When we look at all the things that the Israel Lobby has been up to, we sometimes lose sight of the big picture. There has been a virtual flood of action by Congress to help Israel, much of it moving very much under the radar with no real debate and suspensions of rules to expedite the voting. Look at what has happened in the past month: HR 4133 passes through Congress on a 411 to 2 vote giving Israel a virtual blank check on the US Treasury and requiring the White House to prepare an annual report demonstrating how the Administration has guaranteed the Israeli military’s “qualitative edge” over its neighbors. It also provided military equipment — refueling tankers and bunker buster bombs — that can only be used for an attack on Iran. Only Ron Paul spoke out against the bill and even Justin Amash, a Palestinian American and Ron Paul supporter, voted yes, explaining “Our national defense benefits from Israel’s ability to defend itself and to serve as a check against neighboring authoritarian regimes and extremists.” According to Amash, it is constitutional to pay for Israel’s defense because of “Congress’s power to raise and support armies.” The Founders were not thinking of foreign armies to be sure, so Justin had better check on what he has been drinking from the House of Representatives water cooler. A few days later, $1 billion appeared in the 2013 Defense Appropriation Bill to fund Israel’s Iron Dome defense system — something that had been recommended in 4133. No coincidence there.

And then there is Iran. House Resolution 568 passed last week by a suspension of rules vote 401 to 11. Ron Paul spoke against the bill and also voted no. It ties the president’s hands on negotiating with Tehran, explicitly rejecting a “containment” policy relating to an Iranian nuclear program and also rejecting any compromises or concessions on the part of the United States if Congress in all its wisdom determines that Iran is pursuing a nuclear device. So if you want to understand how war with Iran is virtually guaranteed thanks to the US Congress, put the two bills together.

And then there is the little stuff. A bill proposed by Brad Sherman of California will give Israelis visa waivers, which means that they can travel freely to the United States, unlike their Arab neighbors. And not just as tourists — they will be able to do business. Why and why now? Because “Israel is our closest friend and democratic ally in the Middle East,” according to Sherman. And it will result in “more business.” For the Israelis.

And then there is an amendment by the redoubtable Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois which passed from committee on May 24th by unanimous vote which will reduce the number of Palestinian refugees by over 99% by declaring that only actual Palestinians who directly lost their homes in 1948 are actual refugees. Their children and grandchildren, also living in refugee camps, do not count. That would mean that there would be virtually no Palestinians left who might have some legal claim to return to their homes in Israel (roughly 30,000 are still alive of the 750,000 who were originally displaced). Kirk’s bill is a prime objective of the Israel government, i.e. to delegitimize the Palestinian diaspora. Given that the bill has nothing whatsoever to do with the American people, one can once again seriously question what parliament Kirk thinks he works for and what people he represents.

Certain names keep popping up in the pro-Israel legislation. Mark Kirk to be sure, who has received more than $1 million in pro-Israel PAC contributions, but also Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Ben Cardin, Brad Sherman, Howard Berman, Joe Lieberman, Eric Cantor, Lindsey Graham, and Carl Levin. The Israel firsters in Congress are both shameless and relentless. We Americans who do not share their views should mark them out and hope for the day when they will be voted out of office and eventually prosecuted as the useful idiots and betrayers of our constitution that they most surely are.

Philip Giraldi is the executive director of the Council for the National Interest and a recognized authority on international security and counterterrorism issues.

In an intriguing Haaretz article entitled “Russia and Israel: The unexpected alliance,” Adar Primor comments on two recent analyses which suggest that such an alliance may be on the cards:

Prof. Mark Katz of Virginia’s George Mason University recently wrote a piece entitled “What would a democratic Russian foreign policy look like?” in the New Zealand International Review. He concludes that Russia’s foreign policy wouldn’t change substantially, with two exceptions: China and the Middle East.

Katz expects a significant warming of relations between Moscow and Jerusalem, for several reasons: Israel has become an important source of military technology for Russia, both countries are concerned about radical Islam, and extensive cultural, trade and tourism links have been forged.

Fyodor Lukyanov, a veteran Russian commentator, wrote a piece in response to Katz entitled, “Is Israel on the way to becoming a Russian ally?” In the article for Russia Today, Lukyanov sees no reason to wait for a democratic Russia to support Katz’s assumption.

