| Abstract: This essay deals with the evolution of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee in the United States and its impact on United States domestic and international policies, criticizing the acceptance of large sums of money by United States public officials to represent the interests of Israel. Money which originates in taxes paid by United States residents which are then granted to Israel and by Israel, to AIPAC, etc. It also touches on the nature of conflicts of interest and their resolution. It is meant as a catalyst of further discussion and research with readers urged to personally review the informational links in the footnotes in order to make their own determinations as to the positions expressed by the author and, as a caveat to those, in the United States and elsewhere who while exercising a public charge in one country accept funding from another, or on behalf of another. The essay concludes that “the phenomenon of public officials elected or appointed to protect the interests of their county accepting payments or contributions or assistance from other countries as an inducement to implement policies favorable to the “benefactor” is hardly rare and is the cornerstone of the foreign policy of many “developed countries” including the United States, the United Kingdom, all Western European countries, the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China. In each case, however, the recipient is betraying the public trust of the citizens of the country he or she purports to represent” Key words: AIPAC, Zionism, Judaism, “United States”, Congress, “Conflicts of Interest”, Antisemitism, “Political ‘contributions’”. |
Introduction:
It seems that during the first three decades of this millennium there has been an inversion of the values espoused at the end of 1945 following the Second World War when in the conquered German city of Nuremburg tribunals were held to try some of the men that were deemed the worst violators of norms that regulated human behavior. Quite a number of those men were executed, sacrificed to what the victors sought to portray as a better future. But it was all a farce. Only the vanquished were punished and the institution created to assure that the horrors of the Second World War would never be repeated, the institution that replaced the idealistic Wilsonian League of Nations, was as big a farce as any. The truth is that the victors in the Second World War were every bit as evil as the vanquished. Just perhaps better at public relations.
The issue of genocide as anathema at the end of the Second World War was blatant hypocrisy. In terms of numbers of human beings murdered, the victors far exceeded the vanquished. The British Empire had already murdered over a hundred million human beings in its attempts to colonize the world, the United States had engaged in genocide against its indigenous population, and that was to be just a start. And Leopold of Belgium had murdered ten million of his subjects in Africa. As to genocide, the Nazis were pikers. But useful pikers for those who sought to engage in genocide and ethnic cleansing in the oil rich Middle East.
As this essay is being written, both the victors and the vanquished in the Second World War, as well as those who claim to speak in the name of the victims of the Nazi genocide, have disowned the legal principles and obligations the victors imposed on the world following the Second World War. The principles that representatives of the victims of the Nazi “holocaust” established as law in their roles as prosecutors and judges of the Nuremburg Tribunals. “Might makes right” as the Nazis seem to believe is the concept that, in the end has emerged triumphant. And “truth”, well it never has been all that important except as a deceptive slogan, an illusion to control the masses.
Still, perhaps pure evil in its arrogance has lifted a veil that in the end, may prove to be its undoing. This essay is dedicated to uncomfortable truths, in the hope that at some point, even the most recalcitrant at self-delusion may have their eyes forced open.
One of the principal elements illustrated by Eric Arthur Blair, writing under the pen name George Orwell, in his dystopian epic 1984 (published in 1948) was the irrelevance of truth which, rather than an accurate invariable was a non-existent ideal, the reality being that what passed for truth at any given moment was merely a variable distortionist tool to manipulate the illusion of reality in order to permit a dedicated and amoral minority to exercise consistent control. It was, however, not a prediction of a horrendous potential future but a reflection of the reality under which the world had operated, not only for centuries, but perhaps since the evolution of language. That is the world in which we live and in which all of us currently alive have lived for our entire lives.
