Israel and Iran

So I guess the ICC issued a warrant for Netanyahu...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1860153637382815921

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/21/midd...nt-for-israeli-prime-minister-intl/index.html

So let's say, Netanyahu goes on a state visit to Netherlands. Remember, he will come in his own planes, with a fighter escort, and numerous armed body guards. If some rando clogger cop tries to enforce that warrant he'll have hearts and minds put into his body.

This is the most unenforceable warrant ever, also where are the warrants for the Hamasistanis who raped and murdered Israeli women that started this war? Like get effed lol.
 
Well, crap... it's happening all over again. Wonder where this guy wants to dump the Palestinians. :hmm:

Gaza Plan: Ben Gvir Wants Trump to Back Palestinian Migration

Israeli minister hopes Trump will encourage emigration of Gazans​

5 December 2024

Jerusalem, Dec. 5 (EFE).- Israeli ultra-nationalist National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir said Thursday that he hoped United States President-elect Donald Trump would promote the entry of Jewish settlers and the emigration of the Palestinian population in Gaza.

In an interview with the Maariv podcast published Thursday, Ben Gvir said that if it were up to him, he would present Trump with “a program to encourage migration and settlements in Gaza.”

“It will also be good for the residents of Gaza who emigrate, voluntarily of course,” he said. “I think it will also do us good.”

The ongoing Israeli offensive in the northern Gaza Strip, with a siege of more than 60 days in which 3,700 people have been killed or missing and about 100,000 displaced, makes many Palestinians fear that Israel is preparing the ground for occupation.

Israel’s Housing Minister, the ultra-Orthodox Yitzchak Goldknopf, visited the area bordering the enclave last week alongside settler leaders, where he defended the construction of these Jewish colonies as a form of retaliation to the Hamas massacre on Oct. 7 last year that led to the ongoing war.

“It’s always been when we’ve taken territory from them. When we liberated — they call it ‘occupied’ I say we liberated — the territory, that’s always been the thing that punishes them most,” Ben Gvir stressed in the interview.

Trump’s return to power – he is expected to take office on Jan. 20 – has given the more extremist sections in Israel hope of advances in the occupation of the Palestinian territories.

Ben Gvir’s remarks come shortly after Donald Trump promised on social media that would have “all hell to pay” if the remaining Israeli hostages still in Gaza – 96 in total, 34 of them dead – were not released before he takes office as US president. EFE

pbj/sc
 
R.Caerbannog said:
Well, crap... it's happening all over again. Wonder where this guy wants to dump the Palestinians. :hmm:

Gaza Plan: Ben Gvir Wants Trump to Back Palestinian Migration

Israeli minister hopes Trump will encourage emigration of Gazans​

5 December 2024

Jerusalem, Dec. 5 (EFE).- Israeli ultra-nationalist National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir said Thursday that he hoped United States President-elect Donald Trump would promote the entry of Jewish settlers and the emigration of the Palestinian population in Gaza.

In an interview with the Maariv podcast published Thursday, Ben Gvir said that if it were up to him, he would present Trump with “a program to encourage migration and settlements in Gaza.”

“It will also be good for the residents of Gaza who emigrate, voluntarily of course,” he said. “I think it will also do us good.”

The ongoing Israeli offensive in the northern Gaza Strip, with a siege of more than 60 days in which 3,700 people have been killed or missing and about 100,000 displaced, makes many Palestinians fear that Israel is preparing the ground for occupation.

Israel’s Housing Minister, the ultra-Orthodox Yitzchak Goldknopf, visited the area bordering the enclave last week alongside settler leaders, where he defended the construction of these Jewish colonies as a form of retaliation to the Hamas massacre on Oct. 7 last year that led to the ongoing war.

“It’s always been when we’ve taken territory from them. When we liberated — they call it ‘occupied’ I say we liberated — the territory, that’s always been the thing that punishes them most,” Ben Gvir stressed in the interview.

Trump’s return to power – he is expected to take office on Jan. 20 – has given the more extremist sections in Israel hope of advances in the occupation of the Palestinian territories.

Ben Gvir’s remarks come shortly after Donald Trump promised on social media that would have “all hell to pay” if the remaining Israeli hostages still in Gaza – 96 in total, 34 of them dead – were not released before he takes office as US president. EFE

pbj/sc
Click to expand...
My guess would be wherever Givir can that, preferably, isn't Israel. But if necessary, the West Bank. The problem with the Palestinians is that they have such a reputation for disruption that even the surrounding Arab countries don't want them.

