Israel Lobby

Homo judaicus: The Political Theology of US Foreign Policy

Below is a short compilation of excerpts from my book, first published almost two decades ago, and republished by Arktos media in 2017.  In light of the new geopolitical realignments and continuing political tremor in the Mideast it may be worth looking again at some underlying aspects of US foreign policy.

America’s unconditional support of Israel resembles a belated form of White House Christian-inspired medieval neurosis. Fear of being called an anti-Semite prevents American politicians and a great number of American academics from openly criticizing Israel. When some sparse critical voices are heard, they usually leave out the founding myths of the Biblical narrative, and focus, instead, on dry facts relating to the influence of Jewish lobbies in America. In the typical fashion of American “expertise,” American academics who happen to be critical of Israel use one set of arguments while neglecting other scholarly approaches. In their analysis of the holy alliance between postmodern Israel and America, American scholars tend to forget that the Old Testament ties between these two countries had already predestined America to nurture a special and privileged rapport with the state of Israel.

Clearly, America gains little, if any, geopolitical benefit from supporting Israel. Israel is more of a liability than an asset for America. From the geopolitical perspective, Israel is even a nuisance for America, given that as a small country of approximate size of New Jersey it surrounded by a host of hostile cultures, religions, and neighbors, both outside and within its borders. Although America, due to its unique insular position, has been able to avoid troublesome neighbors and their tribal problems, it has willingly accepted on its own soil the issue of the balkanized Middle East. America’s special friend, Israel, acts in a way similar to that of ancient Prussia; it must grow at the expense of its neighbors — or it must perish. [i] But America’s special filial-fatherly links to Israel must also prevent this last from happening.

Metaphysically speaking, Israel is the spiritual origin of the American divine world mission and the incarnation of American ideology itself. Only within the context of a strange filial relationship with Jewishness and Israel can one understand why America is accepting with equanimity its own deliberate decline into a world-wide morass in the early 21st century — especially since America’s foreign policy actions stand in sharp contrast to the originally proclaimed goals of America’s founding fathers.

Unfortunately, the fear of being called an anti-Semite prevents intelligent Americans from openly discussing the explosive issue of American-Israeli entanglement. Unlike previous geopolitical evaluations that had some sound basis in American foreign policy decision-making, the role of Israel and the Jewish lobby in America are the two major elements that formulate overall American foreign policy. The imagery of Israel and “God’s chosen people” represents the framework of America’s commitments, not only toward the Middle East but also regarding other foreign policy issues. In the meantime, “any aspiring policymaker is encouraged to become an overt supporter of Israel, which is why public critics of Israeli policy have become an endangered species in the foreign policy establishment.”[ii]

These words were written in 2005 by two prominent American scholars whose essay was relayed by major media outlets around the USA and Europe, in turn prompting Jewish lobbies in America to cry foul and raise the proverbial specter of “anti-Semitism.”

What John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt write, however, is nothing new to knowledgeable individuals. Similar critical views of Israel were voiced earlier by many American authors, and these views also reflect, both privately and officially, those of many European scholars and politicians. But when such observations are uttered by scholars from respectable academic establishments, they leave a different aftereffect on the entire American political scene. This explains the reason for worry among American Jews and Israelis.

In Yahve we Trust 

American founding myths drew their inspiration from Hebrew thought. The notion of the “City on the Hill” and “God’s own country” was borrowed from the Old Testament and the Jewish people. The Biblical idea of predestination served the early American founding fathers as a launching pad for their own concept of democratic self-righteousness. Of all Christian denominations, Calvinism was the closest to the Jewish religion and, as some authors have noted, the United States owes its very existence to the Jews. “For what we call Americanism,” writes Werner Sombart, “is nothing else than the Jewish spirit distilled.” [iii]

The author, a disciple of Max Weber, was sympathetic to Jews and, therefore, when he describes the overwhelming influence of the Judaic spirit in American life, he cannot be accused of manifesting a bias against Jews. Similar remarks will be found later among legions of European authors, most of whom fell into oblivion or disgrace given their ties to antidemocratic and racialist schools of thought. Sombart further writes that “the United States is filled to the brim with the Jewish spirit.[iv] Many wide-spread customs in America, such as giving newborn children Judaic names, or administering circumcision to young newborn males, come from Jewish heritage.[v]

Very early on America’s founding fathers, pioneers, and politicians identified themselves as Jews who had come to the new American Canaan from pestilent Europe. In a postmodern Freudian twist, these pilgrims and these new American pioneers were obliged to kill their European fathers in order to facilitate the spreading of American democracy world-wide. “Heaven ha[s] placed our country in this situation to try us; to see whether we would faithfully use the incalculable power in our hands for speeding forward the world’s regeneration.” [vi]

Even American Christian antisemites are subconsciously enamored with the Jewish idea of predestination, which they harbor side by side with their antisemitic sentiments. In fact, American antisemitism can be described as a distorted and hidden form of philo-Semitism which, while not able to materialize itself on its own American chosenness, projects its would-be supremacy through its hatred against Jews. It is not far-fetched to argue, as some authors do, that the American dream is a role model for universal Jewishness, only one which must not be limited to a specific race or tribe in America, as is the case with ethnocentric Jews who are well aware of their ingroup racial feelings. Americanism is designed for all peoples, races and nations on Earth. America is, by definition, an extended form of globalized Israel and not reserved for one specific tribe only. Does that, therefore, mean that our proverbial homo americanus is a universal carbon copy of homo judaicus?

The word “antisemitism,” unlike the words “anticommunism” or “antifascism,” does not reflect political beliefs or critical views of the Jews. This term is exclusively used as a lexical label to depict a person’s grave mental illness. As a perceived medical or judicial illness, antisemitism must never be debated; an antisemitic patient must not be a partner in scholarly duels; his sick views must not be the subject of academic inquiry and counter-inquiry. As an element of medical pathology, antisemitism must only by treated by doctors, preferably by a Jewish psychoanalyst, or legally, by a liberal prosecutor in court.

Accusing American Jews of possessing extraterrestrial powers, or blaming them for their purported conspiracy to subvert Gentile culture, borders on delusion and only reflects the absence of normal dialogue. American antisemitic delusions only provide legitimacy to American Jews in their constant search for a real or surreal antisemitic boogieman around every corner. Without the specter of antisemitism, Jews would likely assimilate quickly and hence disappear. Thus, antisemitism provides Jews with alibis to project themselves as victims of Gentile prejudice. Consequently, it assigns them the cherished role of posing as the sole educational super-ego for Americans and, by proxy, the entire world. In his book on the social role of Jews, a prominent Jewish-French politician and author, Jacques Attali, writes: “As Russian Jews invented socialism, and as Austrian Jews invented psychoanalysis, American Jews in the forefront, participated in the birth of American capitalism and in the Americanization of the entire world.”[vii]

For certain Jewish authors, like Attali, such a remark is easier to put to paper than it would be for a Gentile thinker, who with the same comment would be immediately shouted down as an “anti-Semite.” If a serious American scholar or a politician venture into this forbidden field, his gesture is interpreted as a sign of his being an agent provocateur, or worse, as an indication that he has decided to write his own obituary. Such a schizophrenic climate of self-censorship in America will sooner or later lead to dramatic consequences for both American Jews and Gentiles. The lack of healthy dialogue can last for a century or so, but feigned conviviality between American Gentiles and American Jews cannot last forever, if it continues to take as its basis distorted perceptions of the Other and how this Other should behave. Mendacity carries the germ of civil war.

[i] Jordis von Lohausen, Les Empires et la puissance, (Paris: Le Labyrinthe) p. 266.

[ii] John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, “The Israel Lobby” London Review of Books, Vol. 28 No. 6, March 23, 2006. Also published in an extended version by Harvard University, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” by John

  1. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt; Working Paper Number: RWP06–011; Submitted: 13/03/2006.