First, the Arab world’s deep antagonism toward Russia during the Arab Spring puts it in a new position. Second, both Russia and Israel oppose democratization in the Middle East because both believe it will lead to Islamization in the region and beyond. Third, Israel, as a high-tech powerhouse, can help Russia with the modernization it so badly needs.

And here are the two most interesting points in Lukyanov’s analysis: Paradoxically, he says, if Israel attacks Iran (in a clear contradiction of Russia’s declared policy ) it may remove the main dispute between Moscow and Jerusalem from the agenda. Finally, the rising calls in the United States claiming that its “Israel first” policy limits America’s strategic maneuvering may lead the United States to change its diplomatic priorities – in which case Israel might seek to diversify its stable of allies as well.

Reports that Putin has decided to make Israel one of his first foreign destinations after being sworn in has of course contributed to the debate. Former Israeli ambassador to Russia Zvi Magen has written that the Middle East has once again become an arena of competition between Russia and Western powers, and that Moscow seeks to enhance its relationship with Israel – in part to blunt the growing assertiveness of Turkey, which sees the Caucasus as its backyard.

The Turkish threat, he says, and the gas fields recently discovered in the eastern Mediterranean are behind a Russian initiative to establish a bloc with Israel, Cyprus and Greece. An alliance between Moscow and Jerusalem could become “a new factor of influence in this unstable region during a time of great uncertainty,” Magen concludes.

In its tendentious report on the heckling of Sen. John McCain during a Memorial Day speech in San Diego, The Raw Story smears patriotic Americans who know the facts about Israel’s deliberate June 8, 1967 attack on the USS Liberty as “conspiracy theorists.” In order to discredit James Morris’ very public raising of the McCain family’s subsequent involvement in the incident, David Edwards explains:

Conspiracy theorists have long accused McCain and his father, Admiral John S. McCain Jr., of participating in a cover up regarding the USS Liberty.

A little research, however, would have shown that on January 9, 2004, Captain Ward Boston, Jr., USN (Ret.), Senior Counsel to the USS Liberty Court of Inquiry, made the following sworn affidavit:

The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack, which killed 34 American sailors and injured 172 others, was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew. Each evening, after hearing testimony all day, we often spoke our private thoughts concerning what we had seen and heard. I recall Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring to the Israeli forces responsible for the attack as “murderous bastards.” It was our shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony we received first hand, that the Israeli attack was planned and deliberate, and could not possibly have been an accident.

I am certain that the Israeli pilots that undertook the attack, as well as their superiors, who had ordered the attack, were well aware that the ship was American.

I saw the flag, which had visibly identified the ship as American, riddled with bullet holes, and heard testimony that made it clear that the Israelis intended there be no survivors. Not only did the Israelis attack the ship with napalm, gunfire, and missiles, Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned three lifeboats that had been launched in an attempt by the crew to save the most seriously wounded — a war crime.

Admiral Kidd and I both felt it necessary to travel to Israel to interview the Israelis who took part in the attack. Admiral Kidd telephoned Admiral McCain to discuss making arrangements. Admiral Kidd later told me that Admiral McCain was adamant that we were not to travel to Israel or contact the Israelis concerning this matter.

Explaining why he had waited for more than 30 years to speak out, Capt. Boston stated:

I am outraged at the efforts of the apologists for Israel in this country to claim that this attack was a case of “mistaken identity.”

In particular, the recent publication of Jay Cristol’s book, The Liberty Incident, twists the facts and misrepresents the views of those of us who investigated the attack.

It is Cristol’s insidious attempt to whitewash the facts that has pushed me to speak out.

Nevertheless, Sen. McCain offered this endorsement for Cristol’s whitewashing of Israel’s attack:

“After years of research for this book, Judge A. Jay Cristol has reached a similar conclusion to one my father reached in his June 18, 1967, endorsement of the findings of the court of inquiry. I commend Judge Cristol for his thoroughness and fairness, and I commend this work.”

As Capt. Ward Boston concluded in his affidavit:

Contrary to the misinformation presented by Cristol and others, it is important for the American people to know that it is clear that Israel is responsible for deliberately attacking an American ship and murdering American sailors, whose bereaved shipmates have lived with this egregious conclusion for many years.

They will never know, however, if they keep reading so-called “alternative” media like The Raw Story — notwithstanding its claim to be “a progressive news site that focuses on stories often ignored in the mainstream media.”

