too many to even count.

For starters, they’re the only democracy in the Middle East. And one of the most important things for America is that there is a democracy in the Middle East. Just imagine what would happen if there was no democracy in the Middle East?

For another thing, they’re our greatest ally. If we lost our greatest ally, then what?

So really, when Nancy Pelosi talks about how if Washington, DC was destroyed in some kind of a war or other catastrophe, our number one priority would be figuring out how to send money to Israel, she is really just talking about a practical matter.

Also, it is really the fault of Christians that Jews are using the American government to send billions upon billions of dollars to Israel. After all, the real Israeli lobby is all Christians. Even if it is actually all Jews doing it, it is somehow the fault of Christians who watch John Hagee.

The important thing to remember is that there is a way to criticize Israel’s relationship to the United States, but the way to do that is not to say that the Israeli lobby exists. You have to start from a position where you don’t say it exists.

So some Palestinian activist types started leaking a long Al Jazeera documentary about the Israeli lobby in the United States.

They appear to have actually done real investigative journalism and grabbed up a bunch of hidden camera footage (sample above) of Jews in America talking about the work they do for Israeli intelligence within the country.

Al Jazeera tried to air it earlier this year, but they got shut down pretty hard.

Robert Fisk wrote about the shutdown back in March. 

The Independent, from March 15, 2018:

So when am I going to be able to watch Al Jazeera’s hard-hitting investigation into Israel’s powerful lobby in the United States? Remember Al Jazeera? The tough, no-holds-barred Middle East satellite channel that transformed Qatar into a media empire whose reports frightened dictators and infuriated potentates and presidents alike? Why, George W Bush once wanted to bomb its headquarters in Doha – so it must have been doing something right. It even has an office in Jerusalem.

But something seems to be amiss. Not Al Jazeera’s disastrous American venture, which was supposed to break free of the dross on CNN and Fox News and ended up looking just like CNN or Fox. Nor the tragicomedy of its journalists’ imprisonment in Sissi’s Egypt, banged up by Cairo’s farcical laws and the stupidity of Al Jazeera’s own management in Qatar.

No, I’m talking about a documentary called The Lobby, directed by one of Al Jazeera’s top journalists, Clayton Swisher, the man whose exclusive (and book) on the “Palestine Papers” blew open the secret and scandalous American-led negotiations between Israelis and the Palestinian authority between 2000 and 2010. But after months of postponement, The Lobby, which secretly filmed pro-Israeli US activists and Israeli government officials and was completed last autumn, is still no nearer to being shown – and Swisher himself has taken a paid leave of absence. He even chose to explain his frustration in an article for the progressive American Jewish magazine Forward, which has always maintained a liberal and often very critical view of Israel.

…

In his published explanation, Swisher described how his award-winning investigative unit – which he says operates “without [Qatari] government interference” – sent an undercover reporter to look into “how Israel wields influence in America through the pro-Israeli American community. But when some right-wing American supporters of Israel found out about the documentary, there was a massive backlash. It was even labelled as antisemitic in a spate of articles.”

Nothing surprising there, you might think. Any reporters who have dared to criticise Israel grow used to the vile smear of antisemitism thrown over them – but there was an even more disturbing background to Swisher’s attempts to get his documentary on the air.

The programme’s completion, he writes, “came at a time when, due to an arbitrary blockade on Qatar imposed by the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, Qatar had been pursuing an end to its siege by appealing to the US. According to reports, Qatar sought to offer its own side of the narrative in this conflict by hosting thought leaders, including from the American Jewish community. From reports in the Israeli press, I learned that [Harvard Professor Alan] Dershowitz had been brought to meet with the Qatari emir [Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani], and that the American Jews had brought up what they saw as Al Jazeera’s antisemitism in those meetings. Of course, our documentary is not antisemitic. It is an exploration of how Israel, a foreign government, influences US foreign policy.”

Ironically, one of the Saudi-UAE demands for a return to normal relations with Qatar was to shut down Al Jazeera.

