reSee.it - Related Video Feed

A team of researchers is investigating which politicians are receiving money from pro-Israel lobbyists. They recommend using open secrets.org, a website that tracks money in Congress. By searching "Israel" on the site, you can find a list of senators and members of the House who have received funds from pro-Israel political action committees (PACs). Chuck Schumer is currently leading in terms of money received in the current election cycle. The website also provides additional tabs with more information.

This conversation centers on Israel, lobbying, and US policy. Speaker 0 says he’s been very pro Israel and defender of its right to defend itself, but has 'no skin whatsoever in defending any lobbyist group,' and has declined repeated invitations to go to Israel. He notes mounting pressure to stay aligned and that he’s not on Hamas’ side, though his views have shifted since 10/08/23. Speaker 1 explains APAC is 'not registered under FARA' and describes freshman trips to Israel, meetings with government members. He notes that '3.8, billion dollars in funding for Israel' is an annual decision, that Israel is 'less than 400,000,000,000 in debt,' and that Israelis have 'government funded health care' and 'government funded college.' He questions why the US funds this given its own economic strain, citing that 'we buy money from your defense contractors' and that Israel can buy from Israeli defense contractors.

Why, the speaker asks, is the U.S. taxpayer money given to Israel used to fund social programs like monthly child allowances, income support, unemployment benefits, housing assistance, free health care, and free education through university? The speaker questions why the U.S. enables Israelis to have these benefits while many in the U.S. oppose universal health care and free education for Americans. The speaker believes it is inconsistent to fund these programs for another country while opposing them domestically. The speaker also notes that the Israeli government should not be allowed to do whatever they want without consequences from the U.S., given the billions of dollars in military assistance it receives annually.

I've found some questionable expenditures by USAID, like the $3,000,000 given to a rap artist in Gaza who was producing anti-Israel, anti-Semitic songs. Is that really the best way to use American taxpayer money? I don't think so. During tomorrow's hearing, we will be addressing this issue, as well as the fact that the woke ideology that USAID is pushing in various parts of the world is not welcomed.

"it's not antisemitic to talk about this, and it's not antisemitic to question any foreign country's government secular government, including Israel." "We fund a lot of other countries' borders better than we fund our own." "it's over $800,000,000,000,000, actually, close to 900,000,000,000,000 is the total bill." "the 500,000,000 for Israel." "They already received $3,400,000,000 annually every single year through the State Department." "Taiwan for 500,000,000 and for Jordan for 500,000,000 as well." "There's 15,000,000 in there for AIDS prevention education activities." "America's broke. We're $37,000,000,000,000 in debt." "we just can't pay for the world anymore." "Not being an isolationist. That's actually being smart and serving the people that that pay for all of this stuff and have been chained into 37,000,000,000,000 in debt." "And that's not being mean to foreign people and foreign countries, but America's broke."

Speaker 0 argues that on a public policy level, reparative policies are not as effective as people want. He cites Holocaust reparations from Germany as an example, noting there was a huge debate in Israel over whether survivors should accept reparations, with the view that accepting payments could be seen as expiating past sins or buying off history. He asserts that reparations are not the reason Israel has become economically successful; rather, success comes from a determined effort to meet the meritocratic standards of success. He then discusses US foreign assistance to Israel, calling it a bargain for the United States because Israel “doesn’t need the money,” and contrasts this with other fiscal considerations. He mentions a claim that the black community would gladly take foreign assistance, though he notes he cannot speak for them. He provides a related financial context: “it’s like $3,000,000,000 a year” in some form of aid, and adds comparative U.S. military expenditure on bases abroad—“we spend $6,000,000,000 a year on our military bases in Japan, $5,000,000,000 a year on our military bases in Germany.” He emphasizes that a substantial amount of U.S. money helps other countries and underlines that Israel does not simply receive money but receives military product produced in the United States. The speaker explains that the relationship includes intelligence sharing and Israel’s development of its own technology, which the U.S. benefits from through disseminating tech they develop. He gives a concrete example: helmets used by F-35 pilots, noting these are Israeli-developed helmets, illustrating technology add-ons that the U.S. can leverage. He insists that the notion of a zero-sum dynamic—money sent out with nothing in return—is inaccurate, because the arrangement yields reciprocal benefits through defense collaboration and technology development.

