Israel Lobby

Mondoweiss: How Congress manipulates its own rules to make sure Israel still gets its weapons

/21 Comments/in /by

How Congress manipulates its own rules to make sure Israel still gets its weapons

This week offered a clear example of how elected officials in Washington, D.C., bend their own rules to keep weapons flowing to Israel. Political results outside Washington this week also showed us why this may soon change.
By 
United States Capitol Building in Washington, DC (Photo: David Maiolo / Wikimedia)United States Capitol Building in Washington, DC (Photo: David Maiolo / Wikimedia)

On Tuesday, Melat Kiros defeated 15-term incumbent Diana DeGette in Colorado, adding to the list of progressive victories in this year’s Democratic primaries. Kiros won a safe Democratic seat, meaning her primary, like many of the other progressive victors’, was tantamount to winning the general election. Kiros’ victory adds her to a list of progressive victories across the Democratic primaries that will substantially increase the voting power of more left-leaning and anti-genocide Democrats in Congress.

The very same day, events in the House of Representatives showed how badly they are needed when the Republican-led House Rules Committee shut down an effort to challenge foreign aid to Israel. Although the parliamentary moves proved a setback, they also demonstrated that the growing number of Democrats and even a few Republicans, elected officials willing to vote against greater support for Israel, might be able to exert that political influence in the near future.

More than a numbers game

The story begins in the House Rules Committee, where House Republicans were overseeing which proposed amendments to the annual State Department Appropriations bill would be brought to a vote and which would simply be rejected out of hand.

Advertisment

Outgoing Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, brought several amendments to eliminate foreign military aid, one each for Israel, Egypt, and Jordan. The one regarding Egypt appears to have been withdrawn, but the other two were advanced by the Rules Committee.

There is no chance that Massie’s amendments will be passed. The amendment is sloppily written and provides members of the House with all the loopholes they need to vote the bill down and still claim they are willing to reconsider arming Israel. The amendment regarding Jordan will be voted down as long as the one regarding Israel is.

Still, this doesn’t mean the amendments didn’t put several Democrats on the hot seat.

Various Democrats talked about how the amendment would strip money from “diplomatic programs” for Israel, along with the military aid. It’s a bogus argument. The bill provides scant funding for anything other than military aid.

But what the Democrats were truly wringing their hands over was a stark reality: they didn’t want to have to vote on aid to Israel. Why? Because they are farther out of step with their constituents on policy toward Palestine than they are on any other issue.

While they remain concerned about the reaction of donors to voting against aid to Israel, they know that their constituents are tired of seeing their tax dollars being sent to finance genocide, ethnic cleansing, military occupation, and other crimes of war.

So, House Democrats are frightened of what their voters will say if they vote against the Massie amendment. That is a very unfamiliar position for mainstream Democrats to find themselves in.

Consider the words of Pete Aguilar, one of the most powerful Democrats in the House and a staunch supporter of Israel.

“Whether you are supportive or in opposition to the Massie amendment, that doesn’t mean that we feel everything is going well in that region, and that doesn’t mean that Netanyahu has a blank check. It also doesn’t mean that our aid and support will go on forever, and we will continue to work through that.”

Aguilar, without question, opposes the Massie amendment and fully supports aid to Israel. He has long been an AIPAC favorite. Yet even he doesn’t feel comfortable giving Israel a fully clean report card. If he is willing to qualify his rhetorical support for Israel in this way, it is a strong indication that even he is feeling heat on the issue.

Lois Frankel, also a pro-Israel Democrat from Florida, said, “If you’re going to recalibrate our relationship with any foreign country, it shouldn’t be done just with an amendment in an appropriations bill. It has to be a very, I think, good, extensive conversation that would bring in a lot of different people.”

Much like Aguilar, that’s a remarkable statement for Frankel. There is no mention of “our great ally, Israel” or words to that effect. She could be talking about any other country.

Some were slightly more direct, like Greg Meeks of New York, the Ranking Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee: “I know there is still danger [in Israel]. I don’t want Israel to be without what they need…There’s just too many factors to say … ‘We’re taking away $3.3 billion’…“I don’t think that it would be the wise thing … not good policy.”

Playing with the rules to help Israel

Although this amendment was brought by a Republican, the rest of Massie’s party remains safe in voting in support of arming Israel to the teeth. That’s why Democrats are correctly reading this as a “gotcha” decision by the Rules Committee. It’s being brought to a vote to complicate life for Democrats, knowing it has no chance of passing and will likely fall short of the support needed to make the vote close. But it will force Democrats to go on the record about Israel and bring this issue highlighting the split between Democratic donors and voters to the fore.

That strategy is apparent when we look at some of the amendments that the Rules Committee declared “out of order,” meaning they are dead without ever being considered by the House.

One of those amendments was also brought by Massie, along with Democrat Ro Khanna. That proposal would have stripped Section 219 (formerly Section 224) of the National Defense Appropriations Act, which is the attempt to entangle American and Israeli militaries and effectively give Israel a permanent seat at the American military strategy table, greatly enhancing not only collaboration but also sharing of intelligence and technology.

Massie responded to the decision, saying, “If Section 219 is signed into law, the American people should see it as Congress fully capitulating our nation’s autonomy to foreign influence.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also submitted eleven amendments to the State Department Appropriations bill. All eleven were ruled “out of order.” Most of AOC’s proposals dealt with Latin America or Puerto Rico, one with Bangladesh.

But one other amendment was crafted to make grants and sales of weaponry to Israel much more difficult. It would have required the president to certify that any country receiving such weaponry is only using it in compliance with international law. The measure would also have required the president to certify that the country in question was not impeding humanitarian assistance. After such certification, Congress would then have to pass a bill authorizing each transfer of weapons.

It sounds like more bureaucracy, especially since U.S. law already prohibits any military assistance to countries that don’t meet those standards. But in practice, Israel simply gets its grants every year, the president sends the weapons, and Congress rubber stamps it when it comes up, because the default is that the sales and grants to “our great ally” Israel are assumed to be in compliance. AOC’s amendment would shift the burden, requiring that Israel’s compliance be established before weapons are transferred.

AOC’s proposal would politicize and publicize the process. While it wouldn’t absolutely stop the sales and grants, it would give advocates working to shut off the flow of arms to Israel the opening they need to counter them, through public discourse, and by working in the White House and on Capitol Hill.

It would have been effective, and, had it come to the floor, it would have presented both Democrats and those few House Republicans whose constituents want to see the flow of arms to Israel ended, with a real dilemma. Many would have surely felt forced to vote in favor of the amendment. Not enough to pass it perhaps, but enough to send alarm bells through the halls of AIPAC and every congressional office that works with them.

But it will not see the light of day, and that is precisely because it is an entirely reasonable amendment that most Democrat and Independent voters, and some Republicans as well, would support. The same can be said of the Khanna-Massie amendment.

That’s the power of holding the House majority, even if only by a thin margin. In the past, when it came to Palestine and Israel, it didn’t matter which party was in power; the blank check for Israel would continue regardless.

That is changing, and the recent elections show it. The battle is far from won, but Democrats are no longer comfortable voting for aid to Israel. They are now seeing that it can cost them elections, something they had not considered possible before.

Much more is needed. But the political winds have already shifted enough that a progressive like Greg Casar, who has not been among the boldest on the question of Palestine, says of the Massie bill, “I am aware that the (Massie) amendment as written may cut off both military weapons (~$3.3 billion) and some diplomatic funding (~$50 million). While I would prefer to vote on an amendment that stripped just military funding, I think opposing the billions in military funding is what’s most important here.”