According to a report on azcentral.com, Sen. John McCain’s political legacy is set to be preserved with a high-profile new institute:

“The charge of the McCain Institute for International Leadership fits in perfectly with Arizona State University’s core mission of having a significant positive impact on the larger community, and we are grateful to Senator McCain for his support of this important university endeavor,” ASU President Michael Crow said in a written statement. “It will be guided by the values that have animated the career of Senator McCain — a commitment to sustaining America’s global leadership role, promoting freedom, democracy and human rights, as well as maintaining a strong, smart national defense.”

Sen. McCain, whose political career was a product of organized crime, deserves to be remembered for his longstanding service on Capitol Hill, especially for his supporting role to Sen. Joe Lieberman in promoting American involvement in wars for Israel.

Update: For those who still believe that there is any significant difference between “conservatives” like McCain and “liberals” or “progressives” in what passes for mainstream American political discourse, Steve Clemons’ puff piece for the McCain Institute offers a salutary corrective. Clemons, who describes himself as a “progressive realist,” writes on his Washington Note blog:

Despite some of my foreign policy differences — like the whole bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran thing — with Senator John McCain who once told me he was “the original neoconservative”, I have always greatly, truly admired his patriotism and dedication to trying to get the American political system to operate honestly and in a way consistent with what the framers of the Constitution intended. He has been a major voice in the country on campaign and elections reform, on fiscal matters, on national security, on immigration, and on leadership in every sense.

His body of work actually deserves a library to house it — but our system doesn’t give those who come in second place for the Presidency a National Archives run operation. Instead, McCain and a bipartisan group of supporters — including Senators Kelly Ayotte, Sheldon Whitehouse, Lindsey Graham, Mark Udall, Joe Lieberman, Carl Levin as well as CIA Director David Petraeus, and others — are punctuating the start of a new university-based institute committed to the leadership principles John McCain exhibited and encouraged, particularly in young people.

There are some who would agree that McCain’s “body of work actually deserves a library to house it” — albeit not in the fawning sense intended by Clemons. With permission, I reproduce here a comment that is unlikely to appear in The Washington Note from a genuine American patriot who knows McCain and his “progressive” admirer all too well:

Steve –

Until I saw this, I would have said the jury is still out on whether you are an asset of those who have all but destroyed this fine nation from within. With your endorsement of John McCain, all doubt has been removed. I trust that the readers who view your opinions as credible will take the time to review the real facts of this treasonous and pathetic “public servant” who was a political “production” of those who also pegged you as an asset.

Might I suggest that your readers read Guilt By Association–How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War (2008) with three chapters JUST ON MCCAIN, including one chapter published on the Criminal State website (see below). Search online for “John McCain: A Closer Look at Evil” for a 15-part series. That could easily have been a 30-part series. Yes, he is that bad.

His commander as a POW in Vietnam wanted him brought up on charges of treason four decades ago. Too bad that was blocked. There may yet be hope that he will be charged with that capital offense for what he did to take us to war in Iraq along with soul mate Joe Lieberman. At least Joe was a True Believer. John is just a pathetic and oft-used asset.

In any case, delighted to see you once again show your true colors as a classic asset. You were clearly tagged long, long ago and continue to perform as profiled. Birds of a feather….

See: Guilt By Association

Guilt By Association, Chapter 4

How Israel Wages War in Plain Sight

In a piece titled “A Toxic Brew in Sinai,” JINSA fellow Evelyn Gordon notes “how badly the security situation in Sinai has deteriorated” in a post-Arab Spring Egypt, and concludes:

With Syria in flames and the Iranian nuclear crisis rapidly approaching climax, the last thing the world needs is an Israeli-Egyptian war. But absent intensive international engagement, the Sinai tinderbox is liable to spark one.

An Israeli-Egyptian war may be the last thing the world — especially, an already troubled Egypt — needs, but it may be exactly what some Greater Israel advocates have long wanted. As Israeli strategist Oded Yinon argued back in 1982:

(Regaining) the Sinai peninsula with its present and potential resources is therefore a political priority which is obstructed by the Camp David and the peace agreements. [...] and we will have to act in order to return the situation to the status quo which existed in Sinai prior to Sadat’s visit and the mistaken peace agreement signed with him in March 1979.

