As one small part of the myriad permutations that the Military Industrial Complex ("MIC") corruptly adopts in order to further the profits of its investors, one should examine the Congress backers of the Gaza war. Not surprisingly, they received most from pro-Israel donors.
But, surprisingly, the top recipients of pro-Israel contributions in the last US last elections were centrist Democrats who defeated progressives in primaries. Yes, right wing Democrats, possibly of the same persuasion as those who are running the ALP across Australia, both federally and in the states and territories and in some cases in local government bodies.
In the US Congress members who were more supportive of Israel at the start of the Gaza war received over $100,000 more on average from pro-Israel donors during their last election than those who most supported Palestine, a Guardian analysis of campaign data shows.
Those who took more money most often called for US military support and backed Israel’s response, even as Gaza’s civilian death toll mounted, the findings show. The analysis, which looks at positions taken during the war’s first six weeks, does not prove any particular member changed their position because they received pro-Israel campaign donations. However, some campaign finance experts who viewed the data argue that donor spending helped fuel Congress’s overwhelming support for Israel.
The analysis compared campaign contributions from pro-Israel groups and individuals to almost every member of the current Congress with each lawmaker’s statements on the war through mid-November.
About 82% of Congress members were more supportive of Israel, and just 9% more supportive of Palestine during this period. The remainder had “mixed” views. Legislators categorized as supportive of Israel received about $125,000 on average during their last election, while those supportive of Palestine on average took about $18,000.
The volume and breadth of the donors’ spending is considerable: over $58m went to current Congress members, and all but 33 received donations.
The findings have “profound implications for what American policy toward … Israel looks like”, said John Mearsheimer, a University of Chicago political scientist and co-author of the 2006 book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. “If there was no lobby pushing Congress in a particular direction in a really forceful way, the position of the US Congress on the war in Gaza would be fundamentally different.”
The groups’ campaign contributions have varying goals depending on the member. Spending can be “defensive” or “shore up support” in Congress for allies who already share pro-Israel groups’ views, said Sarah Bryner, a spokesperson for Open Secrets, which tracks campaign finance spending and collected the contributions data used in the Guardian’s analysis. Spending can also be “offensive”, or intended to persuade a lawmaker to take a pro-Israel position, campaign finance observers and political strategists who reviewed the data said.
The donors’ highest profile battles have involved members of the “The Squad”, like Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, who are among the most critical of Israel. But statements from Representatives Don Bacon, Dan Kildee and André Carson in the wake of the 7 October attack in which 1,200 Israelis were killed help illustrate varying levels of donations and responses across Congress.
All three first strongly condemned the assault’s perpetrators and expressed deep sympathy for the victims, but their messaging quickly diverged.
Bacon, who received about $250,000, offered full-throated support for Israel: “Whatever Israel wants … we should be there to help.”
Carson, who received $3,000, took aim at Israel, denouncing its “unfair, two-tiered rule over the Palestinian people” and demanded a ceasefire.
Kildee, who received $91,000, fell somewhere in between, underscoring “Israel’s security and its right to respond” and his ”grave concern” over its airstrikes killing thousands of Palestinian civilians.
Included in the analysis are 33 pro-Israel groups and a number of individuals that work to shore up US political support, secure military assistance and steer national dialogue. Its prominent campaign finance players include the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), Democratic Majority For Israel (DMFI), and J Street.
The donors are not ideologically monolithic. J Street, which calls itself “pro-Israel and pro-peace” and is considered among the most liberal Pacs, only gave to Democrats, and in some cases backed progressive candidates targeted by more conservative Pacs, like Aipac or DMFI. While donors across the spectrum have pressured lawmakers to support Israel following 7 October, J Street has been among the only group to raise concern about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and express support for conditioning aid to Israel.
The groups are a powerful force in US politics that draw comparisons to the National Rifle Association (NRA) at the peak of its power, and spent more on the 2022 Congress than other special interests, such as the oil and gas industry.
The former president Barack Obama, in his 2020 memoir, detailed the threat Aipac presents to Israel’s critics, who risked “being tagged as ‘anti-Israel’ (and possibly anti-Semitic) and confronted with a well-funded opponent in the next election”, he wrote.
