reSee.it - Related Video Feed

APAC does not directly pay politicians, but supports their campaigns. Top recipients of pro-Israel money in 2022 include non-Jewish candidates like Chantal Brown. Those critical of Israel, like Cori Bush and Ilhan Omar, receive no funding. APAC invests in pro-Israel politicians to maintain US support for Israel. The graph shows a rise in Jewish senators since 1948. Politicians benefit from insider trading, with Congress members making 240% returns in 2023. APAC's influence aligns with American interests. Anti-China sentiment led to banning a Chinese app to prevent foreign influence on US politics.

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.

Speaker 0 explains that not all Republicans are registered with APAC, and that many colleagues would vote with him if not for political backlash back home. He says some Republicans tell him, “that’s wrong what APAC is doing to you,” and they want to talk to their APAC person. He notes that nearly everyone except him has an APAC person, which he likens to a babysitter who is always talking to you for APAC. When these members are in DC, they lunch with their APAC contacts, who have their cell numbers and keep conversations going. He mentions that four members of Congress have said they’ll talk to their APAC person to try to get ads dialed back. He questions why this isn’t more widely known, arguing that it benefits nobody for constituents to know they have a “buddy system with somebody who represents a foreign country.” Speaker 1 asks what APAC is, and Speaker 0 explains the concept further, noting that the APAC person is connected to the congressman and that this dynamic exists on the Republican side. He says the APAC person is embedded in the caucus presence, and that conversations with them occur when members come to DC. He remarks that this arrangement is not beneficial for public disclosure, so members don’t tell their constituents about it. Speaker 1 asks if any other country does anything similar. Speaker 0 responds emphatically that they do not: “Not only do they not have a Putin guy. Look. They don’t they they don’t have a Britain guy. They don’t have an Australian guy. They don’t have a Germany dude.” He asserts that APAC is the only country with someone who uniformly matches a congressman to an APAC contact, and that there is likely a spreadsheet at APAC mapping the APAC contact to the congressman’s votes on issues. He adds that APAC pays for trips for congressmen and their spouses to go to Israel; he notes he may not be the only Republican who hasn’t taken the APAC Israel trip, but he’s among a minority who hasn’t yet. Speaker 1 asks about the trip, and Speaker 0 describes it as “vacationy,” including visits to the Western Wall and other sites, and mentions swimming in the Dead Sea. Speaker 1 comments that Israel is a great country and that Jerusalem is wonderful, but clarifies that this appreciation is distinct from the government of Israel and its politics. Speaker 0 agrees that Israelis are entrepreneurial and publicly minded, and Speaker 1 shares a personal fondness for Israel, praising the country and its people, while noting the difference between the people and the government. Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 discuss their affection for Israel, with Speaker 1 distinguishing his personal love of the place from political influence, and both agreeing that Israel is a special place, with Speaker 0 emphasizing the distinction between people and government.

US senators. Last year, 93 out of 100 US senators were people whose campaigns had been funded by Israel, APAC, and the Israel lobby. 93 out of 100 US senators were taking money from a group that represents a foreign government and foreign interests in order to operate our government on behalf of someone else, and they all work here in this building. This is representative Ro Khanna from California, and he does not take APEC money according to their website TrackAPEC. Here's what he had to say. "It's too much. I mean, it's too much. If you have people who have a particular point of view, in Apex case, they're basically whatever Netanyahu does is right. That's their point of view. And they're saying, okay, you don't take that view, we may come after you. We may have millions of dollars spent against you." Now ask any American content creator what the scariest subject to cover is, and the answer is Israel. Even YouTubers I know will say their channels were shadowbanned for months after covering them. And folks, the plot around free speech thickens. News just broke that Larry Ellison, cofounder of Oracle, will be buying TikTok, a platform where young people can freely exchange unfiltered ideas. No Israel connection here. Right? Wrong. Ellison is one of the IDF's largest private donors, giving the army tens of millions of dollars through Friends of the IDF, a nonprofit that brands itself as a nonpolitical, nonmilitary organization, but somehow also is the official US partner of Israel soldiers.