From a strategic standpoint, having them all in one location, like the West Bank, makes a lot of sense; but moving them is going to cause an international uproar regardless of how that process goes about.

I don't see a world where Trump supports bring them here tho. His policy position on "hole" countries has been pretty well established at this point and he ran on a very strong immigration platform.
 
757 said:
My guess would be wherever Givir can that, preferably, isn't Israel. But if necessary, the West Bank. The problem with the Palestinians is that they have such a reputation for disruption that even the surrounding Arab countries don't want them.

From a strategic standpoint, having them all in one location, like the West Bank, makes a lot of sense; but moving them is going to cause an international uproar regardless of how that process goes about.

I don't see a world where Trump supports bring them here tho. His policy position on "hole" countries has been pretty well established at this point and he ran on a very strong immigration platform.
Click to expand...
Here's hoping they don't start importing people. That said, I know AIPAC has considerable influence in DC. I'm also leery that some very wealthy Israeli Americans, ended up pledging hundreds of millions to his campaign. One woman in particular donated 100 million. My worry is that Israel is going to dump their garbage on us, while bilking us for billions.

Miriam Adelson gives $100 million to Trump campaign, making good on reported pledge

Miriam Adelson gives $100 million to Trump campaign, making good on reported pledge​

Gift from the prolific pro-Israel donor is the largest among new batch of major spending disclosures, eclipses the $75 million that Elon Musk recently gave to a pro-Trump PAC​

By Asaf Elia-Shalev17 October 2024, 5:43 am
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump embraces Miriam Adelson at an event marking one year since the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, October 7, 2024, in Miami. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump embraces Miriam Adelson at an event marking one year since the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, October 7, 2024, in Miami. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

JTA — Miriam Adelson has delivered on a pledge she reportedly made at the start of the general election season, donating $100 million to a campaign committee supporting the candidacy of Donald Trump, according to disclosures filed Tuesday with the Federal Election Commission.

The money was distributed to Adelson’s super PAC, Preserve America, which she had seeded earlier this year with $5 million, in a series of installments: $25 million a month in July, August and September and an additional $20 million at the end of September.

A major funder of pro-Israel politics and a prolific donor to Jewish causes, Adelson, 79, is carrying on a legacy she built with her late husband, casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. The Adelson family has long been one of the largest sources of campaign money for Republican candidates and has backed Trump during each of the last three general elections. Now, the widow is wielding an estimated net worth of $35 billion on her own. Though seen as more deliberate in her decision-making, she has not meaningfully departed from her late husband’s politics.



Her contribution was the largest in an array of new big money disclosures on Tuesday, eclipsing the $75 million contributed by Elon Musk, the world’s richest person and head of Tesla and SpaceX, to his own pro-Trump super PAC (political action committee).

If Trump wins, Adelson could once again be instrumental in shaping American policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Miriam Adelson and her husband were influential in Trump’s monumental direction to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to the country’s capital city of Jerusalem in 2017.

Her praise for the former president includes suggesting in 2019 that a “Book of Trump” be added to the Bible. The following year, he awarded Adelson the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor.


US President Donald Trump receives a menorah from Las Vegas Sands Corporation Chief Executive and Republican mega donor Sheldon Adelson, left, and his wife Miriam Adelson at the Israeli American Council National Summit in Hollywood, Florida, December 7, 2019. (AP/Patrick Semansky)
Adelson’s ties to Israel run deep. She was born in Tel Aviv during the British Mandate and speaks fluent Hebrew. She also served as an officer in the Israeli military. Though her business empire is based in the United States, she reportedly spends much of her time nowadays in Israel, where is known as the owner of the country’s largest newspaper, Israel Hayom.

Her writing in the newspaper since the attacks of October 7, 2023, makes clear that she’s been swept up in the political and social fervor gripping the country as it mourns the dead and seeks retribution. She said those who don’t support Israel in its campaign against Hamas are “dead to us.”

Adelson’s spokesperson earlier this year denied a report that she conditioned support for Trump on his public endorsement of Israeli annexation of the West Bank. But a top confidant, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, told the New York Times she’s against the establishment of a Palestinian state.