In a statement to the Guardian, an Aipac spokesperson, Marshall Wittmann, said the group is “proud of our engagement in the democratic process – as is our right as Americans – to advance the relationship between the US and Israel”.
The donors’ success rate is often high: DMFI-backed candidates won over 80% of their 2022 races, the group says. Pacs such as DMFI and Aipac’s United Democracy Project, which was launched during the 2022 cycle, have focused attacks on progressive candidates.
The top six recipients of pro-Israel donor support in 2022 were centrist Democrats who defeated progressives in primaries and collectively accounted for around $25m, or about 42% of the donors’ spending.
To determine whether lawmakers were supportive of Israel, Palestine or had a mixed response, the Guardian examined officials’ media statements, X accounts and letters to Joe Biden from 7 October through mid-November.
The unprecedented moment in US-Israeli relations has helped lay bare the extent of Congress’s support for Israel.
The analysis of Congress members’ responses in this period found:
- 93% called for US military or financial support for Israel.
- 81% supported Israel’s response.
- 17% criticized Israel or called for a ceasefire.
- 17% contextualized the war, meaning they raised issues like Israeli settlement expansion or human rights violations in Gaza that preceded the 7 October attack.
Some legislators’ positions have shifted as a humanitarian crisis deepened and Israeli attacks caused mass civilian casualties. Following Israel’s deadly strike on the Jabalia refugee camp, for example Senator Dick Durbin and Representative Maxine Waters, who had previously shown stronger support for Israel, called for a ceasefire.
Congress has been much more sympathetic to Israeli civilian victims than Palestinian, but party affiliation, not money, predicted lawmakers’ statements on civilian casualties.
The spending patterns detailed in the analysis help explain why war exploded in Gaza, said Stephen Walt, a Harvard University international affairs professor who co-authored the book with Mearsheimer. Over recent decades, Israel likely would have been unable to carry out many of its inflammatory policies, like settlement expansion, without a “pro-Israel lobby” to help secure US arms and political support, he said.
deas such as US sanctions, withholding military aid or the US sponsoring a critical United Nations Security Council resolution are “complete science fiction” in large part because of the groups’ influence, Walt added.
Many of the pro-Israel groups have opposed Palestinian statehood, and played a significant role in derailing peace processes, Mearsheimer said.
“If the lobby had worked with any administrations to allow presidents to pressure Israel to produce an agreement that led to a Palestinian state, then we probably would not be in this disastrous situation,” he said.
Some groups mobilized against representatives who supported Palestinian statehood. In 2022, Aipac supported the ouster of the former representative Andy Levin, a Jewish progressive and self-described Zionist, in part over his proposed bill calling for a two-state solution and “an end to Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories”.
Ahead of Levin’s primary, Aipac’s former president sent out a fundraising pitch calling Levin’s race against centrist Representative Haley Stevens a “rare opportunity to defeat arguably the most corrosive member of Congress to the US-Israel relationship”.
The race turned into a battle between conservative and liberal donor groups: donors poured nearly $5.4m into backing Stevens. She easily beat Levin, who was backed with about $700,000 in J Street support. The Guardian analysis found Stevens to be among the staunchest supporters of Israel’s response – she was one of just 12 Democrats who broke with the party to vote for a GOP Israel assistance bill that did not include humanitarian aid for Gaza.
Congress members who were more supportive of Palestinian causes or more neutral prior to being elected, like Senator John Fetterman, Representative Maxwell Frost and Senator Raphael Warnock, shifted to take more pro-Israel positions after pro-Israel groups made donations, or threatened to get involved in a race. The Guardian found Fetterman and Warnock to be more supportive of Israel following the 7 October attacks, while Frost had a mixed response and has signed onto a resolution calling for a ceasefire.
The DMFI president, Mark Mellman, said the analysis does not prove that pro-Israel donor contributions influenced Congress’s position or caused any lawmaker to change their views on Israel. Anyone who posits that is “an advocate, not an analyst”, he said.
“I’m in favor of changing how it works, but it works that way for every issue, for every progressive issue, for every conservative issue, so there is absolutely nothing unique about pro-Israel community in this respect,” he said. “Not acknowledging that would be antisemitic.”