[iii] Werner Sombart, The Jews and Modern Capitalism, translated with notes by M. Epstein, (New York: Burt Franklin, 1969; originally published in London 1913), pp. 43–44.

[iv] Ibid., p. 38.

[v] Ibid., p. 249.

[vi]  George B. Cheever, God’s Hand (New York: M.W. Dodd Brick Church Chapel, 1941; London: Wiley & Putnam, 1941); in Carl Bode (ed.), American Life in the 1840s (New York: Doubleday & Company, 1967), 315.

[vii] Jacques Attali, Les Juifs, le monde et l’argent (Paris: Fayard; 2002), p. 419 and passim.

Israel Is Not Our Ally

It is more critical now than ever that we teach our kids and grandkids the importance of our alliance with the State of Israel. They are our most important strategic ally — and they are a dear friend to the United States of America. If we fail to educate our children of Israel’s importance, we risk raising a generation that sees no need to protect our most important strategic ally. Americans must always understand the significance of this land that God has promised to the Israelites; they must respect the Jewish people and the State of Israel; and they must always be on the side of freedom and good, never on the side of terrorism and evil.

Protecting the Promised Land by Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD)

It is very difficult to be an American Republican. I, for one, will definitely not be teaching my children of Israel’s “importance”; instead, I will teach my children that Israel is not an ally of America and that Jews are not the friends of non-Jews.

*        *        *        *

Recently, Middle Eastern violence and warfare flared up again. After suffering its worst Palestinian violence after Hamas fighters broke out of the Gaza prison and massacred hundreds upon hundreds of Israeli citizens and kidnapped at least a hundred more on October 7, 2023, Israel has pounded the densely populated Gaza territory for the last few days. Obviously, the violence directed at non-combatants is atrocious and I am one degree separated from Israeli families who are dealing with the losses of their loved ones — or their loved ones’ loved ones. No matter what I say below — and this is not a matter of virtue signaling, I do not condone indiscriminate targeting of civilian men, women, and children. For a gentile, I know more Israelis than the average American — by a longshot. My views are not directed at them as much as they are directed at their country, which is an international menace. Moreover, this is no defense of Islam. I have a very dim view of the Islamic world and Islam itself. It is an ugly and pathological religion that confines its adherents in a glorification of violence against the non-Muslim. That I want to see international law, which itself is a creation of European values, vindicated has little to do with the fact that the victims of Israel’s failure to abide by it are Muslims.

To be sure, I do not wish to overstate what happened in Israel on October 7, 2023. Everyday throughout the world, civilians are subject to political violence. It is a terrible thing, but that what happened in Israel is fresh in our minds — as if it is the only place on the planet where such violence happened — is because we have been literally bombarded with non-stop coverage in what can only be described as victim pornography. That doesn’t minimize the horror of what happened in southern Israel that day, but when the editorial choices of what we see and read are dictated by people who want us to focus singularly on Israeli victims, we see that our obtuseness towards political violence in, for example, Armenia or Nigeria is not so much a defect in us as it is a consequence of what we are shown or not shown.

*        *        *        *

In the United States, we hear repeatedly and stereophonically that Israel is “our greatest ally and friend.” We hear it in unanimous bipartisan fashion, and we never hear it challenged. Of course, to challenge it, even obliquely, is to be susceptible to the charge of antisemitism, which, in the United States, is no walk in the park. Setting aside antisemitic conspiracy theories, if a realpolitik truism is that you are ruled by those who you cannot criticize, then there can be little doubt that we are ruled by Jews and their gentile enablers. This is a statement of fact — whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant. We live in a country that punishes dissent from this orthodoxy.

Political axioms are powerful things — for the average American, certain principles are assumed. How they became assumed, or why they are assumed at all, is never questioned once the axiom becomes a fixture of American life. In that sense, we are a very dull people, but I am not sure we are much different than any other political community, now or historically. The reality is that it takes courage, intelligence, and, most importantly, imagination to question political axioms — to see the world without the mental crutch they provide. It takes moxie to imagine a world in which those axioms were returned to the arena of discourse to see how, if at all, they would fare in the marketplace of political ideas. America’s reflexive and unqualified support of Israel falls squarely within this axiomatic paradigm. The ugly reality hiding in plain sight of this political axiom is that Israel is not merely not “our greatest ally,” our support of Israel directly contravenes the interests of Americans the world over and contradicts the most basic Anglo-American values we hold. Not only should we not support Israel — militarily, economically, or culturally — we ought to treat it as a political pariah. We are very far from doing that, but Israel has become the international monster it is precisely because of the unqualified support from of the United States. Take that away and Israel is in enormous — even existential — trouble. To understand that is to know why Israel’s supporters are as fanatic as they are — a hole in the dike of American support, no matter how seemingly trivial, is something that must be struck hard by Jewish berserkers because the whole house of cards could fall, and they know it.

But let us return to the political axiom of Israel’s status as “our greatest ally.” Let us probe that just a little. Setting aside all other considerations, an alliance between countries is typically driven by three foreign policy factors: reciprocal benefits, cultural/civilizational harmony and symmetrical values, and economic considerations. At the threshold of any alliance between states lies the proposition that each benefit from the relationship — and that benefit must be predicated upon some mutuality. In normal functioning foreign policy, the concept of quid pro quo is a given. The mutuality between countries needed is tied to the civilizational harmony that exists between them; so, the United Kingdom and United States are natural allies because of the shared history and culture between them. For us, more broadly, Western Europe and the United States share a civilization, which makes an alliance not so much a consideration but an outcome of that shared civilization. In fact, that shared civilization is what makes the similarity of values so predominant. At least historically, we valued the rule of law, relative democracy, freedoms of press, association, and religion — and in each of these political values, the United States and Western Europe were largely inline — so much so that we never needed to negotiate these values in order to strike an alliance. To be sure, I am not defending the Enlightenment civilization without qualification that has grown up over the last three or four centuries but only observing that Americans generally share certain political values with their Western European counterparts as a matter of course. The same is true of Islamic countries and their values, and the same is true of Latin American or East Asian countries and their values. Finally, in addition to securing peaceful relations, economic considerations drive foreign policy — trade and economic development are drivers of whom we see as friends and allies. As will be discussed, none of these considerations favor America’s special relationship — financial, military, and diplomatic — with Israel.

What I have written, however, is a hypothetical statement of foreign policy considerations in a multipolar world — and we do not live in a multipolar world. America’s considerations, at least since the end of the Second World War, are imperial and hegemonic. As the world’s leading superpower, the United States has an additional consideration that animates — indeed dominates — its foreign policy considerations — namely, that its status as world hegemon remains unchallenged economically and militarily. Imperial considerations create different foreign policy imperatives, and the United States has played a pernicious role propping up its hegemonic status — overthrowing unhelpful governments by fomenting revolution and attacking others when it saw fit. America’s current role as Russia’s primary adversary in Ukraine can only be understood in the context of its manic attempt to preserve its hegemony. Setting aside the moral considerations of America’s hegemony and taking it for granted as a goal of American statesmanship, the reality is that America’s slavish support for Israel does not assist it in preserving its hegemony.

Simply stated, Israel is not an ally of the United States in any meaningful sense. It is a drag on the moral and economic wellbeing of the United States. Moreover, by propping up the mendacious policies of the Israeli government, Americans and American interests are made less safe and less prosperous as a result. It is time that this alliance is questioned — and questioned hard.