Most of Swisher’s staff within Al Jazeera are American or British, and he recruited a young Oxford postgraduate, James Anthony Kleinfeld, to meet and mix with members of pro-Israeli groups in Washington. When this was discovered – partly because Swisher, for legal reasons, contacted those appearing in the programme to say that his team had used secret filming during their investigations – there was uproar.

Kleinfeld, who apparently used the name “Tony Kleinfeld”, was accused of being “pro-Palestinian” but of “embedding himself with the Washington pro-Israel crowd” while spending “months of his life under a new and meticulously fabricated persona to infiltrate pro-Israeli groups”.

The concern of Israeli lobbyists was not without reason. Recipients of legal letters from the documentary group – referring to the secretly recorded Israeli activists – included AIPAC, the Israeli-American Council, the Sheldon Adelson-created Maccabee Task Force, the Israel Project, the Zionist Organisation of America and other groups.

…

According to Swisher, if his documentary on the American lobby doesn’t air soon, “it might prove to be ammunition sought by a group of zealous US politicians who wish to declare Al Jazeera a foreign entity, and label us journalists as ‘spies’”. In response to antisemitism claims after the London documentary, the broadcasting regulator Ofcom ruled that the programme was “a serious investigative documentary”. It was the same question, Swisher says, that he and his team sought to answer in the American edition of The Lobby: “whether the Israeli government was funding or involved in lobbying efforts in the US under the guise of a domestic lobbying group”.

Swisher says that several “leaders of Jewish American organisations” met with Qatar’s registered agent and lobbyist, Nick Muzin – a former aide to US Senator Ted Cruz, who supported American recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital – “to see if he could use his ties with the Qataris to stop the airing”. Since October, Swisher says, “we’ve faced a series of unexplained delays on broadcasting our project, the likes of which I’ve never experienced. I was repeatedly told by everyone to ‘wait’, and was assured our documentary would eventually see the light of day. Then, as now, I took my senior management at its word.

There you have it.

The Jews have gone to great effort to keep you from seeing this, so naturally I want you to see it.

Enjoy.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced that Israel must be a Jewish state “or there will never be peace”—but in the US, his fellow Jews are at the forefront of demanding that Americans must have an open-doors immigration policy because “Jewish tradition commands us to welcome the stranger.”

The staggering display of anti-European hypocrisy was highlighted when Netanyahu ruled out any deal with the Palestinian people unless they “recognize Israel as the Jewish state and give up their refugees’ right of return.”

According to his comments broadcast on Israeli public radio, Netanyahu said that he would “not accept an agreement that does not cancel the (refugees’) right of return and which does not include Palestinian recognition of the Jewish state. These are basic conditions, which are justified and vital to the security of Israel.”

Netanyahu knows full well that if the Palestinians get the right to return their refugees—Arabs chased out of Palestine when the Jewish state was created—that the Jews will quickly be demographically overrun.

At the time that the Zionists forcibly expelled the Palestinians, their numbers were just over three-quarters of a million—but in the intervening years, this has increased to just on five million.

Allowing five million refugees and their descendants back into Palestine would certainly see the end of the “Jewish state”—and it is against this reality that the Zionists are kicking.

At the same time, all major Jewish groups in America have announced their support for “immigration reform” and the legalization of all illegal immigrants in that country.

Quoted in the Times of Israel, Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism leader Barbara Weinstein said that Jews supported immigration reform because Jewish Tradition “commands us to welcome the stranger.”

The Times of Israel also quoted Mark Hetfield, president and CEO of the Hebrew Immigration Aid Society—a Jewish organization that works full time to “resettle” Third Worlders in America—as saying that he “is more encouraged than we have been in years that our leaders will finally create a just system for immigrants and refugees.”

Now is the time to “fix a broken system” that includes “all kinds of artificial, technical barriers that deny asylum to persecuted people,” he said.

The Jewish Council for Public Affairs has also officially welcomed “immigration reform” with chair Larry Gold quoted as saying that “We are eager to work with both Republicans and Democrats, both Congress and the president, to finally see immigration reform passed.”

The American Jewish Committee has also welcomed efforts at “immigration reform,” calling them “encouraging.”

“Immigration is a key factor in bolstering America’s economic strength and democratic pluralism,” Richard Foltin, director of national and legislative affairs for the AJC was quoted as saying.