The crux of this essay seeks to lift the political veil under which the United States political system (and others) has operated at least since the end of the Second World War. The title metaphorically references the account in the Gospel of Matthew of the Christian New Testament concerning the betrayal of Yešu the Nazarene by his erstwhile disciple, Judas Iscariot[1] (Matthew 26:15). In that account, chief priests of the Second Jewish Temple in Jerusalem purportedly offered Judas “thirty pieces of silver” as an inducement to assist them in the capture of Yešu, an offer which Judas purportedly accepted but of which he subsequently repented, returning the money which the chief priests then purportedly used to buy Akeldama, popularly now referred to as the Potter’s Field[2]. The Potters’ Field was purportedly thereafter purportedly used as a burial ground for poor, unknown, and foreign individuals[3]. The reference in the title equates the conduct of politicians, especially federal elected officials in the United States, with that of Judas Iscariot in the cited passage, analogizing Yešu to the United States’ citizenry and the role of the Jewish priests to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), specifically with respect to bankrolling electoral politics in the United States[4]: massively rewarding politicians who do their bidding and destroying those who oppose them by recruiting and by bankrolling their opposition. The main difference is that the beneficiaries of AIPAC’s “generosity” rarely if ever repent and their betrayal is constant, consistent and to date, massively effective. Best of all for AIPAC, the ultimate victims are not only blissfully unaware of the betrayal but even revel in it in a sort of Stockholm syndrome, a psychological phenomenon where a hostage develops a bond with their captors. Facts do not move them, instead, they merely increase an obstinate refusal to acknowledge reality.
Another difference is that the equivalent of the “thirty pieces of silver” does not come directly from the coffers of AIPAC but rather starts its twisted journey in the form of taxes paid by United States residents to the government for which their betrayers supposedly work, a large portion of which is then transferred to Israel in the form of loans and grants and then a portion is contributed by Israel and Israeli benefactors to AIPAC. A viscously vicious circle. Such sums, in the aggregate, may involve trillions of dollars siphoned off to fund Israel and projects of interest to Israel, the foreign government that AIPAC was created to serve. And to related military “adventures” although perhaps misadventures may be a more accurate term.[5]
So, about AIPAC.
Historical Background:
Most of the following information concerning the organization and history of AIPAC was obtained from The Israel Lobby Archive, Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (“ILA”; 2008-2017): including articles encaptioned “Isaiah L. Kenen: Foreign Agent to Founder of AIPAC” and “DOJ orders the AZC to Register as a Foreign Agent”. The archive can be accessed at https://www.israellobby.org/index.html and contains significantly more information that what is briefly summarized in this essay. A great deal of the information is factual and not difficult to verify, hence it is very credible, however, “opinions” should be separated from factual assertions. The Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy; Washington D.C. is a 501(c)(3) organization that conducts research largely through Freedom of Information Act requests but is criticized by Zionist organizations as anti-Israel. It is a detailed source of information that appears objective concerning the evolution of Zionism in the United States to which reference is made. Readers should probably review such materials on their own. For a Zionist perspective on the history and origins of Zionism, see generally Halperin, Liora (2015): “Origins and Evolution of Zionism”; Foreign Policy Research Institute, January 9, 2025 available at https://www.fpri.org/article/2015/01/origins-and-evolution-of-zionism/. A detailed academic analysis is contained in Mearsheimer, John and Walt, Stephen (2006): “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy“. London Review of Books Vol. 28, No. 6 (March 23, 2006), available at www.lrb.co.uk.
AIPAC’s genesis was in the late nineteenth century when the Zionist movement was organized, ironically, by a Hungarian atheist, Theodor (Binyamin Ze’ev) Herzl, who presided over the first World Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, in August of 1897. In reaction to millennia of antisemitism, its goal was the establishment of a nationalist state somewhere where Jews could safely consolidate their political, economic and cultural traditions, with religion a distant, secondary consideration. Notwithstanding the foregoing, some historians and scholars identify American evangelist William E. Blackstone as the true “father of modern-day Zionism”, arguing that his efforts predated those of Theodor Herzl.
In 1943, the United States link between Zionism and a Jewish State in the British mandate of Palestine was established by Abba Hillel Silver, a rabbi from Cleveland, Ohio, who organized the American Zionist Emergency Council to coordinate support among American Jews for the establishment of a “Jewish State” in the British mandate of Palestine[6]. The Jewish Agency for Israel, a Jerusalem-based, non-governmental organization established in 1929 (the “Jewish Agency”)[7] which served as the executive arm of the World Zionist Organization was an essential intermediary in the formation and management of the American Zionist Emergency Council. The latter was heavily funded throughout the 1950s and early 1960s by the Jewish Agency (specifically by its American Section), laundering money received from Israel and from wealthy Zionists to influence United States policy. In 1949, Rabi Silver’s organization was renamed the American Zionist Council. However, AIPAC itself was formed in 1953, originally as the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs by Isaiah Leo Kenen. Mr. Kenan, a Canadian-born journalist and lawyer, was an interesting fellow and self-described philanthropist (although perhaps more a beneficiary of Zionist philanthropy). He had initially been involved in lobbying both the United States Congress and the United Nations on behalf of the Jewish Agency in Palestine seeking implementation of the Balfour Declaration and, once Israel was established, he briefly joined the Israeli delegation to the United Nations.