Yinon did not consider that this would prove too difficult to achieve:

Israel will not unilaterally break the treaty, neither today, nor in 1982, unless it is very hard pressed economically and politically and Egypt provides Israel with the excuse to take the Sinai back into our hands for the fourth time in our short history. What is left therefore, is the indirect option. The economic situation in Egypt, the nature of the regime and its pan-Arab policy, will bring about a situation after April 1982 in which Israel will be forced to act directly or indirectly in order to regain control over Sinai as a strategic, economic and energy reserve for the long run. Egypt does not constitute a military strategic problem due to its internal conflicts and it could be driven back to the post 1967 war situation in no more than one day.

Presumably today’s Israeli war-planners would be equally as confident of success.

In the Spring issue of Middle East Quarterly, a publication of Daniel Pipes’ hawkishly pro-Israel and Islamophobic Middle East Forum, influential Israeli economic advisor Daniel Doron argues that “free markets can transform the Middle East.” Doron, the founding director of the well-connected “pro-market” Israel Center for Social and Economic Progress, writes:

As the high hopes for a brave new Middle East fade rapidly, Western policymakers must recognize that promoting market economics and its inevitable cultural changes are far more critical to the region’s well-being than encouraging free elections or resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. In addition to producing material prosperity, diffusing power, and curbing tyranny, economic freedom promotes social, cultural, and religious changes conducive to democracy and tolerance. It enhances personal responsibility and social involvement and instills good work habits and accountability. It builds a civil society with a stake in peace. If there is to be any hope of lasting peace and stability in the Middle East, nothing less will do.

Doron, who was greatly influenced by Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek and other free market ideologues at the University of Chicago, sees the “Arab Spring” uprisings as an opportunity to put an end to government domination of the economy in the region. In his conclusion, the former Israeli intelligence officer who has served on an economic advisory group for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and on the Israel Government Council for National and Economic Planning, urges:

Western policymakers must refocus their attention on combating the root causes of Arab authoritarianism: Holding free elections in the region is less important than the advent of market economies.

In support of his view that “[t]he collapse of autocratic regimes in the Arab world will not necessarily promote economic freedom,” Doron interestingly cites another staunch and controversial supporter of Israel, Elliott Abrams, who wrote on his CFR blog on October 17, 2011 that the United States should begin to negotiate free trade agreements with Tunisia and Egypt. As Abrams, an early and enthusiastic advocate of the so-called Arab Spring, explained:

…an FTA creates real and continuing pressure for a freer economy, the rule of law, more open markets, and less corruption. This is precisely why negotiating FTAs with Tunisia and Egypt should begin now, as they begin their political and economic transitions. There will be many pressures to maintain corrupt, anti-market practices, and those who hold monopolies and other economic advantages will seek to keep them. An FTA will push in the other direction, toward an open market and the economic growth it can bring. There are few things we can do to nudge both countries in a positive direction that would have greater effect than FTAs with each.

Considering the provenance of all this concern for their welfare, the newly-liberated people of the Middle East and North Africa would do well to remember the price that was paid for earlier popular “revolutions” in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. As the Guardian’s Mark Almond wrote in the wake of Ukraine’s so-called “Orange Revolution”:

The hangover from People Power is shock therapy. Each successive crowd is sold a multimedia vision of Euro-Atlantic prosperity by western-funded “independent” media to get them on the streets. No one dwells on the mass unemployment, rampant insider dealing, growth of organised crime, prostitution and soaring death rates in successful People Power states.

[...]

People Power is, it turns out, more about closing things than creating an open society. It shuts factories but, worse still, minds. Its advocates demand a free market in everything – except opinion. The current ideology of New World Order ideologues, many of whom are renegade communists, is Market-Leninism – that combination of a dogmatic economic model with Machiavellian methods to grasp the levers of power.

In his May 25 blog post for Foreign Policy’s The Cable, Josh Rogin provocatively asks, “Did the State Department just create 5 million Palestinian refugees?”

Rogin is referring to a letter Deputy Secretary of State Tom Nides recently wrote to Senator Patrick Leahy expressing State’s strong opposition to an amendment introduced by AIPAC darling Senator Mark Kirk that, in the words of Rogin, “would have required more in-depth reporting on how many UNRWA aid recipients are now living in the West Bank, Gaza, and other countries such as Jordan.” In the letter, Nides notes matter of factly that “UNRWA provides essential services for approximately five million refugees.” However, according to Rogin, “To experts and congressional officials following the issue, that declaration was remarkable because it was the first time the State Department had placed a number — 5 million — on the number of Palestinian refugees.” As Rogin explains:

At the heart of the issue is what constitutes a “refugee.” The entire thrust of the Kirk amendment was to challenge UNRWA’s definition, which includes the descendants of refugees — children, grandchildren, and so on. That has resulted in the number of Palestinian “refugees” skyrocketing from 750,000 in 1950 to the 5 million figure quoted by Nides today.