*        *        *        *

Before we even address the putative benefits of America’s support of Israel, we should consider those who support it for nonrational reasons. First, there are American Jews, most obviously. While it is alleged — constantly — that to suggest the dual loyalty of American Jews to the United States and Israel is tantamount to antisemitism, the fact of their dual loyalty cannot be seriously questioned. Indeed, it is not a dual loyalty at all — it is, almost uniformly, a singular loyalty to Israel that trumps loyalty to the United States. In this way, American Jews are very different from every other ethnicity that has immigrated to the United States. Within a generation or two, every other group that has come here has largely become Americans with proportionately less interest in their native homelands in every generation, but Jews, many who have been in the United States for multiple generations are very different. Israel is not merely something they are interested in — Israel is their chief concern, especially at times like this when Israel is engaged in a military crisis. With the exception of a small percentage of progressive Jews, the vast majority of American Jews view Israel — and American support for Israel — as a defining point of political life. While they are a small percentage of Americans, American Jews are vastly overrepresented in the quartet of modern culture-making powers: (i) media and entertainment; (ii) academia; (iii) government and lobbying; and (iv) finance and banking. Jews, through their ethnic monopolies and propensity for groupthink, are able to use their influence to drive the discussion and policy in a way that tilts overwhelmingly and uniformly in a pro-Israeli way. Indeed, AIPAC, an entity that should register as a foreign agent, is the most powerful lobby in the United States — and single-handedly puts Congress in its pocket. The Jews, through their influence and their lobby, are the single greatest drivers of U.S. support of Israel. A recapitulation of this outsized influence is the subject of an excellent survey written by recognized foreign policy experts John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt in 2007, The Israel Lobby and the U.S. Foreign Policy. Parenthetically, that book answered two questions: does the special relationship between Israel and the U.S. fuel anti-American sentiments in the Middle East? If the uncritical U.S. support for Israel is not driven by either national interest or moral compass, what explains the reason behind “special relationship”? Notably, both authors were accused of antisemitism for writing it. Even if outdated by fifteen years, the book should be read by everyone because the problems it identifies have only gotten worse.

Second, there are American Evangelical Christians, and many Fox News, Newsmax, and OAN watchers fit squarely in the “useful idiot” category. It is beyond the pale of this essay to address the defective dispensationalist theology that has led a significant percentage of American Evangelicals to become rabidly and often blood-thirstily Zionist, but it is what it is. While I am no Protestant, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli, John Wesley, and John Knox would all be very surprised to learn — or even understand — the relatively new Protestant fascination with Judaism and Zionism five hundred years after the Reformation. Suffice it to say, none of the 95 theses nailed to the church door in Wittenberg included a complaint that the medieval Church had been too solicitous of the Jews (even though she was) or that the reformed party believed that a new Jewish kingdom should be formed in the Holy Land. It makes one wonder who coopted them. Thus, a weighty portion of the GOP then is militantly Zionist as a matter of heretical religious dogma, which is not prone to argument.

Third, there is a war party in the United States closely allied with the real-world military industrial complex. It’s a war party that loves Israel because Israel keeps conflict evergreen throughout the world. The ideological component of these people are a subset of mostly Jews commonly known as “neo-conservatives” (like William Kristol, Robert & Donald Kagan, Richard N. Perle, “Scooter” Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot A. Cohen, and Elliot Abrams). Needless to say, these are the vilest people in American civic life and not only do these people provide the loudest and most aggressive form of advocacy for Israel, but they are also virtually singularly responsible for the disastrous American wars in the Middle East and America’s current policy of tempting nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. Unlike an ordinary functioning state — one that wants peace as the normative condition — we have an influential portion of Americans who like war, armaments, and conflict whether it extends American hegemony or not. War hawks, neocons, and Israel sycophants, like the currently insane Senator Lindsay Graham or the deceased Senator John McCain, were not philosemitic on the basis on a religious conviction, but on the basis of their bloodlust.

Fourth, without making any judgments of anyone in particular, the recent Jeffery Epstein affair also makes one wonder how many American politicians and powerbrokers are fanatical supports of Israel for the simple reason of kompromat. Needless to say, the idea that Mossad has pictures and videos of such Americans in compromising positions with underage boys and girls is far from wildly speculative and goes a long way in explaining the seemingly inexplicable pro-Israeli fanaticism seen by some American politicians for ostensibly no reason at all. That, and we cannot ignore simple old-fashioned bribery. There is also the less sexy proposition of simply buying politicians in seemingly legitimate ways. Consider the rabid Israel supporter, former South Carolina Governor, and Republican Presidential Candidate Nikki Haley:

Haley stunned Washington by resigning her role in the Trump administration in 2018, less than two years after taking office. A spokesperson for Haley claims that the family financial troubles had “no bearing whatsoever on Ambassador Haley’s decision to leave her position” and points to a section of Haley’s resignation letter in which she expressed support for “rotation in office.” But the same letter also suggested that Haley may have had money-making ventures on her mind: “As a businessman,” she wrote to Donald Trump, “I expect you will appreciate my sense that returning from government to the private sector is not a step down but a step up.” Indeed. Since then, Haley’s net worth has ballooned from less than $1 million to an estimated $8 million. How did she make so much money in so little time? By following a tried-and-true playbook for politicians looking to cash in on their fame. Speeches to companies like Barclays and organizations such as the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs provided more money in a day than Haley had previously earned in a year. It’s not clear how many talks she gave from 2019 to 2021, but Haley hauled in $2.3 million from just 11 events in 2022. She wrote two books after leaving the Trump administration. A 2019 memoir sold more than 100,000 copies. A 2022 title provided more than $350,000 in advance payments. Haley also offered consulting services, generating more than $700,000 in fees. Then there were corporate boards. She became a director of Boeing in 2019, then stepped down the next year, collecting over $300,000 in cash and stock. Haley remains on the board of the United Homes Group, which has provided her with more than $250,000, as well as the promise of earning much more as equity grants vest down the road.

One might argue that somebody paid handsomely for Haley’s vociferous Israeli support. Taken together, there are several groups within American society that treat American support for Israel axiomatically — Jews, Evangelicals, war hawks, and grifters — such that it can never be a subject of debate. There is no point in engaging with them therefore because Israel can never be discussed dispassionately or constructively given their nonrational basis for Israeli support. That said, a wide swath of American Republicans — Catholics, non-Evangelical Protestants, unchurched — all are theoretically open to such a discussion. Moreover, the quixotic strength of Donald Trump’s appeal, even though he himself was extremely pro-Israeli, is a demonstration that an appeal to America’s citizenry (or a significant portion) on the basis of what it best for this country and its citizens still has appeal. “Make America Great Again” — or America First — was seen as an existential threat to all of the Israel Firsters cited above. That Trump still has significant pull is a sign that America’s wake-up call with respect to Israel is possible, which explains why he was vilified as no politician has ever been vilified. Strictly speaking, it is possible to advocate for this message with some hope of its success.

*        *        *        *

The façade of Israel’s value can be punctured by the simple asking of questions.

What is the basis for our unqualified support for Israel? Initially, we can ask where is the reciprocity, or, stated differently, what does America receive from its support of Israel? Indeed, Israel, a high-income, developed country, is the single greatest beneficiary of American aid. Why? What do we get for it beyond platitudes from the beneficiary and its American supporters? Nothing of value that I can see, and I challenge anyone to state it succinctly. Setting aside the wisdom of American aid to Third World countries — both in its efficacy and as a matter of thrift — at least American aid that goes to Nigeria or Guatemala to build infrastructure, schools, or industry has a moral component. There is no moral benefit — and indeed an immoral detriment, discussed below — to subsidizing Israel. She has not proved to be a loyal partner — indeed, Israel regularly spies on the U.S. and does not act like an ally in practice. Even ignoring the more toxic allegations of the “dancing Israelis” and their involvement in the 9/11 attacks (presumably to empower the American war party), the plausible involvement of Mossad in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (presumably because of his insistence that Israel not develop nuclear weapons) or the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty during the 1967 War that the Israelis started, what have we gained from the billions of taxpayer dollars given to Israel? If we take those allegations seriously — or even inquire about them, which is more than we can say of the entire media establishment — then we might say that we are subsidizing an undeclared enemy of the United States. And even if we set all of that aside, we obtain nothing of value in return for supporting what amounts to a regime of Jews practicing the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians for a century and calling it a country.