In the fall of 1948, Arthur Liverhant, second secretary of the Israeli mission to the United Nations, initiated correspondence with the United States Department of Justice concerning registration of formal Israeli “information” offices in Washington, D.C., and New York City and on October 10th of that year they were registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (the “FAR Act”) when Mr. Liverhant submitted the required forms to the Department of Justice. Rita Grossman, Bernard Zamichow, Isaiah Kenen, Harvey Rosenhouse and Harry Zinder were listed as its officers and Mr. Kenen was listed as the Director of Information at the New York office. In his related personal foreign agent disclosure application Mr. Kenan wrote “none” in response to the section requiring disclosure of all connections with foreign officials although in his biographies he noted the existence of working relations with many Israeli officials during the relevant period, including Abba Eban and David Ben-Gurion. The Justice Department found a number of deficiencies in the form submitted by Mr. Kenan and required him to file supplemental information. However, although he visited Congress to lobby for arms and aid to Israel during January of 1950, Mr. Kenen chose not to disclose such lobbying.
At the suggestion of the Israeli government Mr. Kenan almost immediately began seeking a means to circumvent the foreign agent registration requirements and the related oversight as they applied to him thus, on February 13, 1951, he advised the Justice Department that he was resigning from the Israel Office of Information, asserting that he had “severed” his relations with the Israel government and requesting that his name be removed from Israel’s FAR Act registration. In furtherance of the foregoing, he advised the Justice Department that he was starting his own independent consulting firm and admitted that the government of Israel would probably be his first client. In fact, his consulting firm was entirely funded by the new State of Israel and he continued reporting directly to diverse Israeli agencies including the foreign office and the recently organized Mossad[8]. In furtherance of his request to be relieved of reporting obligations under the FAR Act, Mr. Kenan advised the FAR Act section of the Justice Department that in his new roles, although he might travel to Israel and received compensation from Israel, the FAR Act should not be deemed applicable to him or to the American Zionist Council; however, he omitted very relevant related facts such as the fact that he was still conducting tours and engaging in lobbying initiatives on behalf of the Israeli government, for example, with visiting Senator Jacob Javits and with Congressmen Ribicoff, Fugate, Keating, O’Toole, Barrett and Fein. Furthermore, while he claimed that his employment at the American Zionist Council had “expired” before his Israel visits, the interruption, if it occurred, was brief as he immediately returned to his lobbying role with that organization (assuming he had ever left it), a role represented as uninterrupted in his biographies.
The FAR Act section of the Justice Department initially bought into Mr. Kenan’s inaccurate representations concluding that because, according to his affirmations, during his trip to Israel he had not published or transmitted any documents or propaganda material to the United States, neither he nor the American Zionist Organization was acting within the United States as an agent of a foreign principal. However, shortly thereafter, the Federal Bureau of Investigation received copies of Israel Office of Information literature circulating without required foreign agents’ disclosure stamps and initiated a related investigation which, a decade later, during the administration of John F. Kennedy, resulted in a contentious relationship. As a result of such investigation, the Senate initiated hearings.
During the pendency of the Senate hearings, Mr. Kenan and the State of Israel became worried that he would be investigated by the State Department for not registering as a foreign agent and, because of such concerns and in reaction to international criticism of the October 1953 Qibya massacre in which Israeli troops under Ariel Sharon killed at least 69 Palestinian villagers, two-thirds of them women and children[9], it was decided by Israel that the lobbying efforts of the American Zionist Council should be separated into a separate organization with separate finances and Mr. Kenan, with Israeli and Zionist funding, formed such separate entity. One that, not being tax exempt, was believed by the Israeli government to be empowered to engage in unsupervised lobbying on its behalf. The entity formed was the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs which was renamed the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in 1959.