Campaign finance experts noted that some congressional donations are given to members because they already share a position, raising a “chicken or egg” question about the role of the money in members’ views. Bacon, a former Air Force colonel, said Israel has strategic value to the US and noted he is an evangelical with a “spiritual connection” to Israel.
Dozens of evangelicals serve in Congress, and Bacon said the question of supporting Israel “is a matter of the heart” for many people like him.
“My support comes from the time I was five years old and my dad said ‘Those who bless Israel will be blessed’ which is right out of the Old Testament,” Bacon told the Guardian.
The analysis also highlights how most of Congress is in line with conservative pro-Israel positions – but not with those of the US public. While the Guardian found just 17% of Congress was critical of Israel or called for a ceasefire in the first six weeks of the war, US polls show up to 68% of Americans support a ceasefire, and around 80% of Democrats.
“There is no question” pro-Israel donor contributions spread across Congress drive the disparity, said James Zogby, a pollster and founder of the Arab American Institute. But he believes this is not a matter of more robust public debate because “if you raise the issue of money then you run the risk of being called an antisemite,” he added.
The Guardian identified 132 legislators who received less than $10,000 in backing, including 33 who received $0, but are still supportive of Israel. While that includes some Republicans who are ideologically aligned with groups like Aipac, some experts who reviewed the data believe it points to the donors’ strength.
Their vast spending instills fear across Congress, and Aipac is the “elephant in the room” in Democratic campaigns, said Waleed Shahid, a progressive strategist who said consultants have advised candidates to publicly take pro-Israel positions to placate pro-Israel donors.
“There aren’t that many lobbies that are willing to spend millions of dollars to unseat you in a primary,” Shahid added.
Moreover, most lawmakers represent districts with very few Jewish or Arab American constituents to pressure them on votes, and there is virtually no pro-Palestine lobby to counterweight, Mearsheimer noted. That makes it easier and safer for lawmakers to take pro-Israel positions, he added.
The 2022 primary in North Carolina’s first congressional district encapsulated those issues. Relatively few Jews or Arab Americans live in the area, and the Democratic representative Don Davis, armed with about $2.8m in donor support, defeated a more progressive candidate before winning in the general election.
Davis, fresh off a junket trip to Israel funded by Aipac in August, was one of 10 Democrats who in November broke with the party to vote to censure Tlaib and support the GOP Israel funding bill that did not include humanitarian aid for Palestinians.
Other Congress members have shifted positions or “been silenced on Palestine only because they were afraid of the wrath of Aipac,” said Usamah Andrabi, a spokesperson for Justice Democrats, which backs progressive candidates.
Democrats on average received more money than Republicans. Those who the Guardian found were supportive of Israel on average received about $243,000 compared with $52,000 for their GOP counterparts.
The next election promises more of the same. A pro-Israel donor has allegedly already offered $20m in backing for someone to run against Tlaib, the nation’s only Palestinian American lawmaker. Representative Jamaal Bowman, who is backed by J Street, faces a challenger who will likely receive support from more conservative pro-Israel groups.
Meanwhile, Representative Summer Lee, who, with around $38,000 in J Street support, defeated a candidate backed with millions in funding from more conservative pro-Israel groups, is again facing a challenge from a more pro-Israel candidate.
Perhaps the most vocal critic of Aipac has been Representative Mark Pocan, who received $5,500 in pro-Israel funding, and in November said he did not “give a fuck about Aipac”, labelling it a “cancer” in US politics.
The group took GOP dark money and spent it in Democratic primaries, often at levels exceeding candidate spending, and across a high number of races, Pocan said. As the strategy pays dividends on the war, he fears it will be copied by other powerful lobbies, which he said could be a “deathblow to democracy”.
“If outside groups – especially in primaries where so much less money is spent – decide to purchase elections and make them auctions, that really will change the character of Congress in a very negative way,” Pocan said.
In other news, Progressive Democrat Bernie Sanders, the progressive senator of Vermont, issued a statement Tuesday 2 January 2024 calling on Congress to block additional funding to Israel amid the war in Gaza, where more than 22,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli attacks after Hamas killed 1,200 people in Israel on 7 October.
