Sibiriak This user account status is Approved Comments Comments Posts Posts Mooser: ll I hear is right-wing fever-swamp echo-chamber nonsense.... ------------------------------------------- You're not listening. On Trump cites Israel’s interest in the Saudi-US portfolio — not Russia’s deleted On Trump cites Israel’s interest in the Saudi-US portfolio — not Russia’s Apparently, any opposition to immigration whatsoever is anathema to (neo)liberals and progressives and an unmistakable mark of extreme right-wing xenophobic nationalism: Reflecting Democratic Party's Past, Clinton's 'Deluded and Dangerous' Remarks on Migration in Europe Spark Outrage https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/11/23/reflecting-democratic-partys-past-clintons-deluded-and-dangerous-remarks-migration On Ben White’s hopeful vision may include some false positives The CIA Democrats https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html On Midterm elections might be a harbinger of good things to come annie: so while SA and the gulf states have purchased loyalty w/the DC think tankers/elite. israel has purchased the politicians and severely punishes those who step out of line -------------------------------------- While there's no doubt the Israel Lobby is most powerful by far, and has that incredible "punishing" power you mention, the Saudi Lobby is now quite extensive and multifaceted. How Saudi Money Keeps the US at War in Yemen https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/10/saudi-money-keeps-us-war-yemen.html [..]The roots of that lobby’s rise to prominence in Washington lie in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. As you may remember, with 15 of those 19 suicidal hijackers being citizens of Saudi Arabia, it was hardly surprising that American public opinion had soured on the Kingdom. In response, the worried Saudi royals spent around $100 million over the next decade to improve such public perceptions and retain their influence in the U.S. capital. That lobbying facelift proved a success until, in 2015, relations soured with the Obama administration over the Iran nuclear deal. Once Donald Trump won the presidency, however, the Saudis saw an unparalleled opportunity and launched the equivalent of a full-court press, an aggressive campaign to woo the newly elected president and the Republican-led Congress, which, of course, cost real money. As a result, the growth of Saudi lobbying operations would prove extraordinary. In 2016, according to FARA records, they reported spending just under $10 million on lobbying firms; in 2017, that number had nearly tripled to $27.3 million. And that’s just a baseline figure for a far larger operation to buy influence in Washington, since it doesn’t include considerable sums given to elite universities or think tanks like the Arab Gulf States Institute, the Middle East Institute, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (to mention just a few of them). This meteoric rise in spending allowed the Saudis to dramatically increase the number of lobbyists representing their interests on both sides of the aisle. Before President Trump even took office, the Saudi government signed a deal with the McKeon Group, a lobbying firm headed by Howard “Buck” McKeon, the recently retired Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. His firm also represents Lockheed Martin, one of the top providers of military equipment to the Kingdom. On the Democratic side, the Saudis inked a $140,000-per-month deal with the Podesta Group, headed by Tony Podesta, whose brother John, a long-time Democratic Party operative, was the former chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Tony Podesta later dissolved his firm and has allegedly been investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for serving as an unregistered foreign agent. And keep in mind that all this new firepower was added to an already formidable arsenal of lobbying outfits and influential power brokers, including former Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, who, according to Lee Fang of the Intercept, was “deeply involved in the [Trump] White House hiring process,” and former Senator Norm Coleman, chairman of the pro-Republican Super PAC American Action Network. All told, during 2017, Saudi Arabia inked 45 different contracts with FARA-registered firms and more than 100 individuals registered as Saudi foreign agents in the U.S. They proved to be extremely busy. Such activity reveals a clear pattern: Saudi foreign agents are working tirelessly to shape perceptions of that country, its royals, its policies, and especially its grim war in Yemen, while simultaneously working to keep U.S. weapons and military support flowing into the Kingdom. While the term “foreign agent” is often used as a synonym for lobbyist, part of the work performed by the Kingdom’s paid representatives here resembles public relations activity far more than straightforward lobbying. For example, in 2017, Saudi foreign agents reported contacting media outlets more than 500 times, including significant outreach to national ones like the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and PBS, which has aired multiple documentaries about the Kingdom. Also included, however, were smaller papers like the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and more specialized outlets, even ESPN, in hopes of encouraging positive stories. The Kingdom’s image in the U.S. clearly concerned those agents. Still, the lion’s share of their activity was focused on security issues of importance to that country’s royals. For example, Saudi agents contacted officials at the State Department, which oversees most commercial arms transfers and sales, nearly 100 times in 2017, according to FARA filings. Above all, however, their focus was on Congress, especially members with seniority on key committees. As a result, at some point between late 2016 and the end of 2017, Saudi lobbyists contacted more than 200 of them, including every single Senator. The ones most often dealt with were, not surprisingly, those with the greatest leverage over U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia. For example, the office of Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who sits on both the appropriations and armed services committees, was the most contacted, while that of Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) was the top Democratic one. (He sits on the appropriations and foreign relations committees.) Following the Money from Saudi Arabia to Campaign Coffers Just as there’s a clear pattern when it comes to contacting congressional representatives who might help their Saudi clients, so there’s a clear pattern to the lobbying money flowing to those same members of Congress. The FARA documents that record all foreign-agent political activity also list campaign contributions reported by those agents. Just as we did for political