Tag Archives: gaza

No one talks about why the Israel lobby is so influential

Hint: It isn’t “the Jews”

There is significant infighting among the American right concerning the priorities of the Trump administration. Elected on an America First” platform, Trump’s conservative critics argue the administration is far too concerned with foreign policy in the Middle East and not concerned enough with domestic priorities. They attribute this to the outsized influence of Israel, achieved through the pro-Israel American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Trump has responded in his usual manner. You bring a knife, I’ll bring an ICBM. He has called for Rep. Thomas Massie to be primaried and imbued Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene with the dreaded Trump nickname. “Marjorie Taylor Brown,” meaning the grass has turned rotten, as Trump helpfully explained.

But despite Trump’s efforts to isolate a few legislators, there is evidence of a significant divide among his base. “MIGA,” standing for Make Israel Great Again and such mockery of Trump’s key slogans have trended on social media.

It is true that AIPAC is highly influential, although it is not among the top ten lobbyists representing foreign governments. Firms representing Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt outspend them. Still, when campaigning, American politicians don’t make it a point to express their devotion to the welfare of those countries as they do to the State of Israel. More importantly, the U.S. government hasn’t gone to war on behalf of any of those countries who spend more lobbying as it has for Israel.

Critics point to AIPAC and simply say “follow the money.” Not only do these politicians depend upon AIPAC’s support to get elected; they fear AIPAC’s wrath should their support for the foreign government waver.

But that alone does not explain AIPAC’s outsized influence. Politicians depend on contributions from all sorts of special interests. Why is this one so effective? Why does the Republican Party in particular seem almost fully controlled by this lobby?

For a tiny minority on the right, the answer is “the Jews,” in the same sense Hitler said, “the Jews.” They view people of Jewish descent as a global conspiracy to rule the world surreptitiously through control of financial institutions and behind the scenes political machinations. This fringe element made enough noise for AIPAC to label anyone who opposes pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy as antisemitic.

But as for the other 99.99% of critics of U.S. foreign policy, including prominent politicians and media like Tucker Carlson, Thomas Massie, Megyn Kelly, and Marjorie Taylor Greene, antisemitism is not the explanation. In fact, some of those named have had to overcome a predisposition for U.S. government support for Israel to arrive at their current positions. Regardless, they make legitimate arguments for why Washington should not be involved in any foreign conflicts nor provide any foreign aid with over $38 trillion in debt and trillion-dollar deficits for the foreseeable future.

But still, none of these critics seem to acknowledge the reason AIPAC holds such sway with American politicians. They either feign or express genuine confusion as to why U.S. elected officials would prioritize a foreign country over their own. But there is no mystery here.

The reason AIPAC is so influential is not “the Jews,” but “the Christians,” meaning American Christians. Tens of millions of Christian U.S. citizens who turn out to vote at very high rates in U.S. Elections. It is the votes of these Christians and its ability to affect them that makes AIPAC powerful.

We’re not talking about all Christians, or even most, but rather a significant minority who believe not only that the “end times” as they call them are imminent, but that U.S. foreign policy will literally influence how those end times turn out. Based upon a novel and relatively recent understanding of the New Testament, this group of Christian Zionists believe, in short, that the U.S. government must support the modern state of Israel for the prophecies in the Book of Revelations to come true.

Read the rest on Tom’s Substack…

Tom Mullen is the author of It’s the Fed, Stupid and Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

U.S. Foreign Policy: 100 Years of Failure

1 Reply

TAMPA, November 19, 2012 — An Iraqi diplomat has called upon other Arab oil producers to “use oil as a weapon” against the United States. Fox News reports this as if it should come as a surprise.

“The shocking statement from a democratic government in power only after the U.S. and allies ousted murderous dictator Saddam Hussein in a costly and bloody war laid bare the Middle Eastern nation’s true allegiance,” reports Fox.

The detachment from reality exhibited by news organizations like Fox and Americans in general is stunning. Americans actually believe that Iraqis should be grateful that the United States invaded their country, destroyed their infrastructure, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and made homeless refugees of millions more.

They also believe that after deposing a relatively westernized dictator and putting the Shia majority in power, the resulting government would not seek to retaliate against U.S. support for Israel.

This is by no means an isolated incident. It is a recurring theme. Contrary to official myth, U.S. foreign policy has been a failure for the past 100 years, virtually without exception.

We’re constantly told that the United States has a “special role” in the world, due to its status as sole superpower and the role it has played over the past century “defending freedom.” This is pure delusion.

A small percentage of Americans are vaguely aware that Osama bin Laden did not create Al Qaeda (Arabic for “the base”). It was started in Pakistan by Sheik Abdullah Azzam with CIA support. According to veteran reporter Eric Margolis,

“I know this because I interviewed Azzam numerous times at al-Qaida HQ in Peshawar while covering the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. Azzam set up al-Qaida, which means “the base” in Arabic, to help CIA and Saudi-financed Arab volunteers going to fight in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan. In those days, the west hailed them as “freedom fighters,” writes Margolis.

Continue at Communities@ Washington Times…

President Obama: Staying out of Gaza conflict your biggest test

1 Reply

TAMPA, November 16, 2012 – Dear President Obama,

Push may be coming to shove in Israel. There is only so long that one side can tolerate rockets being fired into its territory and the other can tolerate living under martial law imposed by a foreign power. The whole world hopes for a diplomatic solution, but one side or both may insist upon war.

If it comes to that, then you will face the biggest test of your presidency. Under enormous pressure to do otherwise, the right decision will be to do nothing.

The government you run is bankrupt and the nation is weary of war, especially the pointless kind we’ve waged in the Middle East over the past decade. History will eventually judge both of those wars U.S. defeats. A mighty empire invaded a third world backwater and was eventually expelled by guerilla “freedom fighters” defending their homeland. It’s an old story, but apparently neither voters nor world leaders learn much from history.

For now, the U.S. can declare victory in Afghanistan and withdraw and only good can come of that. What we cannot afford, economically or from a national security standpoint is to go right back into the Middle East, this time with world war a very real possibility.

There is already some speculation that a major offensive by Israel into Gaza may merely be a warm-up for a war with Iran. That may or may not be the Israeli government’s intention, but no rational person can deny that the situation has enormous potential to go there. At that point, it will be more important than ever to adopt the foreign policy that 24 consecutive U.S. presidents said was what made our nation wealthy and powerful: nonintervention.

U.S. citizens have been badgered for a decade with the tired argument that history has taught us not to “appease” a dictator. First Saddam Hussein and now Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have been the latest Hitler. Appease them, we are told, and they will not stop until they take over the world. Of course, no one stops to ask the obvious question: With what?

Let’s talk about Hitler and what we learned from history. Chamberlain’s infamous agreement is rather late in the game to pick up the story. Let’s rewind back to Hitler’s rise to power. It could never have happened without the economic hardship Germans suffered as a result of the Treaty of Versailles. That one-sided treaty would never have been signed had the U.S. not entered WWI and turned a stalemate that all countries wanted a way out of into a decisive Allied victory.

Sound familiar? It should, although there is a major difference here. Any war between Israel and either the Palestinians or Iranians – or even both of them together – would not be a stalemate. It would be a decisive Israeli victory that might lead to a lasting peace, if all of the players understand that they are on their own.

Continue at Communities@ Washington Times…