Trending Topics:

AIPAC denies us credentials for its policy conference

on 66 Comments

AIPAC is bragging that there will be 14,000 delegates at its policy conference starting this weekend. The White House will be sending Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Secretary of State John Kerry. And it’s a good bet your Congressperson and Senators will be there.

I wanted to cover the conference, but Emily Helpern of a p.r. firm representing AIPAC wrote to me today.

Thank you for your interest in attending this year’s AIPAC Policy Conference as a member of the press. However, press credentials for the conference will not be issued to you. We regret any inconvenience this may have caused.

I’ve been to three AIPAC policy conferences. They haven’t given us credentials for the last three years.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

66 Responses

  1. bangpound on February 27, 2014, 2:46 pm

    Is she this Emily Helpern? Formerly of Human Rights Watch?

    • philweiss on February 27, 2014, 3:08 pm

      That hurts. So she’s a human rights specialist?
      Dont know if she’s the same person. She’s at Scott Circle.

      • marc b. on February 27, 2014, 3:43 pm

        it doesn’t look like her bio adds up to ‘human rights specialist’. she’s an LSE-educated events planner. before she came into the position to tell you to take a long walk on a short pier, she was selecting the caterer for HRW honorific dinners, and choosing the font and paper quality for the invitations. you’ve been snubbed by people with much more intelligence and integrity than her.

    • adamhorowitz on February 27, 2014, 3:13 pm

      Yup, here’s her bio –

      • ToivoS on February 27, 2014, 8:31 pm

        What is up with HRW? I always considered them a legitimate human rights group. Their reports on the Syrian civil war sound like they were written by the “free” Syrian movement types.

      • Donald on February 28, 2014, 12:31 am

        “Their reports on the Syrian civil war sound like they were written by the “free” Syrian movement types.”

        Those free Syrian movement types must be laudably self-critical then, since the HRW summary concerning Syria contained this passage–

        “Armed opposition groups have increasingly carried out serious abuses including indiscriminate attacks, extrajudicial executions, kidnapping, and torture. Foreign fighters and jihadist groups have been among the worst perpetrators of the abuses that Human Rights Watch has documented.

        On August 4, a coalition of opposition groups led predominately by Islamist militant groups conducted an operation in the Latakia countryside in which some of the groups killed at least 190 civilians, including 57 women, at least 18 children, and 14 elderly men. Many of them were summarily executed. Armed opposition groups have been implicated in other indiscriminate attacks against the civilian population, including car bombings and mortar attacks on government-held civilian areas inside Syria as well as cross-border strikes on Shia villages in Lebanon.

        Armed opposition groups fighting in Syria are also using children for combat and other military purposes, and have used schools as military bases, barracks, detention centers, and sniper posts, turning places of learning into military targets and putting students at risk.”

        Taken from link

        Now it’s true that the bulk of the report is about the crimes of the Syrian government. But if you want to say the “Free Syrian Army” types accuse themselves of atrocities when they’re not busy committing them, then yeah, HRW sounds just like them.

      • Walid on February 28, 2014, 1:39 am

        Donald, the report that you are saying is critical of the FSA is actually referring to foreign terrorist fighters doing bad things to people, and not the FSA itself that ‘s comprised of defected Syrian army soldiers and officers and of Syrian volunteers. Pravda with its Russian slant on Syria, still appears more accurate in its evaluation of HRW’s overall Syria reporting than of HRW’s reports on Syria such as those it claimed about the chemical attacks.

      • Donald on February 28, 2014, 1:10 pm

        “the report that you are saying is critical of the FSA is actually referring to foreign terrorist fighters doing bad things to people, and not the FSA itself that ‘s comprised of defected Syrian army soldiers and officers and of Syrian volunteers.”

        No, it says the jihadis have been among the worst violators, but it doesn’t restrict the criticism to them.

        HRW does put the bulk of the blame for atrocities on the government. I don’t know who is right about that.

      • puppies on February 28, 2014, 4:26 am

        @ToivoS – Strange, I always thought it more than obvious that they were the pet, or even brainchild, “human rights” group of the USGovt.

      • Justpassingby on February 28, 2014, 10:39 am

        Yeah exactly my view too.

      • Donald on February 28, 2014, 1:19 pm

        ” Strange, I always thought it more than obvious that they were the pet, or even brainchild, “human rights” group of the USGovt.”