Although only Casar and AOC have publicly announced their support for the Massie amendment, it is likely that more Democrats will join them. How many do so will matter, because if there is a significant number at all, it will send a message to AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups about just how shaky their position is. And that position is sure to be even weaker in the next Congress.

It will not be enough to simply see a Democratic majority. But there has never been a time when lobbying for Palestinian rights and for a sharp change in policy toward Israel has been so organized, widespread, and impactful. That lobbying work can make it exceedingly uncomfortable for Democrats to allow the flow of weapons to Israel to continue.

Pro-Israel lobbying is still very well-financed and benefits from long experience and relationships in Washington. As such, AIPAC and friends will still be a formidable presence.

But the playing field is more competitive than ever, and Israel is a far tougher sell than it has ever been before. The results are already becoming apparent, and the path toward a different policy toward Palestine and Israel has never been so open.

Mitchell Plitnick
Mitchell Plitnick is the president of ReThinking Foreign Policy. He is the co-author of Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics and maintains the Cutting Through newsletter.

Controlled Opposition: How “Progressive” Zionism Protects Jewish Influence

/12 Comments/in , /by

California gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer launched a direct assault on the most powerful pro-Israel lobby in American politics, declaring that “AIPAC is a dark money organization that should have no place in our politics.” In a subsequent press conference, he added that “AIPAC is cheering on Trump and Netanyahu’s war” and argued that “we do not have the same interest as this dark money organization.”

The Jewish billionaire’s comments arrived alongside another striking rebuke of the lobby’s influence. Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss, who won the March 2026 Democratic primary for Illinois’s 9th Congressional District, declared after his victory: “Yes, Israel was a safe haven for my Holocaust survivor grandparents and their 2-year-old daughter, my mother, in 1948. And at the same time, the oppression of the Palestinian people is an unacceptable stain on the world and on the Jewish people as well.”

Biss continued with a direct challenge to the lobby that spent more than $5 million against his campaign. “AIPAC found out the hard way. The Ninth District is not for sale.” These confrontations reflect a broader shift within the Democratic Party as criticism of AIPAC spreads from the progressive fringe toward the mainstream.

Three House Democrats formally swore off AIPAC contributions in 2025 after accepting them in prior cycles, driven by constituent pressure over the Gaza conflict. Rep. Morgan McGarvey (D-KY) cut ties despite AIPAC being a top contributor in prior cycles. Rep. Deborah Ross (D-NC) did the same — the two had received a combined $104,000 from AIPAC in 2024. Rep. Valerie Foushee (D-NC) rejected further support despite receiving $2 million from AIPAC’s affiliated super PAC for her 2022 race.

Rep. La Shawn Ford (D-IL) took the confrontation further, stating that he refused to meet AIPAC’s requirement of supporting unconditional military aid to Israel. He went on to defeat AIPAC’s preferred candidate in the 2026 Illinois 7th District primary.

A wave of prominent Democrats eyeing 2028 presidential bids have rejected any AIPAC association. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) is rejecting all PAC money this cycle. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) compared Israel to an “apartheid state” — though he later walked back that specific term — and has said he will never take AIPAC money. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY), former Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), and Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) have all distanced themselves from the lobby. Shapiro says he has never taken or solicited AIPAC support.

In a major symbolic move signaling the party’s shift, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries accepted J Street’s endorsement for the first time — a notable break after years in which the House’s top Democrat had kept the progressive pro-Israel group at arm’s length.

J Street PAC is backing 133 House and Senate incumbents plus challengers running against Republican incumbents. The J Street Action Fund super PAC raised $3 million, its largest independent expenditure effort, in partnership with Senate Majority PAC and House Majority PAC. Key endorsed candidates include Representative Dan Goldman of New York and Daniel Biss. J Street has also “primary approved” Brad Lander — a separate designation that allows J Street donors to contribute to his campaign through the PAC portal, short of a full endorsement.

The scale gap between the two organizations remains enormous. AIPAC’s super PAC, United Democracy Project, has raised $78 million for the 2026 cycle and already spent over $7.3 million, but AIPAC also spent $22 million in Illinois races while obscuring the source of the funds. J Street’s $3 million super PAC fund is dwarfed by comparison but is being deployed strategically in targeted races.

Yet observers should temper their optimism about this shift. Liberal Zionist organizations that have emerged as alternatives to AIPAC, particularly J Street, function as gatekeepers that prevent a legitimate, principled anti-Zionist movement from taking root in American politics.

The Electronic Intifada has consistently framed J Street as a more palatable arm of the same lobby. Co-founder Ali Abunimah wrote that “if J Street does not have the courage to support the ICC investigation, opposes the nonviolent BDS movement, opposes cutting US aid to Israel, and, needless to say, condemns any form of Palestinian armed struggle, then, in effect, it does support total impunity for Israel.” The outlet has documented J Street’s rejection of BDS, its unconditional support for US military aid, and its use of “demographic threat” framing as evidence that J Street serves Israeli rather than Palestinian interests. Abunimah concluded that “J Street remains an enemy of Palestinian rights whose mission is to put a softer, ‘progressive’ face on apartheid.”

Mondoweiss published a May 2024 piece critiquing J Street for supporting Israeli military aid, Palestinian demilitarization, and rejection of the right of return, arguing that its two-state framework presupposes Palestinians must “settle for areas designated by the Israeli colonizers.”

Al Shabaka, the Palestinian Policy Network, published an influential June 2023 policy brief calling liberal Zionism “a pillar of Israel’s settler colonial project” and using J Street as its central American case study, urging activists and institutions to refuse the normalization of Israeli settler colonization and to shift public discourse toward Palestinian decolonial frameworks.

The critiques of J Street from Palestinian solidarity organizations center on several key issues. J Street opposes BDS, the central tool of Palestinian civil society resistance, and actively lobbies against it in Congress, on campuses, and in churches. The organization historically supported every appropriation of US security assistance to Israel, undermining the leverage needed to end the occupation — although in November 2024, it backed Bernie Sanders’ resolutions to block some arms transfers, and in April 2026 it called for phasing out all US military aid to Israel by 2028. J Street backed the US position opposing Palestinian recognition at the UN in 2011 and rejects the right of return, which critics see as fundamentally anti-Palestinian.

The organization’s “demographic threat” talking point reveals that liberal Zionism’s concern is preserving a Jewish demographic majority rather than Palestinian rights. During the post-October 7 war, J Street issued no call to halt U.S. weapons shipments despite expressing concern about civilian casualties — a pattern documented across its 132 press releases between October 7, 2023 and the January 2025 ceasefire, as analyzed by The Nation. By occupying a “pro-Israel, pro-peace” position, J Street provides Democratic lawmakers a shield against demands for more substantive measures to rein in Israel.

The political terrain on which these battles are fought has transformed dramatically. On April 7, 2026, Pew Research Center published a major survey based on 3,507 U.S. adults interviewed March 23 through 29, roughly a month into the joint U.S.-Israeli military operations in Iran. The headline finding showed that 60 percent of Americans now view Israel unfavorably, up from 53 percent last year and 42 percent in 2022. The share holding a “very unfavorable” view at 28 percent has nearly tripled since 2022, when it stood at just 10 percent.

The partisan breakdown reveals the depth of the shift. Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, 80 percent hold an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 69 percent last year and 53 percent in 2022. Among Democrats under 50, fully 47 percent hold a “very unfavorable” view.