Charlie Kirk is accused of critiquing Israel’s actions in Gaza during this summit, with claims that he is supposed to be a Christian conservative. A number of participants argue that critiques of Israel are being framed as anti-Semitism, while others emphasize that disagreeing with the current Israeli government or questioning AIPAC does not automatically make someone anti-Semitic. One participant says the repeated “anti-Semitism” labeling is being used as an excuse to “spout anti-Semitism.” They argue that people treat Israel as sacred while demanding reduced involvement, referencing uncertainty about “Messiah” and “Reminds me of the CIA.” Another participant responds that an ally should treat an ally differently, and claims they are told that criticizing AIPAC is anti-Semitic. A participant states they have “concerns about AIPAC,” describing it as a prioritization problem: citizens vote and pay attention to American interests, but “a separate group gets higher priority.” Another participant says the entirety of the idea of a PAC is to represent a group, but criticizes allowing a group they claim “doesn’t even represent American interests” to influence representatives. They also claim that only about 20 members across the Senate and House are fully doing the work of the American people. The discussion includes examples of anti-Semitic accusations being dismissed. One participant says they do not hate Jews, and argues that defending a nation should not be treated as hatred. Another participant compares the dynamic to how “racism” is used—if people disagree, they are called names without proof, based on inability to “prove them wrong.” On Israel aid, a participant says the U.S. sends almost $4 billion to Israel “every year,” totaling $319 billion adjusted to inflation since 1948, and says this makes them upset. They argue the money could be better spent supporting an economy at home, including homes, rather than military strikes. They respond to a hypothetical five-year plan for Israel to decouple from USAID by saying Israel could be self-reliant, with balanced budgets and a sovereign wealth fund, and that such a transition would make people think higher of Israel and stop constant discussion. Religious references are raised, including Genesis 12.3 and Romans 9-6, and the conversation notes someone describing being ethnically Jewish and having concerns about AIPAC. A final exchange asks whether canceling Tucker would change anti-Semitism levels; one participant says it would increase because supporters would be treated as anti-Semites by association. The conversation ends with a claim that there is an “earthquake” coming on the issue that others do not believe, and urges hearing it “from people themselves.”

With the money that we, the taxpayers, have given Israel over the last seventy five years, they are now able to give families a monthly child allowance for each child they have, income support, unemployment benefits, housing assistance, free health care, and free education through university. So I ask again, why are we okay making it possible for Israelis to do that. But when it comes to our country, a whole group of people are totally against the idea of universal health care and free education. I need someone to explain to me why it's okay to fund their abilities to do that. No ally of The United States should be allowed to do or say whatever they want without any consequences from us, not when we give them billions of dollars every single year. And none of what I'm saying is even delving into the fact that what the Israeli government is doing with all the military assistance that we've given them.

The speaker was asked if there is evidence that Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer have received money directly from USAID. The speaker responded that taxpayer money is sent to government organizations, then to NGOs, which are government-funded but not governed by U.S. laws. Money is sent overseas to NGOs and the speaker is confident that some of it returns to the U.S. and ends up with the aforementioned politicians. The speaker states that it's not a direct route, but that some members of Congress are strangely wealthy, accumulating millions while earning significantly less annually, which is unexplainable. The speaker says they are going to try to figure it out and stop it from happening.

Speaker 0 says Tom Cotton introduced a bill that would merge U.S. intelligence and Israeli intelligence. Speaker 0 claims the bill would mandate the United States to share a significant amount of intelligence with Israelis, and that it could only be prevented if the president stops certain elements of the measure. Speaker 0 also says people are trying to take away aid because aid is public and scrutinized. According to Speaker 0, this would still result in the continuation of intelligence sharing and “probably even more money for Israel,” but with the funds and arrangements “hidden” without congressional oversight. Speaker 0 concludes that the people involved should be in prison.