        That’s a popular accusation on the left, but the record is more confused than that. One of HRW’s parent groups (Americas Watch) was one of the chief critics of American foreign policy in Central America during the 80’s. After the Gulf War Middle East Watch (another predecessor group) did a book length study on the conduct of the American war and showed, among other things, that the US targeted Iraqi civilian infrastructure. During the 90’s they put out reports on how Turkey was using American-supplied weapons to bomb Kurdish villages. On Israel, they’ve done study after study of how Israel bombed civilians in Lebanon (and Gaza). They also did good work exposing Israeli crimes in the Second Intifada.

        I know some of the accusations against them–I read Walid’s link and the claims there are familiar. I think they do have some biases and are too closely linked to US liberal interventionist attitudes sometimes, but the lefty claim that they are just an arm of the US foreign policy establishment simply doesn’t fit all the facts.

      • Justpassingby on February 28, 2014, 2:00 pm

        Then you got something to learn about HRW..
        Watch this

  2. Justpassingby on February 27, 2014, 2:59 pm

    What credentials do you need anyway to get invited?

  3. seafoid on February 27, 2014, 3:00 pm

    Don’t worry, Phil

    you can always watch the movie

  4. stopaipac on February 27, 2014, 3:22 pm

    what is also more difficult now is getting information about their line-up for their “break-out” sessions. Many of these people are quite extreme and not even subtle in their racism.
    Back in 2011, they probably told us “too much” and we broke the story about how they will feature even a supporter of the “The English Defence League”, a group that organizes street violence in the UK.

    This year i cannot find any info about their speakers for the break-out sessions. Further investigation would probably prove useful, so that people will know exactly what kind of organization they are dealing with here.

  5. Kathleen on February 27, 2014, 3:35 pm

    Tightening down the communication hatches again. Mondoweiss letting air and facts out of the bubble. Phil if at first you don’t succeed try try and try again to walk in another way. I am always amazed they still let you into Israel

  6. Kathleen on February 27, 2014, 3:50 pm

    Phil will you and your team be protesting out front with signs stating AIPAC DENIES ACCESS TO JOURNALIST. First Amendment violation…Freedom of the Press.

    Standing with the Rabbis who protest across the street from the convention center is one of the more interesting places to listen to what goes on. Those guys really take verbal beatings from the Aipac attendees and sometimes it gets very close to being physically violent.

    Another group that I had a wonderful time talking with outside of the conference are the students from universities who have their way bought and paid for. I kept taking the young students I was talking with over to have a conversation with Hedy Epstein. Had set up Hedy under the shade of a tree in a nice comfortable chair and a few chairs for the students to sit in. Hedy provided an earful of information. Wonder how she is?

    • puppies on February 28, 2014, 8:33 am

      @Kathleen – First Amendment violation, no. Just an affirmation of their being barbarians who cannot stand exposure.

      • Kathleen on February 28, 2014, 11:41 am

        Clearly I don’t know about the real legal ramifications. But if Aipac denies access…where does that fall on the scale of violations? Denying access to credentialed journalist seems serious.

        And if Phil received entrance as a credentialed journalist (not sure if the three years he made it in was as a journalist) and now is not…

      • hophmi on February 28, 2014, 12:34 pm

        “Phil will you and your team be protesting out front with signs stating AIPAC DENIES ACCESS TO JOURNALIST. First Amendment violation…Freedom of the Press.”

        Denying a journalist press credentials to attend a private conference is not a First Amendment violation.

        “Clearly I don’t know about the real legal ramifications.”

        Clearly you don’t.

        “where does that fall on the scale of violations?”

        Nowhere. AIPAC isn’t the government. They have no obligation to let anyone in.

    • pabelmont on February 28, 2014, 10:26 am

      Only governments in the USA can violate the USA’s First Amendment. Here, AIPAC is running a private party and invites all the government figures as guests, but it is not a government function. Merely a private-public partnership, and what a partnership!

  7. seafoid on February 27, 2014, 4:38 pm

    I guess all the food at AIPAC is glatt kosher.

    I find the juxtaposition of kashrut and warmongering absolutely fascinating.

    You know, if you mix cream with beef it’s unforgivable but bombing Iran is just fine .

  8. Shuki on February 27, 2014, 5:41 pm

    Generally, press credentials are issued only to journalists.