Even among Republicans, cracks are appearing. While 58 percent of Republicans and Republican leaners still view Israel favorably overall, 57 percent of Republicans under 50 now view Israel unfavorably, up from 50 percent last year. Only older Republicans aged 50 and above remain solidly pro-Israel.

The shift in public sentiment against AIPAC proves that the establishment is losing its grip, but it also highlights a dangerous new phase of controlled opposition. Organizations and activists who seek to pivot from AIPAC to J Street are simply trading one layer of Jewish influence for another. We must call this what it is: the colonization of our political system by organized Jewry.

There is no legitimate political solution as long as we refuse to address the fact that our national interests are being systematically sacrificed to serve Jewish communal objectives. The path to defeat is paved with these “kosher” critiques that protect the core centers of power.

 

Marjorie Taylor Greene Exposes the Jewish Billionaire Trio Backing Thomas Massie’s Primary Challenger

/8 Comments/in , /by

In the aftermath of Israel’s Gaza genocide, some of the richest Jews in America have united to crush the one Republican who dared say no to their blank check, turning Kentucky’s May 2026 primary into an existential referendum on whether any anti-Zionist can survive in a Jewish-dominated political order.

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who resigned from Congress in January 2026, ignited controversy on March 31, 2026, when she identified the billionaire donors backing former Navy SEAL Ed Gallrein’s campaign against Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and accused them of prioritizing a foreign country over American interests. (Other TOO articles on Massie.)

“You know who has not been tested? His opponent. His opponent that is literally propped up and funded by three Jewish billionaires,” Greene said during a virtual fundraiser for Massie that also featured former Rep. Ron Paul and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). “Now look, I’m not anti-Semitic, I don’t care what people’s religion are, but these three billionaires that are funding this opponent against Thomas Massie don’t even live in Kentucky, they’re not eve-, they don’t have a home in his district. And their loyalty is to Israel, not the United States of America.”

Greene continued with an urgent call to action: “So I think what’s extremely important for people to understand is you need to donate some money. You need to donate some money on the MassieMoneyBomb.com because this is a fight for America first. This is a fight against a foreign country, against foreign interests, and against foreign money. And it’s that type of foreign money that has already bought off most members of Congress.”

The three donors Greene referenced are the same ones identified by the Washington Examiner: New York hedge fund manager Paul Singer, who contributed $1 million to the anti-Massie super PAC MAGA KY; Florida hedge fund manager John Paulson, who contributed $250,000; and the Preserve America PAC — primarily funded by Nevada casino mogul Miriam Adelson — which contributed $750,000. None of the three donors live in Kentucky.

Massie has characterized the effort as a “DC-funded hit job.” The Massie fundraiser raised over $351,000 in its first 24 hours, driven by more than 3,200 small donors. The MAGA KY super PAC, run by Chris LaCivita — who co-managed Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign — had spent $1.56 million in just 38 days on television and digital advertisements opposing Massie by early August 2025. By late March 2026, CBS News reported total MAGA KY spending had grown to approximately $2.7 million, while a super PAC linked to the Republican Jewish Coalition had directed more than $2.8 million toward the race. RJC CEO Matt Brooks had said earlier, “Like Trump, we are committed to the defeat of Massie.”

The involvement of the Republican Jewish Coalition alongside these massive outside donations makes one thing clear. The effort is not about Kentucky values but about enforcing unconditional loyalty to Israel. Who are these three Jewish billionaires, and what are their political priorities?

1. Paul Singer

Paul Elliott Singer, born August 22, 1944, in New York City, contributed $1 million to MAGA KY — the single largest individual donation to the anti-Massie campaign. Forbes estimates his net worth at $6.7 billion as of 2025. restart

Singer founded Elliott Associates in 1977 with $1 million in seed capital. The firm grew into Elliott Management Corporation, which managed approximately $72.7 billion in assets as of December 31, 2024. Elliott has long been described as a “vulture fund” — its model involves buying distressed sovereign and corporate debt at steep discounts and pursuing aggressive litigation for full repayment. The most notorious example was Elliott’s 15-year legal campaign against Argentina over defaulted sovereign bonds, which ultimately extracted full repayment.

Singer has been among the most significant funders of neoconservative foreign policy ventures. He was FDD’s second-largest contributor from 2008 to 2011, donating $3.6 million to the hawkish think tank focused on Iran policy and pro-Israel advocacy. He serves as Chairman Emeritus at the Manhattan Institute, per the Elliott Management website, and donated more than $1 million to AIPAC’s United Democracy Project in recent election cycles.

Singer describes himself as a libertarian-leaning conservative but has consistently backed interventionist foreign policy. He was a major fundraiser for George W. Bush and heavily funded Marco Rubio’s 2016 presidential campaign. He donated $1 million to the anti-Trump Our Principles PAC during the Stop Trump movement before eventually reconciling with Trump and donating $5 million to his super PAC in 2024.

 

2. John Paulson

John Alfred Paulson, born December 14, 1955, in Queens, New York, contributed $250,000 to MAGA KY. Forbes estimated his net worth at $3.8 billion as of August 2025.

Paulson founded Paulson & Co. in 1994 with $2 million and one employee. He became a household name in finance for executing what author Gregory Zuckerman documented in his book The Greatest Trade Ever — shorting subprime mortgages ahead of the 2007-2008 financial crisis. His firm earned $15 billion that year, with Paulson personally pocketing roughly $4 billion.

Paulson served as one of Trump’s top economic advisers during the 2016 campaign and hosted a record-breaking fundraiser on April 6, 2024 at his Palm Beach mansion — the “Inaugural Leadership Dinner” — that raised $50.5 million for Trump’s presidential campaign, which Trump called “the biggest night in Fund Raising of ALL TIME.” Paulson himself stated: “This sold-out event has raised the most in a single political fundraiser in history.”

Paulson’s Israel-focused philanthropy has grown substantially in recent years. In 2023 he committed $27 million to Hebrew University of Jerusalem to build the Paulson Bar-El Building for Computer Science and Engineering, and in January 2026 his foundation added another $19 million, bringing his total commitment to Hebrew University to $46 million — one of the largest donations the university has ever received. Hebrew University awarded Paulson an honorary doctorate in June 2024 in recognition of his philanthropic contributions.

The most politically charged element of Massie’s campaign involves the late Jewish sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Paulson’s name appears in Epstein’s black book. In a September 2025 Newsmax interview, Massie named Paulson directly: “He’s a hedge fund manager and a major donor to the Republican Party, a major donor to the speaker of the House, a major donor to the president’s campaign, and he’s in Epstein’s black book.”

3. Miriam Adelson

Miriam Adelson, born October 10, 1945, in Tel Aviv during the British Mandate, contributed $750,000 via the Preserve America PAC, of which she is the primary funder. Bloomberg’s Billionaires Index puts her net worth at approximately $40 billion, while Forbes estimates $32–35 billion.

Born Miriam Farbstein to Jewish parents who fled Poland before the Holocaust, she served as a medical officer in the Israeli military before becoming a physician specializing in addiction treatment. She married Sheldon Adelson, the founder of Las Vegas Sands Corp., in 1991 and after his death in January 2021 assumed control of the family’s business and philanthropic empire, including majority ownership of the Dallas Mavericks.

The Adelson family has channeled more than $600 million into Trump’s three presidential campaigns and other Republican causes since 2015. In 2024 alone, Miriam contributed $106 million to Preserve America, her pro-Trump super PAC, eclipsing even the $75 million contributed by Elon Musk to his own PAC. Miriam and Sheldon Adelson were jointly instrumental in pushing Trump to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights during his first term.