“While we recognize that Hamas’ barbaric terrorist attack began this war, we must also recognize that Israel’s military response has been grossly disproportionate, immoral and in violation of international law,” Sanders said.
“Enough is enough. Congress must reject that funding. The taxpayers of the United States must no longer be complicit in destroying the lives of innocent men, women, and children in Gaza.”
Sanders has grown increasingly critical of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s rightwing government as the military strikes in Gaza have continued. Last month, Sanders introduced a resolution calling on the state department to investigate any potential human rights violations in Gaza, and he also condemned the US veto of a UN security council resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Days later, the US abstained from a vote on another UN resolution calling for “urgent and extended humanitarian pauses” in the war.
Sanders’ statement came as Congress considers right wing Democrat Joe Biden’s request for $10bn in aid to Israel as part of a larger funding package meant to assist US allies, including Ukraine, and address border security. Last month, Sanders notably opposed a $111bn funding proposal backed by Democrats because of his concerns about the money for Israel included in the bill.
“Israel has the absolute right to defend itself against the Hamas terrorists who attacked them on October 7,” Sanders said in a statement explaining his vote. “They do not have the legal or moral right to kill thousands of innocent Palestinian men, women, and children.”
Senate Republicans successfully blocked that funding bill from advancing, and bipartisan negotiations over a compromise measure have stretched on for weeks. It remained unclear whether an agreement could be reached. As the standoff has stretched on, the right-wing Democrat Biden administration has twice invoked its emergency authority to bypass Congress and approve two arms sales to Israel.
More than a dozen progressive Senate Democrats announced plans yesterday (10 January 2024) to introduce an amendment to the supplemental aid bill to Israel and other U.S. allies that would eliminate provisions allowing the administration to skip congressional review of arms transfers to Israel.
The supplemental bill, as proposed by the administration and Senate Democratic leadership, includes a provision that would allow the administration to skip the standard notification to Congress and waiting period — during which lawmakers can attempt to block sales — before transferring weapons to Israel.
The administration has utilized waivers allowing it to bypass congressional review for recent arms sales to Israel, prompting outrage from progressives.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), who is leading the amendment, said in a statement that aid to Israel should be subject to the same level of scrutiny as U.S. assistance to other allies — which would not be exempt from the notification period under the bill.
“I have strongly supported U.S. aid necessary for Israel’s defense, but all nations should be subject to the same standard,” Kaine said. “I’m filing an amendment to maintain the congressional notification requirement for all U.S. foreign military assistance because Congress and the American taxpayer deserve to know when U.S. arms are transferred to any nation.”
As John Menadue's Public Policy Journal asks today, "Just when will the horror that is Gaza today prompt the [right-wing dominated ALP] Albanese Government to acknowledge publicly that the war in the territory is now consumed by Israel’s blood-lust revenge and a hunger for ethnic reconfiguration? Is it too much to hope that the government can find a conscience of its own rather than mimicking the deceitful utterances of its US and Israeli 'friends'?"
"Does Australia have a view on South Africa’s case before the ICJ? Guardian Australia recently reported that while the government’s position has yet to be revealed some rank-and-file Labor members are urging support, arguing that the government’s “silence” on the more than 22,000 deaths in Gaza is “inconsistent with our national values”.
"Just what will it take to move the Albanese government off the sidelines, tut-tutting occasionally, offering sweet nothings about a two-state solution, and making no appreciable difference to anyone or anything? Just how many more Palestinian dead are needed before Albanese finds his courage and his voice?"
The American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker organisation of some note, recently released a list of companies profiting from Israel’s current campaign in Gaza, including its operations in the West Bank, Lebanon, and Syria between October and December 2023. The list of nasty participants is impressive and familiar.
There is, for instance, the UK company BAE Systems, which manufactures the M109 howitzer, a killing favourite of the Israeli Defence Forces. The 155mm mobile artillery system also uses shells with white phosphorus bombs, the use of which is forbidden in densely populated civilian areas. Boeing, the world’s fifth largest weapons manufacturer, is responsible for producing F-15 fighter jets and the Apache AH-64 attack helicopter, weaponry that is being extensively used by the IDF in its operations in Gaza and Lebanon.
