U.S. policy or Israeli policy sounds like a simple question to answer in the United States? Indeed, it shouldn’t even be a serious question in the first place. U.S. policy is made in Washington. Right?
Most of the time the answer to that question is yes, but there is an insidious movement to change that under certain circumstances.
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 U.S. East Coast controls the electoral process, and Jewish ownership of media on the West Coast controls what is seen and heard. There is an impression that when Israel is out of the U.S. news for any length of time, media time suddenly gets bombarded with “Holocaust” documentaries and movies. Lately, that hasn’t been necessary, but it happens so often that it has to be a calculated strategy.
The epitome of this planned subversion of U.S. interests in favour of Israeli interests, happened a few years ago when 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.
A recent Newsweek article brought this insidious movement back to my attention. The article highlighted the case of a children’s speech therapist in Texas, who had worked as a consultant to the State education system for nine years. When her annual contract renewal was given to her recently, 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.
Apparently, 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 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 by the State of Kansas appears to be unusual.
Another measure to oppose boycotts of Israel, led in the U.S. Senate by Maryland Senator Ben Cardin, is taking place at the national level. 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 financial penalties on foreign countries and organization if they, totally within their own sovereign rights, boycott Israel.
Who the hell is running this country? Is it U.S.policy or Israeli policy?
Israel has always had an ingenious defense against anyone questioning its motives or its actions: They immediately claim such moves are anti-Semitic. That threat usually results in immediate withdrawal of the question. Israel, and Israeli interests in other countries, particularly in the United States, has always done a great job in making sure the “anti-Semitic” card is played swiftly in all negative situations.
I submit that, in many cases, the actions are not anti-Semitic, they are anti-Israel, and anti their arrogant attitude of entitlement.
It’s about time someone called their bluff.