At a White House Hanukkah reception on December 16, 2025, Adelson took the podium and publicly encouraged Trump to seek a third term — a move barred by the 22nd Amendment. She told the crowd she had spoken with attorney Alan Dershowitz about the constitutional question and concluded, “We can do it, think about it.” Trump then announced to the crowd that Adelson had promised “another $250 million” if he runs again in 2028, prompting chants of “Four more years.”

The campaign against Massie represents a broader pattern of pro-Israel donor networks targeting anti-war voices within the Republican Party. Massie has been targeted primarily for opposing U.S. military aid to Israel, voting against Trump’s reconciliation bill, and leading the push for full release of the Epstein files.

This is not the first time Massie has faced this pressure. In the 2024 cycle, AIPAC’s United Democracy Project launched an ad campaign against him, announcing an initial $300,000 TV buy on Fox affiliates statewide. UDP spokesperson Patrick Dorton declared the group was “shining a spotlight on Tom Massie’s atrocious anti-Israel record.” Massie pushed back, telling supporters that “the AIPAC super PAC just bought $300,000 of ads against me because I am often the lone Republican for freedom of speech, against foreign aid, and opposed to wars in the Middle East.” FEC filings reviewed by The Intercept placed UDP’s total verified expenditure against Massie at approximately $167,000. Voters were unmoved: Massie won his May 2024 primary with roughly 76 percent of the vote, defeating two challengers and declaring on election night, “AIPAC, your smear campaign on this American has backfired.”

May 19, 2026 will deliver the most honest test we have seen. Israel’s ethnic cleansing campaign in Gaza, which the entire world saw via livestream, may have finally produced a growing anti-Zionist current among Republican voters in the United States. The question is whether the growing anti-Zionist sentiment can stand against Jewish billionaire money. Should Massie lose, the defeat will expose a brutal truth: American politics functions as a Jewish oligarch playground where elections are mere theater.

More Signs That America’s Youth Are Breaking with Israel

/10 Comments/in , /by

For decades, support for Israel functioned as one of Washington’s few unchallenged orthodoxies. That consensus is now cracking, and the fracture line runs straight through the American youth electorate. The latest findings from the Yale Youth Poll confirm that a generational realignment is well underway, one that cuts across party lines and increasingly places Israel at odds with America’s youth.

Conducted by an undergraduate-led research team at Yale University, the poll surveyed registered voters ages 18 to 34 alongside the broader electorate. Its Fall 2025 results show younger Americans abandoning the reflexive pro-Israel posture that once defined U.S.  politics. What replaces it is not a single ideology but a growing skepticism toward Israel’s actions in Gaza, American military aid to Israel, and the political networks that enforce silence on the issue.

The numbers are stark. Younger voters are far more likely than older Americans to hold negative views of Israel and to endorse statements critical of Israel and broader Jewry. Among voters ages 18 to 22, 30 percent agreed that Jews in the United States are more loyal to Israel than to America. 21 percent said it is appropriate to boycott Jewish-American owned businesses to protest the Gaza war. 27 percent agreed that Jews in the United States have too much power. Each figure exceeds the national average by a wide margin.

The poll also exposes widespread uncertainty around elite language policing. Among voters overall, 56 percent said they were not sure whether the phrase “globalize the intifada” is antisemitic. A plurality of 47 percent said calling the situation in Gaza a genocide is not antisemitic.

That credibility gap appears again in how younger voters understand Zionism. While the electorate as a whole most often defined Zionism as Jewish self-determination or the continued existence of Israel, voters ages 18–22 gravitated toward sharply negative definitions. Many described Zionism as maintaining a Jewish demographic majority in Palestine by displacing native Palestinians, creating a state where Jews receive more rights than others, or functioning as a form of racism and apartheid. Roughly one-third of all respondents said they were unfamiliar with the term entirely, underscoring how little resonance elite slogans now carry.

Nowhere is the generational divide clearer than on Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. While 46 percent of voters overall supported that position, fewer than 30 percent of voters under 30 agreed. 15 percent of that cohort said Israel should not exist at all. By contrast, 64 percent of respondents aged 65 and older supported Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.

Policy preferences follow perception. Nearly two-thirds of voters under 30 favor reducing or ending American military aid to Israel, with 46 percent supporting a total cutoff. The broader electorate remains split, but the direction of change is unmistakable. Younger Americans no longer treat Israel as an untouchable ally.

The Yale findings do not stand alone. They align closely with a growing body of polling that documents the same generational revolt. A University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll found that while 52 percent of Republicans aged 35 and older sympathize more with Israel, only 24 percent of Republicans ages 18 to 34 do. With respect to the Gaza conflict, 52 percent of older Republicans say Israeli actions are justified, compared to just 22 percent of younger Republicans. As Shibley Telhami told Responsible Statecraft, “The change taking place among young Republicans is breathtaking.”

Data summarized by RealClearPolling reinforces the pattern. Among Republicans under 50, unfavorable views of Israel jumped from 35 percent in 2022 to 50 percent in 2025. Older Republicans shifted only marginally. The same University of Maryland data shows that 41 percent of Americans believe Israeli military actions in Gaza constitute genocide or are akin to genocide, including 14 percent of Republicans. 21 percent say the Trump administration’s Israel Palestine policy was too pro-Israel, while 57 percent believe U.S. support has enabled Israeli war crimes.

Even evangelical Republicans are no longer immune. While 69 percent of older evangelicals sympathize more with Israel, that figure drops to 32 percent among younger evangelicals, and only 36 percent believe Israeli actions in Gaza are justified. A September 2025 AtlasIntel poll found that just 30 percent of Americans support financial assistance to Israel, a dramatic departure from Washington’s bipartisan habits.

Media consumption helps explain the shift. Younger Republicans rely far less on Fox News and far more on online platforms where Palestinian perspectives circulate freely. Seventy two percent of Republicans who rely on Fox News support Israel. Among those who get their news primarily from social media, support drops to 35 percent.

This grassroots revolt has begun to surface inside Congress, though only at the margins. Two Republicans stand out. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s shift has been abrupt and public. In November 2023 she defended her voting record funding Israel’s Iron Dome. By July 2025 she described Israel’s Gaza campaign as genocide. Writing on X, she stated, “It’s the most truthful and easiest thing to say that Oct 7th in Israel was horrific and all hostages must be returned, but so is the genocide, humanitarian crisis, and starvation happening in Gaza.” Days later, in remarks reported by Anadolu Agency, she asked, “Are innocent Israeli lives more valuable than innocent Palestinian and Christian lives? And why should America continue funding this?” Her later resignation from Congress does not erase the significance of her break.

Rep. Thomas Massie represents a steadier challenge. The Kentucky libertarian has long opposed Israeli wars and U.S. military aid. In testimony covered by Arab American News, he said, “I don’t want to condone what Israel’s doing. I don’t want to condone the way Netanyahu is waging the campaign against Hamas because I think there are too many civilian casualties.” On X he later wrote, “Nothing can justify the number of casualties inflicted by Israel in Gaza. We should end all US military aid to Israel immediately.”

Since October 7, Massie has not shied away from taking shots at the Israel lobby. He has described how every Republican member of Congress has an “AIPAC babysitter.” As a response to Massie’s strident critics of Jewish influence on American foreign policy, pro-Israel donors have mobilized millions against him, as this author has previously documented. The Republican Jewish Coalition has pledged unlimited spending, according to Jewish Insider.