    • seafoid on February 28, 2014, 12:28 am

      AIPAC only issues press credentials to stenographers

      • Kathleen on February 28, 2014, 8:03 am

        good one

      • hophmi on February 28, 2014, 12:38 pm

        Stupid one. AIPAC is well-covered and most of it will be available on CSPAN. Unlike, say, the pro-BDS conference at Cooper Union this weekend, which was purposely underpublicized to avoid protesters.

      • Ecru on March 2, 2014, 1:40 am

        @ Hoppy

        So what you’re saying is that the organisers of the BDS conference have a perception that Zionist agitators will disrupt their meeting. Well given your recent posts on how perception=reality when it comes to antisemitism in Europe, according to you the organisers must be right to believe disruptions will be attempted and do what they can to avoid such attacks.

  9. on February 27, 2014, 5:43 pm

    I suspect some will get in with the intention of showing just how evil AIPAC is. Let’s hope so

  10. Boomer on February 27, 2014, 7:01 pm

    I assume that many reporters will be there from MSM. Is it too much to hope that someone will report what goes on?

    • on February 28, 2014, 6:56 am

      I suspect it is too much to expect any truthful reporting on the AIPAC conference from the MSM. And they will likely remain silent on Amnesty International’s latest report

      • Boomer on February 28, 2014, 10:30 am

        Based on the quick search I just did on Google News regarding Amnesty’s report, I infer that your prediction is correct, as far as U.S. MSM is concerned. There are some articles about the report in non-U.S. sources. The exceptions I found were negative comments in a few U.S. sources, mainly those aimed at a Jewish audience. I suppose that suggests we should expect something similar with regard to AIPAC.

      • Kathleen on February 28, 2014, 2:29 pm

        Another human rights report that Rachel Maddow will stay silent about.

  11. James Canning on February 27, 2014, 7:50 pm

    Aipac clearly does not like you. Perhaps a badge of honour?

  12. DICKERSON3870 on February 27, 2014, 8:28 pm

    RE: “I’ve been to three AIPAC policy conferences. They haven’t given us credentials for the last three years.” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: You’ve been a very bad boy, Phil! You need to learn how to be a “team player”, so as not to anger the proto-fascists.

    ALSO SEE “Banned! AIPAC Bars AlterNet From Covering Its Big Conference”, By Adele M. Stan,, March 4, 2012
    I’m just a campaign-trail reporter trying to cover a big event in the U.S. presidential campaign at which four candidates will speak. But I’m banned without explanation.
    LINK –!_aipac_bars_alternet_from_covering_its_big_conference

  13. radii on February 27, 2014, 8:55 pm

    hire that cater waiter who outed Romney’s “47%” remarks to video-phone it for you

  14. DaBakr on February 27, 2014, 9:17 pm

    And yet–the NYU president of ASA advertised a conference that promotes the ‘unseemly influence aipac has with the US’ and at the end urges that members not spread news of this conference around because they ‘wnat to avoid press, attention and so-on…’. Not saying aipac=ASA but try and put on your ‘reality’ caps and stop acting like your ‘perplexed’ as to why aipac would deny you press credentials. its juvenile and petty and shows you have a high tolerance for hypocrisy and double standards.

    Lets talk again when Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran , etc. allows Israeli reporters to have access to ask questions to their political leaders. Or even just a regular US Jewish reporters-like Daniel Pearl-who wont have to risk having their heads sawed off on camera for the crime of being a Jew.

    • Ecru on March 2, 2014, 1:33 am


      The crime of being a Jew? Yes of course because all those crimes against humanity that Israeli Jews have perpetrated and Diaspora Jews have supported have nothing to do with anything…..

      BTW the recent murder and public decapitation of a British soldier….was he Jewish?

  15. lobewyper on February 27, 2014, 10:21 pm

    They let you come three times??? Amazing!

  16. Citizen on February 28, 2014, 1:45 am

    Well, Phil, everybody is welcome to attend the first National Summit To Reassess The US-Israel “special relationship,” to be held March 7, 2014:

    • puppies on February 28, 2014, 8:39 am

      @Citizen – That one is way more important! Wonder why it is not being publicized in MW.