The arc of complicity, however, does not stop there. The gruesomely impressive list does not include Australian companies. In time, it should. The good Quakers will find various instances where Israel’s war machine has benefited from Australian defence manufacturers and suppliers. Much of this was encouraged by the creation of the hardly mentioned Australia-Israel Defence Industry Cooperation Joint Working Group in October 2017. It was established, in the words of a Defence media release, “to strengthen ties between Australia and Israel, explore defence industry and innovation opportunities, identify export opportunities, and support our industries to cooperate in the development of innovative technologies for shared capability challenges.”
In February 2018, for instance, the Israel-based Rafael Advanced Defence Systems signed a contract with Australia’s Bisalloy Steels worth $900,000. It heralded, according to the Australian company, “the appointment of Bisalloy to Rafael’s global supply chain”. Rafael Australia’s general manager, Ido Spitzer, was particularly satisfied with the amour steel range provided by the Australian company, describing it as “highly impressive”.
In August that same year, then Minister for Defence Industry, Christopher Pyne, was beside himself with excitement in launching Varley Rafael Australia (VRA), a joint venture between the Australian defence engineering company Varley Group and Rafael, responsible for such “leading weapons systems” as “the Spike LR2 anti-tank guided missile.” The arrangement would “bring IP, know-how and advanced manufacturing techniques to Australia to produce capability for use by the ADF with the potential to export to our friends and allies”.
In March 2019, Janes reported that Australia’s Electro Optic Systems (EOS) and Israel’s Elbit Systems (most known for its military drones) had “developed a modular medium-calibre turret that can be configured for a range of platforms, including lightweight reconnaissance and heavy fighting vehicles.” In the boastful words of EOS Group CEO Ben Greene, “We’ve taken the best from the two companies and put them into one turret.” Palestinians could only weep at such progress.
This lengthy, and deep association between Australian companies and Israel’s military efforts hardly stops there. Australia has permitted itself to become a prostituting playground for such weapons behemoths as Lockheed Martin and Raytheon [RTX], entities which have developed a rather unhealthy presence in the country even as they prove invaluable to the predation on Gaza. The Albanese government even went so far as to ink a missile contract with RTX “to build highly advanced defense manufacturing capabilities in Australia to bulk up the nation’s ability to make and stockpile weapons at home”.
The military-university-industrial complex is also burgeoning in the country, further implicating Australian entities in the liquidation of Gaza. Elbit Systems of Australia (ELSA), a branch of Israel’s largest drone manufacturer whose weapons have been tested on civilians in the Gaza Strip, previously boasted two Melbourne-based clients: the state government of Victoria, which supplied funding via Invest Victoria, and RMIT University’s Centre for Industrial AI Research and Innovation. The two-year partnership with ELSA’s Centre of Excellence was meant to, according to ELSA’s then managing director and retired Major General Paul McLachlan, “research how to use drones to count the number of people in designated evacuation zones, then to co-ordinate and communicate the most efficient evacuation routes to everyone in the zone, as well as monitoring the area to ensure that everyone has been accounted for.” Even the faux humanitarianism of such a description leaves a terrifying chill.
Following October 7 and a series of heated protests, RMIT released a statement claiming that it did “not design, develop or manufacture weapons or munitions in the university or as part of any partnership. With regard to Elbit Systems, RMIT does not have a partnership with Elbit Systems or any of their subsidiaries, including Elbit Systems of Australia (ELSA).” The obvious question here is: how far did the research projects on drones go before the arrangements were scrapped, if at all? The blood, quite literally, is in the detail.
Other universities are similarly knee-deep in projects that involve companies thrilled to be profiting from their Israeli connections. The University of Sydney has links with Thales and RTX; University of Melbourne with Lockheed Martin and Leonardo; the University of Adelaide, military heavy with BAE, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, RTX and Thales. Ditto the University of New South Wales.
Support roles, thereby rendering Australian companies complicit, is an important feature here. While such corporations are not primarily responsible for the manufacture of weapon systems such as the F-35, they can still aid in sustaining the industry responsible for the global fleet. According to the Australian Department of Defence, “more than 70 Australian companies have directly shared more than $4.13 billion in global F-35 production and sustainment contracts.”