Taken together, the Yale Youth Poll and its companion surveys point to a transpartisan realignment that Washington can no longer ignore. Young liberals, independents, and conservatives increasingly converge on the same conclusion that Israel’s Gaza campaign and its privileged position in U.S. politics demand scrutiny. This skepticism draws on an older American anti-war tradition, from Pat Buchanan’s opposition to the Gulf War to Ron Paul’s non-interventionism, but it now resonates with a generation that has grown hostile toward Zionism and organized Jewry’s vice grip on American foreign policy decision-making.

What was once an elite taboo has become a mass attitude. Israeli influence on U.S. politics no longer hides in plain sight. The numbers suggest that Israel’s greatest strategic loss may not be on the battlefield but in the hearts and minds of the next generation of American voters.

 

The Jewish Billionaire Circle Hiding in Plain Sight

/6 Comments/in , /by

Most Americans have never heard of the Mega Group. Yet this quiet consortium of Jewish billionaires has drifted back into public view because of renewed scrutiny of Jeffrey Epstein. His name dominates headlines again, and with it a strange supporting cast of oligarchs, intelligence veterans, and philanthropic power brokers.

At the center of this cast of shadowy figures stands Leslie Wexner, one of the most influential patrons of the Zionist project. In 1991, he joined Canadian liquor heir Charles Bronfman to create what they called the Mega Group, also known in some accounts as the Study Group. A profile in the Wall Street Journal from 1998 described it as “a loosely organized club of 20 of the nation’s wealthiest and most influential Jewish businessmen” focused on “philanthropy and Jewishness,” yet even early reporting hinted at something more profound. One overview at Miftah portrayed the Mega Group as an informal but potent club of Jewish American billionaires and entrepreneurs that quickly attracted attention in Jerusalem and Washington alike.

Israeli intelligence sources later described the Mega Group as a vehicle for influence operations in the United States. Analysts pointed to the group’s contacts with the Israeli Mossad, its alignment with the broader Israel lobby, and its habit of operating behind closed doors. What looked like philanthropy on the surface increasingly resembled a private political machine beneath it.

The Architects of a Jewish Network of Oligarchs

The official story holds that Wexner and Charles Bronfman co-founded the Mega Group in 1991 to coordinate large scale Jewish philanthropy. A later sketch of the network placed its origins with about 20 members, almost all billionaires or near billionaires. By 2001. the membership reportedly grew to nearly 50, according to coverage in Executive Intelligence Review and other sources, with annual dues around $30,000 as reported by the Wall Street Journal.

The roster reads like a map of elite Jewish institutional power. Among the central figures were

  • Leslie Wexner, founder of The Limited and Victoria’s Secret.
  • Charles and Edgar Bronfman, heirs to the Seagram liquor empire and longtime leaders of the World Jewish Congress.
  • Michael Steinhardt, pioneering hedge fund manager described in Hedge Fund Alpha and MicroCapClub as one of Wall Street’s most successful investors.
  • Max Fisher, Detroit oil magnate and Republican powerhouse who advised presidents from Eisenhower through George W Bush on Jewish and Middle Eastern affairs.
  • Ronald Lauder, heir to the Estée Lauder fortune and later president of the World Jewish Congress.
  • Harvey Meyerhoff, Baltimore real estate magnate and founding chairman of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, profiled by his own charitable foundation and Pi Lambda Phi.
  • Laurence Tisch, chairman of Loews Corporation, whose son James later led United Jewish Communities.

Various investigations, including an in depth dossier at MintPress News, have argued that this circle functioned as far more than a charity club. In effect, the Mega Group served as a central node in a network where money, media, intelligence, and Zionist lobbying fused into a single oligarchical venture that bypassed the traditional legislative process.

Wexner, Epstein, and the Manhattan Townhouse

Leslie Wexner may be the most important figure in this story, not only because of his corporate empire but because of his unique relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Wexner built his fortune through The Limited beginning in 1963, later expanding to Victoria’s Secret, Bath and Body Works, Abercrombie and Fitch, and other brands under L Brands. His net worth in the early 2020s generally ranged between $4.5 billion and $7 billion dollars, making him one of the richest men in the United States and the longest serving chief executive of a Fortune 500 company.

Then there is Epstein. A former high school math teacher with no college degree somehow became Wexner’s financial manager in the early 1980s. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that Wexner granted Epstein control of “all of his money.” Vanity Fair later revealed that Wexner transferred his 51,000 square foot Manhattan townhouse to Epstein, along with a private jet originally belonging to The Limited, a transfer that turned Epstein’s residence into one of the largest private homes in New York City.

Former Victoria’s Secret executives described a strange dynamic. They recalled seeing Wexner defer to Epstein in meetings and one remembered that “Les would put his hand on Epstein’s shoulder.” In his 2019 letter to his own foundation after Epstein’s arrest, Wexner claimed he had been financially manipulated and insisted that he knew nothing of Epstein’s criminal behavior. The explanation only deepened the mystery. Epstein’s fortune reached an estimated $559 million, according to Vanity Fair. Wexner was his only fully documented client. No public record explains how those numbers add up.

The most explosive interpretation comes from intelligence veterans and investigative writers who argue that Epstein operated as part of an Israeli sexual blackmail apparatus. Ari Ben Menashe, a former Israeli intelligence operative, told Electronic Intifada and other outlets that Epstein and British Jewish socialite Ghislaine Maxwell worked for Israeli military intelligence and specialized in blackmail. Ben Menashe said he saw Epstein in the office of Ghislaine’s father Robert Maxwell (well known to have been an Israeli spy) in the 1980s. The Manhattan townhouse that Wexner handed to Epstein reportedly had hidden surveillance cameras, as described by various investigative writers including those at MintPress News.

Former NSA counterintelligence officer John Schindler, writing in the Washington Times and cited in multiple summaries, argued that Epstein operated within a broader Israeli covert action framework. He stressed the link to Wexner and noted that “we know that it was co-founded by Jeffrey Epstein’s billionaire benefactor. The rest remains speculation,” and suggested that Congress or serious investigative reporters could use the Mega Group as a starting point to untangle the entire affair.

Philanthropy as Social Engineering

The Mega Group excelled at using charitable projects to reshape Jewish identity and align diaspora communities with Israeli interests. Nowhere is this clearer than in Birthright Israel, known in Hebrew as Taglit. The program provides free ten-day trips to Israel for Jewish young adults. Charles Bronfman and Michael Steinhardt launched Birthright in 1999. Reports in eJewishPhilanthropy and the Jewish Journal describe how Bronfman and Steinhardt each pledged between $8 and $10 million dollars. 12 additional donors, including Edgar Bronfman and Lynn Schusterman, committed $5 million dollars each over five years. The Israeli government matched this funding, producing an initial pool close to $140 million.

Leonard Saxe of Brandeis University called Birthright “the largest Jewish educational program ever,” as cited in the Jewish Journal. The program aims to strengthen Jewish identity, discourage intermarriage and assimilation, and deepen attachment to Israel. At its core, Birthright is a wide-ranging identity-construction initiative funded by Jewish billionaires, backed by Israel, and designed to activate Jews in America.

The Mega Group also poured money into Hillel International and Jewish education in North America. A 1998 Wall Street Journal piece on the group’s philanthropy detailed how a small cluster of members pledged a combined $1.3 million dollars annually over five years to re-finance Hillel in 1994. Later six members each provided $1.5 million to create the Partnership for Jewish Education, which funded matching grants for Jewish day schools. These moves strengthened a vast network of day schools and campus organizations that promoted a strongly Zionist worldview.