One might argue that we obtain — at least potentially — intelligence from Israel about our enemies in the Middle East. Israel is, after all, a technological behemoth that has its electronic fingers in everyone’s pie. But that begs a further question: why do we have enemies in the Middle East in the first place? Would the Muslim world, fractured as it is, hate the United States if it did not subsidize Israel in the first place? Would we have Islamic terrorism in the United States at all? Would we need to be subjected to intrusive security examinations to fly domestically but for our support of Israel and the collective ire it creates in much of the world? Whatever residual benefit the United States receives in obtaining Israeli intelligence is offset by the threshold consideration that the need for such intelligence would be mitigated altogether if we did not support a regime that antagonized the Islamic world as it does. To make it clearer, the United States never had colonies in the Middle East like France or the U.K. There is thus no reason for the U.S. to be a geopolitical foe of these people. But we are, and for one reason: because of our unqualified support of Israel. Take that away and we never, for a variety of reasons, need to worry about another 9/11 (no matter who orchestrated it). Israel is an international albatross around the neck of American interests — our support has an exponentially negative impact in every conceivable way in which a state can have foreign relations. Nothing is gained by supporting Israel and much is lost.

Culturally and civilizationally, we have little in common with Israel. That may seem odd — after all, aren’t we a “Judeo-Christian” country? Setting aside religion, what do we have civilizationally in common with Israel? Is it democratic? Does it respect the rule of law? Is it non-sectarian? Does it respect the rights of minorities? Israel is a country that violates international law with impunity — an impunity given to it by the United States’ regular veto in the United Nations’ Security Counci of resolutions critical of Israel or, in the case of the Gaza war, a resolution for a “humanitarian pause.”

In every way, Israel is a very different world from America. It is not democratic if take into consideration that half of the population under its control (the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank) have no democratic rights at all. Israel runs roughshod over the rule of law. It allows settlers to physically remove the native people from their homes and land in the West Bank and has the temerity to call this practice, “the redemption” of the land of Israel. It allows unfettered immigration of Jews to Israel — all with a generous subsidy — while it keeps the it has stolen from Palestinians in successive wars. It has — increasingly — theocratic tendencies such that the Jewish religion is favored at the expense of other religions. And all of that says nothing of the Jewish proclivity to spit — literally — on the Christian pilgrims who visit the holy sites within Israel.

From the perspective of international law, Israel is an apartheid state. According to Amnesty International:

Apartheid is a violation of public international law, a grave violation of internationally protected human rights, and a crime against humanity under international criminal law. The term “apartheid” was originally used to refer to a political system in South Africa which explicitly enforced racial segregation, and the domination and oppression of one racial group by another. It has since been adopted by the international community to condemn and criminalize such systems and practices wherever they occur in the world. The crime against humanity of apartheid under the Apartheid Convention, the Rome Statute and customary international law is committed when any inhuman or inhumane act (essentially a serious human rights violation) is perpetrated in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another, with the intention to maintain that system. Apartheid can best be understood as a system of prolonged and cruel discriminatory treatment by one racial group of members of another with the intention to control the second racial group.

Again, one does not have to like the religion of Muhammed (and I don’t) to understand that the modern state of Israel is founded on the displacement and political neutering of the Palestinian people, carried on by an Israeli state that abets Jewish supremacists and religious bigots. Largely ignored in the American press, Amnesty International issued a damning, nearly 280-page report in 2022 that outlined much of what Israel does towards non-Jews in Palestine. “The Israeli government is committing the crime against humanity of apartheid against Palestinians and must be held accountable.” One need not agree with the politics of Amnesty International, but the reality is that international law should matter for us. International law reflects principles of European civilization that were forged over thousands of years and represent a statement of basic human rights. Millions of Palestinians live under Israeli control effectively as stateless refugees on their own land without the right to vote or travel freely. The Gaza territory, home to 2.3 million Palestinians, is an open-air prison in which the residents live in deplorable conditions. If a concentration camp is a confined geographic space in which a population is compelled to live within with severe restrictions on liberty and human rights, Gaza is a modern concentration camp. At the very least, it is an internment camp. And this is what we are subsidizing?

It is even worse than the report outlined above. In what is one of the most compelling books ever written on Rabbinic/Talmudic Judaism and Israel, Israel Shahak’s Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, demonstrates the various and systematic ways that Israel dehumanizes the “other” in law and in other ways. A dispassionate examination of what Israel has done, and is doing, demonstrates that Israel’s values are starkly at variance with American political values in the broadest and most fundamental sense.

There is an argument made not infrequently that America “owes” the Jews support because of the Holocaust. Setting aside the question of the scale and extent of the Holocaust, in what moral universe does harm sustained by one party allow that same party to inflict harm on an unrelated third party with impunity? Whatever we can say about the Palestinians, they have no culpability for the Second World War. Why should they bear the reparations — in land and in human rights — to Jews who were allegedly harmed by another? What is the moral basis for displacing them? More to the point, why should we subsidize that harm? The United States does not owe the Jews anything with respect to the Second World War — not under any calculus. Simply stated, there is zero moral imperative on the part of Americans to support Israel on account of what transpired during World War II. Whatever happened, it was not the fault of Americans, and it was not the fault of the Palestinians.

*        *        *        *

Israel is a grotesque country. Not only do we not receive anything in compensation for our support, but American interests are also damaged as a result of our support for Israel. There is no moral imperative to support Israel. There is no shared civilization or values between us. Israel is a pariah state that is propped up by American support. Compromise that support and Israel would face an existential threat given the terrible things that it does and the lack of international support it has sans America. While my own politics tend towards non-intervention generally such that I lament American imperial pretensions, I am not immune to human suffering beyond the borders of my country. To be sure, I denounce the murder of civilians in any conflict — whether they are Israeli or Palestinian or whether they are Rwandan, but it is not my business — or my country’s business — to fix it as a matter of foreign policy. Whether or not it is too late in the game to address the enormous cost of America’s immoral and stupid support of Israel, these things must be said.

Israel is not our greatest ally — not by a long shot.

*        *        *        *

Post-Script: The asymmetry between Hamas and Israel militarily — and the showering of bombs and missiles upon Gaza — make one feel as if there is no stopping Israeli power in the Middle East. That is, at least in my opinion, a misreading of the situation. Israel is in very big trouble — and its problems are internal as opposed to external. Israel’s demographics demonstrate that she has already moved from democratic and liberal pretensions to something that is more decidedly religio-fascistic. Israel’s Labor Party, the country’s equivalent to the American Democratic Party, is dead. Likud, its equivalent to the Republican Party, is a now a minority party propped up by outright fascists and theocrats. Within a generation or two, Israel will drop the façade altogether of any commonality with Anglo-American values of political liberalism. The internal restraints on the worst Israeli behavior are breaking down irretrievably. What I predict is that “normal” Israelis are likely to flee the country as it continues down its path towards a Jewish Taliban, which will only hasten its transformation. A Jewish theocracy will be next to impossible to support, even for American stooges, and that theocracy is inevitable as a demographic certainty. In due time, as a matter of when, not if, Israel will become an openly illiberal theocracy that says the quiet parts out load — one that will openly and defiantly persecute non-Jews inside the state. Theodore Herzl’s experiment of Zionist nation-building is not likely to make it a century before it all comes tumbling down.

Bill Ackman Snatches Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

It is said that Jews of a certain vintage would pick up the New York Times at the breakfast table, back when it was consumed in its physical form, and ask “well, is it good for the Jews?”

What is picked up at this morning’s breakfast table — in paper or I-phone format — is most certainly not good for the Jews.

Just when the Jewish people were about to bask in the greatest outpouring of American sympathy since the 1967 war, an idiot named Bill Ackman has seized defeat from the jaws of victory, launching a vicious attack on a bunch of Harvard students for dissenting from the approved Israeli war narrative — a dissent that would probably have been ignored by most but for his attack.