      • Citizen on February 28, 2014, 11:11 am

        @ puppies
        That’s a great question, especially considering Phil Weiss will be there as a speaker! I don’t get it, honestly. Why wouldn’t he mention it on his own blog? I’ve brought this pending first time assessment conference up on MW a number times already, and nobody said anything. Why, instead, does Phil just mention he got turned down by AIPAC? Anybody?

        Check this out:

        Stephen Sniegoski
        7:17 PM (15 hours ago)

        to Stephen

        National Summit to Reassess the U.S.-Israel “Special Relationship”

        I will be speaking at the upcoming National Summit to Reassess the U.S.-Israel “Special Relationship” on March 7 (next Friday) at the National Press Club, which is located at 529 14th ST NW in Washington, DC.. The conference will be taking place on the 13th floor. It is open to the public. See:

        If interested in attending, see “register” on the website.

        Other speakers include: Philip Giraldi, Ray McGovern, Paul Pillar, Michael Scheuer, James J. David, M.E. “Spike” Bowman, Karen U. Kwiatkowski, Paul Findley, Orval Hansen, Jeffrey Blankfort, Allan C. Brownfeld, Delinda Hanley, Scott McConnell, Janet McMahon, Mark Perry, Gareth Porter, John B. Quigley, Stephen M. Walt, Geoffrey Wawro, Philip Weiss, Ernest Gallo, Justin Raimondo, Grant F. Smith, and Alison Weir. For the backgrounds of the speakers, see:

        The topic for my presentation will be “The Neocons who brought us the Iraq War,” and I will be participating on a panel titled “Does the Israel Lobby Foment Middle East Wars?” I am told that my presentation will begin at 10:15 am.

        The organizers of the National Summit are: The Council for the National Interest, The Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, and If Americans Knew.

        Information on the National Summit is also on Facebook.


        Stephen Sniegoski

      • puppies on February 28, 2014, 3:15 pm

        @Citizen – Something’s fishy in good ole Denmark, obviously. I hadn’t realized that Phil Weiss is a speaker. Strange.

      • Citizen on February 28, 2014, 11:19 am

        Speakers at the 1st National Summit On Reassessing US Financial, Ethical, Moral, & Diplomatic Blank Check 2 Israel

    • Boomer on March 1, 2014, 9:06 am

      Say, that is good news. I regret not being able to attend. Perhaps I could have, had I known earlier. Still, I suppose we will be able to read about it afterwards, perhaps even see some video.

      With respect to AIPAC, it seems that Jim Lobe also is unwelcome:

      • Citizen on March 1, 2014, 3:23 pm

        @ Boomer
        Yep, Jim Lobe, along with a number of other brave reporters and bloggers are not welcome at AIPAC; soon maybe only Sheldon Adelson will be welcome, but of course, he thinks AIAPC is not Israel First enough. Phil has not said anything here about his upcoming participation as a speaker at the 1st national summit to reassess US-Israel “special relationship” to take place on March 7th, next. It gets queerer and queerer as our Jewish Americans struggle with their openness to everyday goy Americans. Their distrust just might be contagious for goys, eh?

  17. Sycamores on February 28, 2014, 7:13 am

    c’mon people cheer up the comedy festival of the year is nearly here.


    AIPAC policy convention 2011: Netanyahu love fest 29 standing ovations.

    AIPAC policy convention 2012: Netanyahu irrational fear of ducks especially Iranian nuclear ducks

    “Iran says that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but I say – if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck – it’s a duck. But this is a nuclear duck!.”

    AIPAC policy convention 2013: Netanyahu stuns the world by telling the truth

    If I can offer a free piece of advice – Don’t adopt Israel’s system of government.

    AIPAC got a bit of a bruising in the last year so expect anything from the worlds most applauded atomic duck.

  18. Kathleen on February 28, 2014, 8:04 am

    Phil are you and your team going to try to get Huff Po, NPR anyone to spotlight this?

    • Kathleen on February 28, 2014, 9:02 am

      ok just lobbied Huff Po to do a story on this violation of first amendment and how Phil and team have been turned down. Lobbied Huff Po to get in there (not that their reporters would do a good job) and to take Phil and team in with them. You just never know. What is Aipac hiding? We know what they do. What are they afraid of….oh yeah sunlight and truth

      • Krusty on February 28, 2014, 9:33 am

        Wait, how is at all violative of the First Amendment? Are you comparing this to the Texas Jaybirds (which is inapposite prima facie)? Seriously, I can’t think of anything about a denial contra 1A re. press/association/speech for a private non-party political gathering.

