Antifa Is Mostly Made Up Of Privileged White Dudes

Antifa Is Mostly Made Up Of Privileged White Dudes

Antifa Is Mostly Made Up Of Privileged White Dudes

Many in the media treat Antifa as a diverse group of warriors against fascism and racism. This is an absolute fabrication.

At Occupy Wall Street, there were two very distinct groups. On one side of the park were the peaceful intellectuals. They ran the library and the general assembly, and organized services in the park. On the other side was the black bloc, a collection of black-clad punks, often with bandanas ready to serve as masks, who mostly engaged in drug use and drum circles. The latter group is directly related to the movement we now know as Antifa.

One thing that both of these groups had—and continue to have—in common is that they are mostly young white people. This is not surprising; poll after poll shows us that the vast majority of far-left progressives are white. The intellectuals at Occupy understood and tried to address this, giving special treatment to the speech and ideas of their small cadre of non-white participants. The Black Bloc and Antifa take a different approach; they just cover their faces.

But when members of Antifa are arrested, the masks come off. And, as recent mugshots of Portland Antifa members show, these people are about as diverse as the Washington Generals.

At a time when many on the left are rightfully concerned about far-right white violence, why do so many seemed so nonplussed by far-left white violence, in most cases even refusing to acknowledge that that’s exactly what Antifa is?

One sociologist writing in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz attempts to prove fanciful claims that Antifa is a rainbow coalition of the oppressed desperately fighting in their own immediate self defense. Stanislav Vustotsky writes:

“Many militant anti-fascists become involved in this form of activism because aspects of their identity are directly targeted by fascist violence; they are queer, transgender, gender non-conforming, people of color, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, and certainly identified in ways that intersected across these categories.

For them, anti-fascism was a means of ensuring their safety from a movement that threatens their very existence and venerates violence as the highest form of action. Even the Antifa activists who identify as cis heterosexual white males are the targets of fascist violence as ‘race’ and ‘gender’ traitors.”

Vusotsky claims to have formally studied Antifa—interviewing them, attending meetings, and “engaging in the culture of anti fascism.” Needless to say he doesn’t exactly come off as a neutral party to all this. But what is stunning is what is not in his piece. He claims to have conducted “ethnographic research,” on the group. If so, where are the numbers that back up his assertion that Antifa is wildly diverse?

Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Antifa has seen videos of their violent antics and can see for himself or herself that almost all of them are white dudes. Anyone who has ever been in their presence knows this too. I would be very interested to see this ethnographic research, and I am curious if Haaretz looked at it before publishing the author’s bizarre claim. It strains credulity to believe that if Vusotsky had hard numbers to back up his assertion he would have simply left them out of his article.

The reason this point is so important is that it betrays a double standard that many in our media use regarding violent white activists. On the right, their whiteness is front and center; part of the toxic brew that stews their hate. But this is equally true of Antifa, which has its roots in the far left of the English punk scene in the 1980s.

Antifa’s goals are not those of most non-white Americans. Most non-white Americans don’t want to destroy the systems of government, abolish the police, end capitalism, or cripple corporations. The group is absolutely trying to impose a style of anarchy that is steeped in (and almost unique to) whiteness.

When cowards wear masks to engage in violence, we must remove the masks to see who we are actually dealing with—not the fairy tale of diversity version. When Andy Ngo, a minority gay man, is mercilessly beaten up by white activists, the fact that the activists are white is a big part of the story in today’s landscape. Don’t believe the progressive narrative: Antifa is mostly a bunch of privileged white dudes.


David Marcus is the Federalist’s New York Correspondent. Follow him on Twitter, @BlueBoxDave.

Antifa Members Have Repeatedly Attacked Journalists Who Cover Them

Andy Ngo, a Portland-based journalist, is seen covered in unknown substance after unidentified Rose City Antifa members attacked him on June 29, 2019 in Portland, Oregon. (Moriah Ratner/Getty Images)

Members of the violent left-wing movement Antifa have repeatedly harassed and attacked members of the media who cover them.

Masked individuals at an Antifa rally Saturday violently attacked Portland journalist Andy Ngo, sending him to the hospital.

While some members of the national media — including CNN hosts Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo — have been sympathetic toward Antifa in the past, that hasn’t kept Antifa members from attacking the journalists actually covering them on the ground.

The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, a collaboration led by the Freedom of the Press Foundation and the Committee to Protect Journalists, includes numerous instances of “anti-fascist” agitators harassing and assaulting journalists since Trump took office.

Protesters at an Antifa rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, harassed and attacked an NBC crew in August 2018. NBC reporter Cal Perry tweeted out a video of the attack.


The same day of Perry’s attack, Antifa members in the nation’s capital harassed reporters at another rally.

Antifa members in Berkeley, California, attacked a local news reporter in August 2017, according to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.

Journalist Mike Kessler described watching Antifa members attack another photographer at the same Berkeley rally.