They're not registered. He explains Republicans tell him they'd vote with him but "would just take too much flack back home," and that "everybody but me has an APAC person"—an "APAC babysitter" embedded with a congressman. He notes four members said they'll talk to their APAC person to "dial those ads back." He asks why this isn't more widely known, saying "It doesn't benefit anybody. Why would they wanna tell their constituents that they've basically got a buddy system with somebody who's representing a foreign country?" He contends "it's the only country that does this" with an APAC liaison; "they pay for trips for congressmen and their spouses to go to Israel," describing the trip as "vacationy"—seeing the wall and the Dead Sea. The dialog contrasts love of Israel with "the government of Israel" and ends with "That's a completely different thing from taking orders from its government."

A reporter from the Stue Peters Network repeatedly asks members of congress whether they care more about the American people or Israel. One congressman says Israel is a strong ally and needs US support. The reporter asks if the US should continue funding Israel despite its links to 9/11 and the attack on the USS Liberty, and claims that APAC money is flowing into Congress. Another representative compares the question to asking if he loves his wife more than his daughter, stating they are different loves. He does not answer directly. One congressman states he cares more about the American people, making him the first to give that answer. The reporter asks if APAC should register as a foreign agent, claiming it is pumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into congressional candidates and promoting an Israel-first policy.

Two speakers discuss U.S. policy on Israel, lobbying, and domestic politics. Speaker 0 says she’s pro-Israel and defender of Israel’s right to defend itself and of American Jews on campuses, but has no loyalty to any lobby group and has refused trips to Israel. She notes rising pressure to stay in a stance, saying, 'you're not allowed to' move off the lily pad. Speaker 1 explains APAC’s influence in Washington: 'APAC takes every single that they can, freshman, member of Congress, their first year... they take them on a very special trip to Israel' and that Israel receives '3.8 billion dollars in funding for Israel' annually, with an exception allowing purchases from Israeli defense contractors. He contrasts Israel’s economy with the U.S. debt and asks why Americans fund Israel. They emphasize America First, say 'any anti Israel people are welcome here,' and mention Judge McFadden's flag ruling about Israel.

An attempt to change the law to classify all-expenses-paid trips as bribes failed. Legislation was drafted to reform lobbying, but the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 contained a loophole engineered by APAC. This "APAC Loophole" excluded educational trips organized by charities not hiring lobbyists, which APAC was affiliated with. These trips, involving dinners, resorts, and entertainment, are considered effective for influence peddling. Numerous members of Congress recorded messages while on trips to Israel with AIEF, the American Israel Education Foundation. They described learning about Israel's democracy, national defense, economic development, trade, and threats from Iranian-backed terror groups. Some members noted this was their first trip to Israel.

APAC is ostensibly a group of Americans who lobby on behalf of Israel, and they're very effective. As a candidate, they wanted me to do homework for them on Israel. When I refused, they suggested I copy Rand Paul's paper. I may be the only Republican in Congress who hasn't done homework for them. They tried to get to me through churches, using organizations like Christians United for Israel to co-opt evangelicals. After I was elected, they ran ads against me, so I banned them from my office. This cycle, they spent $400,000 against me. I think they're afraid of one person speaking the truth. They've called me a bigot and an anti-Semite, which is disgusting. I'm not anti-Semitic, but I don't like APAC. They should be registered with FARA, like anyone lobbying for a foreign government. Many Republicans agree with me privately but fear the backlash. Everyone has an "APAC person" they talk to, which is crazy. No other country has this kind of influence.

APAC lobbies Congress for Israel, AIEF funds trips for members, ADL spies on critics, media labels them anti-Semitic. Christian groups like IFCJ and CUFI promote Zionism. Various other organizations support Israeli causes in DC.