In the post from earlier today, two Republicans voted nay to stall the government funding bill, but it ended up being only one again: Thomas Massey. The comments that followed labeled Massey a rhino, a democrat, and a grandstander. The speaker then presents Massey’s own explanation for voting against the omnibus, highlighting a breakdown of what Massey calls the most ridiculous items included, including some “America first” items that were not. Massey’s stated rationale includes: - $5,000,000,000 to provide cash benefits, health care, day care, and job programs to refugees on the taxpayer dime. - $315,000,000 to fund the CIA’s branch of the State Department that propagandizes and destabilizes the globe and has an interest in censoring and attacking conservative media outlets. - $3,300,000,000 to our greatest ally, President Trump, with an extra $500,000,000 for the greatest ally. - $1,500,000,000 to Egypt. - $2,100,000,000 to the Jordanians. - Nearly $700,000,000 to foreign HIV/AIDS programs. - Additional items described as America first that Massey says they refused to include. Massey also cites amendments he would have supported but were blocked: - The amendment to freeze funds for the daycare fraud. - The amendment to stop warrantless surveillance of Americans via loopholes in the FISA act. - The amendment to prevent the kill switch on your personal vehicle. - The amendment to end propagandizing US citizens by the State Department and the US Agency for Global Media. - The amendment to stop the creation of CBNCs (which relates to financial surveillance and control of your wall). - The Save Act was included by someone, described as “Grimstander” in the narrative. The discourse portrays Massey as a traitor to America and a grandstander, with tweets and reactions framing him as disloyal to President Trump. The speaker’s compilation emphasizes that if Massey is called a traitor for these positions, others might be viewed similarly, urging readers to compare actions across the broader political landscape.

I was unable to serve my constituents because I didn't align with US policy on Israel. Candidates for Congress were required to sign a pledge supporting Jerusalem as the capital and Israel's military superiority. If you didn't sign, you didn't receive funding. I experienced this firsthand when potential fundraisers would ask if I signed the pledge, and if I hadn't, they would cancel. Eventually, the requirement changed to a paragraph that had to be posted publicly. If you didn't comply, you wouldn't receive campaign funding. This is the reality for all 535 members of Congress.

July 22, the U.S. House is voting on the National Defense Authorization Act (“must-fund pass defense bill”), including a newly inserted Section 219 that merges the U.S. and Israel’s militaries. The speaker says Thomas Massy and Ro Khanna have offered a provision to remove Section 219 or at least allow debate, but the House has turned it down each time and will not allow removal to be debated. The speaker describes today’s vote as a recorded vote and says they will track every member’s vote. The speaker reads the items in Section 219: counter-drone systems; merged missile defense and air defense; artificial intelligence; quantum technology; autonomous systems; directed energy weapons; advanced sensors; cybersecurity and electronic warfare; and biotechnology and medical defense. The speaker focuses on integration mechanisms, citing Military.com, including joint testing, joint production, joint procurement, supply-chain coordination, network connections between the two systems, and incorporation of Israeli or jointly developed technology into U.S. systems. The speaker also points to a claimed concern that U.S. intelligence agencies have described Israel as a top counterespionage target while the initiative would still integrate Israeli technology into U.S. systems. The speaker says undoing the integration would be nearly impossible because it would establish its own office inside the Department of War, described as a joint office with its own budget and director. The speaker attributes the standalone office plan to “Netanyahu,” stating Netanyahu said the plan was his and that Congressmen would continue funding Israel. The speaker claims the office would make money harder to trace by shifting spending into “special program” or “classified budget” categories. The speaker calls this “one of the single most detrimental things” to the country. If the House passes it today, the speaker says all members who vote yes will be tracked and targeted for removal in November because the recorded vote puts every member on record. The speaker then outlines the legislative path: the measure goes to the Senate, which has its own version of the NDAA with a similar provision numbered 1217; the Senate Armed Services Committee handled it in a closed-door markup in June and the Senate bill is stalled. If both chambers pass their versions, the provisions move to a conference committee that could change, survive, or remove Section 219. The speaker emphasizes the House vote does not complete the process, but it removes the last chance to strip the provision from the NDAA and moves the fight to closed-door negotiations.

"In the past three years, Americans have paid more for Israel's defense budget than Israelis themselves, according to the Israeli army's former chief of staff." "The United States gave nearly $3,100,000,000 to Israel this year, making it the number one contributor of American foreign aid." "And yet during this time, we're giving a huge amount of money to Israel." "Israel ranks among the top 30 richest countries in the world, while some of the poorest countries only see a fraction of that amount in USAID." "According to the Congressional Research Center, once dispersed, Israel's military aid is transferred to an interest bearing account with the Federal Reserve Bank." "This means Americans are paying interest on the billions of dollars given to Israel, while Israel accumulates interest on those same billions."

Beginning to read every bill, the speaker describes becoming ranking member of one of the State Department operations subcommittees and being responsible for the State Department authorization bill, ensuring they knew what was in it before putting their name on it. They found 'all kinds of little nuggets' in the bill, including that 'any Jew who wanted to move to Israel Was moved to Israel from no place from any place on the planet at US taxpayers expense.' They note 'It's a $30,000,000 fund within the state department.' That was 'just one of the things I found.' They also asked the staff, 'well, what happens if they don't use up all the money? Then they get the appropriation for the next year and it just adds to whatever is there.'