Revealingly, one of the “experts” Rogin cites as finding State’s 5 million figure “remarkable” is Steve Rosen. Neglecting to mention that Rosen was indicted on espionage charges in 2005, Rogin merely describes him as “a long time senior AIPAC official who now is the Washington director of the Middle East Forum,” and provides him with a platform for the following provocative and offensive statement:

“How many generations does it go?” asked Rosen. “I’m Jewish, and as a grandchild of several refugees, could I make a claim on all these countries? Where does it end? Someday all life on Earth will be a Palestinian refugee.”

Update: On February 21, Daniel Pipes had an article in the Washington Times titled “Eventually, All Humans Will Be Palestine Refugees” which sounds remarkably similar to Steve Rosen’s remark.

I also noticed that both FP’s Josh Rogin and FDD’s Jonathan Schanzer both use the exact same term — “skyrocketed” — to describe the natural growth in the number of Palestinian refugees.

Sounds like they’re following a script…

Trust Foreign Policy’s tireless democracy-promoter Josh Rogin to report this Biblically-inspired provocation with a straight face:

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) participated in a candlelight vigil outside the Chinese Embassy in Seoul Thursday and chastised the Chinese government for forcibly repatriating North Korean refugees who flee to China.

“I too was a refugee,” she said, standing beside Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) and South Korea Assemblywoman Park Sun Young. “Having fled communist totalitarianism in Cuba, I have walked their lonely road and have experienced both the fears and the hopes that combine to motivate their arduous journey toward freedom.”

She compared the plight of North Korean refugees to the plight of Jews fleeing Egyptian slavery as told in the Old Testament of the Bible and compared Chinese President Hu Jintao to the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses II.

“To the cold-hearted regime in Beijing we call out, as Moses did to Pharaoh over three thousand years ago: Mr. Hu, let these people go! Mr. Hu, let all North Korean refugees have safe passage to South Korea and other democratic nations!” she said.

Presumably if Hu refuses to let them go, the influential Congresswoman with Jewish roots who has been aptly described as “a true leader on issues that matter to the pro-Israel community” will bring down a plague upon the cattle of China.

Update: In another China “human rights” story, the Washington Times reported:

Chen Guangcheng will speak Thursday at the Council on Foreign Relations in Manhattan. His mentor, New York University law professor Jerome Cohen, also will participate in the event.

The dissident and the professor have been in touch for years, since they met when Mr. Chen came to the United States for a State Department program in 2003.

Mr. Cohen advised Mr. Chen while he was in the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, where he was given sanctuary after his daring escape following seven years of prison and house arrest.

That triggered a diplomatic standoff over his fate.

Mr. Chen’s mentor, Jerome A. Cohen, has quite an interesting background:

From 1955–56 he clerked at the Supreme Court, first under Chief Justice Earl Warren and then under Justice Felix Frankfurter, who became godfather to Cohen’s two oldest children.

According to a Reuters report on the recent Group of Eight Summit at Camp David, Russia’s G8 liaison Arkady Dvorkovich warned of a potential crisis between Moscow and Washington over the issue of human rights:

Dvorkovich said that at a bilateral meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama, Medvedev will raise opposition to attempts by some U.S. lawmakers to introduce legislation which will address human rights violations in Russia.

Such legislation could take a form of the so-called Sergei Magnitsky bill, named after the Russian lawyer who died in prison in 2009. The Kremlin human rights council says he was probably beaten to death.

The bill would require the United States to deny visas and freeze the assets of Russians or others with links to his detention and death as well as those who commit other human rights violations.

“New legislation which will address new political issues as imagined by some U.S. congressmen or senators is unacceptable,” Dvorkovich said, promising a retaliation.