That position, along with many others, puts her at odds with liberal-leaning J Street, a lobbying group set up as a counterweight to the more hawkish AIPAC. J Street on Wednesday announced a fundraising milestone of $6 million for the campaign of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, the largest contribution total from any Jewish organization.

Times of Israel staff contributed to this report.

To cross dip on the Syria thread. Given their acquisition of the Golan Heights, I wonder if they'll toss the refugees on the shittiest terrain there, use them as a buffer, or funnel them into Syria.

Israel seizes Golan buffer zone after Syrian troops leave posts
 
Last edited:
R.Caerbannog said:
Here's hoping they don't start importing people. That said, I know AIPAC has considerable influence in DC. I'm also leery that some very wealthy Israeli Americans, ended up pledging hundreds of millions to his campaign. One woman in particular donated 100 million. My worry is that Israel is going to dump their garbage on us, while bilking us for a billions.

Miriam Adelson gives $100 million to Trump campaign, making good on reported pledge
Click to expand...
While I can understand that some wealthy Jews, like Soros, would undoubtedly probably support importing Palestinians, I think AIPAC knows that importing a hostile population that will, eventually, be able to vote is not conducive for their overall goals as they relate to Israel. In fact, according to Haaretz, AIPAC gave 60k to group that inspired Trumps Muslim ban.

As for Miriam Adelson in particular, I'm a fan of hers and I think you would be as well. Here's an article she wrote in Forbes in 2023. So, while there may yet be wolves in sheep's clothing within Trumps orbit, I feel fairly safe in saying that Adelson is not among them.
 
757 said:
While I can understand that some wealthy Jews, like Soros, would undoubtedly probably support importing Palestinians, I think AIPAC knows that importing a hostile population that will, eventually, be able to vote is not conducive for their overall goals as they relate to Israel. In fact, according to Haaretz, AIPAC gave 60k to group that inspired Trumps Muslim ban.

As for Miriam Adelson in particular, I'm a fan of hers and I think you would be as well. Here's an article she wrote in Forbes in 2023. So, while there may yet be wolves in sheep's clothing within Trumps orbit, I feel fairly safe in saying that Adelson is not among them.
Click to expand...
Trump didn't ban Muslims, he banned people from 5 countries.
Islam exists in more than 5 countries.
 
757 said:
While I can understand that some wealthy Jews, like Soros, would undoubtedly probably support importing Palestinians, I think AIPAC knows that importing a hostile population that will, eventually, be able to vote is not conducive for their overall goals as they relate to Israel. In fact, according to Haaretz, AIPAC gave 60k to group that inspired Trumps Muslim ban.

As for Miriam Adelson in particular, I'm a fan of hers and I think you would be as well. Here's an article she wrote in Forbes in 2023. So, while there may yet be wolves in sheep's clothing within Trumps orbit, I feel fairly safe in saying that Adelson is not among them.
Click to expand...
I don't really trust anyone advocating for a foreign power, "dual loyalties" and whatnot. The other thing, she's an Israeli nationalist. Her loyalties are to Israel not us. If we say anything contrary to Israeli shenanigan's... apparently we're dead to her. Both she and Soros are sides to the same coin.

From her article.
"If you condemn Hamas and then add a “but” followed by condemnation of Israel, you’re dead to us."
"If you thunder at the tactics of Israel’s counter-offensive, without ever having taken an interest in far bloodier campaigns waged in your name, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Somalia, you’re dead to us."
"If you quibble about how many babies were beheaded, or how many women were violated, in the October 7 pogrom, you’re dead to us."
"If you are more outraged by posters of kidnapped Israeli kids then you are about the fact that they were kidnapped in a vile crime against humanity, you’re dead to us."
"If you persecute Diaspora Jews as part of your pretense of merely opposing Israeli policy, you’re dead to us. "
"If you insist Israel is obligated to seek accommodation with Hamas, an idea you would never have entertained for Western powers that fought the Nazis, Al Qaeda or ISIS, you’re dead to us."
Click to expand...

The other thing is that 60K is chump change for the damage AIPAC has done. Remember dude, they play both sides. Prior to Biden becoming a political pariah, AIPAC was firmly raising millions and campaigning for him and his fellow travelers. These same stooges empowered Iran, cost us Afghanistan, and flooded our country with undesirables.

Pro-Israel interests upped contributions, lobbying in 2016
Pro-Israel groups overwhelmingly give to Democrats: Will that change in 2020?