Did you know that in Israel when you have a baby you get a check and then that baby gets a check every month until it's 18 put into the mother's bank account? It's our tax dollars.

The speaker believes 95-99% of Congress should be tried for treason for allowing Israel and its money to control everything in the United States. They claim the U.S. does not have control over itself because Congress is controlled by a foreign nation that does not have America's best interests in mind. The speaker cites a vote to cut $500 million from going to Israel, alleging it goes towards bombing kids, and claims 455 people voted to keep it, while only six voted against it. Marjorie Taylor Greene is praised for opposing the funding. The speaker asserts Israel controls the United States 100% and suggests people should investigate how much money each congressperson has taken from APAC, which they describe as an Israeli funding service. They also allege most members of Congress are probably on the Epstein list.

"Israel is the only country I know of that has some sort of incredible influence and control over nearly every single one of my colleagues." "Because APAC are Americans, therefore, they can legally donate to members of congress and senators." "Freshman, member of congress, or first year in congress, they take them on a very special trip to Israel in August." "That's Dems the and Republicans or just Republicans? They take both of them. Yes." "So they take them on this trip to Israel." "They wear the, kippah." "They and even though they're Christians. They're they're not Jewish, but yet they're adorning, Jewish attire, and they're at these Jewish, religious sites." "The Israeli government is secular." "This is not the biblical Israel." "It is the secular government of Israel."

Speaker 0 אמר שהוא רוצה “לעצור את הסיוע האמריקאי”, ושואף לעשות זאת באמצעות שיפוע של 10 שנים. הוא הדגיש שהוא מעריך את התמיכה שקיבלו, כולל כספית, אך ציין שהוא עצמו הפסיק משהו שאחרים “לא זוכרים”. בהמשך, כשנבחר לראשונה ב-1996, הגיע לקונגרס ונאם שם מספר פעמים. בפעם הראשונה הוא ציין שבאותה תקופה ישראל קיבלה סיוע של 17 אלף דולר, וכיום מדובר ב-67 אלף דולר—וזאת בעקבות מדיניות כלכלית. הוא קישר את העלייה לשנה של בנט וציין שבאותה תקופה דיבר על שינוי של “כלכלה חופשית” כדרך להביא לכך שישראל תוכל לוותר על סיוע כלכלי של 1.2 מיליארד דולר, שלדבריו היה סכום גדול אז. הוא אמר שאנשים הופתעו ו”פערו את הפה” כששמעו שהוא “מוותר על הסיוע”, אך הבהיר שהוא אינו מוותר עליו אלא מגדיל את תפוקת המדינה כך שלא יהיה צורך בו. הוא הוסיף שככל שהכלכלה תתקרב לטריליון דולר, ישראל תהיה כבר “כלכלה בגודל בינוני”, ולכן תוכל לממן בעצמה את שברי האחוז מהתגמול שהיא מקבלת מארה״ב. Speaker 1 שאל מתי יתחיל התהליך, ו-Speaker 0 השיב: “אני רוצה שזה יתחיל השנה.”

Speaker 0 raises a question about accountability for Israel and mentions Jeffrey Epstein’s dealings with Mossad. Speaker 1 asks, without specifics, whether there are forces that tried to influence him to stop what he’s doing now. Speaker 0 responds that they wouldn’t vote for foreign aid and foreign war funding, and they were upset because he said no. He states: “I’m not voting to fund the Ukraine war ever,” and “Israel’s doing just fine. We don’t need to give them a penny, not a single penny, nor do we need to give it to any other country, but they get mad at me for that.”

The speaker was asked if there is evidence that Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer have received money directly from USAID. The speaker responded that taxpayer money is sent to government organizations, then to NGOs, which are government-funded but not governed by U.S. laws. Money is sent overseas to NGOs and the speaker is confident that some of it returns to the U.S. and ends up with the aforementioned politicians. The speaker states that it's not a direct route, but that some members of Congress are strangely wealthy, accumulating millions while earning salaries of only around $200,000 per year. The speaker says they are going to try to figure it out and stop it from happening.