        I think press credentials ought to be offered to Mondoweiss, particularly on the grounds of preventing epistemic closure. However, I (and hopefully everyone here) can understand why a Zionist interest group concerned with bi-partisan consensus building (and facing a serious threat from J Street) wouldn’t want to give access to a vocal anti-Zionist organization.

        There’s a big gap between Hillel limiting discourse and AIPAC (an advocacy group) doing it. I don’t expect NARAL to show up at the 2014 GOP convention. Do you?

      • pabelmont on February 28, 2014, 10:43 am

        Legally, yes, not 1A. However, in the spirit of “open meetings” laws, one would wish that promises made by USA’s politicians to interest groups — even in meetings which are not FORMALLY public meetings of governmental bodies — would be public. Otherwise (and even if) it’s too much like bribery (and, when done in secret, secret bribery, the best kind!).

        Speaking of bribery and its close cousin political contribution, wouldn’t it be nice if ALL contacts between pols and donors were required to be recorded and made public.

        And, moving on to other pipe dreams, * * *

      • hophmi on February 28, 2014, 12:43 pm

        “ok just lobbied Huff Po to do a story on this violation of first amendment”

        I hope they informed you that it is not a First Amendment violation and told you to leave them alone.

        “What is Aipac hiding? We know what they do. What are they afraid of….oh yeah sunlight and truth”

        Which is why they make the itinerary public and broadcast the conference on CSPAN. Are you stupid or just deceitful?

      • Kathleen on February 28, 2014, 1:23 pm

        So for those who know the law here. Any organization can turn away reporters that they think may shed some light on what is really going on and allowing reporters in that will write what they want? Is that the way it works?

      • Hostage on February 28, 2014, 7:02 pm

        I hope they informed you that it is not a First Amendment violation

        That may be, but the Supreme Court has ruled in Reid v Covert that our President and our representatives in Congress are creatures of the Constitution, who cannot do anything outside our borders which is prohibited by that document.

        So when they spend our tax dollars trying to impose a “Jewish state”, including Orthodox rabbinical tyranny on the Palestinians, and get together with their masters at AIPAC to brag about the unconstitutional diplomatic and legislative measures that they’ve adopted in that regard, that will certainly include the 1st Amendment clause containing the prohibition against the Congress adopting “any law” respecting the establishment of religion:

        U.S. Code › Title 22 › Chapter 93 › § 8602 – Statement of policy

        It is the policy of the United States:
        (1) To reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish state. As President Barack Obama stated on December 16, 2011, “America’s commitment and my commitment to Israel and Israel’s security is unshakeable.” And as President George W. Bush stated before the Israeli Knesset on May 15, 2008, on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel, “The alliance between our governments is unbreakable, yet the source of our friendship runs deeper than any treaty.”.
        (2) To help the Government of Israel preserve its qualitative military edge amid rapid and uncertain regional political transformation.
        (3) To veto any one-sided anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations Security Council.
        (4) To support Israel’s inherent right to self-defense.
        (5) To pursue avenues to expand cooperation with the Government of Israel both in defense and across the spectrum of civilian sectors, including high technology, agriculture, medicine, health, pharmaceuticals, and energy.
        (6) To assist the Government of Israel with its ongoing efforts to forge a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that results in two states living side-by-side in peace and security, and to encourage Israel’s neighbors to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
        (7) To encourage further development of advanced technology programs between the United States and Israel given current trends and instability in the region.

        The Congress has imposed a religious test that requires any Palestinian government that includes Hamas “to recognize the right of the Jewish State of Israel to exist” in order to qualify for US funding or aid. There is no corresponding obligation for Israel to recognize the right of Palestine to exists as any kind of state. See U.S. Code Title 22, Chapter 32, Subchapter III, Part I, § 2378b “Limitation on assistance to the Palestinian authority”

      • Hostage on February 28, 2014, 9:21 pm

        So for those who know the law here. Any organization can turn away reporters that they think may shed some light on what is really going on and allowing reporters in that will write what they want? Is that the way it works?