Nancy Kaufman, CEO of the National Council of Jewish Women, said her organization “is heartened by the newfound energy to pass comprehensive immigration reform after years of inaction. NCJW will continue to work for immigration reform that ends the second-class status of immigrants without papers and ensures that a viable path to citizenship is finally at hand.”

Even the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) issued a statement saying, “It is clear that both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue have heard the American people calling for leaders to overcome partisan divides and create a common sense solution to fix a broken immigration system.”

ADL national chair Barry Curtiss-Lusher and national director Abraham Foxman, said in a joint statement that their organization “is looking forward to working with Congress and Obama in what they hope will be a debate that will honor America’s heritage as an inclusive, compassionate nation of immigrants that values the diversity of its people.”

Yet all of these Jewish organizations are quiet as proverbial church mice when it comes to Israel’s right to have a racially-discriminatory immigration policy, and further to forcibly keep out people who were originally expelled from Palestine to make way for Jews.

The open hypocrisy of these two fundamentally opposing positions remains inexplicable—unless there is a determined and conscious desire to destroy America through multiculturalism while deliberately maintaining Israel’s racial homogeneity.

David Cameron used a Downing Street Chanukah reception to tell Britain’s Jewish community: “I share your scepticism over the Iran deal.”

After lighting the candles with the Chief Rabbi, Cameron addressed the issue of Iran head-on, saying: “An enemy of Israel’s is an enemy of mine… but in my judgement this is the right step to take.”

In the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne and former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, Cameron was at pains to point out the deal’s advantages.

However, he acknowledged: “I know there will be great scepticism, I know there will be great worry.

“All I will say to you tonight is that I share your scepticism, I share your worry. I don’t have any starry-eyed view about what this Iranian regime offers. We only got to where we are because of the very tough sanctions.”

The PM’s comments came as Iranian President Hassan Rouhani this week insisted his country’s right to enrich uranium had been recognised and goaded Israel by asking: “Who’s isolated now?”

Speaking after Sunday’s momentous interim deal between six world powers and Iran, the new leader said: “Enrichment is our nuclear right. It continues today and it will continue tomorrow. It will never stop. This is our red line.”

Asked about the battle with arch-enemy Israel, Rouhani said: “Many were trying to isolate Iran, but who is isolated today? Our enemies are isolated.”

His remarks follow the marathon nuclear negotiations in Geneva, where the UK, France, China, Russia and Germany agreed a six-month deal that halts Iranian nuclear activity in return for limited sanctions relief.

It emerged this week that US Secretary of State John Kerry opened a secret backchannel with Iran back in 2011, enlisted the help of the Sultan of Oman.

On the repercussions of Sunday’s deal, which was being dubbed “an historic agreement,” Kerry said that Israel would be safer as a result.

“From this day – for the next six months – Israel is safer than it was yesterday,” Kerry said. “We now have a mechanism by which we are going to expand the amount of time in which they can break out (toward making a nuclear bomb). We are going to have insights to their programme that we didn’t have before.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was unimpressed, however, and sharply disagreed with Kerry’s assessment.

“This is not a historic agreement, it is a historic mistake,” Netanyahu said, adding that world powers had “given up” sanctions in exchange for “cosmetic Iranian concessions that can be cancelled within weeks”.

Although Kerry insisted that there was “no daylight” between the US and Israel, he may find it hard to deliver on Netanyahu’s demands. The Israeli PM insists on the full dismantling of Iran’s nuclear programme, but Iran consistently asserts its right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Yet despite the public tension between the two allies, there were signs this week that Israel was increasingly being brought into the process.

Netanyahu revealed that Israeli national security advisor Yossi Cohen was being dispatched to Washington. Similarly, Britain’s chief negotiator Simon Gass went to Israel on Wednesday, in an effort to align positions.

His visit followed a telephone call between British Foreign Secretary William Hague and Israel’s Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz.

Hague had earlier maintained: “This agreement is good for the world, including the countries of the Middle East.”

Read More

President Obama is now saying his administration has decided to attack Syria but will seek Congressional approval before doing so. This sets up a really interesting situation if Congress doesn’t agree, as seems quite possible.

