As long as I am writing about the impact of Big Money on U.S. politics and policies:
The First Rule of AIPAC Is: You Do Not Talk about AIPAC by Thomas Knapp
Read on.
Washington’s political establishment went berserk when US Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) publicly noted that US-Israel relations are “all about the Benjamins” — slang for $100 bills, referring to money shoveled at American politicians by the American Israel Public Affairs Group (AIPAC).
Omar was accused of antisemitism — immediately by Republicans, shortly after by members of her own party — and bullied into apologizing. She may or may not be prejudiced against Jews, but even if she is, that wasn’t her real offense.
Her real offense was publicly mentioning the irrefutable fact that many members of Congress take their marching orders from a foreign power’s lobbying apparatus (an apparatus not, as required by law, registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act), at least partly because those marching orders come with promises of significant donations to those politicians’ campaigns.
AIPAC itself doesn’t make direct donations to political campaigns. But AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbying groups like Christians United For Israel punch well above their weight in American politics, largely by motivating their supporters to financially support and work for “pro-Israel” candidates in general elections and help weed out “anti-Israel” candidates in party primaries.
By the way, “pro-Israel” in this context always means “supportive of the jingoism of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party,” and never “supportive of the many Israelis who’d like peace with the Palestinian Arabs.”
—snip—
If most Americans noticed that many members of Congress (as well as most presidents) are selling their influence over US policy to a foreign power, we might do something about it.
For decades, howling “antisemitism” any time the matter came up proved an effective tactic for shutting down public discussion of the “special relationship” under which Israel receives lavish foreign aid subsidies, effective control of US foreign policy in the Middle East, and lately even state (and pending federal) legislation requiring government contractors to sign loyalty oaths to Israel’s government.
The Israeli lobby’s power to prevent that discussion seems to be slipping, however. Why? In part because the lobby’s money and political support, which used to be spent buying both sides of the partisan aisle, has begun tilting heavily Republican in recent years, freeing some Democrats to not “stay bought.” And in part because the newest generation of politicians includes some like Ilhan Omar who aren’t for sale (to Israel, anyway).
Decades of unquestioning obedience to the Israel lobby has drawn the US into needless and costly conflicts not even remotely related to the defense of the United States. We’ll be better off when the “special relationship,” and the corruption underlying it, ends.
No more need be said.
AG
More blogwhoring by proxy.
I’m always amazed that people who write stuff like the Counterpunch article copied** by Arthur Gilroy attack people for allegedly trying to suppress criticism of Israel by raising the specter of anti-Semitism…and then are blind enough, or stupid enough, to use traditional anti-Semitic tropes as part of their so-called analysis or criticism.
To be explicit: the Counterpunch article uses the imagery of rich Jews “shovel[ing]” money and the even more pernicious stereotype of Jews as being disloyal to the countries where they reside.
Every Jew understands these dog whistles.
Arthur Gilroy does not.
**Yes, copied. Arthur should have given a brief excerpt and a link to Counterpunch. The man is clueless about the idea of fair use.
Additionally, the author of the piece AG copied here is Thomas L. Knapp, director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism. He’s not as lost in Ayn Randland as the fratboys at Reason Magazine, bu Knapp did supply this peculiar Hot Take which shared part of Mich McConnell’s bizarre attacks on voting rights. In part:
“If Democrats want to increase voter turnout among the working class, communities of color, etc., they need to be fighting to expand early voting periods, and perhaps to make “Election Day” a 48-hour period, from midnight Friday night to midnight Sunday night. They need to be fighting against voter list purges and voter registration office shutdowns.
I’m shocked — shocked! — that they’re just trying to tap taxpayer money for their own party’s political benefit instead.”
Democrats are fighting for expanded early voting and fighting against the suppression techniques he lists. Fuck it, Knapp’s got a Party to demagogue. That has a familiar ring.
It’s also not the correct analysis of the problem, and if you don’t have the correct analysis you very well can’t tackle the issue at hand.
AIPAC is an issue, but if it didn’t exist foreign policy would still be oriented towards Israel. That could be changing, and Netanyahu seems to have bet that it’s better to get rid of the bipartisan alliance in favor of Trumpist antisemites and European nationalists because they support Israel and don’t question human rights issues like those liberal democrats.
And at home, Netanyahu and his Likud Party seem intent on making deals with whatever devils possible to hang on to power, in the process alienating those with any remaining sympathy towards Israel in the process.
Yes, this was also partially what I was alluding to. Netanyahu sees fit to hold onto power to such a degree that he’s willing to ally with literal terrorists and fascists in order to avoid prosecution of his criminal indictments. Now if the agreement is to look the other way and protect him, what do they get out of the deal? It’s gotta be full annexation. From their point of view, seems fair: Trump is president and will support anything, and Netanyahu is in a position of weakness giving you the upper hand to make demands. It’s now or “continue slow annexation through settlement expansion”. Might as well cement where this is all headed. It’s canary in coal mine of what happens when you allow your country to be swallowed by the far right. Labour and Meretz can hardly poll above single digits anymore. Liberal Zionism is dead at this point. All the more reason to be mindful of antisemitism against diaspora.
I could not agree more. The rise of right-wing “populism” (or whatever one wants to call it) in the US and the European continent is extremely concerning to me given it has much more than a tinge of antisemitism in its rhetoric and actions. Avowed leftists borrowing any of that rhetoric deserve to be called on it.
. . . one emphatically rejects calling it ‘right-wing “populism”‘. Doing so strikes me as a prime example of “borrowing any of that rhetoric”, which any “avowed leftists” doing so would indeed “deserve to be called on”.
Since “populism” simply, literally means “for the people” (implying all the people). Or arguably if one prefers, in the locution adopted by our greatest President, “of . . . ., by . . ., and for the people”. It’s a good thing.
But the defining feature of the violently mis-labeled ‘right-wing “populism”‘ is its exclusionary nature — it is significantly, and violently, against “the people” — specifically any segment of “the people” that are of non-white and/or non-“Christian” heritage. The antithesis of “populist”.
(That this extreme violence against the plain meanings of words is widely practiced by the *WtUCM doesn’t make it any less infuriating — quite the contrary, in fact.)
*Worse-than-Useless Corporate Media