Free Beacon Continues To Expose More State Department Efforts To Interfere In Israeli Elections

Kudos to Alana Goodman and the Washington Free Beacon for continuing to expose the extent to which the President of the United States is attempting to interfere in the domestic affairs of another democracy, one that is supposedly an ally.

Two weeks ago it was widely reported that the US State Department had funded OneVoice, which is working with the V15 group in their anti-Netanyahu campaign. Last week the Free Beacon reported that the US tax-exempt group Ameinu was funding and working with the Israeli group Givat Haviva to target “Get Out The Vote” efforts, including driving people to the polls, specifically in demographics that typically vote for liberal parties, and that former Obama campaign operatives are involved.

Yesterday, the same paper reported that members of Givat Haviva met with US embassy officials, including the deputy mission chief, the CIA station chief, and the cultural attaché at the embassy in Tel Aviv, on January 29 of this year. Moreover,

The State Department helped the nonprofit group Givat Haviva secure last-minute visas for a delegation of Arab-Israeli mayors, which is in the United States this week meeting with civic leaders and attending discussions on voter outreach and community organizing. The delegation arrived on Feb. 4 and is in Washington, D.C., through Wednesday.

netanyahu obama
Frenemies

I said previously that the notion that such widespread efforts are being undertaken without President Obama’s knowledge and blessing is just not plausible. It is now clear that the US State Department, appallingly, is directly involved with Givat Haviva, giving its members preferential treatment to obtain visas to come to the US so that they may better learn their trade.

What is most surreal about this whole episode is the way that the same mainstream press that has been going on endlessly, histrionically, about a manufactured story about a perceived breach of protocol is pretty much ignoring Obama’s interference in another country’s democratic process. The scene is beginning to look like “Wag The Dog, The Sequel,” with the press attempting to keep the public’s focus on an invented issue, while ignoring a true government abuse of power.

20 thoughts on “Free Beacon Continues To Expose More State Department Efforts To Interfere In Israeli Elections”

  1. As noted in your link above, not only is the outrage made up, but the whole thing is based on a lie. THE WHITE HOUSE WAS INFORMED BEFORE NETANYAHU ACCEPTED. I don’t expect the Israeli media to point this out; they are Obama’s biggest cheerleader and probably responsible for a lot of the bad press Israel gets internationally.

    Here, again the New York Times conceding the lie:

    http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/breaking-nyt-admits-obama-deliberately-manufactured-netanyahu-spat/

    h/t Vitreous Slag on YouTube.

    1. Norman_In_New_York

      Or the Arab lobby, for that matter. Who do you think funds the foundations of former presidents or finances their libraries (with promises of more to come), or for that matter, endows universities that push BDS resolutions? And how do you explain Obama’s coziness with the Muslim Brotherhood?

      1. ahad_ha_amoratsim

        The Arab lobby is funded largely by Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Iran also funds a large lobby. Israel does not fund AIPAC and does not direct AIPAC, except in the minds of Jew-haters, anti-Zionists and ignorami.

      2. You’re missing the point. The finger is being pointed at the US gvt. interfering with elections in a foreign country. I see however, there is no mention of that same foreign country meddling in US politics. I just listed one organization. Now another is threatening to publicly condemn democrats who skip out on Israel’s PM’s speech. It’s not about who’s directing or funding a group, it’s about on which entity’s behalf that group is working for.

        1. No. AIPAC is made up of Americans who are exercising their constitutionally protected right to lobby their government. It isn’t made up of Israelis and it isn’t funded by Israel. It also does not attempt to sway American elections to one party or the other but works very hard — even at difficult times like one — to remain non-partisan. Their policy conference is next month, why don’t you go find out for yourself.

        2. Oh, my. A nice portion of New York City is very concentrated on Ireland. In Maryland alone, Sen. Sarbanes was the Senator from Athens, and Cong. Helen Bently was Mrs. Serbia. To be fair, AIPAC, as opposed to other organizations, follows Isaeli policy. But there is nothing foreign or official about it.

          The finger is NOT being pointed at the US government for meddling with Israel; the US government does that 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, which is why it doesn’t matter who the PM is. The finger is being pointed at Obama as a lying hypocrite.

    2. To my knowledge, AIPAC does not take public funds to do the advocacy work they do, whereas One Voice and V15 have been accused of taking American federal funds and engaging in partisan activities in the run-up to the March 17th Israeli elections. Most critics of AIPAC are unhappy because they are so effective, not that they are doing anything illegal. Critics of One Voice and V15 need to make their case in a court of law instead of making allegations of illegality in the press. Put up or shut up.

        1. Even if these “anyone but bibi” groups are operating within Israeli and American law, I am completely opposed to activities of the Obama Administration in medding in the Israel election. Just because Bibi made Romney his BFF in our last presidential election cycle doesn’t justify Obama participating in get-out-the-vote efforts of population centers unlikely to vote for Likud.

          1. As I recall, the entire continent of Europe made Obama its BFF six years ago, before the elections. But Obama has been pretty much outright electioneering for Labor. Given the current mix of parties, the likely result will be that Bibi will be PM, but be too weak to make any concessions that Obama would like. In other words, it will backfire – assuming Obama is not just acting out of spite, which is quite likely.

            1. I don’t see Obama’s end-game either. In two years Bibi will be some other American president’s problem, anyway. As much as I don’t like Bibi, I like Naftali Bennett even less, so I’m hoping however the election shakes out it puts Bennett in a position with little or no political influence to shape Israeli policy in the West Bank.

      1. I’ll give you my appreciation for that one. The only reason AIPAC became so big was that the Left attacked it, and thus Israel’s friends found out it existed and sent it money. Before that, hardly anyone had heard of it.

    3. ahad_ha_amoratsim

      AIPAC is a group of American citizens, funded by American citizens and run by American citizens. Your complaint seems to be that Americans who are not Jew-haters are daring to participate in the American political process. The nerve of those people!

    4. AIPAC is supported by American citizens. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia, et. al. pour money into the US, buying off academia and radicalizing Islam.

  2. Norman_In_New_York

    Meanwhile, Tel Aviv-based investigative reporter Aaron Klein uncovered yet another State Department NGO proxy, the Abraham Fund, whose mission is to get out the Arab vote, including those not necessarily receptive to what Israel is all about.

  3. I hope that the Israeli people know about this and vote accordingly (i.e., for Likud). I’ve always said that Nixon had nothing on Obama, but this fabricated outrage about Bibi’s speech to Congress is as much “dirty tricks” as much as anything that happened in Watergate.

    Obama does not have your best interests at heart, my cousins. this admin can’t even bring themselves to admit that Jews were targeted in the Paris deli shooting: http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2015/02/10/state-department-acknowledge-jews-targeted-paris-attack/

    when Obama and his clique say “vote for Herzog,” you know to vote for anyone BUT Herzog.

    1. Nixon had nothing on the Clintons. On the other hand, the Clintons made darn sure they had “something” on anyone who might oppose them. Much like Obama, come to thik of it – you know how he became Senator?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top