The Magnitsky bill was introduced last year by Senator Ben Cardin, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and co-chair of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (also known as the U.S. Helsinki Commission). In a August 9, 2011 Washington Post op-ed to promote the legislation, Senator Cardin wrote:

The case of Sergei Magnitsky has come to symbolize the rampant and often violent corruption plaguing the Russian state. Sergei, a 37-year-old tax lawyer, husband and father working for an American firm in Moscow, blew the whistle on the largest known tax fraud in Russian history. For that he was arrested in 2008 by those he accused, and he was imprisoned under torturous conditions for nearly a year. He was denied medical care and beaten by prison guards; he died alone in November 2009 in an isolation cell as doctors waited outside his door. These facts are accepted at the highest levels of Russia’s government, yet those implicated in his death remain unpunished, in positions of authority. Some have even been decorated and promoted.

Sergei joins a heartbreaking list of Russian heroes who lost their lives because they stood up for principle. These ranks include Natalya Estemirova, a brave human rights activist whose bullet-riddled body was found on a roadside in 2009 in the North Caucasus; Anna Politikovskaya, an intrepid reporter shot in Moscow in 2006 while carrying home groceries; and too many others.

Ben Cardin’s apparent concern about Russia’s human rights abuses stands in marked contrast to his staunch support for Israel, however. Notwithstanding the equally heartbreaking — and arguably longer — list of Palestinian heroes who have lost their lives because they too stood up for principle, the Senator for Maryland’s May 24, 2011 statement regarding President Obama’s speeches on the Middle East peace process and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to a Joint Session of Congress leaves little doubt as to his passionate attachment to the Jewish state despite its egregious human rights abuses:

This week, the President highlighted what I have always believed – unyielding U.S. support for Israel’s security, U.S. rejection of Palestinian terrorism, and most importantly, the necessity for the parties to commit to negotiations as the means of resolving the conflict. I also met with Prime Minister Netanyahu today and after that discussion, I am similarly confident that that what bonds our countries is an unbreakable alliance. As he stated before Congress, “Israel has no better friend than America. And America has no better friend than Israel. We stand together to defend democracy. We stand together to advance peace. We stand together to fight terrorism.”

Apart from the Washington Post’s championing of the Magnitsky bill, a cursory look at other stridently pro-Israel media such as The Weekly Standard and Commentary shows that Senator Cardin is not alone in his selective outrage over human rights abuses. So, as Moscow contemplates its “retaliation” against this “unacceptable” legislation, it should also consider whether Tel Aviv might not be a more appropriate target for its ire than Washington.

There are some strange things going on relating to US foreign policy and Israel that you will not see in the mainstream media. A recent Rasmussen poll suggests that most Americans (53%) are closer to Ron Paul on the need to get out of Afghanistan immediately than they are to the views of either Obama or Romney, who respectively prefer a long somewhat disingenuous disengagement and continuing the war until, improbably, all terrorists are dead. But in spite of their popularity, Ron Paul’s views will be invisible in November’s election.
At the same time, even though Paul is genuinely out of the running for president, his campaign has clearly built up a grassroots presence at state and local levels that will be difficult for the Republican National Committee to deny unless it resorts to extensive vote-rigging or mass exclusion of freely elected representatives. Both are quite possible and have already been employed at local levels to isolate Paul. Nearly all of the activists now entering government support Paul’s call for an end to foreign aid, which is, of course, anathema to Israel and its friends.

Meanwhile over at the Tea Parties, there is roughly a fifty-fifty split over issues like Israel. Some support the Israel connection as part of the chest-thumping desire for an assertive US response to the rest of the world (the Sarah Palin wing) while those who are serious about fiscal and government downsizing recognize that Israel is part of the problem, supporting the two Pauls. How this will play out over the next two years is anyone’s guess, but the whole issue of Israel and its relationship with the US is now on the table.

How the Israel Lobby will react to the dilemma is unclear. Neocon Cheshire cat Bill Kristol’s prediction that his buddy Joe Lieberman will become Secretary of State in a Romney administration would solve the problem as continuing aid to Israel, in one form or another, would be untouched. The aid might well be rolled into the annual Defense budget, already accomplished with the Iron Dome supplement for 2013-4, as Eric Cantor has already proposed as a permanent solution. But the Tea Party/Paul pressure on bloated budgets and foreign aid conceptually will not go away and you can be sure that AIPAC will be working hard to distinguish assistance to our good friend and faithful ally Israel from all other foreign entitlements. And also working hard to elect Romney, a foreign policy parvenu, who has surrounded himself with neocon advisers including John Bolton, Robert Kagan and Dan Senor.

Philip Giraldi is the executive director of the Council for the National Interest and a recognized authority on international security and counterterrorism issues.