On October, 31, 1962, almost a decade after the United States Senate first began to investigate the issue of Israeli influence over United States foreign and domestic policy, assistant attorney general and director of the Justice Department’s internal security division, J. Walter Yeagley, notified then attorney general Robert F. Kennedy that registration of the American Zionist Council under the FAR Act was indeed required and had in fact been solicited. Mr. Yeagley, described the American Zionist Council as comprised “of representatives of the various Zionist organizations in the United States, including the Zionist Organization of America”, and for some reason, he did not believe that such interpretation would be controversial based on prior discussions between the longtime head of the FAR Act registration section, Nathan B. Lenvin, with both Mr. Kenan and Jewish Agency representative Maurice M. Boukstein. During such discussions Mr. Lenvin had made it clear that, in his view, the activities of both groups appeared to involve an agency relationship with the State of Israel that required registration. Based on such determinations, on November 11, 1962, the Justice Department “requested” that the American Zionist Council register under the FAR Act because it had received funds from the American Section of the Jewish Agency for Israel. However, to Mr. Lenvin’s surprise, the American Zionist Council declined to honor the “request”. Instead, the American Zionist Council’s president, Rabbi Irving Miller, insisting that the “request” for registration raised “many questions of fact and of relationships which should be resolved” prior to compliance and requested an extension of 120 days and such request was granted.
During those 120 days the American Zionist Council’s legal counsel, well known former federal district court judge Simon H. Rifkind, advised his client to completely discontinue the agency relationship with Israel and to cut off the receipt of any additional funds and Judge Rifkind informed Mr. Lenvin that he had so advised his client. However, when informed of the foregoing, Mr. Lenvin pointed out that the termination of such activities would not absolve the American Zionist Council of its obligation to register at which point the American Zionist Council initiated a public relations campaign in the media and in communications with its supporters insisting that the American Zionist Council’s attorneys firmly believed that the law was on its side and that registration under the FAR Act was not appropriate. The Justice Department rejected that position on April 1, 1963 with Mr. Lenvin insisting that litigation should be initiated should the American Zionist Council not comply.
Judge Rifkind, a very well-connected jurist active in political affairs, then complained to a number of his political and media contacts asserting that the vast number of Jews who adhered to the principles of Zionism could not understand how “our administration’ [the United States government] could do such harm to the Zionist movement and impair the effectiveness of the Council by insistence on registration” and Judge Rifkind appealed to Justice Department demanding that it exercise its discretionary power to waive such requirements in the interest of justice. At that point Judge Rifkind found an ally in the Justice Department, assistant attorney general Nicholas Katzenbach (subsequently to serve as attorney general under the more Zionist friendly Lyndon Baines Johnson) who intervened, suggesting that, as a compromise, the American Zionist Council might offer to make full disclosure of the receipt and expenditure of the funds it had received from the Jewish Agency so that such information would be available for public inspection, thus accomplishing “the purposes and objectives of the Registration Act” and eliminating the need for further government action. The stalemate continued until the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, when a more friendly administration apparently concurred with Mr. Katzenbach’s suggestion and thus AIPAC’s began its unprecedented rise to political power.
With massive funding from wealthy Zionists and “discreet” funding directly by Israel, AIPAC quickly grew into an extremely powerful group and, after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 (and thereafter of Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, both of whom had been thorns in the side of the Zionist project to attain nuclear arms for Israel[10]), Zionists acting on behalf of the Israeli government became legally permitted to circumvent restrictions on foreign funding of United States political campaigns so that, eventually, AIPAC became the largest funder of Congressional and presidential campaigns for both the Republican and Democratic parties but, adding a stick to the carrot, it also became actively involved in recruiting and funding candidates to replace office holders who refused to support AIPAC’s “Israel First” policies[11]. AIPAC also became active in a similar manner at the state and even local levels.