Pro-Israel groups overwhelmingly give to Democrats: Will that change in 2020?​

Pro-Israel groups have given more to Democratic candidates than Republicans in every election cycle. Will the trend continue in 2020?

By Karl Evers-Hillstrom

3 min. read
View original

Dating back to 1990, pro-Israel groups have given more to Democratic candidates than Republicans in every election cycle. Conservative groups are laying the groundwork to reverse this longstanding trend.

The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), backed by conservative megadonor Sheldon Adelson, reportedly plans to spend $10 million in the 2020 elections to garner support for President Donald Trump from pro-Israel Jewish voters. That kind of spending would lead to an eye-opening increase for RJC, which contributed $496,097 to Republican candidates and made $1.7 million in independent expenditures to aid Republicans in 2018.

During the group’s annual summit last weekend, RJC board member Ari Fleischer told Politico that the group hopes to make additional inroads with large Jewish populations in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan to put Trump “over the top.”

The optimism from RJC comes as Republican groups continue attempts to capitalize on controversial comments from Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). They’re also trying to make inroads with pro-Israel Jewish voters by supporting Trump’s controversial decisions to recognize Golan Heights as Israeli territory and move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. The push comes as Trump reportedly emboldens Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s vow to annex parts of the West Bank.

The majority of money from pro-Israel groups currently goes toward Democratic candidates, but substantial new investment into the RJC from Adelson could amount to a seismic shift in the realm of pro-Israel groups.

J Street, a liberal advocacy group which supports a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine, has remained the top contributor among pro-Israel groups since the 2014 cycle. J Street distributed more than $4 million in the 2018 cycle, all of which went to Democrats.

The PAC functions as a conduit for donors who want to support J Street-endorsed candidates. Donors earmark their contribution toward a specific candidate, then J Street’s PAC distributes the money to the candidate. With this process, individual contribution limits remain in place, but candidates can take in large sums through J Street’s supporters. Combining direct PAC contributions and itemized earmarked contributions, J Street’s top two beneficiaries were Wisconsin Democrats Dan Kohl ($228,983) and Tammy Baldwin ($206,705).

Also acting as a conduit for its supporters, NorPAC was the second-highest spender, shelling out $1.1 million. The group is nonpartisan, committing to candidates of both parties that “demonstrate a genuine commitment to the strength, security, and survival of Israel.” But 63 percent of the money went to Democrats. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) received $205,519 in itemized contributions through the New Jersey-based group, more than any other candidate.

Though the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) doesn’t make direct contributions to candidates, its “Congressional Club” program incentivizes American members to contribute thousands toward pro-Israel congressional candidates. It’s difficult to decipher how much AIPAC members contribute toward candidates as they often don’t specify they are contributing as required by the program.

Each of the Democratic Presidential candidates declined to speak at AIPAC’s annual conference, drawing criticism from Republicans. AIPAC recently targeted Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) with Facebook ads urging its supporters to tell Sanders that “America stands with Israel.”

Still, several high-profile Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, spoke at the AIPAC conference.

“I stand with Israel, proudly and unapologetically,” Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said at the conference. “When someone accuses American supporters of dual loyalty I say, accuse me.”

There are some signs that support for Democrats from pro-Israel donors is slightly wavering. Pro-Israel megadonor Haim Saban, who gave nearly $4.3 million to Democrats and liberal groups in 2018 and just $5,400 to Republicans, recently expressed concern to Politico about 2020 Democrats’ policies on the U.S.-Israel alliance. If influential donors connected to organizations such as NorPAC and AIPAC decide to shift their contributions from Democrats from Republicans, the pro-Israel landscape could easily undergo a major shift to the right.

Articles of how they shifted gears in 2024.
The Left Is Finally Building a Response to AIPAC
The Left Is Finally Building a Response to AIPAC
The “Reject AIPAC” coalition looks to fight against the Israel lobby’s push to wipe out pro-Palestine progressives from the Democratic Party.

By Akela Lacy

Mar 11, 2024 01:30 PM3 min. readView original
After decades of avoiding direct involvement in electoral politics, the country’s flagship Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, formed a pair of political action committees in recent years and has been spending millions on political races.

Its targets have been progressives, with AIPAC becoming heavily involved in Democratic primaries. In addition to recruiting candidates to challenge incumbent Democrats, the group plans to spend at least $100 million on 2024 races.