As is well known by this point, early on Saturday, self proclaimed members of Hamas, numbering about 2–3,000, stormed across the (so we are told) lightly guarded border of Gaza into Israel, apparently killing or raping everything in sight, in addition to taking somewhere around 100 hostages, all with typical middle-eastern barbarity.  While some stories, like that of the decapitated infants, are in dispute at this point, see Blumenthal, Source of dubious ‘beheaded babies’ claim is Israeli settler leader who incited riots to ‘wipe out’ Palestinian village – The Grayzone, enough appears to be confirmed that the methods — if not the strategic object — of the attacks have been condemned by most Western nations.  In a word, this was far from a “surgical” strike at solely military targets with some inevitable, unfortunate, “collateral” civilian casualties like the strikes the US claims to enact.  It was obviously aimed at creating civilian casualties.

These events of course represent a tragedy for the people involved even if, from a Jabotinskyite point of view, such events were and will remain inevitable so long as Palestinians ring the borders of Israel.  But the silver lining for Israel and its Jewish supporters — if there can be one to such killings — was the huge outpouring of support for Israel from most Americans and most members of the Western block, most of whose knowledge of history terminates with last night’s CNN broadcast.

Of course, not all Americans bought the narrative.   Students at a number of universities, including that university to whom all heads must bow — Harvard — have pointed out the historically irrefutable fact (as is the case in most wars) that there are two sides to the story.  Some even expressed solidarity with the Palestinians and with Hamas, justifying their positions by equally horrific (though differently delivered) Israeli barbarity against Palestinians.

Although the Harvard groups’ letter has apparently been scrubbed from its original site on the internet, the following, taken from a purported copy on a Twitter (sorry, X) post, apparently represents a copy of the letter:

If this is the complete letter, frankly, it seems relatively anodyne.  It expresses no rejoicing at the deaths nor even in the attack itself.  It simply takes the point of view that the fault of this attack — and presumably all the violence of the last 75 years — is with Israelis, the people who evicted (or more accurately, were permitted by Britain and the US to evict) 700,000 Palestinians from their homes through massacres like Dar Yasein.  Although most (though not all) Jews would disagree, the position certainly is a viable one based on the historic record.  It also merely states what undoubtedly is (or is close to) the official position of the various groups representing the Palestinians.  Even a number of (outlier and outcast) Jews, such as Max Blumenthal of Greyzone appear to agree with this analysis, and, in fact, add an edge totally absent from the Harvard statement.

It should be noted that one of the organizations that signed the letter, at least according to the above partial reprint re-posted on Twitter, lists the “Harvard Jews for Liberation,” an apparently Jewish group, composed of persons who will undoubtedly be labeled self-hating Jews.  The letter is certainly more restrained than the bloodthirsty statements by scores of “pro-Israel” commentators, including the Israeli defense minister who labeled the Gazans “human beasts” and who pledged to make the whole Gazan people — more than 2 million — accountable for last Saturday’s atrocities; or former member of the Knesset Michael Ben Ari, who states “There are no innocents in Gaza.  Mow them down.  Kill the Gazans without thought or mercy”;   or Rabbi Yisrael Ariel, the Chief Rabbi of the evacuated Sinai Penninsula settlement of Yamit, waxing Biblical in September 2015:  “If the Muslims and the Christians say from now on no more Christianity and no more Islam … then they would be allowed to live.  If not, you kill all of their males by sword.  You leave only the women.”  All quoted at Information Clearing House.

Wow!  No those are “no holds barred” statements.  Not like the cucky, weakling, soy-boy Harvard “pro-Palestinians”!  Where the hell was Bill Ackman when those statements were made and did he, for example, propose that Congress bar the entry of followers of such people into the United States or warn Wall Street firms not to interview them?  Ho, ho, ho.

In fact, a member of the EU Parliament, Clare Daley, made the same point as the Harvard folks to the head of the EU in a response tweet.

Similarly, such former government officials as Ray McGovern, a CIA analyst who was the Presidential briefer for Reagan and Bush I, analyzes the situation much as does the infamous Harvard letter. “Can you give a brief synopsis of what’s happening in Israel?”; also talking on the “Israel as ally” issue at the National Press Club.  Ray McGovern – Does Israel act like a U.S. ally? – YouTube .

The Jewish Norman Finklestein asked two days ago “What were they [the Gazans] supposed to do?”.  He also agrees with the narrative set forth in the Harvard letter.  The Palestinians Had NO OTHER OPTIONS — Norman Finkelstein – YouTube

To top it off, there are now reports that Israel was warned by Egypt 3 days before the attack and apparently chose to ignore the warnings. On purpose? Rachel Blevins on X: “How did Israeli intelligence miss that Hamas was planning such a massive attack? Well, it appears they didn’t. Reports are now revealing that Egypt repeatedly warned Israel of an attack coming from Gaza, but Israeli officials chose to ignore it and focus on their settlements in the West Bank instead. Also: Simon Ateba on X: “BREAKING: US confirms Egypt warned Israel ‘three days’ before Hamas attack. “We know that Egypt had warned the Israelis three days prior that an event like this could happen.”

Why? To create an excuse for a Jewish jihad into Gaza?  This in addition to the fact that most experienced observers believe Israel — and Netenyahu himself — in the beginning helped promote Hamas to counter the then powerful Palestinian Fatah organization.  Ron Paul: Hamas was created by Israel and the US to counteract Yasser Arafat… – Revolver News.

One thing for sure — we will never know.  And if Ackman has his way, we will not be allowed to talk about any of these things either.

So, had the Harvard chicklings been better informed, and had they wanted to be truly nasty, they could have accused Netanyahu of working covertly with Hamas to create an horrific false flag attack justifying the taking of Gaza and its valuable gas fields.  My God, what if they had said that!!

In any case, given that America thinks of itself as a free country with freedom of speech and given that Israel, after all, is not technically an “ally” of the U.S. — the U.S. has never entered into a formal security agreement with Israel such as it has through NATO with the European countries — Americans should be free without consequence to air their views on this difficult and complex subject, free from extortion, whether privately or publicly enforced, on any topic, particularly on Israel.

However, this is definitely not the case for Bill Ackman and a group of like-minded “CEO’s”.

Ackman, a Jewish hedge fund manager, has publicly demanded, on behalf of himself and a number of “CEOs” that he did not initially name, that Harvard release the names of the Harvard students behind the letter quoted above   It appears that among the “CEO’s” Ackman is Abe Renick, the Jewish CEO of rental housing management startup Belong.  In addition a number of other CEOs have followed suit,  including Jonathan Newman, CEO of salad chain Sweetgreen (Newman is married to billionaire heiress Leora Kadisha who is a member of the Nazarian Clan, which is one of the world’s wealthiest Jewish Iranian families; she is the middle daughter of business tycoon Neil Kadisha and Dora Nazarian). Also: David Duel, CEO of health care services firm EasyHealth (David Duel is Jewish and “passionate” about giving back to the Jewish community), Hu Montegu, the CEO of construction company Diligent, Michael McQuaid, the head of decentralized finance operations at blockchain firm Bloq, Art Levy (presumably Jewish), head of strategy at payments platform Brex; Jake Wurzak, the CEO of hospitality group Dovehill Capital Management, and Michael Broukhim, apparently an Iranian Jew now a US citizen.A good number of these appear to be relatively small companies — perhaps a reason Ackman kept the names to himself initially.

And, as if on cue, we have Israel patriot Alan Dershowitz, former professor at the Harvard Law School (formerly the “Dane Law School” at Harvard, named for Nathan Dane, a donor who rescued the Law School in the early nineteenth century; he is long since forgotten, like most of Harvard’s non-Jewish donors). Dershowitz echoed Ackman, saying that students that “support murder and rape” should not be allowed to remain anonymous Students in groups that support rape, murder and Hamas should be named – YouTube   No mention was made by Dershowitz of the many, many Jewish Harvard students that have over the years expressed support for Israel and implicitly its air strikes, use of phosphorous bombs, destruction of Palestinian homes, and use of collective punishment.  Presumably, they’re all Goldman Sachs’ priority hires!