activities, the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative program conducted an analysis of all campaign contributions reported in those 2017 filings by firms that represented Saudi interests. And here’s what we found: more than a third of the members of Congress contacted by such a firm also received a campaign contribution from a foreign agent at that firm. In total, according to their 2017 FARA filings, foreign agents at firms representing Saudi clients made $390,496 in campaign contributions to congressional figures they, or another agent at their firm, contacted on behalf of their Saudi clients. This flow of money is best exemplified by the 11 separate occasions we uncovered in which a firm reported contacting a congressional representative on behalf of Saudi clients on the same day someone at the same firm made a campaign contribution to the same senator or House member. In other words, there are 10 other cases just like Marc Lampkin’s, involving foreign agents at Squire Patton Boggs, DLA Piper, and Hogan Lovells. For instance, Hogan Lovells reported meeting with Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) on behalf of the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia on April 26, 2017, and that day an agent at the firm made a $2,700 contribution to “Bob Corker for Senate 2018.” (Corker would later decide not to seek reelection.) While some might argue that contributions like these look a lot like bribery, they turn out to be perfectly legal. No law bars such an act, and while it’s true that foreign nationals and foreign governments are prohibited from making contributions to political campaigns, there’s a simple work-around for that, one the Saudis obviously made use of big time. Any foreign power hoping to line the pockets of American politicians just has to hire a local lobbyist to do it for them. As Jimmy Williams, a former lobbyist, wrote: “Today, most lobbyists are engaged in a system of bribery, but it’s the legal kind.” The Saudi Lobby Today Fast forward to late 2018 and that very same lobby is now fighting vigorously to defeat a House measure that would end U.S. support for the Saudi war in Yemen. They’re flooding congressional offices with their requests, in effect asking Congress to ignore the more than 10,000 civilians who have died in Yemen, the U.S. bombs that have been the cause of many of those deaths, and a civil war that has led to a resurgence of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP. They’ll probably mention Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s recent “certification” that the Saudis are now supposedly taking the necessary steps to prevent more civilian casualties there. What they’re not likely to mention is that his decision was reportedly driven by the head of the legislative affairs team at the State Department who just happens to be a former foreign agent with BGR Government Affairs, one of 35 FARA registrants working for Saudi Arabia at this moment. Such lobbyists and publicists are using the deep pockets of the Saudi royals to spread their propaganda, highlighting the charitable work that government is doing in Yemen. What they fail to emphasize, of course, are the Saudi blockade of the country and the American-backed, armed, and fueled air strikes that are killing civilians at weddings, funerals, school bus trips, and other civilian events. All of this is, in addition, helping to create a grotesque famine, a potential disaster of the most extreme sort and the very reason such humanitarian assistance is needed. In the end, even if the facts aren’t on their side, the dollars are. Since September 2001, that reality has proven remarkably convincing in Washington, as copious dollars flowed from Saudi Arabia to U.S. military contractors (who are making billions selling weapons to that country), to lobbying firms, and via those firms directly into Congressional coffers. On ‘NY Times’ explains why the U.S. is ‘standing by’ the Saudi crown prince — but somehow leaves out the Israel connection snaidamast: And from my own analysis and perspective, Palestinian Resistance and all their supporters must take a completely opposite tact to what is being done now through the use of an orderly retreat… And that is just for starters…. ------------------------------------------------------ Perhaps you could expand a bit on your strategic ideas. I share a lot of your skepticism about "the hopes for a new liberation movement." On What Comes Next: A new generation will rise to inspire, unify and liberate HarryLaw: Non[e] of this will work of course, nor will Palestinians arming themselves and using violence [...]They need [...]the backing of the front line states [...] Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon... ---------------------------------------- Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon are going to do exactly what for the Palestinians? What are you suggesting? On Annexation is in the air John O: That’s because they [ the South Afican Bantustans ] were were not outside South Africa. [...]Gaza and the West Bank have never been part of Israel. -------------------------------- My point exactly. Thus, the Bantustan analogy is fundamentally flawed. On Annexation is in the air Stephen Shenfield: One state with Bantustans —————————————— Not quite. Two fundamental differences. 1) International law and the world community never recognized the South African Bantustans as separate territories/political entities outside of South Africa. In stark contrast, international law (absolutely) and the world community (by and large) recognize Gaza and the West Bank as Palestinian territory, not part of Israel. “Throughout the existence of the independent Bantustans, South Africa remained the only country to recognise their independence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantustan#International_recognition 2) As Noam Chomsky pointed out: ” South Africa was different because the white population needed its Black counterpart. It was its workforce. Israel does not want the Palestinians. South Africa actually supported the bantustans. They wanted them to develop because they had to reproduce the workforce and to be internationally recognized.” On Annexation is in the air bcg: If Israel just annexed the entire West Bank (they can’t swallow Gaza, that’s a different can of worms), would it be a bad thing? ---------------------------------------------------------- Maybe not. But Israel won't do that-- for the very reasons you identify. They will not formally annex those areas in the West Bank with large Palestinian populations that would threaten the Jewish population super-majority (and, of course, the won't ever annex Gaza.) People need to wake up to the fact that the alternative to two states is not necessarily one state. The more likely alternative is an expanded Israel + plus fragmented Palestinian entities that continue on with increasing ties to Egypt and Jordan. On Annexation is in the air load more comments