“What I saw was a photographer — a white guy, thirty-something, pink shorts, black tee-shirt; media affiliation, if any, still unknown — taking blows to the head and body while cradling his camera like a football recovered post-fumble. Evidently, he’d captured something the antifas didn’t want him to document. They wanted to destroy the evidence, and he wasn’t going to hand it over,” Kessler wrote in an essay for The New Republic.

The black-masked agitators later took Kessler’s camera and smashed it on the ground to keep him from documenting their actions.

That same month, August 2017, an Antifa member struck a Richmond photojournalist in the head with a blunt object, forcing the camera man to get stitches at the hospital. (RELATED: A Mob Showed Up At Tucker Carlson’s House And Ordered Him To ‘Leave Town’)


Chicago Sun Times reporter Sam Charles was attacked by left-wing agitators protesting President Donald Trump’s inauguration in January 2017.

Charles posted the video to Twitter, adding: “I just got punched in the chest for recording a masked woman tagging a bus stop on Michigan Ave.”

Charles told the Freedom of the Press Foundation the masked woman was spray-painting “Die Fascist Scum” on a bus stop.


5 years later, tributes for Autumn Pasquale continue as killer’s family faces new charges

By Matt Gray | For

Autumn Pasquale would have been a high school senior this year. The Clayton 12-year-old was strangled to death in October 2012 and her body left in a recycling container.

Autumn’s death shook her hometown, prompted several lawsuits and inspired proposed legislation.

Her case has resurfaced in recent months after one of those involved in her death was charged in a home invasion and the house where she was killed became the target of a drug raid.

Autumn’s father, Anthony, took to Facebook at the start of this school year to reflect on his daughter’s legacy and wonder about the experiences she would have had in her senior year of high school.

Between the fifth anniversary of her death and her birthday a week later, October is always an especially difficult month for the entire family.

“I know it’s coming and I can’t stop thinking about it,” Anthony Pasquale said in October. “I can’t believe it’s been five years.”

Police remove Autumn Pasquale’s bicycle from the East Clayton Avenue home where she was strangled to death in October 2012. (Tim Hawk | For

All for a bike

Autumn was reported missing on Saturday, Oct. 20, 2012. Her disappearance prompted a community-wide search effort.

Just hours after a community vigil was held to pray for her safe return, Autumn’s body was found in a blue recycling container on the morning of Tuesday, Oct. 23.

Later that day, Justin and Dante Robinson were charged with killing Autumn. Her bike was found in the Robinson home and the recycling container that held her body was left by the curb at the house next door.

Justin Robinson walks into court before being sentenced in September 2013. (Tim Hawk | For

Justin Robinson took sole responsibility for Autumn’s death, pleaded guilty to aggravated manslaughter and was sentenced to 17 years behind bars.

Dante Robinson pleaded guilty to a charge of obstruction in the case. He was sentenced to 6 months in jail in September 2013, but was released with time served. He had remained in a juvenile detention facility following his arrest in 2012.

Justin Robinson (New Jersey Dept. of Corrections)

Where are they now?

Justin Robinson, now 20 years old, is serving his sentence at the Garden State Youth Correctional Facility. He’s not eligible for release until April 4, 2027.

Anita Saunders, mother of Justin and Dante, disputes the idea that her son lured Autumn to the house.  She claims Autumn came to the Robinson house after asking Justin to fix her bike.

She called Autumn’s death an “accident” and said that many lies have been told about her children and their role in the case.

Attorney Joseph Moran sits with Dante Robinson during his pretrial detention hearing on June 1, 2017. (Tim Hawk | For

Dante Robinson, now 22, is currently back in jail on home invasion charges. He was allegedly armed when he entered a Sicklerville home on May 21 and demanded money. Police say he assaulted one victim and pushed a 9-year-old to the ground before he was shot and wounded by the homeowner. He is next due in court on Oct. 27. 

The Robinson home on East Clayton Avenue. (File photo)

Meanwhile, their older brother, Michael Robinson, 23, was arrested in September on drug possession charges following an investigation by Clayton police. Police served a search warrant at the same home where authorities say Autumn was strangled.

“It’s a shame.”

That was Anthony Pasquale’s take on recent news that Dante Robinson was back in jail on new charges. He criticized the man’s parents and the now 22-year-old Robinson himself for not staying out of trouble.

“My personal opinion is the parents didn’t do anything about it and he didn’t seek the opportunity to better himself.

“If it was my child, I’d be looking for all the help there is.”

Anthony Pasquale walks out of the Gloucester County Justice Complex with family friend Barb DeFrance following Justin Robinson’s sentencing. (Joe Warner | For NJ Advance Media)

Father seeks accountability

Autumn’s father sued the Gloucester County Prosecutor’s Office, New Jersey State Police and local departments, claiming investigators botched the search and missed an opportunity to save his daughter. The case was later dismissed.