Speaker 3 said he has been told that criticizing AIPAC makes him anti-Semitic. Speaker 1 called that “ridiculous.” Speaker 3 said it feels good to have concern for one’s country and asked whether AIPAC represents a “cutting in line of prioritization” away from the American people—meaning that although Americans vote and are citizens, a separate group gets higher priority. Speaker 0 responded that the point of a PAC is to represent a group, but said there is a “huge problem” with allowing a group that does not represent American interests to influence people who are supposed to represent Americans. Speaker 0 said he has previously stated that he thinks only “like 20 representatives between Senate and the House” fully do the work of the American people without the interests of some group pulling their sway. Speaker 1 said that “over since 1948” the amount amounts to “$319 billion adjusted to inflation” and argued that there are multiple things the money could have been spent on at home instead of military strikes for Israel. Speaker 1 said the money could have been better allocated toward supporting an economy that would help the current generation afford homes. Speaker 3 asked what else would improve views if Israel’s government presented a “five-year plan to decouple from us aid,” including moving toward self-reliance, and noted that Israel is a rich country that has balanced its budget and money in a sovereign wealth fund. He asked whether people would think more highly of Israel if it stopped relying on U.S. aid and if the issue were talked about less. Speaker 2 agreed that people should be less focused on labeling, saying that the word “racism” is used when there is disagreement and that “we just have to call them a name.” Speaker 2 said he does not think people are anti-Semitic, arguing that people “just can’t agree with them” and can’t “prove them wrong,” so they “throw a word out” like “anti-Semitic” because they think the U.S. should stop sending money there. Speaker 3 said, “thank you” and noted that some people he tells “must get more aggressive.”

Tempers flared at the National Press Club in Washington DC after Alison Weir, president of the Council for the National Interest Foundation (CNIF), was involved in an incident where an advocate knocked a camera from her hands during a pro-Israeli conference that followed a CNIF press conference on what they call unjustifiable USA to Israel. The two events occurred in the same room, illustrating heightened tensions over America's relationship with Israel. CNIF asserts that Americans should know how much of their tax dollars go to Israel, claiming $3,000,000,000,000 in aid, including a massive amount of direct money and many hidden costs. The group alleges that Israel receives substantial aid and special treatment because the US Congress is controlled by APAC, America’s pro-Israel lobby. Executive director Philip Giraldi states that Israel spends a lot of money on US elections. Speaker 1 notes that there are many Israeli PACs, and they give a lot of money very selectively to congressmen they want to support. CNIF contends that many members of Congress fear retaliation in their reelection campaigns if they do not align with Israel. Speaker 1 adds that if a congressman crosses the Israel lobby by voting against aid for Israel or against legislation Israel favors, the next campaign cycle often features a well-funded opposing candidate. Philip Giraldi, a former CIA counterterrorism expert, questions why America provides aid to Israel, arguing that Israel conducts more espionage for profit against the US than any other US-friendly country. He claims that they steal military technology and information useful for telecommunications. Retired lieutenant colonel Karen Kotowski, who works at the Pentagon, contends that Israel receives preferential treatment and that “We do not question what the Israelis want.” Kotowski suggests that America is increasingly paying attention to US foreign policy in the Middle East, influenced in part by tough economic times. More Americans want to know where their hard-earned tax dollars are going and why. Rhonda Pence, reporting for Press TV in Washington, closes the segment, highlighting the juxtaposition of the CNIF event with the pro-Israel conference and the ensuing tensions over US aid and policy toward Israel.

Since 2021, Congress has voted on 22 resolutions for Israel, including denouncing antisemitism and supporting Israel. The congressperson stated they voted no on the last resolution and present on the one before that because they were getting sick of it. Republicans in Congress are always talking about Israel, and it feels like something has changed. Members of Congress constantly proclaim their faith and loyalty to Israel, stating that Israel is their greatest ally. The congressperson questions what about America and Americans, given the $37 trillion in debt and the struggles of younger generations to afford rent, housing, insurance, cars, and find good-paying jobs. They live paycheck to paycheck with stacked credit card bills and feel hopeless about realizing the American dream. Yet, in Congress, everyone is chasing and proclaiming their loyalty to a foreign country.

I started reading every bill, which was revolutionary for Congress. As ranking member of a subcommittee on operations for the State Department, I was responsible for the State Department authorization bill. I made sure to read it thoroughly before putting my name on it. I discovered things like the fact that any Jew who wanted to move to Israel was moved at US taxpayer expense, no matter where they were coming from on the planet. This was funded by a $30,000,000 fund within the State Department. When I asked the House International Relations Committee staff what happened if they didn't use all the money, they said the appropriation simply carried over to the next year.