AIPAC doesn't get its money from Israel. It gets it from the US taxpayer, one way or another, and from its American supporters, commonly dual-citizens, who have for more than a century benefited from the ability of the owners of the FRB to effectively continuously tax every person in America by taking a continuous clip on all FRB fabricated dollars which come first into their hands before being loaned to the US government and to other parties in the US.
Once you have sufficient group power to control Congress, you end up with numerous pieces of legislation which allocate taxpayer funds to you under one guise or another, and those funds help support the subornation of US politicians and officials.
Unlike Zelensky, Israel does not have to dilute its take by recirculating funds back to US politicians and lobbyists. Israel gets to keep the entirety of what is allocated to Israel, while having American citizens pay for its political power in the US via subventions approved by Congress and by a little bit of the perpetual clip its dual-citizens collect on all $s fabricated by the FRB.
"Unlike Zelensky, Israel does not have to dilute its take by recirculating funds back to US politicians and lobbyists. Israel gets to keep the entirety of what is allocated to Israel, while having American citizens pay for its political power"
This is how they turn $6B in aid into a near $300B cash bonanza. We pay for the bribes and they turn this into a huge windfall for Israel and their elite money changers. This is the magic money changing tactics handed down for centuries for wealth creation through government access.
Let's see here, AIPAC is obviously, by definition, an agent of a foreign nation, hands out bribes all the time with impunity. There was a certain Senator from New Jersey, one Robert Menendez, he was convicted of accepting bribes and acting as an agent for Egypt, that wasn't the correct foreign country you were dealing with Bob! Equal justice demands that most of that rogues gallery found beneath the US Capitol's dome would deserve the same treatment. I will not be holding my breath awaiting the arrival of justice in the Imperial City on the Potomac.
I think the "new post" you refer to is the video with DD from yesterday. Otherwise, his new post in writing is from 8/6, and it's one that DD and LJ and take issue with. He's arguing that Israeli and that Israel and US policy isn't in lockstep:
"There is abundant evidence that Israel is pursuing policies that are directly at odds with the Biden administration’s goals in the Middle East.
"First, the Biden administration desperately wants a ceasefire in Gaza. The Netanyahu government, however, is committed to making sure the negotiations for a ceasefire fail, which they have so far."
Directly at odds? Israel has been committing genocide for ten months and you can track all the shipments of enormous bombs (2k pounders) that are the main instrument for the genocide. Ten mos. of the US arming a genocide, and he says Israel's policy is somehow "directly at odds" with the consequences of what we're freely doing?
Add to that our State Department's duplicity in diplomacy with Lebanon and its refusal to condemn what Israel is doing, and its continual blaming of Palestinians for being genocided (in effect).
Pehaps you could argumentatively nibble around the edges of "directly at odds"--at odds a bit--but no way can you baldly state "directly at odds."
Simply put, if Israeli policy--and all polls show that the policy of the Netanyahu government is wildly popular in Israel and among pro Zionists in the US--were at odds with US policy the US could have stopped the genocide in its tracks by refusing to supply the munitions that enable genocide. It's really that simple. But we don't. And, in those circs, one has to acknowledge the US being complicit, not "directly at odds", with Israel.
The Israel lobby tails wags the American dog. That's John Mearsheimer's argument. Privately policymakers may say that it's nuts to back Israel no matter what. Because of the lobby's power, they can oppose it only at great risk. It's as simple as that.
Danny Davis expressed incredulity at this state of affairs. Surely what it does must be illegal. Meansheimer explained that the law protects the lobby because of its arm's length relationship with the Israeli state. American institutions and individuals can donate to political action committees to influence policy. Apart from the statutory element and judicial rulings on money-as-speech (e.g., Citizens United), the state can selectively enforce restrictions to silence dissent (e.g., alleged FARA violations by Scott Ritter). For friends, everything; for enemies, the law.
The U.S. and its axis of see no evil (selectively) certainly is complicit. Mearsheimer, as I understand him, means to say that were it not for the distorting effect of the Israel lobby, the policy would be other than it is. Customary realist policy criteria would apply. He's not an apologist for the lobby. He's not stonewalling. He's describing a state of affairs, one that he finds profoundly wrongheaded and ultimately suicidal for U.S. national interests.
"Meansheimer explained that the law protects the lobby because of its arm's length relationship with the Israeli state."
