I have written several blogs highlighting Israel’s role of Israel in U.S. affairs, both foreign and domestic. These blogs have included one on Israel’s interference in the laws passed by U.S. State legislatures.
The situation just got worse.
Several American pension funds are currently threatening to sell their stakes in Unilever over the decision of its Ben & Jerry’s brand to stop selling ice cream in Israeli-occupied territories. New Jersey’s $92.7 billion pension fund, which has a $182 million stake in Unilever, has written to Alan Jope, the chief executive, saying that it was enforcing a state law that orders the pension fund to act against companies imposing economic boycotts in Israel or in Israel-controlled territory. Illinois, Florida and Texas have also said they are evaluating their stakes in Unilever for the same reason. Arizona said earlier this month that it would withdraw all state funds invested in Unilever.
It has been a standard, if ironic, joke in Europe for years that U.S. foreign policy is made in Tel Aviv. Jewish money on the East Coast controls the U.S. electoral process, and Jewish ownership of media on the West Coast controls what is seen and heard; for example, when Israel is out of the U.S. news for any length of time, domestic media time suddenly gets bombarded with “Holocaust” documentaries and movies. It happens so often that it has to be a calculated strategy.
A few years ago, U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman submitted a bill on Capitol Hill that basically said the U.S. supports anything Israel wants to do. It didn’t pass, but the fact that it was submitted at all should have been tantamount to treason.
More recently, the case of a children’s speech therapist in Texas illustrated the level of infiltration of Israeli interests into U.S. state laws. When she received her annual contract renewal, it included a clause that required she “does not currently boycott Israel, and will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract.” She refused to sign it, and was fired. She is now suing the State of Texas.
I checked out the situation in other states. There are currently twenty-six U.S. States with statutes on their books that require the same clause to be included in all their State contracts. How did that happen, and why don’t we hear more about it? In many countries, subjugating yourself to a foreign power will get you shot for treason. It can’t be a coincidence. It has to be a determined, insidious, well-organized and funded, political strategy.
Last year, a Kansas contractor filed a lawsuit after she was not able to get a State contract because she refused to say she wouldn’t boycott Israel. The State later amended its legislation and the suit was dismissed, but that step appears to be unusual.
Another measure, designed to oppose boycotts of Israel, is being led in the U.S. Senate by Maryland Senator Ben Cardin. The Israel Anti-Boycott Act, which was first introduced in 2017, aims to “amend the Export Administration Act” as it applies to countries and to international governmental organizations. The proposed legislation had a minimum civil penalty of $250,000, and maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in jail for offenders. The jail time has since been eliminated, but the legislation still permits criminal financial penalties for boycotts. That means the U.S. can impose sanctions and financial penalties on any foreign country that, totally within their own sovereign rights, boycotts Israel. That’s outrageous!
Who the hell is running this country?
The lawsuits against Unilever, are one more step down a treasonous path for those who write/support/pass laws that put the interests of Israel above the interests of their own country, the United States. Someone should sue them for treason. In a country where anyone can sue anyone for anything, justified or not, I’m amazed no-one has tried.
Admittedly, Israel has always has a stock defense against anyone questioning its motives or its actions: It immediately claims that such moves are anti-Semitic.
I submit that the use of the “anti-semitic” card is an abuse of a religious concept for purely political purposes. We abhor Hitler’s misuse of an ancient and respected religious symbol for his political purposes (see my previous blog on the origins of the swastika). What’s the difference in the Israeli government using “anti-semitism” for their political purposes? In principle, none!
Criticism of Israeli actions is not anti-Semitic, it is anti-Israel, and anti their arrogant attitude of entitlement hiding behind religion.
It’s about time someone called their bluff.
you appear to be slightly anti semitic. is that so?
Earl, Please read what I wrote. I am not anti-semitic, I am anti what Israel is trying to pull in the U.S. by playing the anti-semitism card whenever anyone criticizes what the do politically. Actually I am a lot more mad at us/U.S. for being dumb enough to fall for it and not calling it out for what it is. Foreign political interference in U.S. internal affairs.