        Yes, the 1st amendment is a limitation on the power of the federal government and that of the state governments through the application of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

        On the other hand the Justice Department ended its investigation of AIPAC and dropped charges against its employees saying it would have to reveal sensitive classified information in Court. In their defense, Rosen and Weissman were preparing to subpoena top administration officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, to make their case that the United States regularly used AIPAC, as a parastatal organ, to send back-channel communications to Israel, e.g.

        So, strictly speaking, it doesn’t function like a private tax exempt organization.

      • James Canning on March 1, 2014, 2:22 pm

        Great post.

      • SQ Debris on February 28, 2014, 3:31 pm

        Maybe the place to go to protest MW credential denial/exclusion is the offices of the congresspersons and senators who will be basking in the “Thanks for the Billions” toleration of their goy status. Wouldn’t they want there to be sunshine on their ring kissing dance?

      • Citizen on March 1, 2014, 10:45 am

        @ Hostage
        It’s worse because, by not declaring Israel a religion-ethnic state with scores of laws de jure and implementation of laws de facto that discriminate against 20% of Israel proper’s citizens, not to mention Israel’s clearly apartheid administration of the OT, which former POTUS Carter clearly pointed out in his book, the one that is the reason why the last DNC did not invite him, even though he’s done more for humanity since leaving office than any other former POTUS.

      • LeaNder on March 2, 2014, 7:57 am

        In their defense, Rosen and Weissman were preparing to subpoena top administration officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, to make their case that the United States regularly used AIPAC, as a parastatal organ, to send back-channel communications to Israel,

        Hmm, I only remember the Judith Miller – Douglas Faith – and the Plame affair in the larger context.

        Condi starts the rather impressive list starting on page 5 bottom, which I wasn’t aware of.

        This feels odd, since I cannot imagine it would be possible under German law:

        But Rosen says he had never had <an employment contract during his 22 years at AIPAC

        But then, maybe it would if you silently accept it.

      • Ecru on March 2, 2014, 1:37 am

        Kathleen just not letting someone into a private event is not a violation of the first amendment. It’s sus, raises the question “what do they have to hide?” especially because there will be sitting politicians attending, but it’s perfectly legal for them to restrict entrance.

  19. just on February 28, 2014, 9:59 am

    Consider yourself successful, Phil! Lots of good folks have recently been invited, disinvited, and reinvited to events… you are in good company.

    (it’s telling that they dare not offer credentials to people committed to justice and discourse. I daresay that there will be nothing of surprise happening at AIPAC– there never is. Just more circling the wagons by US ‘leaders’ and teary-eyed Zionists, all congratulating themselves on their unanimous & unequivocal support of the Occupying, International Law deriding/denying, Apartheid State of Israel!)

    I do wonder if Scarlett will be there– resplendent in her faux scientific garb.

    • Kathleen on February 28, 2014, 11:37 am

      That would be something if Scarlett came. Stamping her right wing Zionist credentials…

      • hophmi on February 28, 2014, 12:44 pm

        Yes, it would. Maybe Sodastream would go up even more than it has since she endorsed it.

      • Citizen on March 1, 2014, 10:50 am

        Scarlett has recently given an interview to the Brit print only mag Dazed and Confused (internet version is Dazed, but reveals nothing, simply being a marketing device for the Style web site). In it she says she doesn’t view herself as a role model, and is simply astounded anyone would use her image to portray support of any political vision. I suggest she talk to Medea Benjamin of CODE PINK, a more fully ethnic sister who also has stated she’s just a “nice Jewish girl.” Won’t happen.

  20. Citizen on March 1, 2014, 3:35 pm

    AIPAC ditched its ZOA shell directly tied to Israeli funding by a new corporate shell that was funded directly only by American Jews–this to avoid Bobby Kennedy’s attempt to make the original register under FARA; then it created another corporate shell for “education” with the same people and street location, but immune from taint of forbidden direct political bribery. There’s no end to how the Israel Firsters can use the corporate shell game to avoid responsibility and taming by US law. I think we need a new political version of the old legal theory of “piercing the corporate veil” to find AIPAC and its agents responsible for avoiding accountability for their actions int he best interests of the USA. AIPAC is clearly an alter ego of Israel, and AIPAC’s “education”subsidiary is clearly the same, and the US needs a court to tell this so.

  21. Citizen on March 2, 2014, 11:08 am

    G-d forbid! I didn’t make the top ten anti-semite list! What do I have to do to get on it?

Leave a Reply