Now, progressives are fighting back, building a bulwark against the pro-Israel lobby onslaught with a new campaign to reject AIPAC.

A group of 25 progressive organizations — including Justice Democrats, the Working Families Party, the IfNotNow Movement, and Jewish Voice for Peace Action— launched the Reject AIPAC coalition Monday. The coalition plans to organize against AIPAC across electoral, political, and digital arenas. One facet of the plan calls for a seven-figure electoral spending campaign to defend members of Congress being targeted by AIPAC.

In a press release announcing its launch, the coalition said it would work to “organize Democratic voters and elected officials to reject the destructive influence of the Republican megadonor-backed AIPAC on the Democratic primary process and our government’s policy towards Palestine and Israel.”

Financed by AIPAC’s major donors, including Republican billionaires and key GOP funders, the 2021 launch of the Israel lobby’s new super PAC was readymade to outspend progressives. AIPAC and its allies have reshaped the electoral field in key primaries, shifted the balance of power in Congress, and imposed costly consequences for criticism of U.S. support for Israel’s human rights abuses.

The Washington debate around the Israeli–Palestinian conflict has become particularly fraught amid Israel’s relentless assault on the Gaza Strip. Even as the International Court of Justice ruled that a case against Israel for genocide should proceed, progressive members of Congress have been attacked for using the term — or, early on in the war, just for calling for a ceasefire.

AIPAC recruited and is bankrolling a challenger to Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., for instance, who made early and forceful calls for a ceasefire in the Gaza war. Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., who faced an AIPAC spending onslaught in 2022, is expected to face millions in AIPAC expenditures again this year.

“We have watched as AIPAC has done everything it can to silence growing dissent in Congress against Netanyahu’s assault on Gaza — which has killed over 31,000 Palestinians — even as Democratic voters overwhelmingly support a ceasefire and oppose sending more blank checks to the Israeli military,” the coalition said. “Now, AIPAC’s Republican donor-funded Super PAC, the United Democracy Project, is threatening to spend $100 million targeting the handful of Black and brown members of Congress who have led the calls for a ceasefire and the equal protection of Palestinian and Israeli lives.”

AIPAC and its allies’ growing influence on Democratic Party politics has presented a major problem for progressives. The organizations backing progressives rely mostly on small-dollar donors and can’t compete with AIPAC’s war chest.

Even as it attacks Democrats on the parties left flank, however, AIPAC has cozied up to the GOP’s far right. In the 2020 election, AIPAC endorsed more than 100 Republicans who voted to overturn the results of that year’s presidential race.

This year, the group encouraged Republicans to switch parties to vote in at least one Democratic primary where it recruited Westchester County Executive George Latimer to run against Bowman. AIPAC is the biggest donor to Latimer’s campaign so far, The Intercept reported.

While progressive candidates like Lee have fended off AIPAC and its allies, its chilling effects reach far beyond elections. The group also has an outsized lobbying influence on Capitol Hill and spends millions of dollars a year on lobbying efforts, another arena in which the left has been outmatched.

The Reject AIPAC coalition says it will try to counterbalance those efforts on the Hill and call on members to disavow AIPAC’s endorsement and instead sign a pledge not to take any more money from the group. For the moment, however, many senior Democrats, including those in leadership, have benefited from AIPAC’s largesse.

“The overwhelming influence of corporate Super PACs on our democracy and elections has expanded the gap between voters and their elected leaders into a canyon that has been exploited by every special interest and corporate lobby,” the coalition said. “Rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.”

Funding Both Parties​

AIPAC’s approach to electoral spending is bipartisan. The group has funded Republican, Democrat, and independent candidates alike. AIPAC PAC supported 233 Republicans with a total of more than $17 million in funds, 152 Democrats who received more than $28 million in sum, and three independents: Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, and Angus King of Maine, who got just under $300,000 between them. (Spending not covered in this analysis includes AIPAC PAC contributions that were refunded in 2023 or 2024 or those that went to other PACs and political organizations, such as the National Republican Senatorial Committee or the centrist Democratic nonprofit fundraising platform Democracy Engine.)
Click to expand...

How Does AIPAC Shape Washington? We Tracked Every Dollar.

How Does AIPAC Shape Washington? We Tracked Every Dollar.​

The Intercept followed AIPAC’s money trail to reveal how its political spending impacts the balance of power in Congress.