And today we read that a “big law” law firm named Winston & Strawn has just withdrawn an offer of employment to a Black NYU student, Ryna Workman, because of her tweet supporting the rights of the Palestinians. She was targeted specifically by Alan Dershowitz. See:  Students in groups that support rape, murder and Hamas should be named – YouTube .  The totality (apparently) of Workman’s tweet simply echoes the Harvard statement:

“I want to express, first and foremost, my unwavering and absolute solidarity with Palestinians in their resistance against oppression towards liberation and self-determination. Israel bears full responsibility for this tremendous loss of life. This regime of state-sanctioned violence created the conditions that made resistance necessary.”

Note that she references the “tremendous loss of life.”  At least in this clip she does not, contra Dershowitz, “support rape [and] murder,” although, if one interprets Dershowitz to say that all Palestinians commit murder and rape (an astonishing charge which could be used to justify the genocide of the Palestinian people), then, perhaps.  In fact, she appears, if anything, to decry the “tremendous loss of life.”  What she says is that Israel’s policies are responsible.  Dershowitz’s problem with her is obviously not that she supports murder, but that she holds the “wrong” party responsible.

Ryna Workman is now unemployed because of a nasty, vindictive Jewish supremacist law professor who is a fixture on conservative media in the US.   She should talk to Norman Finkelstein, who was also pursued by the good professor for Norman’s apostasy on Israel, as well as his accusations that Dershowitz was guilty of plagiarism.  Or ask Sue Berlach, Alan’s first wife, whom he left in the mid 1970’s for an affair with a young law aide, thereafter using his legal skills to get custody of her kids.  She later simplified his life by committing suicide, jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge into the unforgiving waters of the East River 119 feet below. Dershowitz 1st Wife — Tragic Abuse, Divorce, Suicide) ; see also 5 Surprising Details From That New Yorker Alan Dershowitz Profile ( So I guess Ryna can’t talk to Alan’s first wife after all, unless she’s a psychic medium and a really good swimmer to boot.

So, from Jews to Blacks:  if you have an independent opinion on world affairs, fuck you.  So much for the “Black-Jewish alliance”!

More recently, Ackman is reported to have doubled down on his demand, as follows:

“If you were managing a business, would you hire someone who blamed the despicable violent acts of a terrorist group on the victims? I don’t think so,” Ackman wrote. “Would you hire someone who was a member of a school club who issued a statement blaming lynchings by the KKK on their victims? I don’t think so.  It is not harassment to seek to understand the character of the candidates that you are considering for employment.”  Quoted at: Bill Ackman: It’s Not Harassment to Name Pro-Hamas Harvard Students (

The arrogant implication, of course, is that anyone who disagrees with the Israeli and Jewish opinion on this is of “low” character.    But I guess that is what you get in a nation that now appears to operate on the principal, as E. Michael Jones would say, that truth is the opinion of the powerful.

It is worth noting that American statesmen like George Marshall (U.S. Secretary of State under Truman), the distinguished U.S. diplomat Loy W. Henderson, Ambassador to both India and Iran and Director of the State Department’s Office of Near Eastern Affairs under Roosevelt and Truman, and George Ball, Undersecretary of State under President Johnson, along with scores of other distinguished Americans, have been smeared with the “anti-Semite” label for raising significant questions about Israel’s activities — not to mention the propriety of its very creation; men who would undoubtedly have views not inconsistent with the letter issued by the Harvard students, having predicted 75 years ago events such as those just occurring.  So, apparently, they would also be judged by the Jewish establishment today to have such “low character” as to be unemployable.  The only Jewish pushback this author has seen is former president of Harvard, Larry Summers.  Former Harvard president Larry Summers thinks Bill Ackman asking for lists of student names is the ‘stuff of Joe McCarthy])

It should be noted that a few radicalized Harvard students are not the only ones in the gunsights of these Jewish gangsters.

The Presbyterian Church of the United States has unequivocally endorsed boycotting and disinvesting from Israel and its products, as has the United Church of Christ, the Methodist Church, and the Quakers.   The World Council of Churches has also called for divestment from Israel.  Other Churches that have at least partially divested include the Alliance of Baptists, Church of the United Brethren in Christ, Mennonite Church USA, Roman Catholic Church, Unitarian Universalist Association, as well as the World Communion of Reformed Churches (a confederation that overlaps some of the above).  Oy Vey, that’s a lot of Churches, bro.  And the Jews thought the Catholic Church was their only enemy!!!  Oops!!

Presumably congregants of these Churches will soon also make Ackman’s “unemployables” list for implicitly “blaming the victims”.

Student opponents of BDS certainly are on a very similar list, such as the list displayed on the so called “Canary Mission website, reputedly financed by Adam Millstein, another Jewish supremacist centimillionaire.

So will we soon come to a point where no member of the Presbyterian Church, the Congregational Church, or the Quakers — the denominations of most of the founding fathers including Thomas Jefferson, draftsman of the Declaration of Independence and James Madison, a principal architect of the Bill of Rights (Presbyterians) or John Adams or Roger Sherman (Congregationalist) — can ever again be offered a job on Wall Street or, perhaps, by a Fortune 500 company?  Holy shit!  We all better learn the “Hatikva” and throw that old musty painting of the signing of the Declaration in the waste bin if we want to earn a living in the America to come!

But at this point, it is worth noting whom these people pick on.  Not on Max Blumenthal, who would just tell them to “go fuck themselves”.  Not to Ray McGovern, who would just shake his head and smile “what’s new?”  Not to Norman Finklestein, who would intellectually eviscerate them.  Apparently Ackman is too scared even to take on the Harvard administration — adults.  No, Ackman picks on soft targets, college kids, who, with some justification will believe their careers, and perhaps lives, are ending before they have begun.  In a word, Ackman doesn’t dare pick on the strong.  He picks on the weak.  He is a cheap bully.  The lowest form of scum.

And, we must ask, have we come to the point where, to get a degree from Harvard, to get a job, to keep a job, you need to kiss Jewish ass from morning until night?

The blunt fact is that Wall Street, the media, the universities, and the government are all now run by Jewish supremacists.  In fact, it appears that, if the Jews get enough power, they will do to us in the U.S. exactly what they are doing in their other occupied territory to the Palestinians. Or as they did in the early decades of the Soviet Union.  Ackman’s attack is just the start.  Before the phosphorous bombs start raining down on our heads, if Ackman’s attitude is indicative of how Jews behave when acquiring positions of enormous power — and it clearly seems to be — perhaps we should ensure, au contraire, that a certain group should be barred from holding certain jobs, just as Ackman is proposing for people who disagree with his views on Israel.  And that group is not comprised of the signatories to that Harvard letter, or George Marshall, or Loy Henderson, or George Ball.

Here’s some analogous proposals:

If this is how Jews use their power, how about barring them from any job in financial services?
How about barring Jews from holding any position as an officer or director in a publicly traded company?
How about barring Jews from holding any position of authority at any level of federal, state, or local government?
How about barring Jews from owning or operating any media assets?
How about barring Jews from voting, making campaign contributions, serving on juries?
How about offering physical protection to Jews but also preventing Jewish influence on the greater society?

Given the current viciousness of the Jews currently in power — Ackman, Schumer, Garland, are only the most prominent examples — would it be too much to ask for a Constitutional amendment depriving Jews of citizenship, replacing the passports they appear to disdain with residency certificates, revocable at will and requiring that the Jewish nation (both in and out of Israel) be represented by ambassadors rather than lobbyists, political fundraisers, and political hacks?

How would Bill Ackman like that?  Maybe then he could actually go to Israel and sign up with the IDF.  Then he could defend his true country — not the one of which he is a fake citizen, but his real one — Israel.