In effect this philanthropic empire did not simply fund religious or cultural work. It helped build an infrastructure that fostered unwavering support for Israel among younger generations of Jews in the United States.

Think Tanks, Conferences, and Political Messaging

The Mega Group’s reach extended deep into Washington. Multiple members sat on the board of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, known as WINEP. This think tank, which grew out of the orbit of AIPAC, has been described by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt as part of the core of the Israel lobby in the United States. As outlets like Media Bias Fact Check and Militarist Monitor note, WINEP produces research, trains military officers, and briefs government officials on Middle Eastern policy. As of the late 1990s, WINEP board members included Charles and Edgar Bronfman, Max Fisher, Harvey Meyerhoff, and Michael Steinhardt. (WINEP is now headed by Robert Satloff, referenced previously in two TOO articles, here and here; current Board of Directors are listed here.)

The network’s reach into organized Jewish leadership was equally impressive. Malcolm Hoenlein, who moved in the same circles, served as executive vice chairman and later chief executive of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. The Conference serves as the de facto public voice of the American Jewish community on international affairs.

In 2003, this already formidable apparatus added professional Republican messaging expertise. The group hired pollster Frank Luntz, famous for his focus group-driven language manuals. Luntz produced extensive guides for Israel advocates, including a document known as the Global Language Dictionary. He told his readers that settlements were Israel’s main public relations problem and urged them to shift the conversation toward “terror, not territory.” The core lesson this guide imparted was blunt, “it is not what you say that counts. It’s what people hear.”

With Luntz’s help the Mega Group and its allied institutions helped lock U.S. discourse into a frame where Israeli security trumped Palestinian rights and where criticism of Israeli policy easily slipped into accusations of extremism or bigotry.

The 1997 Mega Spy Mystery

A separate story about something called Mega exploded in Washington in 1997. The Washington Post revealed that United States signals intelligence had intercepted a phone call between two Israeli intelligence officers. One officer said, “The ambassador wants me to go to Mega to get a copy of this letter,” referring to correspondence from Secretary of State Warren Christopher to Yasir Arafat. His superior replied, “This is not something we use Mega for.”

Investigators in the United States suspected that Mega referred to a high level informant inside the government. Some believed this figure might be connected to the Jonathan Pollard espionage case, possibly the mysterious Mr X who guided Pollard on which documents to request. Israel claimed at first that Mega was just a codeword for the Central Intelligence Agency.

Former NSA counterspy John Schindler later noted that Israeli intelligence officials viewed MEGA as a vehicle for espionage and influence operations in the United States. When the public finally learned that there was a separate entity known as the Mega Group, co-founded by Wexner and Bronfman, speculation about those two stories intensified. No official investigation has fully clarified whether there was any direct link. The timing and overlapping actors have kept the question alive.

Robert Maxwell, PROMIS, and the Surveillance Backdoor

If Epstein and Wexner form one pole of this saga, Robert Maxwell forms another. The British media tycoon and father of Ghislaine Maxwell has long been described as a Mossad asset. Gordon Thomas and other researchers chronicled his activities in works like Robert Maxwell Israel’s Superspy.

Maxwell maintained close business ties to Charles Bronfman, as highlighted by MintPress News. He allegedly helped Israeli intelligence distribute a modified version of the PROMIS software, originally developed by Inslaw for the United States Justice Department as a case management tool that could integrate separate databases and track individuals.

Israeli operatives then allegedly added a secret backdoor to PROMIS and distributed it to foreign governments and sensitive institutions, including nuclear laboratories like Los Alamos, using Maxwell as a salesman. This backdoor allowed covert access to the data of clients who believed they were simply modernizing their information systems. Former intelligence figures, including Ari Ben Menashe, testified that Maxwell brokered deals to sell the enhanced software to Israeli intelligence and other clients.

Maxwell died in 1991 after falling from his yacht under highly suspicious circumstances. Official accounts called it an accident or possible suicide. Many observers suspected a clean-up operation once his role became too visible.

When one places Maxwell’s activities alongside the rise of the Mega Group, the Epstein saga, and Mossad’s documented aggression in the United States, the pattern that appears is less a string of coincidences and more a coherent architecture of covert influence.

Organized Crime and Media Control

Several Mega Group members carried legacies that touched organized crime. Michael Steinhardt’s father, Sol “Red McGee” Steinhardt, was a mob associate of the Jewish criminal kingpin Meyer Lansky, one of the most powerful figures in twentieth-century organized crime. Accounts of these connections appear in various profiles and analyses of Steinhardt’s life, including critical takes such as the Instagram essay that explores the “Mega Group mafia” idea. The Bronfman empire grew in part through liquor distribution during Prohibition, a sector heavily intertwined with bootlegging networks.

The Mega Group also possessed direct media power thanks to its extensive ties in the English-speaking media world. Wexner served on the board of Hollinger Corporation, which owned the Jerusalem Post, the Chicago Sun Times, and British papers such as the Daily Telegraph. The Bronfmans held a major stake in AOL Time Warner, one of the largest media conglomerates of its day. Ronald Lauder controlled influential outlets in Israel and Eastern Europe.

These holdings did more than shape public opinion. They protected the network itself. Critical coverage of Epstein’s ties to Israel remained rare for years, a pattern noted by Electronic Intifada and others who studied how mainstream outlets avoided serious scrutiny of his alleged intelligence connections.

From Philanthropy to Oligarchy

From its founding in 1991 until its last confirmed meeting in 2001 at Edgar Bronfman’s Manhattan mansion, the Mega Group functioned as a private council of oligarchs. At its biannual meetings, wealthy Jewish donors made critical decisions affecting United States policy regarding Israel. Altogether, the group functioned as a de facto informal policymaking body.

After 2001, the Mega Group receded from public view. It may have dissolved. Or, more likely, it may have become even more discreet. What clearly remains is the infrastructure it helped build. Birthright Israel continues to be one of the most successful Jewish educational programs in the world. United Jewish Communities, the umbrella structure created out of earlier federations, still channels billions in annual funds. The World Jewish Congress, now led by Ronald Lauder, remains a major player in global diplomacy.

In the end, the Mega Group’s public footprint may have faded, but the power structures it assembled continue to operate out of sight. The deeper one looks, the less America resembles a self-governing republic and the more it resembles a stage managed by private Jewish networks that answer to no electorate. The greatest mystery is not what the Mega Group once was, but what its successors may now be quietly directing in the shadows.

The Real Story Behind Trump’s Pardon of Juan Orlando Hernández

/6 Comments/in , /by

The story of a man who turned a lifetime of pro-Israel service into the ultimate form of political protection.

The news came in quietly from a federal prison in West Virginia. Juan Orlando Hernández, the former president of Honduras once sentenced to spend most of the rest of his life behind bars, had walked out of Hazelton penitentiary a free man.

According to an AP report, Hernández had received a presidential pardon from Donald Trump after a conviction that tied him to hundreds of tons of cocaine shipped into the United States. On paper, this was a spectacular reversal of fortune for a man whom federal prosecutors had branded the head of a Central American narco state. In practice, it looked like something else. It looked like a reward for loyalty to the one cause that towers above all others in Washington and in Trump world.

Hernández did not rise overnight. He entered Congress in the late 1990s, representing the rural department of Lempira, and spent more than a decade climbing inside the National Party machine. He then became president of the National Congress and finally president of Honduras from 2014 to 2022. While he projected the image of a tough conservative modernizer at home, another storyline unfolded in U.S. courtrooms.