Keeping up appearances, the Australian government claims that all export permit decisions “must assess any relevant human rights risks and Australia’s compliance with its international obligations”. Were Defence to identify an export that “might be used to facilitate human rights abuses, a permit would be refused.” This would surely raise problems regarding export permits to Israel and its combat operations against Palestinians. Yet Canberra has approved 322 defence exports to Israel over the past six years. In 2022, it approved 49 permits for Israeli-bound exports; in the first three months of 2023, the number was 23.
In a November 15 question without notice to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Penny Wong, representing Defence Minister Richard Marles in the Senate, Greens Senator David Shoebridge inquired whether Australian companies, seeing as they were involved in the F-35 production and sustainment process, might also be supplying spare parts to Israeli F-35 fighters.
"Few people know that Australia has one of the most secretive, unaccountable weapons export systems in the world," Australian Greens Senator David Shoebridge told the Australian Senate on Tuesday 9 January 2024.
“There’s been a lot of disinformation on social media about what Australia is doing,” came Wong’s cranky response. “I am advised that Australia has not supplied weapons to Israel since the Hamas-Israel conflict began and I am advised that has been the case for at least five years.” She also insisted that Australia had played no role in “the military conduct in Gaza.”
This dubious, underdressed answer, which dodged the question specific to the F-35, also failed to acknowledge the grant of at least 322 defence export permits to Israel over six years.
Thankfully, important proceedings were initiated that same month by an umbrella grouping of Palestinian organisations Al-Haq, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights and the Palestinian centre for Human Rights (PCHR), along with the Australian centre for International Justice, to obtain information on Australia’s arms export regime pertaining to Israel since October 7, 2023.
The action, launched in the Federal Court of Australia, is intended to cast some light on the arms exports permits being granted by the Australian Defence Minister to Israel since the initial Hamas attacks. Only then can we get a better sense of Australia’s complicity in the genocidal apocalypse currently unfolding in Gaza.
"Our government doesn't tell us who we're exporting weapons to; doesn't tell us what the weapons are; doesn't tell us who profits here in Australia from the sale of weapons," Shoebridge said in the Senate this week.
Shoebridge said such information is much less available in Australia than in other countries, including the United States, says Al Jazeera.
According to the Australian Department of Defence, what can be confirmed is that Australia has previously issued 350 defense export permits to Israel since 2017, including 52 this year alone. However, this information was only made publicly available after direct questions from Shoebridge during Senate hearings this year.
The right-wing ALP Premier of NSW, Chris Minns, described Israel as "a longstanding trading partner and ally of Australia" in an interview with Australian radio station 2GB on Saturday 6 January 2024.
"It's ridiculous to suggest or think that trade will be stopped because of the personal preferences of individual protesters," he said.
"I didn't see these people down the port when it comes to trading with Cuba, or Saudi Arabia, or China, or any other country there may be disagreements with," Minns added.
Over January 6-7, around the country, tens of thousands of people again took to the streets demanding a permanent ceasefire and condemning the US government for giving political cover to the genocide.
Up to 8000 people took to the streets, including staging a sit-down, in the 12th consecutive mass protest in Gadi/Sydney.
From the stage, the crowd heard from Palestinian and Lebanese activists, including Ophelia Haragli, as well as journalist Wendy Bacon, who spoke about the silencing of Palestinian voices and the truth in the mainstream media. Israel has killed 108 Palestinian journalists in 92 days.
South Coast Trades and Labour Council Secretary Arthur Rorris also spoke, reports Peter Boyle.
Greens Senator Barbara Pocock, Mike Khizam, Australian Friends of Palestine Association representative, Jamie Newlyn, Assistant National Secretary of the Maritime Union and Palestinian spokespeople addressed the protest in Kaurna Yerta/Adelaide on January 7 outside South Australia’s Parliament House, reports Renfrey Clarke.
Despite the wet weather, thousands still turned out in Naarm/Melbourne to demand action. Jacob Andrewartha reports that the rally marched from the State Library to the Victoria Barracks. It was the first to go there since the protest movement against the Iraq War in early 2000s. Protesters demanded that Labor halt all arm sales and cooperation with the Israeli Defense Forces.
Comments
Post a Comment