The idea of Obama ordering an act of war on Syria without significant international support and without a Congressional mandate always was a head scratcher. Here’s our far left president advocating yet another war in the Middle East after opposing the Iraq war when he was a senator. The same president who has a frosty relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu and has repeatedly fallen short of the demands of the Israel Lobby.

Of course the rationale is framed in moral terms—like all American wars, but there was more than a touch of that in the run-up to the Iraq war as well. Here the case for the hawks is made more difficult because the WMD story turned out to be false. Lest we forget, this story was manufactured by strongly identified ethnically Jewish, pro-Israel operatives linked to the Office of Special Plans in the Department of Defense, including Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Abraham Shulsky, Elliott Abrams, David Wurmser, Michael Ledeen, David Schencker, and Michael Rubin, with the close cooperation of Israeli intelligence (see here, p. 47ff).

The Weekly Standard ‘s usual neocon suspects — including many of the same people who promoted for the Iraq war — are pressing for a very large U.S. involvement in Syria. It’s mind-boggling to read in the statement of these so-called “experts” that the president must act “to ensure that Assad’s chemical weapons no longer threaten America.” Shades of how Iraq under Saddam Hussein was going to destroy the U.S. with his WMD’s. How Assad is going to unleash his chemical weapons on America is anybody’s guess.

Given the strong support of the neocons for action against Syria, we must assume that Israel is entirely on board with a U.S. campaign. So it’s not surprising that, as in the case of the run-up to the Iraq war, Israeli intelligence is front and center: “The bulk of evidence proving the Assad regime’s deployment of chemical weapons – which would provide legal grounds essential to justify any western military action – has been provided by Israeli military intelligence, the German magazine Focus has reported” (see here). This includes the much-discussed intercepted phone call between Syrian officers discussing the use of chemical weapons (Ibid.) and the claim that chemical weapons were moved to the site of the attack (see here).

I am unaware of evidence for a heavy involvement of Israel Lobby operatives on the U.S. side responsible for verifying this intelligence, as was the case when the Israel Lobby manufactured the rationale for the Iraq disaster — doubtless the most treasonous and corrupt such episode in American history. Nevertheless, one would have to be naive indeed not to be suspicious of Israeli involvement.

As many have noted, it would make no sense for Assad to unleash chemical weapons in a conflict he was winning; no point in killing women and children; no point in attacking just as UN investigators arrived in Syria; no point in incurring the wrath of the U.S. moralizers by crossing Obama’s idiotic red line — idiotic because it is an open invitation to a false flag operation carried out by the opponents of the  Assad regime.

Uri Avnery claims that “practically all Israeli political and military leaders” want the Syrian civil war to “go on forever.” The other obvious motive for Israel and its fifth column in the U.S. is to strike a blow against Iran, as many have noted. The anti-Iran motive is front and center at the AIPAC website (“Syria proves Urgency to Stop Iran“). This article assumes as true that Assad did use chemical weapons:

The use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime highlights the danger of allowing the world’s most dangerous regimes to possess weapons of mass destruction. As Israel prepares its citizens for the possible ramifications of a chemical attack from Syria, the United States must consider potentially catastrophic ramifications if Iran, who is actively backing Assad, acquires a nuclear weapons capability. … We cannot allow Assad to operate with the support of his greatest ally in Tehran backed by a nuclear weapons capability. The Islamic Republic is already expanding its influence throughout the region, moving military equipment and resources into Syria and Lebanon.

In a statement from June, 2013, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, like AIPAC, emphasizes the implications of failure to act in Syria for the larger question of Iran:

Rather than deterring Syria or Iran from using or pursuing illicit weapons, the administration’s red lines appear to be eroding U.S. credibility and national security. The lesson learned from Syria is that preventing a nuclear Iran will require an actionable and verifiable red line. This should include a credible mechanism for assessing Iran’s progress toward the red line and warning of its crossing.