Observations:
Based on AIPAC’s efforts, during the period since the administration of pro-Israeli president Lyndon Baines Johnson until October 7, 2023, Israel had received more than 300 billion dollars in direct United States government aid (in inflation adjusted current dollars)[12], a small fraction of what it had cost AIPAC to finance both major parties at all levels. But, as importantly, in addition to the foregoing, Israel and AIPAC apparently coordinated (and coordinate) activity among the wealthiest Zionists in the United States and elsewhere[13] facilitating their accumulation of massive wealth, a portion of which is donated to AIPAC and more directly to Israel. Zionist activists similar to AIPAC operate in the United Kingdom where they succeeded in dislodging Labour leader Jeremy Corbin from political contention and replaced him with current Zionist Prime Minister Keir Starmer and, in France, they secured the election of Rothschild pupil Emmanuel Macron as president. In Argentina, Zionists recently secured the replacement of Peronism with Zionist Javier Milei and in Colombia Zionists are currently backing right wing presidential contender Paloma Valencia as well as her right wing rival Abelardo de la Espriella. Indeed, Zionists operatives have been funding and advising (more accurately, perhaps, controlling) political leaders and movements all over Europe and Latin America, as well as in the Pacific Basin for decades. The metaphorical thirty pieces of silver have indeed gone a long way.[14]
That for three quarters of a century Israel has engaged in genocide and ethnic cleansing in Palestine has, in large part, been facilitated by AIPAC which not only finances Israeli interests but shields it from criticism in the United States and Europe through Zionist controlled media, as well as from legal consequences through its impact on the United States political and judicial system. That is also true in the United Kingdom and Australia as well as throughout the European Union. The efforts of AIPAC, as recent disclosure seems to imply, appear to have been massively supplemented by illicit activities undertaken by “sort of financier”, Jeffery Epstein who, apparently on behalf of the Israeli Mossad, exerted massive control over financial and political leaders all over the world through blackmail “honey pot” activities (and much worse).
Of course, those who accept AIPAC funding in exchange for their votes and for their performance or non-performance of political, administrative, civic and journalistic duties are at least as much to blame as the secretive membership and leadership[15] of AIPAC, probably more so, and voters who permit themselves to be duped, election after election, are to blame as well. Indeed, it is amazing that so many current and retired members of the United States armed forces as well as fundamentalist Christians whose religion is despised by Zionists, including many people for whom the author cares and who he admires, have become enthralled with supporting AIPAC causes and see no problem with their preferred candidates accepting AIPAC’s tainted political contributions. To them, for some reason, notwithstanding their United States citizenship and in many cases, solemn oaths to uphold and defend the United States Constitution, Israel comes first. Something then Senator Barack Obama once expressed publicly and which many United States politicians, elected and appointed officials and members of the armed forces have also expressed. Consider Senator Lindsay Graham for example, and even presidents Biden and Trump. Thus, today, as noted above, the metaphorical thirty pieces of silver have gone a long, long way towards attaining the Zionist dream of regional conquest of the Middle East and indirect domination of many major worldwide centers of political, economic and cultural power (as antisemites long claimed Jews would), albeit at United States’ taxpayers expense. Such generalized attribution to Jews is, however, patently unfair. Many, many Jews absolutely reject Zionism and certainly not all Zionists are Jews. Indeed, it may well be that Christian Zionists in the United States vastly outnumber their Jewish counterparts: an irony given that after Israel has gone after and murdered hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the Middle East, Israelis are now attacking Christians there as well.[16]
Conclusions:
There was a time when accepting what amount to bribes from foreign powers in exchange for an elected or appointed public officials’ loyalty was considered treason. Not so today. And that is not only true in the United States. Ironically perhaps, the bribes are largely United States’ tax payer funded. Under the second Trump administration, much of the veil that concealed AIPAC and Israeli activities and goals has been cast aside and their activities are much more brazen with concepts such as international law and crimes against humanity openly mocked as irrelevancies. Power in its most naked form has been unmasked as the only basis for political decisions and impunity is now openly praised. A world in chaos is seen as opportunity laden and is openly pursued. Idealism has become a quaint anachronism at best. If the foregoing seems a drastic change, it isn’t, it’s business as usual only now, a bit more openly acknowledged and accepted. The need for subtlety and subterfuge now seemingly unnecessary, corruption has now become not only omnipresent but admired.
In light of the foregoing, the alleged treason of Judas Iscariot now seems almost petty.[17] For well over half a century the government of the United States has not represented its citizenry. Indeed, way too many of its elected representatives derive more income from AIPAC, albeit denominated as political contributions, than they are paid by the United States directly for their services, and a great many have become millionaires. Key figures include former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senators Rick Scott and Mark Warner, all staunch Israeli supporters. AIPAC not only has an improper and undue influence over the government but its allies also control the military industrial complex President Dwight David Eisenhower urged us to be wary of in his farewell address and investors in that industry derive huge fortunes at the expense of future generations of United States citizens who are now burdened with over thirty eight trillion dollars in debt even though they are yet to be born. And Israel has corrupted the moral fiber to which the United States once aspired. Now, along with Israel, the United States promotes genocide and ethnic cleansing; indeed, it finances it. And like Israel, under current president Donald J. Trump, the United States now asserts that international law is meaningless, that only power matters.