By Akela Lacy

Oct 24, 2024 04:44 PM

7 min. read
View original
  • The Big Picture
  • Key Races
  • Strategy and Allies
For decades, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee had been an influential presence on Capitol Hill, working behind the scenes to lobby politicians and their staffers in support of Israel. But ahead of the 2022 midterm elections, AIPAC made a decision that would fundamentally alter its purpose and the contours of American politics.

After 60 years of issues-based lobbying, AIPAC for the first time opted to spend directly on campaigns. Flush with millions of dollars from loyal donors, among them Republican billionaires and megadonors to former President Donald Trump, AIPAC embraced a new strategy. It would use its vast funds to oust progressive members of Congress who have criticized human rights abuses by Israel and the country’s receipt of billions of U.S. dollars in military funding.

Just two years after it started pouring money into campaigns, AIPAC has become one of the largest outside spenders in congressional elections. The Intercept has chronicled AIPAC’s power through coverage of individual races, but never before has AIPAC’s massive outflow of money been analyzed in sum. This project uses records from the Federal Election Commission — submitted by the lobbying group’s federal political action committee, AIPAC PAC, and its super PAC, United Democracy Project — to map how much money has been spent on behalf of Israel, where these groups are doling out money, and what impact those funds are having on the balance of power in Congress.

AIPAC did not respond to a request for comment.

After each of its wins this cycle, AIPAC posted to X: “Being pro-Israel is good policy and good politics!”

While it’s true that AIPAC won the overwhelming majority of races it waded into, the picture that emerges from AIPAC’s paper trail is more complex.

When it rolled out its new strategy in the 2022 election cycle, AIPAC found immediate success. The lobbying group and another pro-Israel group, Democratic Majority for Israel, defeated Reps. Andy Levin, D-Mich., and Marie Newman, D-Ill., who were outspoken in their criticism of unconditional U.S. military funding for Israel. The campaign to defeat Levin marked a significant push from AIPAC to repress criticism of Israel even from Jewish members of Congress.

AIPAC has spent money on more than 80 percent of the 469 seats up for reelection this year.
Click to expand...
Ahead of the 2024 cycle and amid growing public outrage over Israel’s war on Gaza, AIPAC made a bold pronouncement: Through its United Democracy Project arm and AIPAC PAC, it would spend $100 million on elections, about one-sixth of what outside groups spent on the 2020 presidential election.

There are few congressional races that AIPAC sat out this year. Of the 469 seats up for reelection this year, AIPAC has spent money on more than 80 percent: 389 races in total. AIPAC has sought influence over 363 seats in the House and 26 in the Senate.

Of the 389 candidates AIPAC funded, 57 did not face a primary. Of the primary elections that did take place, 88 candidates had no opponent.

The size of AIPAC’s war chest means it can pick and choose the races in which it is most likely to succeed — boosting its image as a kingmaker and its influence among candidates and members, while simultaneously hiking up the cost of criticizing U.S. policy toward Israel.

AIPAC’s approach to electoral spending is bipartisan. The group has funded Republican, Democrat, and independent candidates alike. AIPAC PAC supported 233 Republicans with a total of more than $17 million in funds, 152 Democrats who received more than $28 million in sum, and three independents: Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, and Angus King of Maine, who got just under $300,000 between them. (Spending not covered in this analysis includes AIPAC PAC contributions that were refunded in 2023 or 2024 or those that went to other PACs and political organizations, such as the National Republican Senatorial Committee or the centrist Democratic nonprofit fundraising platform Democracy Engine.)

AIPAC PAC also gave more than $3 million to party committees and organizations on both sides of the aisle including the NRSC, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Jeffries Majority Fund, and Democracy Engine.

AIPAC spent this year on races in every state except Ohio (although the group funded several Ohio candidates in 2023). Among the places it spent most were New York and California, predictable big-money locations with two of the largest delegations in Congress. But outliers like Missouri and Maryland came into play this cycle as United Democracy Project funneled cash to back its preferred candidates. Missouri, where AIPAC spent the second-most on races this cycle, has only eight congressional seats but received more than $11.7 million in spending on just one race in which AIPAC-backed Wesley Bell ran against Rep. Cori Bush Bush, D-Mo. In Maryland, which also has just eight congressional seats, AIPAC-backed candidate Sarah Elfreth drew $4.2 million in AIPAC money this cycle.