The proposal to bar Jews from financial service jobs is not so far-fetched as one might assume.  In fact, a while ago, a number of Jews were indeed expelled from their chosen marketplace:

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, [13] And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. Matthew 21:12–13

Perhaps the man that kicked them out remembered his earlier words:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. John 8:44

Maybe our Lord and Saviour knew more than we think he did.  Maybe He was actually pretty smart.  Maybe we ought to listen to Him.

Thank you Bill Ackman, et. al. for reminding us — through your vicious, uncalled-for, activities — of that fact.


1.  The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit (Fidelity Press), by E. Michael Jones.


The Enemy of Your Enemy

The vicious attack by the Palestinians in Gaza is certainly understandable given the apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and essentially establishing Gaza as an open-air prison where supplies allowed in are strictly limited to ensure an essentially starvation-level diet for Gazans. The Western media is replete with images of Jewish suffering and civilians who have been raped, murdered, or taken hostage, but we are well aware that that same media routinely ignores atrocities against Palestinian civilians, as the above-linked article notes—atrocities that have been going on for decades.

It’s always psychologically difficult to be a dissenter from the moral panic that is now gripping all the high ground of Western culture. It’s a moral panic similar to the outpouring of concern for Ukraine even though a Western victory would be the establishment of all the poisonous trends of the West, from mass immigration from the rest of the world to gender insanity.

Most of us want to be seen as the good guys. And we are. I’m fairly used to being condemned as a moral reprobate by now, since writing critical pieces about Jews will definitely bring down a deluge of hatred. But it’s never easy. We’re advocates for our people at a time of unprecedented hatred against Whites throughout the West—hatred that in my opinion can be traced to the rise of a new, substantially Jewish elite in the media, the academic world, and (via donations) politics. Jews are a powerful component of our elite, and in general they are suffused with historical grudges against the West, from the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, to medieval expulsions, to nineteenth-century pogroms in Eastern Europe, to the 1924 immigration law, to the holocaust. It is a group that is utterly incapable of attributing any hostility toward Jews as understandable responses by non-Jews to Jewish behavior.

The current Israeli-Gaza war is yet another example. As always, Jews are innocent victims, end of story. And the result is we are inundated with context-free accounts of Jewish suffering. Such accounts are the entire focus of the vast majority of the Western media. And of course politicians fall in line, knowing full well that departing from this media-manufactured moral consensus would be the end of their careers.

But what I want to emphasize here is that this does not mean that I am a cheerleader for Palestinians. The Palestinians are a typical Middle-Eastern people and all that that entails in terms of non-Western social forms—the clans, the collectivism, and Islam with its long history of hatred against Europe. I recall going to a Palestinian protest at the University of California-Irvine and coming to the conclusion that these people are not our friends.

Let’s frame it at its most hopeful: If the Israel Lobby loses its control of the political process in the US, it would mean that Jewish power in general loses. And that would have major implications for a wide range of issues, from immigration to the legitimacy of assertions of White identity.

One thing that struck me was that almost all the ~150  students who came to [Alison Weir’s] talk were Arabs. The women wore scarves, and almost everyone wore a black anti-Israel tee shirt, so the meeting had the air of a uniformed, homogeneous, almost military group, with a couple of White outliers like me. Her talk was sponsored by the Muslim Students Association. It was preceded and followed by the reading of a passage from the Koran in Arabic, followed by an English translation. The event was held in the campus Cross-Cultural Center which has offices for all the ethnic activist student organizations. Immediately following her talk, the MECHA activists set up their meeting … . (MECHA and all the other student ethnic lobbies and leftist groups are co-sponsors of Israel Apartheid Week [IAW]. [BLM in Chicago is now supporting Hamas.] …

So even though I was cheered by the thought that more people are becoming aware of what’s going on in Israel, it was depressing to think that the anti-Apartheid doings are basically just another ethnic lobby. These students identify with the left, and I rather doubt they would be sympathetic to my view that they really shouldn’t have been allowed into the US in the first place. And they would be rather hostile to the idea that Whites have interests too.

I felt like a foreigner viewing someone else’s show. Outside the lecture hall, I felt like a foreigner even more. Despite the fact that UC-I is in the heart of Orange County (formerly considered a bastion of White Republicanism), spotting a White student was almost a rarity.  Whites officially make up around 23% of the students at UC-I, well below their proportion in the state. UC-I is often called the University of Chinese Immigrants, but Chinese were not particularly noticeable. It was all manner of non-Whites, from every part of the world.

Just walking around campus the percentage of Whites seemed to be far less than what the university says. The official statistics are based on freshman enrollment, and I suspect that a lot of White freshmen decide UC-I is not the place for them and transfer to some other university.

It was actually rare to see a White student. When I got into the student union, there were two or three Whites in a total of about a hundred. Four White guys later came in and sat together–probably at least implicitly realizing that their association was based on their race. But it was eerie how Whites stood out because of their minority status–almost like being in Hong Kong or Karachi and noticing a few stray Americans.

Like the Palestinians, I had the feeling of being displaced. Only I very much doubt that the Arab students who were involved in the Israel Apartheid Week would sympathize with my feelings.

The increasing presence of such people in Western societies is a disaster. And one could be forgiven for thinking that Israel would be happy to export Palestinians to Western countries, as has been proposed for African refugees in Israel. Problem solved.

Power without Scrutiny: The Jewish Privilege that Poisons Democracy

Who is Ehud Sheleg? What is CFI? Nine out of ten British voters wouldn’t have a clue. Maybe ninety-nine out of a hundred wouldn’t. Their ignorance is very unhealthy, because CFI and Mr. Sheleg have enormous power in Britain. CFI have been controlling policies on immigration and other vital topics ever since 2010, when the so-called Conservative party won a general election against the so-called Labour party.

Two wings, one vulture

Before that, it had been LFI controlling policies on immigration and other vital topics. And what are CFI and LFI? Well, you might call them the two wings of one vulture: CFI stands for Conservative Friends of Israel and LFI stands for Labour Friends of Israel. Although the vast majority of Brits are not even aware that these organizations exist, one group is very aware: the traitorous political elite.

Aspiring Prime Minister Sajid Javid at CFI

You do not get to the top in British politics without getting very close to either CFI or LFI. The Jewish Chronicle has boasted that Conservative Friends of Israel is now “the biggest lobbying group in Westminster.” Under Tony Blair, the biggest lobbying group was Labour Friends of Israel. Ambitious politicians flock to join these organizations and there’s never any need to announce who the chief speaker will be at their annual dinners. As the Guardian pointed out in 2007, Read more

Philip Weiss: “Israel interferes in our politics all the time, and it’s never a scandal”

From “Israel interferes in our politics all the time, and it’s never a scandal,” by Philip Weiss.

There are two large exceptions to the Russian conspiracy. The first is that it is good policy for the United States to be talking to Russia. If Clinton were president today, there might be dogfights over Damascus. Her gang was all for regime change in Syria, and for confrontation over the Ukraine. That’s bad policy. I’m glad they’re not running the show– though they are certainly running this story. Before you get too upset about Russia winking at the sanctions, the scandal that brought down Michael Flynn, please recall that in 2012, President Obama sent secret signals to Iran to ignore congressional sanctions, we’ll be talking to you once I’m reelected. …

Which brings up the second exception. Israel tried to interfere in that 2012 election, as Chris Matthews sensibly reminded his audience recently: Benjamin Netanyahu tried to help Mitt Romney beat Obama. Sheldon Adelson held a fundraiser in Jerusalem for Romney.

Netanyahu didn’t stop there. After Romney lost, Netanyahu came to Congress to tell the Congress to reject President Obama’s nuclear deal. That was an unprecedented interference of a foreign leader in our policy-making, enabled by the Israel lobby; but there were never any investigations about that. Subsequently Chuck Schumer said he was torn between a Jewish interest and the American interest, before voting against the president, and he paid no political/reputational price for it; while President Obama said that it would be an “abrogation” of his constitutional duty if he considered Israel’s interest ahead of the U.S.; for which Obama was called an anti-semite.