The author recently published reflections on a film released in 1984 entitled “Red Dawn”, a film released when the United States still considered itself the champion of the oppressed rather than of the oppressors[18]. That is clearly no longer the case. But the irony lies in the reality that instead of having been conquered by a rival super power, the United States has been conquered from within, by United States citizens whose loyalties are elsewhere. In the case of Zionists, Israel is where their hearts are and they are less to blame for where the United States now finds itself than are those who, believing themselves patriotic Americans and believing themselves devout Christians, have permitted themselves to be deluded by those with other values, other loyalties and other aspirations. Others who perceive of themselves as racially superior and more beloved in the eyes of the Abrahamic god and thus, entitled to hegemonic rule over those who are genetically, racially and religiously impure. Those deluded souls deserve what they will eventually receive but billions of others do not.
During the 1960’s, especially while I was a cadet at the Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina, I was drawn to the David versus Goliath version of Zionism I’d been taught but as I became more intellectually independent, especially while I was completing a post legal degree in International Legal Studies at the Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law, I became aware that I had been profoundly deceived about the nature of Zionism, and about the nature of Palestinians and Palestine and Iran, and about the history I had been teaching for almost a decade. That has, of course, been made obvious during the tenure of Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister of Israel, as Israel has infected the United States with its disdain for human rights and international law, and as the vast majority of the citizens of Israel have amazingly become avid supporters of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Thus, I am now and have been for several decades, an avowed opponent of Zionism and of AIPAC, as this essay makes palpable. Thus, like current Colombian president Gustavo Francisco Petro Urrego with whom I’ve had the opportunity to personally interact and who, despite his tendency to become pugnacious in defense of the values he holds dear, I greatly admire[19], I oppose all forms of racial, ethnic and religious supremacist theories profoundly believing that all men and women are born equally and are entitled to the opportunity to attain their highest potential while respecting the rights of others. It is in that spirit that I wrote this essay.
Conflicts of interest are unavoidable. They are a fact of life. But they must be resolved and resolution requires a prioritization of loyalties. It’s something I understand because like all members of AIPAC and its Jewish Zionist supporters, I have dual nationality. In my case, I’m a citizen of both the United States and the Republic of Colombia and although I spent the vast majority of my life in the United States where I graduated from the Eastern Military Academy and then from the Citadel; and then from the St. John’s University School of Law, the Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law, and the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies, I have spent the last eighteen years in the Republic of Colombia where I chaired the Political Science, Government and International programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales and also taught in a master’s program dealing with Social Justice and the Quest for Peace at the Universidad de Caldas. I love both countries profoundly but I have vehemently opposed United States aid to Colombia (e.g., Plan Colombia) because I felt the citizens of both countries should, as George Washington suggested in his farewell address[20], stand on their own metaphorical two feet. I would never urge that United States taxpayers subsidize Colombia and certainly never suggest that United States tax payers should place the interests of Colombia over those of the United States[21]. And visa versa. Unfortunately, that is not what has occurred with respect to those whose loyalties are split between Israel and the United States. Were I Jewish and a dual citizen of Israel and the United States I would hope that my attitude would be the same but, … who can tell. But were I a United States public official my priorities would be clear, as they would be were I a Colombian public official, or an Israeli public official, which may explain why I have always avoided public office or government employment. Indeed, the phenomenon of public officials elected or appointed to protect the interests of their county accepting payments or contributions or assistance from other countries as an inducement to implement policies favorable to the “benefactor” is hardly rare and is the cornerstone of the foreign policy of many “developed countries” including the United States, the United Kingdom, all Western European countries, the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China. In each case, however, the recipient is betraying the public trust of the citizens of the country he or she purports to represent. The AIPAC/Israeli situation is primarily different in that such “contributions” are purportedly made by United States citizens and institutions seeking to divert resources from their fellow citizens to favor a foreign government and its expansionist ambitions.