So far, the spending has had its desired effect. The number of members of Congress willing to support conditioning aid to Israel or criticizing human rights abuses has shrunk as AIPAC has increased its electoral spending and put it to work targeting progressive candidates and lawmakers.

While AIPAC supported more Republicans than Democrats, it spent more on its favored Democratic candidates — mostly on Bell and George Latimer, run by AIPAC in primaries against outspoken progressives and Squad members Bush and Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y.

AIPAC-backed candidates are generally pro-Israel, but their staunchness varies from lawmakers like Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., a major AIPAC recipient and one of the most vocal pro-Israel voices in Congress, to Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., who proposed a bill to “deport” Palestinians from the U.S. On the other end of the spectrum are less vocal candidates like the AIPAC and UDP-backed Elfreth, who won the Democratic primary in Maryland’s 3rd Congressional District where the topic of Israel — and Elfreth’s stance on it — barely came up in the race.

Through an additional $41.9 million in spending on independent expenditures like ads and get-out-the-vote measures by its super PAC, United Democracy Project, AIPAC made major investments in two additional House races. UDP spent just under half a million dollars against Democratic candidate Kina Collins in her third primary against three-decade incumbent Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill. The super PAC did not spend for Davis or any other candidate in the race.

UDP also spent $167,000 against Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and did not back another candidate in the Republican primary. Massie won with 76 percent of the vote and is running unopposed in November.

One of AIPAC’s only losses this cycle came after it poured out $5.1 million in a bid to defeat California congressional candidate Dave Min in a race in which Israel was hardly a major issue. After he won the race, Democratic Majority for Israel PAC endorsed Min in September.

AIPAC’s strategy is more than just spending to boost its preferred candidates. A major part of AIPAC’s approach is spending big against candidates it wants out of Congress. In the two highest-profile cases this cycle, AIPAC spent $30 million on ousting two members of the progressive Squad — Bowman and Bush — leading to two of the most expensive Democratic House primaries in history.

Its embrace of this tactic dates back to the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, when an offshoot, Democratic Majority for Israel, led by former AIPAC consultant and longtime Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, first went negative against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. AIPAC helped fund Democratic Majority for Israel ads attacking Sanders, after the Jewish senator and strong critic of Israel’s human rights abuses called for conditioning military funding to Israel.

The groups share commonalities beyond their mutual focus on Israel. Both AIPAC and Democratic Majority for Israel have shared donor rolls; 11 of DMFI’s board members have worked with, addressed or donated to AIPAC; and Mellman has consulted for at least two other AIPAC-affiliated groups. In a statement to The Intercept, Democratic Majority for Israel spokesperson Rachel Rosen said the group “is completely separate from, and independent of, AIPAC and any other organization. We have our own Board, leadership and staff, none of whom overlap with AIPAC. We advocate for different policies.”

Rosen distanced DMFI from the Israeli government and said the group had been critical of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “For example, we support a two-state solution, and we have been critical of the Netanyahu government’s actions including on settlements, judicial reform and the composition of its coalition. Our sister organization, DMFI PAC, only supports Democrats, and has endorsed different and opposing candidates in the current election cycle.”

AIPAC’s debut in direct political spending during the 2022 cycle coincided with an increase in other pro-Israel spending from groups with close AIPAC ties. Mainstream Democrats PAC, the super PAC backed by top Democratic donor and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, ramped up spending, thanks in part to support from DMFI PAC.

AIPAC, DMFI PAC, and Mainstream Democrats PAC were also instrumental in defeating Democratic Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner’s congressional bid that cycle.

AIPAC spent broadly in the 2024 cycle, but it also had very specific aims — among them recruiting and backing candidates to run against Bush and Bowman. The lobbying group also tried and failed to recruit a challenger to Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., The Intercept reported, and she easily won her primary election in April.

AIPAC’s attacks on Bowman and Bush ultimately proved successful, with both losing in two of the most expensive House Democratic primary elections in history to candidates bankrolled by more than $29 million in AIPAC dollars.

AIPAC has proven that it can direct huge sums of of money to oust insurgent members of Congress and candidates — removing from the halls of power politicians who aren’t merely critics of U.S. policy toward Israel, but are also supporters of economic, policing, health care, and labor policies that are at odds with the interests of the lobbying group’s wealthy donors. AIPAC has shown that it has the power to reach almost every seat in Congress — and when it takes a shot, it seldom misses. So what comes next?