Federal prosecutors charged him with a vast cocaine conspiracy involving the movement of multi-ton loads into the United States and with the possession of machine guns and other weapons in support of that network. The Justice Department later described his administration as a narco state fueled by millions in cartel bribes. Testimony and media investigations painted an even darker picture. According to Democracy Now, Hernández allegedly used Honduran security forces to protect drug shipments, partnered with major traffickers including the Sinaloa cartel, and used drug money to build his own political power. His brother Tony Hernández ended up with a life sentence in a U.S. prison on similar charges.

Court filings and investigative reports in outlets like CNN repeatedly tied the sitting Honduran president to drug traffickers. U.S. prosecutors said he took payoffs from drug networks as early as 2004. Hernández’s story also intersected with one of Honduras’s most prominent Jewish families. Prosecutors alleged that he received bribe payments and other favors from the Rosenthal family, a powerful clan of Romanian-Jewish origin led by Jaime Rosenthal, whose Grupo Continental controlled Banco Continental, a soccer club, and auto import businesses, as reported by Reuters.

The Rosenthal patriarch, a frequent Liberal Party presidential hopeful of Romanian Jewish extraction, stood near the top of the Honduran economic and political pyramid for decades. For his part, Hernández treated that network as another source of money and influence. A Univision investigation detailed allegations that he used drug money to finance political campaigns. After his arrest, Honduran authorities seized dozens of properties, vehicles, businesses, and other assets linked to his family.

The saga culminated in extradition to the United States in 2022. A New York jury convicted Hernández in March 2024, and a federal judge handed down a 45-year sentence plus supervised release in June of that year. By any normal standard, this was the end of the story. A disgraced former head of state, proven in court to have worked hand in glove with drug traffickers, destined to spend the rest of his days in prison.

However, Hernández did not bet his future on normal standards. For decades, he had invested in a different kind of protection. That protection wore a blue and white flag with a Star of David at the center.

His relationship with Israel began long before he held national office. As a young man in the early 1990s, Hernández traveled to Israel under the auspices of Mashav, the Israeli Agency for International Development Cooperation. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency noted that he completed a Mashav enrichment course in 1992, at the beginning of his diplomatic career.

Three decades later, at the opening of the Honduran embassy in Jerusalem, Hernández stood before an audience and called that first visit to Israel a “life-changing” experience. He said the trip had shaped his view of security, agriculture, and innovation.

Once he entered the presidential palace, Hernández turned that personal link into state doctrine. In October 2015, he arrived in Jerusalem as head of state and told an audience convened by the Israel Council on Foreign Relations and the World Jewish Congress that “As long as I am president, Honduras will stand behind Israel.” The World Jewish Congress described the event in glowing terms and singled out his declaration that ties between the two countries had never been closer.

This was not idle rhetoric. Hernández set out to reposition Honduras as one of the most reliable pro-Israel governments in Latin America. Honduran and Israeli diplomats had initially signed formal relations in the 1950s, and Honduras had allowed Jewish immigration during the Second World War. Under Hernández, those historical connections became the foundation for a new foreign policy.

He adjusted the Honduran voting record at the United Nations so that his country would abstain from or oppose resolutions deemed hostile to Israeli interests. During the 2017 General Assembly vote that condemned the U.S. decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem, Honduras was one of only a tiny group of countries that sided with Washington and Israel against the overwhelming majority.

Hernández also opened a diplomatic and trade office in Jerusalem, signaling recognition of the city as Israel’s capital. He then promised to relocate the full Honduran embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, issuing joint statements with Israeli and U.S. officials that set public deadlines for that step. In June 2021, he completed the move. At the inauguration, Hernández proclaimed that he was “here today in the eternal capital of Israel” and vowed to work “against antisemitism, often presented as anti Zionism,” as quoted by Israel Hayom.

Israel rewarded this loyalty with gestures of its own. It agreed to reopen its embassy in Tegucigalpa and provided security cooperation, technical assistance and emergency relief after devastating hurricanes and during the early stages of the COVID era.

Furthermore, Hernández pushed Honduras into the orbit of Christian Zionist networks. The Friends of Zion Museum in Jerusalem, an institution that promotes Christian support for Israel and campaigns against antisemitism and BDS, gave him its Friends of Zion Award in 2019 for recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and for his diplomatic support. The Friends of Zion Museum and the Jerusalem Post emphasized that he now shared an honor roll with figures like Donald Trump and other leaders celebrated for their pro-Israel policies.

In the security arena, Hernández took positions that aligned perfectly with Washington and Tel Aviv. His government designated Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, a move welcomed by major American Jewish groups. This decision mirrored similar steps by other U.S.-aligned governments in the region–such as Argentina under Mauricio Macri–and confirmed that Tegucigalpa had no intention of straying from the Judeo-American consensus on Middle East security.

Even when the walls began to close in, Hernández treated Israel as his ultimate safety net. As his legal exposure increased and the prospect of extradition grew more likely, he reportedly turned to Israeli officials to ask for help in delaying or preventing his transfer to U.S. authorities. The Times of Israel reported that plea and underscored Hernández’s assumption that his years of unwavering support had earned him political capital in Jerusalem.

That calculation looked naïve when he arrived in New York in chains. It looks far more rational now that Donald Trump has delivered a pardon.

Trump himself cultivated a brand as perhaps the most pro-Israel president in U.S. history. He recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, moved the U.S embassy there, backed the annexation of the Golan Heights, and surrounded himself with advisers and donors who made support for Israel a central test of loyalty. The Friends of Zion Museum honored him with the same award it later gave Hernández, presenting both men as partners in a shared historic mission.

So when Trump announced in late 2025 that he would pardon Hernández, it was natural for mainstream outlets to emphasize the legal controversy and the scale of the drug conspiracy. But there is another thread that runs from the Mashav classroom in the early 1990 to the Jerusalem embassy ribbon cutting to the moment the gates opened at Hazelton. That thread is the politics of Zionism in the Americas and the unwritten rule that governs advancement and protection in that world.

Hernández spent his adult life proving that he would stand behind Israel. He did it in the United Nations chamber, in ceremonial torch-lighting invitations, in embassy relocations, in his fights against BDS and in his designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. He did it in speeches where he promised that “as long as I am president, Honduras will stand behind Israel” and in the moment when he described Jerusalem as the “eternal capital of Israel.”

Trump saw that record and recognized a fellow shabbos goy. He understood that this was not just a corrupt Central American politician but a loyal member of a global pro-Israel camp who had delivered meaningful victories in a region where Israel has long worked to secure dependable allies. In a political universe where servility to world J ewry carries more weight than any anti-corruption sermon, Hernández did not just have a lawyer. He had a patron.

The pardon of Juan Orlando Hernández is therefore more than a quirky case of presidential clemency. It is a message about the real hierarchy of values in U.S. foreign policy in the Trump era. Flooding American streets with cocaine will not necessarily erase your credit if you have spent years moving embassies to Jerusalem, voting the right way at the United Nations, and branding your small Central American country as an extension of Israel’s diplomatic network.

In that world, a man who helped turn his own nation into a narco playground can still find a way out of a 45-year sentence, as long as his record on Zionism is pure and his friendship with the most pro-Zionist president in modern U.S. history remains intact. For Juan Orlando Hernández, that friendship did not simply buy influence. It bought his freedom.

From José Niño Unfiltered on Substack. Definitely worth supporting.

Friend or Foe: Is This the Behavior of Our Greatest Ally?