Legislators and lobbyists meet at a private ALEC event in a Georgia hotel to discuss laws. ALEC, funded by corporations, influences legislation with equal votes from corporations and lawmakers. Lobbyists subsidize legislators' attendance. Lawmakers are not required to disclose payments for travel to these events. Lawmakers exempt themselves from transparency laws. A senator who sponsored an ALEC-influenced bill later criticizes the group. Corporations like Coca Cola have left ALEC. Lawmakers deny open records requests for event reimbursements. This lack of transparency raises concerns about the legislative process.

Speaker 1 stated that the Congress of the United States is like an Israeli occupied territory because of the influence of the pro-Israel lobby, which is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. They believe that the automatic votes for aid to Israel may not always be in the national interest of the United States. Speaker 1 also mentioned that members of Congress often vote in favor of powerful lobbies because they cannot withstand the pressure. When asked why they singled out the pro-Israel lobby, Speaker 1 explained that it was in response to a specific question about Israeli aid.

Republicans often feel pressured by APAC to vote a certain way, with each member having an "APAC person" influencing them. APAC arranges trips to Israel for congressmen, but not all have gone. Despite personal love for Israel, they differentiate between the people and the government. The speaker enjoys visiting Israel with family but emphasizes not taking orders from its government.

I can't believe I'm the only one without an APAC person! It's like having a babysitter who's constantly on you about APAC. Apparently every member has someone like this. On the Republican side, these APAC people have your cell number, and you're expected to have lunch with them when they're in DC. It's insane! Why haven't I heard about this before? Why would politicians want their constituents to know they've got a buddy system with someone representing a foreign country? Does any other country do this? They even pay for congressmen and their spouses to go to Israel. I wonder what happens on these trips? You know, you go see the wall.

Have you ever wondered how a major lobbying group in America can represent a foreign country without registering under the FARA Act? APAC boasts about its political spending and success rates but has avoided registration. Historically, they were nearly required to register as a foreign agent in 1963 when they were known as the American Zionist Council. President Kennedy was pushing for this, but after his assassination, the pressure eased, and they never registered. This allows APAC to operate without disclosing their funding sources. Consequently, they can influence elections while their policies remain unpopular with many Americans. It's crucial to recognize this influence and prevent foreign entities from undermining our democracy.

Speaker claims: "Israel has an overwhelming lobby over the United States government, and we have unconditionally supported them." He cites "BB Netanyahu came to our congress in the nineties, told us a list of countries that we need to take out. Some were Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, etcetera." He adds "Through those wars, we have lost trillions of dollars" and "We have lost American servicemen." He asserts "They don't teach about the USS Liberty, where Israel literally came, blew up an American ship because they want us to get in their war with, Egypt and they don't teach that in school." He asks "Why is there this societal taboo around criticisms of Israel? For example, APAC doesn't have to register as a foreign lobby, but like the Australia lobby does. And the it just That should be changed. I That should be corrected." Finally, "Look. I I am not gonna say Israel should have any special privileges. None."

"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: "I'm very pro Israel" and "defensive of their right to defend themselves," but "I have absolutely no skin whatsoever in defending any lobbyist group, including AIPAC" and asks, "what they do to get the loyalty of politicians." She refuses outreach to visit Israel, wanting to "cover this conflict from here" and insisting she is not "on Hamas" side. Speaker 1: "'APAC is not registered under FARA' and explains lobbying tactics: taking freshmen on 'a very special trip to Israel,' inviting 'influencers,' and that Israel receives '3.8 billion dollars in funding for Israel.' He notes 'Israel is the only democracy in The Middle East' and says Israel can 'use that money to buy from Israeli defense contractors' instead of American ones. He cites Judge McFadden on flag-burning and says, 'We don't have time to fund what you're doing.' Ad: 'text m k to the number 989898.'