“AIPAC — like every other corporate super PAC — represents the most broken parts of our campaign finance system that gives a handful of billionaires a vehicle to advance their interests at the expense of millions of everyday people,” said Usamah Andrabi, a spokesperson for Justice Democrats, which has recruited and backed candidates against AIPAC attacks. “If we want to stop rising costs, protect our communities, and prevent another endless war abroad then we need to take big money out of politics once and for all.”

These people, and many others, have been mucking around with our political apparatus for the past 60 years. They, just like the Islamists, are not our friends.
 
Last edited:
DA SWO said:
Trump didn't ban Muslims, he banned people from 5 countries.
Islam exists in more than 5 countries.
Click to expand...
No argument from me.

My point, in response to the Givir statement, was that AIPAC put money toward, what I think most of us would consider, a smart policy to keep radical Islamist's out of the US. The connecting point being, AIPAC does not want Islamists being funneled into the US.

Studies may differ in the actual amount, but recent studies have shown that somewhere between 2/3rds to 3/4ths of Palestinians think that October 7th was a good thing. As a result, I do not agree that AIPAC or Miriam Adelson, for reasons stated in her article, would be on board with bringing any Palestinians over as refuges. Which I personally think is the correct call.

AIPAC and I do not always see eye to eye because we, ultimately, have different interests. But in the case of Palestinian refuges to the US, I think we are competely aligned at the moment on that specific issue.
 
757 said:
While I can understand that some wealthy Jews, like Soros, would undoubtedly probably support importing Palestinians, I think AIPAC knows that importing a hostile population that will, eventually, be able to vote is not conducive for their overall goals as they relate to Israel. In fact, according to Haaretz, AIPAC gave 60k to group that inspired Trumps Muslim ban.

As for Miriam Adelson in particular, I'm a fan of hers and I think you would be as well. Here's an article she wrote in Forbes in 2023. So, while there may yet be wolves in sheep's clothing within Trumps orbit, I feel fairly safe in saying that Adelson is not among them.
Click to expand...

I mean, who cares, do you know how many Hamasistanis we already have? We need to start deporting the overstayers, they are not our friends.
 
Marauder06 said:
You know who else "funds both sides" in just about everything?

Us.

View attachment 46454
Click to expand...
Golly! I wonder who approves the funding, when we start passing money around like Joe at a Fayetteville strip club. :ROFLMAO:

Make It Rain Cartoon GIF
 
ThunderHorse said:
I mean, who cares, do you know how many Hamasistanis we already have? We need to start deporting the overstayers, they are not our friends.
Click to expand...
I care because AIPAC has a lot of money. If they are willing to throw money behind a cause I support, then I think they should be applauded and encouraged to do so. One of those causes is trying to prevent the acquisition of more Hamasistanis because, like you said, we have too many already.

As for point 2, 100% agree.
 
Watching a Candace Owens interview with Piers Morgan. Interview gets to a point where the Oct 7th attacks come up and it's brought up that Netanyahu may have known that something was up. Earlier in the thread we talked about the Israeli intelligence dropping the ball on things, now I'm starting to wonder if that wasn't true.

Around 12:40

Anyone have access to Haaretz Daily?
Netanyahu knew. Netanyahu ignored. Netanyahu is responsible | Editorial

U.S. official: Biden realized Netanyahu lied to him about hostage deal
 
I am very familiar with Haaretz.

It’s a Leftist publication owned in part by a Russian and as opposed to conservatism in Israel as MSNBC is opposed to it here. It has a history of antisemitic/anti-settlement editorials and is widely criticized—even by many liberal Jewish journalists here in the US.

In fact, it’s no different than any of the thousands of other MSM publications worldwide in its condemnation of Israeli policy, except that it’s probably more strident in its criticism of Netanyahu…comparable to the MSM’s treatment of Trump.

In other words, its content is suspect and deserves some skepticism.

As far as the Israeli intelligence community “dropping the ball” just prior to 10/7–as competent as it is, it’s not immune to lapses, over confidence and even complacency (see The War of Atonement, Oct 7 1973).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Marauder06
Tampons in Bullet Holes (Again)
2 3
Replies
51
Views
3K
Muppet
Muppet
Back
Top