I'm a lawyer and former FBI agent with training in NatSec Law and 20+ years experience in counterintelligence. I think I understood what Mearsheimer was saying. Please don't expect me to accept the fairy tale that the Lobby has an "arms length" relationship with the state of Israel. The example of Larry Franklin and AIPAC is simply one example that came to public attention. Steiner's recorded words are another. I'm saying that it's Jewish American political muscle on DoJ that prevents AIPAC from being classed as a foreign agent, not the law and not some imaginary hand's on relationship between AIPAC and Israel. Mearsheimer has received from me all the credit that he's due for the outstanding work he's done on the lobby, but I won't be silent when he pushes counter factual narratives.
I should add for clarity. I'm not saying that Mearsheimer has changed his conclusions and views about anything. I'm suggesting that he feels that in his position he needs to bend over backwards to avoid the anti-semite tag. I understand that. Everyone who gets into this issue feels that need, but I believe he bent way too far yesterday.
Apologies for the delay. Substack didn't alert me to your replies.
I meant no offense and largely share your point of view. Indeed, yesterday while reading Ilan Pappe's book "Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic," which John Mearsheimer linked to in the post that he and Danny Davis talked about, I noted a section on Fulbright's senate investigation of U.S. lobbying by the state of Israel. Sometimes even the legal fiction of an arm's length separation—far enough for plausible deniability, close enough to exchange a wink—is a fiction. Your examples likewise document that.
Incidentally, eventually Fulbright lost a primary in which the Israel lobby bankrolled his opponent.
In light of the search of Scott Ritter's home in an investigation of possible FARA violations, what I find curious is that while someone who _receives money to follow the instructions of another state can fall afoul of the law, donors that _give money to lobby on behalf of a foreign government, in coordination with its institutions and officials, are within the law. It's my understanding that if a political campaign and a PAC coordinate, it may be a crime. Yet it's seemingly okay for a foreign state and a PAC to do so. Quite the loophole if true.
It's not unlikely I'm missing nuances on the law, so forgive a non-professional's possible misconstruals. Nor am I here addressing lawfare and political untouchability, despite their immense bearing on the law. Instead I'm noticing what looks like an asymmetry in federal regulation of foreign state lobbyists, whether by unhappy accident—or happy accident, depending on where you sit—or design.
I also listened to the Mearsheimer interview. Thank you for the detailed review and supplementary materials.
It seems like the get-out-of-jail-free card is to declare that the desired policies for which you lobby are in America's interest. What you think is good for America to do as regards Israel... is good for America to do.
And there are insufficient numbers of American citizens with the wealth to buy policies for any other country that might negatively affect Israel.
I'm glad Davis played the clip from Mr. Hezbollah suggesting that maybe, just maybe, the problem is not an Israel Lobby per se, such that the Arab Lobby could have but did not pony up enough money for America to follow any other policies as regards Israel. Because it forces me to think through the complete identification of American interests with, well, Zionism for lack of a better term. Mearsheimer strictly denied this.
The Arab lobby can never compete with the volume of funds coming to the Israel lobby from ownership of the FRB and the position of the owners as an intermediary between the FRB and subsequent recipients of those funds, taking a margin clip on all those funds.
In addition, the Israel lobby has a self-reinforcing, first-mover advantage in its control of Congress through which it gets Congress to allocate taxpayer funds to multiple agencies and associated companies of that lobby. While the Arab lobby no doubt trades some votes for special interest funding by Congress, since it does not have the same control over Congress, it cannot come anywhere near the amount the Israel lobby is able to thereby extort from the American people via Congress.
‘Does that make what they’re doing “perfectly legal”? No, it doesn’t.’
AIPAC is an internal example of the ‘Rules-based Order’, which is to law/justice as ‘values’ are to Virtues. It’s ‘pounding on the table’ when you are unable to pound on either law or justice. All good if you have the ethics of a beast.
Concur. It does not mattter what you do...it matters who you are. You are one of them, you are ok. You are not one of them and color outside thier established lines....you get hammered.
Been that way for a while now.
And do not let them bullshit you, when you point inequality out and they sat that is "whataboutism"
Thats bullshit. it has nothing to do with "whataboutism". it is about equality before the law.
YouTube can be useful…I don’t have a problem per se with going directly to established media entities but these links are directly from the horses mouth…
How many persecuted Americans because of their truthful revelations of Israel will it take for humans to wake? Looks like one by one the truth tellers will be picked off, including us when they work down the chain. Let's see who speaks out for Scott. Bet it won't include Mearsheimer.
Fascist book wouldn't let me post this article!
AIPAC doesn't get its money from Israel. It gets it from the US taxpayer, one way or another, and from its American supporters, commonly dual-citizens, who have for more than a century benefited from the ability of the owners of the FRB to effectively continuously tax every person in America by taking a continuous clip on all FRB fabricated dollars which come first into their hands before being loaned to the US government and to other parties in the US.