The speaker describes meeting with prime minister Netanyahu as part of a Christian conservative Gen Z focus group, noting that Netanyahu listened attentively and heard their concerns. "APAC is not an Israeli organization. It has no ties whatsoever to the government of Israel. It's not foreign lobbying." "APAC, like, makes up less than 5% of the lobbying." "Israel is not offering to fund anybody. They're not trying to get involved in American political advocacy groups. That has never happened." "If you're about this, who you should be concerned about is Qatar because they are doing this." "Many of these protests slash riots that you see destroying our cities, a lot of that has foreign funding from Qatar." "Netanyahu's first address to congress was to say that they didn't want aid."

Jasmine Crockett is claimed to be misrepresented by critics. The discussion centers on U.S. support for Israel, with one speaker asserting Israel has a right to defend itself and noting that the United States has equipped Israel with armaments, referencing Crockett’s vote for a national security supplemental in April that underwrote Israel’s war effort. A defending speaker acknowledges voting for the supplemental and emphasizes diplomacy, describing the long-standing U.S.–Israel relationship as enduring beyond any one person and continuing “in perpetuity even after I’m gone.” The critique challenges why the U.S.–Israel relationship should be perpetual and questions Crockett’s positions, citing APAC Tracker’s claim that Crockett does not take money directly from the Israel lobby but that she votes to enable genocide in Palestine and supports censorship bills aiming to criminalize criticism of Israel. In response to digging further, a claim is presented that a receipt shows a sponsorship from the American Israel Education Foundation to Crockett for $24,000 to attend meetings with Israeli election officials and to visit the country’s holy and historical sites, accompanied by questions about why an American congresswoman would meet with Israeli election officials. The American Israel Education Foundation is described as a sister organization of APAC that handles education work, described with the phrase “education or reeducation,” which the speaker suggests may imply a troubling motive. The speaker asserts that Crockett “definitely passed with flying colors” by saying on Israel’s 70th birthday, “let’s continue to dedicate ourselves to peace and prosperity,” and notes that tweets like this are not free. There is a suggestion that if the name were blocked, it would be hard to tell whether this was Jasmine Crockett or Benjamin Netanyahu, implying a point about perceived similarities or influence. The overall thread questions Crockett’s alignment on Israel-related policy, juxtaposing formal statements of bipartisan support for Israel with claims of behind-the-scenes funding and influence.

Speaker 0 asserts that they have never taken money from the Israel lobby and asks if Speaker 1 has. Speaker 1 clarifies that APAC raises a lot of money for him, but emphasizes that the fundraisers are individuals, not the PAC itself, meaning it’s a misnomer to say the PAC raises money. He describes APAC as an American lobby and explains that APAC stands for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. He admits APAC is not a “foreign lobby” and says its purpose is not effectively defined as a single objective. He states his own entry into Congress thirteen years ago with the goal of being the leading defender of Israel in the United States Senate and says he has worked every day to that end. He notes that APAC is sometimes more effective than he wishes and then characterizes APAC as “a fever swamp of terrified of APAC.” Speaker 0 challenges the idea that APAC lobbies on behalf of the Israeli government, insisting that APAC lobbies for a foreign government. Speaker 1 responds that APAC is not lobbying for a foreign government; it is lobbying for a strong US–Israel relationship and for America and Israel to be closely allied. Speaker 0 maintains that APAC is lobbying for the interests of another country and reiterates that it is not true that APAC has nothing to do with the government. Speaker 0 asks about how much contact APAC leaders have with the government of Israel, and Speaker 1 acknowledges some contact, suggesting that the government of Israel is often frustrated with APAC, and asks whether they talk. He compares the situation to lobbying for more US–Mexico trade, noting that one would talk to both sides. Speaker 0 accepts that there are many countries that lobby Washington, including Israel, and expresses familiarity with how lobbying works, including knowing Americans who lobby on behalf of foreign governments and even being related to some. The central question for Speaker 0 is not whether foreign governments lobby the United States, but why it isn’t admitted as a common practice. He states that it’s true that many countries lobby Washington, including Israel, and asks why they aren’t registered as foreign lobbies. Speaker 1 responds that they are not registered as such.