This was not a pleasant essay to write. The ugly specter of antisemitism which has existed for two millennia is now used by Zionists as a sword rather than as a shield and Zionists seemingly have no problem with endangering their fellow Jews, as long as their activities provide Israel with a fulcrum it can use to attain wealth and power, especially power. But this essay is important. Truth is important. And anyone who perceives the situation I have posited in the manner which I interpret it owes it to his fellow citizens and to non-Zionist Jews, and to the people all over the world who are being oppressed and murdered by the millions, to make their opinions known.
Silence ought not to be an option despite the certainty of unfounded reprisals and calumnies.
_____
© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2026; all rights reserved. Please feel free to share with appropriate attribution.
Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet and aspiring empirical philosopher) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. Previously, he chaired the social studies and foreign language departments at the Eastern Military Academy in Huntington, New York. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review available at Substack.com; an intermittent commentator on radio and television; and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications. He has academic degrees in political science (BA, The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina), law (JD, St. John’s University, School of Law), international legal studies (LL.M, the Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law) and translation and linguistic studies (GCTS, the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta, cosmology and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.
[1] The figure of Judas is very controversial and subject to drastically differing interpretations. To some he was indeed a betrayer while to others he was a misguided Hebrew patriot and to still others, for example as described in the different versions of the Toledot Yeshu, a hero. For the version described in the Toledot Yeshu, see Calvo Mahé, Guillermo (2024): “The Life of Yešu According to Diverse Jewish Sources” available at https://guillermocalvo.com/2024/10/09/the-life-of-yesu-according-to-diverse-jewish-sources/. Interestingly, in that Jewish version, Yešu is acknowledged as fully capable of performing miracles and the Jerusalem Sanhedrin, with the miraculous help of Judas, is credited with his capture, torture and execution (contrary to the information in the Christian gospels which split the blame between the Sanhedrin and the Roman Procurator, Pontius Pilate).
[2] It’s commonly referred to as Potter’s Field because it had previously been a place where potters dug for clay, making it less suitable for other uses.
[3] That the word “purported” seems omnipresent in this essay is a reflection of how impossible it has become to discern “truth”, or perhaps, better yet, of how impossible it has always been to discern “truth”.
[4] The analogy should not offend Zionist Jews given that to them, or to many of them (as evidenced in the Toledot Yeshu referenced above), Judas was a major hero who helped the Sanhedrin capture and execute Yešu and the United States politicians who accept AIPAC’s financial support are heroes to them as well. Zionist Christians however may feel differently.
[5] As always it is essential to recognize that Judaism and Zionism are not synonymous and that many Jews are in the vanguard of opposition to the activities of AIPAC and to Israeli atrocities in the Middle East and elsewhere. Indeed, the claims of AIPAC, Zionism and Israel to act in the name of all Jews may well be the greatest source of increasing antisemitism. See, e.g., Jewish Voice for Peace: “Our Approach to Zionism” available at https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/resource/zionism/.
[6] Palestine was a part of the Ottoman Empire conquered as a result of the First World War and promised by British Lord Balfour to Zionist Lionel Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild, provided that Zionists could induce the United States to enter what has become known as World War I against the German Empire, notwithstanding that most Jews worldwide were sympathetic to Germany which was the European country that had been least antagonistic to Jews. For a brief synopsis of the foregoing, readers may want to access and read Calvo Mahé (2024): “Zionists and the Holocaust: The One with a Capital H as Well as the One Taking Place Today, a disturbing reflection” available at https://guillermocalvo.com/2024/04/30/zionists-and-the-holocaust/.
[7] The Jewish Agency had been heavily involved in Jewish immigration into Palestine and in integrating immigrants into first the British Palestinian Mandate and then the State of Israel. It played a critical role in establishing the state, acting as a “state-in-waiting” before 1948.
[8] A brief related article was published in the New York Times on February 29, 1952 (leap day) entitled “I. L. Kenen in Zionist Unit Post” (available at https://www.nytimes.com/1952/02/29/archives/i-l-kenen-in-zionist-unit-post.html). Mr. Kenan was identified in the article as the former director of information for the Jewish Agency in Palestine. However, at the time it was published he had already been retained by the American Zionist Council (which had become the public relations arm of Zionist groups throughout the United States) as its representative in Washington, D.C.
[9] As well as concerned that the Eisenhower administration suspected the American Zionist Council of being funded by the Israeli government.