The ADL statement engages in double talk on who is responsible for using chemical weapons (“Use of chemical weapons in Syria ‘an immoral crime of the first order‘”).  On one hand, it states that the attack was performed “reportedly by the Syrian government.” On the other hand, Abe Foxman clearly blames the Syrian government for “the horrific events of last week,” a claim that goes much further. And as usual, the Holocaust is invoked as establishing a special Jewish moral posture useful for achieving Jewish interests:

For more than two years, the world has been witness to President Bashar al-Assad’s slaughtering of his own citizens. Following the horrific events of last week there is no longer any doubt about the brutal and evil nature of Assad and his regime.

We welcome Secretary Kerry’s clear statement of condemnation of the use of chemical weapons in Syria and the U.S. commitment to work with allies to ensure those responsible are held accountable. The world failed to act during the Holocaust and stood by through the genocides in Cambodia and Rwanda.  It is a moral imperative that the international community act now to prevent further atrocities in Syria.

From Foxman’s perspective, it’s hard to see how “preventing further atrocities” could happen short of regime change.

Clearly, the organized Jewish community will not be satisfied with a mere gesture against Assad, but wants something in the general vicinity of regime change. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy has numerous articles with the message that a U.S. attack needs to be linked to strategic goals. An article by Michael Makovsky and Blaise Misztal advocates an “asymmetrical” response in which the U.S. would cause far more damage to Syria than caused by the chemical weapons attack: “if Washington orders an operation against the Assad regime, it should not hold back from breaking a few eggs on the way into Syria to ensure easier access in the future. This approach would send a credible and menacing message to the regime to amend its behavior or face further strikes.”

Also on the WINEP site, Robert Satloff makes a ridiculous case that regime change in Syria is in American interests:

Given the strategic stakes at play in Syria, which touches on every key American interest in the region, the wiser course of action is to take the opportunity of the Assad regime’s flagrant violation of global norms to take action that hastens the end of Assad’s regime. Contrary to the views of American military leaders, this will also enhance the credibility of the president’s commitment to prevent Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability, not erode America’s ability to enforce it.

Likewise, neocons like Charles Krauthammer want the U.S. campaign to change the balance of power — “a sustained campaign aimed at changing the balance of forces by removing the Syrian regime’s decisive military advantage — air power.”  What the neocons don’t want is a brief attack that serves little more than to show U.S. displeasure, leaves Assad in power, and doesn’t change the military situation

So from the Israeli and (what is the same) the neocon point of view, it’s win-win. A serious U.S. intervention would minimally prolong a war that Assad is winning, weakening Syria and Hezbollah far into the future. And perhaps it could lead to the fall of Assad and a Sunni government severed from Iran. Iran and its allies are seen as a far more dangerous enemy of Israel than the Arab nations and the mainly Sunni rebels opposing the Assad government, no matter how fanatically Muslim and linked to al Qaeda they turn out to be.

The decision by Obama to consult with Congress may actually benefit the Israel Lobby because it could quite possibly provide a mandate for much more than a brief attack that is little more than a gesture—like Bill Clinton lobbing a few cruise missiles into Afghanistan to protest the bombing of American embassies in Africa. Without a congressional mandate and without support from the U.K., Obama would have been unlikely to carry out the sort of attack desired by the Lobby. Now there’s a chance.

The delay provides an opportunity for the Israel Lobby to get into high gear in order to bump up the poll numbers and exert its power over Congress. At this time, there is clearly no popular mandate for a war; only 42% favor a “broad military response”, and only 16% favor the regime change desired by the Israel Lobby. A much higher percentage but still far from a mandate (50%) favor the sort of action detested by the Israel Lobby — a  limited response involving only U.S. naval ships directed at the chemical weapons.

Congressional approval is also iffy. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) has stated that the odds are “50/50″ that the House will approve force, but that the Senate will “rubber stamp what [Obama] wants.” Others believe that even the Senate will be an “uphill battle.”

So the Israel Lobby has a challenge ahead, but it’s certainly doable. Expect a blizzard of propaganda emanating from the most elite media in the U.S., and a lot of arm-twisting in Congress. The Israel Lobby sees this as a preliminary battle prior to the really serious campaign for a war with Iran. If the Lobby loses this test, it would be a clear indication that the U.S. lacks the determination to attack Iran.

The pressure will be intense. Don’t bet against the Lobby.