Once you have sufficient group power to control Congress, you end up with numerous pieces of legislation which allocate taxpayer funds to you under one guise or another, and those funds help support the subornation of US politicians and officials.
Unlike Zelensky, Israel does not have to dilute its take by recirculating funds back to US politicians and lobbyists. Israel gets to keep the entirety of what is allocated to Israel, while having American citizens pay for its political power in the US via subventions approved by Congress and by a little bit of the perpetual clip its dual-citizens collect on all $s fabricated by the FRB.
Better than any self-licking ice-cream cone.
Great summary.
"Unlike Zelensky, Israel does not have to dilute its take by recirculating funds back to US politicians and lobbyists. Israel gets to keep the entirety of what is allocated to Israel, while having American citizens pay for its political power"
This is how they turn $6B in aid into a near $300B cash bonanza. We pay for the bribes and they turn this into a huge windfall for Israel and their elite money changers. This is the magic money changing tactics handed down for centuries for wealth creation through government access.
Let's see here, AIPAC is obviously, by definition, an agent of a foreign nation, hands out bribes all the time with impunity. There was a certain Senator from New Jersey, one Robert Menendez, he was convicted of accepting bribes and acting as an agent for Egypt, that wasn't the correct foreign country you were dealing with Bob! Equal justice demands that most of that rogues gallery found beneath the US Capitol's dome would deserve the same treatment. I will not be holding my breath awaiting the arrival of justice in the Imperial City on the Potomac.
Mr. Mearsheimer just made a new post here on his substack a few moments ago about the lobby.
I think the "new post" you refer to is the video with DD from yesterday. Otherwise, his new post in writing is from 8/6, and it's one that DD and LJ and take issue with. He's arguing that Israeli and that Israel and US policy isn't in lockstep:
"There is abundant evidence that Israel is pursuing policies that are directly at odds with the Biden administration’s goals in the Middle East.
"First, the Biden administration desperately wants a ceasefire in Gaza. The Netanyahu government, however, is committed to making sure the negotiations for a ceasefire fail, which they have so far."
Directly at odds? Israel has been committing genocide for ten months and you can track all the shipments of enormous bombs (2k pounders) that are the main instrument for the genocide. Ten mos. of the US arming a genocide, and he says Israel's policy is somehow "directly at odds" with the consequences of what we're freely doing?
Add to that our State Department's duplicity in diplomacy with Lebanon and its refusal to condemn what Israel is doing, and its continual blaming of Palestinians for being genocided (in effect).
Pehaps you could argumentatively nibble around the edges of "directly at odds"--at odds a bit--but no way can you baldly state "directly at odds."
Simply put, if Israeli policy--and all polls show that the policy of the Netanyahu government is wildly popular in Israel and among pro Zionists in the US--were at odds with US policy the US could have stopped the genocide in its tracks by refusing to supply the munitions that enable genocide. It's really that simple. But we don't. And, in those circs, one has to acknowledge the US being complicit, not "directly at odds", with Israel.
The Israel lobby tails wags the American dog. That's John Mearsheimer's argument. Privately policymakers may say that it's nuts to back Israel no matter what. Because of the lobby's power, they can oppose it only at great risk. It's as simple as that.
Danny Davis expressed incredulity at this state of affairs. Surely what it does must be illegal. Meansheimer explained that the law protects the lobby because of its arm's length relationship with the Israeli state. American institutions and individuals can donate to political action committees to influence policy. Apart from the statutory element and judicial rulings on money-as-speech (e.g., Citizens United), the state can selectively enforce restrictions to silence dissent (e.g., alleged FARA violations by Scott Ritter). For friends, everything; for enemies, the law.
The U.S. and its axis of see no evil (selectively) certainly is complicit. Mearsheimer, as I understand him, means to say that were it not for the distorting effect of the Israel lobby, the policy would be other than it is. Customary realist policy criteria would apply. He's not an apologist for the lobby. He's not stonewalling. He's describing a state of affairs, one that he finds profoundly wrongheaded and ultimately suicidal for U.S. national interests.
"Meansheimer explained that the law protects the lobby because of its arm's length relationship with the Israeli state."
I'm a lawyer and former FBI agent with training in NatSec Law and 20+ years experience in counterintelligence. I think I understood what Mearsheimer was saying. Please don't expect me to accept the fairy tale that the Lobby has an "arms length" relationship with the state of Israel. The example of Larry Franklin and AIPAC is simply one example that came to public attention. Steiner's recorded words are another. I'm saying that it's Jewish American political muscle on DoJ that prevents AIPAC from being classed as a foreign agent, not the law and not some imaginary hand's on relationship between AIPAC and Israel. Mearsheimer has received from me all the credit that he's due for the outstanding work he's done on the lobby, but I won't be silent when he pushes counter factual narratives.