[10] There have recently been allegations, purportedly based on numerous FBI files and materials produced with respect to criminal activities by the late Jeffrey Epstein (allegedly a Mossad asset) that because of President’s Kennedy’s antipathy towards Israeli interests, including matters involving AIPAC but also involving Israel’s quest for nuclear weapons, Israel was involved in the president’s assassination on November 22, 1963 but such allegations remain unproven and, apparently, uninvestigated, indeed, they have been vigorously contested by Israeli sympathizers who describe them as crazy conspiracy theories. See generally Piper, M. C. (2004). Final judgment: The missing link in the JFK assassination conspiracy. American free Press, Washington, DC.
[11] Of the 535 current members of Congress, only 18 are declining to accept AIPAC financial support: Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush, Pramila Jayapal, Summer Lee, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Mark Pocan, Ayanna Pressley, Delia Ramirez, Rashida Tlaib, Nydia Velázquez, Bernie Sanders, Seth Moulton, Morgan McGarvey, Deborah, Valerie Foushee, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie and Matt Gaetz. Some of them, however, have only recently repudiated AIPAC financial support, having benefitted from it in the past.
[12] After October 7, 2023, Israel has received massive direct United States funding and weaponry and the United States has directly spent multiples of its prior generosity towards Israel in support of Israeli genocide and ethnic cleansing in Palestine (Gaza and the West Bank, Syria, Lebanon and most recently, Iran).
[13] As of 2024, 50 Israeli billionaires alone had a combined wealth of approximately 250 billion dollars and the wealth of American Zionist billionaires exceeded 1.3 trillion dollars.
[14] See generally Mearsheimer, John and Walt, Stephen (2006): “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy“. London Review of Books Vol. 28, No. 6 (March 23, 2006), available at http://www.lrb.co.uk.
[15] AIPAC does not typically publish a public list of its board members, but reports indicate it is governed by approximately 50 people, including 41 board members and 9 senior executives who direct operations but it claims that it has five million members, 17 regional offices, and “a vast pool of donors”.
[16] See “Discrimination & Hate Crimes Against Christian Palestinians in the Holy Land”, Institute for Middle East Understanding, December 24, 2015 available at https://imeu.org/resources/resources/discrimination-hate-crimes-against-christian-palestinians-in-the-holy-land/155.
[17] A final but very important note. Antisemitism is and always has been a vile belief system and this essay should in no sense be deemed as supporting of generalized hatred towards Jews, whether as a religion, a nationality, an ethnicity or as a belief system. The author has tried to make this clear throughout this essay but is aware that antisemites may try to use the information contained herein to bolster their antisemitic allegations, and that conversely, Zionists, seeking to equate opposition to Israel and AIPAC with antisemitism, will accuse the author, as they do any critics of Israeli policies, of antisemitism. Nothing could be less accurate as both interpretations are equally vile and equally unjustified. There are worlds of differences between opposition to Zionist depredations and hatred of Jews in general, and nothing increases the danger of antisemitism today more than Zionist attempts to equate Zionism with Judaism, as many Jews, religious as well as agnostic and even atheist regularly make clear through massive protests against Zionism.
[18] See Calvo Mahé (2026): “Irony by the Dawn’s Early Light”; The Inannite Review, Substack, March 29, 2026 available at https://open.substack.com/pub/guillermocalvomah/p/irony-by-the-dawns-early-light?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=lwzkv.
[19] See, e.g., Speech by Colombian President Gustavo Petro at the 79th UN General Assembly, New York, September 24, 2024 available at https://progressive.international/wire/2024-09-25-discurso-del-presidente-gustavo-petro-en-la-79-asamblea-general-de-la-onu/en/.
[20] Washington, George; Hamilton, Alexander and Madison, James (1796): “Farewell Address to the People of the United States”; David Claypole’s American Daily Advertiser, September 19, 1796, available at https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1074&context=etas.
[21] Unfortunately, in the Republic of Colombia as in the United States, there are politicians and voters only too willing to embrace an Israel uber alles stance, especially on the right side of the political spectrum. Two of the current leading presidential candidates for this May’s elections, Senator Paloma Valencia and Mr. Abelardo de la Espriella, have embraced Israel, as did their political mentor, former president Alvaro Uribe Velez who accepted Israeli help while governor of the Department of Antioquia and then as president in the training and financing of paramilitary death squads during the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.
Guillermo Calvo Mahé 