Yesterday, I got the honor of meeting with prime minister Netanyahu as part of a special focus group for Christian conservative Gen Zers, and we were essentially addressing the concerns that we had. There's clearly been a growing divide. He wanted to know why. He wanted to understand where we were coming from. And to his credit, he did listen to us extremely attentively and took in a lot of what we were saying. APAC is not an Israeli organization. It has no ties whatsoever to the government of Israel. It's not foreign lobbying. It's a lobbyist group that happens to be lobbying for a certain group of people. I'm against APAC because I'm against lobbying. Israel is not offering to fund anybody. That has never happened. If you're concerned about this, who you should be concerned about is Qatar because they are doing this. They are going out and funding these universities and these political organizations. Many of these protests slash riots that you see destroying our cities, a lot of that has foreign funding from Qatar. I really hope some positive change comes out of it, and some people will do some more research rather than believing everything they see.

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.

The video argues that Israel is effectively ruling the American government, presenting a connected web of history, money, politics, religion, and power to explain the relationship. It starts with the numbers: since World War II, the United States has given over $260,000,000,000 in aid to Israel, more than to any other country in the world. This aid is a pipeline of US taxpayer money into Israel’s military machine, totaling $3,800,000,000 each year (about $10,000,000 every day), funding fighter jets, bombs, tanks, and missile defense systems like the Iron Dome. The 2016 initiative under President Obama was a $38,000,000,000 package over ten years, guaranteed regardless of who sits in the White House, ensuring Israel’s access to next-generation military hardware while Americans debate domestic needs. A significant portion of this aid is required by law to be spent on American defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon, meaning Israel gets the weapons while U.S. taxpayers foot the bill. The F-35 stealth fighter jet, costing around $80,000,000 each, has been supplied to Israel, alongside the Iron Dome, which has received over $2,600,000,000 in US funding since 2000. Critics note this funding could have supported US infrastructure repair, which is described as costing trillions of dollars to fix. The video contrasts this with domestic needs, citing half a million Americans homeless and tens of millions without health insurance. The narrative expands to the political ecosystem: APAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is described as one of the most powerful foreign policy lobby groups in Washington, with annual conferences drawing thousands and presidents pledging loyalty on stage. In the 2022 midterms, pro-Israel groups allegedly poured over $30,000,000 into campaigns; APAC’s United Democracy Project is said to have spent millions to defeat candidates who criticized unconditional US support for Israel. It cites examples like Donna Edwards and Andy Levin as Democrats targeted for questioning U.S. policy toward Israel. The video asserts that the message is: step out of line, and you’re gone. Other organizations are named as part of the broader lobby, including Christians United for Israel led by John Hagee, and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), with various PACs purportedly funneling millions into local elections. Together, these groups are characterized as shaping U.S. foreign policy more than think tanks, business lobbies, or grassroots movements, forming what scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have called the Israel lobby, which also influences media and academia through outlets and think tanks that frame Israel as America’s indispensable ally. A narrative layer is described: Israel is marketed as the only democracy in the Middle East, while Palestinians are often erased or portrayed as aggressors. The video notes presidential consistency from Reagan to Trump, and from Clinton to Biden, with the refrain that America stands with Israel. Religion compounds influence, with evangelical groups viewing Israel’s survival as biblical prophecy, and the 2018 move of the US embassy to Jerusalem is framed as a concession to evangelical voters. The implications are political: the contradiction of US defending democracy while backing a system described as apartheid and ongoing bombings. The video asks who is ruling whom, suggesting blind support fuels anti-American sentiment globally, and that the question extends beyond Palestine to America’s own future. It ends by questioning whose interests Washington is really serving—its people or someone else.