/6 Comments/in , /by

America’s alliances should serve the American people, not bleed us dry while stabbing us in the back. For decades, we have been sold the myth that Israel is our greatest ally in the Middle East, a beacon of democracy amid chaos, deserving of billions in aid, unwavering military support, and blind loyalty from our politicians. But peel back the layers of propaganda, and what do you find? A nation that spies on us relentlessly, steals our technology, infiltrates our institutions, and manipulates our government through unchecked foreign influence. This is not alliance; it is exploitation. As former CIA counterterrorism officer and whistleblower John Kiriakou stated on the October 2, 2025, Truth Hurts Show, “The Israelis are not our friends, period.” If this is friendship, who needs enemies?

A Spy’s Game, Not an Ally’s Handshake

Kiriakou revealed a systematic intelligence operation. The Israeli embassy in Washington maintains just two declared intelligence officers, one from Mossad and one from Shin Bet, known to the CIA. But in the late 1980s, during Kiriakou’s CIA orientation, the FBI had identified 187 undeclared Mossad agents operating across the United States, embedded in our defense contractors to pilfer classified secrets. “We give the Israelis 99% of the technology that we have,” Kiriakou explained. “They’re trying to steal that last 1%.” Stolen designs, like advanced radar or missile systems, are repackaged for export, undercutting U.S. firms in markets from Asia to Europe. This hidden trade war costs billions in contracts and thousands of American jobs, turning our generosity into a weapon that hollows out our industrial heartland.

Take the F-35 fighter jet, America’s crown jewel of aerial dominance. The U.S. offered Israel a slightly downgraded version, the F-35I, to prevent sensitive avionics from falling into enemy hands if shot down. Israel resisted, pushing for the complete technology. When refused, Mossad agents infiltrated contractors like Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing to steal the upgrades. Meanwhile, allies like the United Arab Emirates accepted a similar downgraded F-35E without complaint. Recent accusations from U.S. defense firm Conflict Kinetics claim an Israeli Ministry of Defense employee stole confidential data in 2024, a fresh assault on our technological edge. This is a strategic erosion, where U.S.-funded tech fuels a rival’s rise, weakening the industrial backbone that secures our global power.

Bugs in Gifts, Eyes on Our Secrets

The betrayal extends to surveillance. Israelis are outright banned from CIA headquarters for liaison briefings. Why? Because every visit came with gifts, plaques, seals, trinkets, all laced with listening devices and batteries to eavesdrop on CIA officers. “We’re like, ‘You guys have to stop doing this,'” Kiriakou recounted. But they did not, forcing the CIA to rent safe houses for meetings. This mirrors a 2019 scandal where mysterious spy devices surfaced near the White House, suspected to target President Trump and his aides, with fingers pointing at Israeli intelligence. This is a digital ambush, exploiting our trust to monitor our leaders. It is a silent takeover, where an ally acts like a rival, scanning our secrets to gain leverage over our decisions.

Recruiting Americans, Owning Narratives

Kiriakou shared a personal encounter that exposes Mossad’s audacity. During his first liaison briefing as a junior Iraq analyst, in one of those rented safe houses, a Mossad representative zeroed in on him mid-introduction. Assuming his name sounded Jewish, the agent said, “You’re Jewish.” Kiriakou shot back, “I am not recruitable. Don’t even think about it.” His colleagues laughed it off afterward: “They do that to every one of us. They are so crude and so heavy-handed.” He filed a security report, but the pattern persists, Mossad targets Americans in positions of authority, confident in their political leverage.

The Jonathan Pollard case proves the stakes: convicted in 1987, he handed over thousands of classified documents on U.S. intelligence methods, satellite imagery, and weapon systems, material so sensitive that officials suspect Israel repackaged it for the Soviet Union in exchange for Jewish emigres. Pollard compromised U.S. agents worldwide, leading to executions in some cases, yet Israel never returned the stolen files despite promises. He was paroled in 2015 and fled to Israel, where he is hailed as a hero. This recruitment strategy now extends to media control. Bari Weiss, a vocal pro-Israel advocate, was installed as Editor-in-Chief of CBS News after Paramount Global, under Skydance Media led by David Ellison, acquired her Free Press for $150 million in October 2025 (far more that it was worth). David’s father, Larry Ellison, a staunch Israel supporter who has donated millions to pro-Israel causes like Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, controls a slice of U.S. media. Leaked emails reveal Ellison vetting politicians like Marco Rubio for Israel loyalty, weaving a web that shapes what Americans see and think.

The AIPAC Stranglehold

These actions are enabled by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which pours millions into campaigns, ousting critics like Rep. Jamaal Bowman while propping up Netanyahu loyalists. In 2024, AIPAC spent $100 million, including $2.5 million against Bowman alone. Yet AIPAC dodges registration under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which requires foreign lobbyists to disclose activities and bans campaign donations. Kiriakou urged: Force AIPAC to register under FARA, and watch the house of cards crumble. They would have to report every meeting with Israeli officials, face felonies for hiding dealings, and stop bankrolling our elections. This chokehold fuels the $3.8 billion we funnel annually, a blank check for betrayal that binds our leaders to foreign interests.

A Call to Reclaim Sovereignty

America First means putting our sovereignty, security, and citizens above any foreign entanglements. Israel is not an ally; it is a leech, siphoning $3.8 billion yearly while undermining our interests. This is a velvet conquest, where espionage, recruitment, and lobbying weave a net that traps U.S. policy in foreign hands. The real cost is a democracy on its knees, its voice drowned by external agendas. Patriots, sound the alarm: enforce FARA on AIPAC, audit the aid, probe the spies. No more blank checks for betrayal. Break this stranglehold, or watch our republic suffocate under foreign weight.

Sources

“Exposing Epstein, Mossad, CIA Torture & the Blackmail Playbook.” Truth Hurts Show, YouTube, 2 Oct. 2025, www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kiHYQC6SXM

“Joe Rogan guest makes explosive claims on Israeli spying.” Israel Hayom, 12 Oct. 2025, www.israelhayom.com/2025/10/12/joe-rogan-guest-makes-explosive-claims-on-israeli-spying/

“Israel accused of planting mysterious spy devices near the White House.” Politico, 12 Sep. 2019, www.politico.com/story/2019/09/12/israel-white-house-spying-devices-1491351

“United States • US defence company accuses Israel of industrial espionage.” Intelligence Online, 12 Sep. 2024, www.intelligenceonline.com/international-dealmaking/2024/09/12/us-defence-company-accuses-israel-of-industrial-espionage%2C110285155-eve

“Paramount Buys Bari Weiss’s The Free Press for $150 Million.” The Wall Street Journal, 6 Oct. 2025, www.wsj.com/business/media/paramount-buys-bari-weisss-the-free-press-for-150-million-737a94eb

“Who is Bari Weiss, the new editor-in-chief of CBS News?” The Guardian, 6 Oct. 2025, www.theguardian.com/media/2025/oct/06/who-is-bari-weiss-cbs-news

“Two Views: The Release of Spy for Israel Jonathan Pollard.” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, 10 Aug. 2015, www.wrmea.org/2015-september/two-views-the-release-of-spy-for-israel-jonathan-pollard.html

“Why isn’t a pro-Israel lobbying group considered a foreign agent?” Forward, 19 Jun. 2025, forward.com/news/730423/tucker-carlson-ted-cruz-aipac-foreign-agent/

“Why AIPAC Must Register Under FARA: Exposing Israel’s Influence.” Track AIPAC, 12 Apr. 2025, www.trackaipac.com/blog/aipac-fara

“U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel.” Congressional Research Service, 7 Jun. 2024, crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL33222