Throughout those negotiations, Obama could never address the fact that Israel has nukes. This lie is honored by the press, in a way that it would never honor Trump’s lies. And the manner in which Israel got nukes, including thefts from an American company with the complicity of the White House, is only investigated by peripheral figures.

The Israeli interference in our politics is the conspiracy in plain sight that no one in the media talks about because they’re too implicated themselves. The two top executives at the largest media company, Comcast, are pro-Israel; one of them, David Cohen, raised money for the Israeli army. Netanyahu’s speeches to Congress were written by Gary Ginsberg, an executive at another media company, Time Warner, but hey, that’s not an issue. Four New York Times reporters have had children serve in the Israeli army. One of them is columnist David Brooks, who says that he gets gooey-eyed when he visits Israel. He is one of several Zionists with columns at the Times. Tom Friedman justified the Iraq War because suicide bombers were going into Tel Aviv pizza parlors. (Huh?) Yesterday Martin Indyk said on National Public Radio that Jared Kushner’s strong Jewish background was an asset for his being a Middle East mediator, a job that Aaron David Miller, who also has a strong Jewish background, defined as being Israel’s lawyer. Indyk, himself a mediator, started a pro-Israel thinktank with Haim Saban, an Israeli-American who was Clinton’s biggest funder and who lately smeared Keith Ellison at a giant gathering at Brookings, which he also helps fund, as “clearly an anti-semite” and “anti-Israel;” and Jake Tapper of CNN moved on to the next question, presumably because smearing a public official in that manner is not news. Saban is also chummy with Jeffrey Goldberg, one of whose qualifications for being the best journalist in his generation, according to the Atlantic’s publisher, is that he served in the Israeli Defense Forces, because he felt that America was unsafe for Jews. One of Goldberg’s first hires as editor at the Atlantic is Julia Ioffe, who hates Russia, and who told a synagogue audience last year after she was attacked as a Jew by Trump supporters: “Personally I was kind of glad to see the outpouring of antisemitism” because people had forgotten that Jews and Israel are the “underdog.” At another NY synagogue, believing that he was speaking off the record, Dennis Ross, the longtime White House “mediator” of the peace process, said that American Jews must be “advocates” for Israel, not for Palestinians. Again, not a scandal. But when Rashid Khalidi, who wrote a book about the U.S. being imbalanced in the peace process, warned that neoconservatives would “infest” the Trump administration, he was smeared up and down as an anti-semite.


Philip Giraldi on the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act

From Philip Giraldi, “Fake News Versus No News” on

… The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act is intended to give the Department of Education investigatory authority over “anti-Jewish incidents” on America’s college campuses. Such “incidents” are not limited to religious bigotry, with the examples cited in the bill’s text including criticism of Israel and claiming that the holocaust was “exaggerated.” It is a thinly disguised assault on the Boycott Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement, which is non-violent, does not criticize Jews as a religion or ethnicity, and is actually supported by many Jewish American who are concerned about Israel’s apartheid regime.

The Anti-Semitism bill makes Jews and Jewish interests a legally protected class, immune from any criticism. “Free speech” means in practice that you can burn an American flag, sell pornography, attack Christianity in the vilest terms or castigate the government in Washington all you want but criticizing Israel is off limits if you want to avoid falling into the clutches of the legal system. The Act is a major step forward in effectively making any expressed opposition to Israeli actions a hate crime and is similar to punitive legislation that has been enacted in twenty-two states as well as in Canada. It is strongly supported by the Israel Lobby, which quite likely drafted it, and is seeking to use legal challenges to delegitimize and eliminate any opposition to the policies of the state of Israel.

As the Act is clearly intended to restrict First Amendment rights if they are perceived as impacting on broadly defined Jewish sensitivities, it should be opposed on that basis alone, but it is very popular in Congress, which is de facto owned by the Israel Lobby. That the legislation is not being condemned or even discussed in the generally liberal media tells you everything you need to know about the amazing power of one particular unelected and unaccountable lobby in the U.S.

And there is always Iran to worry about. If the United States can successfully avoid a war with Russia, a conflict with the Mullahs could have major consequences even if the all-powerful U.S. military successfully rolls over its Iranian counterpart in less than a week. Iran is physically and in terms of population much larger than Iraq and it has a strong national identity. An attack by Washington would produce a powerful reaction, unleashing terrorist resources and destabilizing an economically and politically important region of the world for years to come. Currently, the nuclear agreement with Iran provides some measure of stability and also pushes backwards any possible program by Tehran to build a weapon. Iran does not threaten the United States, so why walk away from the agreement as some of Trump’s advisors urge? Or violate the agreement’s terms as the U.S. Congress seems to be doing by extending and tightening the sanctions regime with its just passed Iran Sanctions Extension Act? Look no further than the Israel Lobby. Hobbling Iran, a regional competitor, is a possible Israeli interest that should have nothing to do with the United States but yet again the United States government carries the water for the extreme right wing Netanyahu regime.

Israel for its part has welcomed the Trump election by building 500 new and completely illegal settler homes in what was once Arab East Jerusalem. Trump has surrounded himself with advocates for Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu’s expectation that he will have a free hand in dealing with those pesky Palestinians is probably correct. I would like to think that Donald Trump will unpleasantly surprise him based on actual American rather than Israeli interests but am not optimistic.

Indeed, deference to perceived Israeli interests enforced by the Israel Lobby and media permeates the entire American foreign policy and national security structure. Congressman Keith Ellison who is seeking to become Democratic National Committee Chairman is being called an anti-Semite for “implying U.S. policy in the region [the Middle East] favored Israel at the expense of Muslim-majority countries, remarks ADL’s CEO Jonathan Greenblatt described as ‘deeply disturbing and disqualifying.’ ” Donald Trump and his senior counselor Steve Bannon have also both been called anti-Semites and several other potential GOP appointees have been subjected to the media’s fidelity-to-Israel litmus test.

The recently nominated Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who can hardly be called a moderate when it comes to Iran, has also been labeled an anti-Semite by the usual players. Why? Because in 2013 he told Wolf Blitzer “So we’ve got to work on [peace talks] with a sense of urgency. I paid a military security price every day as a commander of CENTCOM because the Americans were seen as biased in support of Israel, and [because of this] moderate Arabs couldn’t be with us because they couldn’t publicly support those who don’t show respect for Arab Palestinians.”

Mattis will no doubt be reminded of his remarks when he is up for Senate confirmation. A predecessor Chuck Hagel was mercilessly grilled by Senators over his reported comment that the “Jewish lobby” intimidates congressmen. But ironically nearly everyone who is not an Israel-firster who is involved in U.S. foreign and security policy knows that aggressive Israeli colonization of the Palestinian West Bank and its siege of Gaza contribute greatly to terrorism against the United States, since Washington is regularly blamed for enabling Netanyahu. When General David Petraeus said pretty much the same thing as Mattis back in 2010 he was forced to “explain” his comments, retract them and then grovel before he was eventually given a pass by the Lobby.

And there is considerable self-censorship related to the alleged sensitivity of “Jewish issues,” not only in the media. I recently attended a conference on the Iraq invasion of 2003 at which the role of Israel manifested through its controlled gaggle of American legislators and bureaucrats as a factor in going to war was not even mentioned. It was as if it would be impolite or, dare I say, anti-Semitic, to do so even though the Israeli role was hardly hidden. Former Bush administration senior official Philip Zelikow has admitted that protecting Israel was the principal reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq and others have speculated that without the persistent neocons’ and Israel’s prodding Washington might not have gone to war at all. That is apparently what then Secretary of State Colin Powell also eventually came around to believe.

So let’s stop talking about what Russia is doing to the United States, which is relatively speaking very little, and start admitting that the lopsided and completely deferential relationship with Israel is the actual central problem in America’s foreign policy. Will the media do that? Not a chance. They would rather obsess about fake news and blame Putin.