I should add for clarity. I'm not saying that Mearsheimer has changed his conclusions and views about anything. I'm suggesting that he feels that in his position he needs to bend over backwards to avoid the anti-semite tag. I understand that. Everyone who gets into this issue feels that need, but I believe he bent way too far yesterday.
Apologies for the delay. Substack didn't alert me to your replies.
I meant no offense and largely share your point of view. Indeed, yesterday while reading Ilan Pappe's book "Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic," which John Mearsheimer linked to in the post that he and Danny Davis talked about, I noted a section on Fulbright's senate investigation of U.S. lobbying by the state of Israel. Sometimes even the legal fiction of an arm's length separation—far enough for plausible deniability, close enough to exchange a wink—is a fiction. Your examples likewise document that.
Incidentally, eventually Fulbright lost a primary in which the Israel lobby bankrolled his opponent.
In light of the search of Scott Ritter's home in an investigation of possible FARA violations, what I find curious is that while someone who _receives money to follow the instructions of another state can fall afoul of the law, donors that _give money to lobby on behalf of a foreign government, in coordination with its institutions and officials, are within the law. It's my understanding that if a political campaign and a PAC coordinate, it may be a crime. Yet it's seemingly okay for a foreign state and a PAC to do so. Quite the loophole if true.
It's not unlikely I'm missing nuances on the law, so forgive a non-professional's possible misconstruals. Nor am I here addressing lawfare and political untouchability, despite their immense bearing on the law. Instead I'm noticing what looks like an asymmetry in federal regulation of foreign state lobbyists, whether by unhappy accident—or happy accident, depending on where you sit—or design.
I also listened to the Mearsheimer interview. Thank you for the detailed review and supplementary materials.
It seems like the get-out-of-jail-free card is to declare that the desired policies for which you lobby are in America's interest. What you think is good for America to do as regards Israel... is good for America to do.
And there are insufficient numbers of American citizens with the wealth to buy policies for any other country that might negatively affect Israel.
I'm glad Davis played the clip from Mr. Hezbollah suggesting that maybe, just maybe, the problem is not an Israel Lobby per se, such that the Arab Lobby could have but did not pony up enough money for America to follow any other policies as regards Israel. Because it forces me to think through the complete identification of American interests with, well, Zionism for lack of a better term. Mearsheimer strictly denied this.
The Arab lobby can never compete with the volume of funds coming to the Israel lobby from ownership of the FRB and the position of the owners as an intermediary between the FRB and subsequent recipients of those funds, taking a margin clip on all those funds.
In addition, the Israel lobby has a self-reinforcing, first-mover advantage in its control of Congress through which it gets Congress to allocate taxpayer funds to multiple agencies and associated companies of that lobby. While the Arab lobby no doubt trades some votes for special interest funding by Congress, since it does not have the same control over Congress, it cannot come anywhere near the amount the Israel lobby is able to thereby extort from the American people via Congress.
‘Does that make what they’re doing “perfectly legal”? No, it doesn’t.’
AIPAC is an internal example of the ‘Rules-based Order’, which is to law/justice as ‘values’ are to Virtues. It’s ‘pounding on the table’ when you are unable to pound on either law or justice. All good if you have the ethics of a beast.
And then Tulsi Gabbard being surveilled on every flight by air Marshalls
Concur. It does not mattter what you do...it matters who you are. You are one of them, you are ok. You are not one of them and color outside thier established lines....you get hammered.
Been that way for a while now.
And do not let them bullshit you, when you point inequality out and they sat that is "whataboutism"
Thats bullshit. it has nothing to do with "whataboutism". it is about equality before the law.
Reminds me of that truism, “some are more equal than others.”
YouTube can be useful…I don’t have a problem per se with going directly to established media entities but these links are directly from the horses mouth…
https://youtu.be/_2BQAYUtLrg?si=6RNb6ZcE1Dv7I66l
https://youtu.be/YvqePmPoY-s?si=oGZ1tgP7dFSEaM-T
Excellent legal and pragmatic (miss the days when one informed the other) analysis, even by the high bar you’ve set for yourself. Thank you.
And then I must ask, why has Hunter not been charged with his multitude of clear violations of the FARA act? Things that make you go "hmmmm."
How many persecuted Americans because of their truthful revelations of Israel will it take for humans to wake? Looks like one by one the truth tellers will be picked off, including us when they work down the chain. Let's see who speaks out for Scott. Bet it won't include Mearsheimer.