“We couldn’t prevent the death of Autumn Pasquale because she was killed approximately six hours before she was ever reported missing,” Prosecutor Sean Dalton later stated.

Pasquale said this week that he was satisfied with that dismissal, because he felt law enforcement had learned from Autumn’s case and improved their training techniques.

He pointed to the case of a missing juvenile from earlier this year in Clayton. He said he saw a rapid, heavy police presence that included a search by air.

“They were doing exactly what I wanted them to do,” he said. “All of that stemmed from Autumn.”

In this latest case, the child was found safe and reunited with her family. “I was relieved that she was OK,” Pasquale said.

Pasquale also filed suit against Justin Robinson’s parents, saying Anita Saunders and Alonzo Robinson were negligent in supervising their child. “If you’re going to raise a murderer, you’re going to take responsibility for it,” attorney Kathleen Bonczyk said when the suit was filed.

The suit was dismissed, but Pasquale is still seeking parental accountability via legislation.

Pasquale has proposed legislation dubbed “Autumn’s Law” that would hold “abusive/neglectful parents partially accountable” for murders committed by their minor children, according to a petition promoting the bill.

More than 16,300 people have signed the petition so far.

She would have turned 18 this year

Family and friends found several ways to publicly honor and remember Autumn.

Thousands attended her funeral and various memorials. A scholarship was established in her memory and a memorial park on East Avenue was dedicated in her honor.

The community will again remember her with the Autumn Pasquale Scholarship 5K Color Run/Walk on Oct. 21 at Clayton High School.

Autumn would have turned 18 years old on Oct. 29, 2017.

Ayoola Ajayi, suspected in killing of Mackenzie Lueck, lived a life of contradictions

Ayoola Ajayi, suspected in killing of Mackenzie Lueck, lived a life of contradictions
Salt Lake City police take Ayoola A. Ajayi into custody Friday. Ajayi was arrested on suspicion of aggravated murder, kidnapping and desecration of a body in the death of 23-year-old Mackenzie Lueck. (Kristin Murphy / The Deseret News via AP)

Ayoola Ajayi, the man police say killed Mackenzie Lueck and then burned her body in his backyard, appeared to live a life of contradictions and unfinished business.

He was kind to visitors and those who stayed in his home, which he rented as an Airbnb, according to his roommate. But other times, his temper would flare over small things, like the positioning of furniture.


He joined the Army National Guard but never attended training, a military spokesman said.


He had begun studying computer science at Utah State University, but never graduated, college records show.


Then in 2014, Ajayi’s life took a turn for the worse. He became the suspect in a rape investigation, the North Park Police Department said Friday. The investigation was dropped, however, after the woman decided not to press charges.

Five years later, he again finds himself the subject of a police investigation.

Although charges haven’t been filed against Ajayi, 31, he was booked Friday on suspicion of aggravated murder, kidnapping, obstruction of justice and desecration of a body in connection with Lueck’s disappearance, according to the Salt Lake City Police Department.


Lueck, a pre-nursing student studying kinesiology at the University of Utah, was last seen June 17. The El Segundo resident had visited Los Angeles for her grandmother’s funeral and, after arriving at the Salt Lake City airport, she took a Lyft to a park in North Salt Lake. There, she met with Ajayi, authorities said.

Mackenzie Lueck was last seen June 17. Neighbors of Ayoola Ajayi's say they saw the man burning something with gasoline in his backyard around the time of Lueck's disappearance.
Mackenzie Lueck was last seen June 17. Neighbors of Ayoola Ajayi’s say they saw the man burning something with gasoline in his backyard around the time of Lueck’s disappearance. (University of Utah)

After a week of searching for Lueck, investigators said that her body had likely been burned. When authorities searched Ajayi’s home, they found a freshly dug area, human tissue belonging to a woman and some of Lueck’s personal items that had been charred, police said. Neighbors told authorities they saw him burning something using gasoline in his backyard on June 17 and 18.


Records show that the last person Lueck communicated with using her cellphone was Ajayi, authorities said, although in an interview with detectives the man denied having any contact with her. He also told authorities he didn’t know what Lueck looked like and hadn’t seen photos of her online, despite having at least one photo of her in his possession, Salt Lake City Police Chief Mike Brown said.

Recently, a Utah construction contractor came forward with a chilling story regarding Ajayi. Brian Wolf said that in April, Ajayi wanted him to build a secret, soundproof room underneath his porch, with hooks mounted high on a concrete wall and a “fingerprint thumb lock.” The man said Ajayi told him he wanted to hide alcohol from his Mormon girlfriend.


“As soon as he said he wanted the hooks above head height, I was like, ‘Why do you need big hooks up there?’ ” Wolf told the Deseret News. “And he said it was to hang a wine rack. I said, ‘Well, I can hang a wine rack and make it look a lot nicer than these big, gaudy hooks.’ ”


Wolf said he declined the job and, when he saw news reports of Ajayi’s arrest, he called police to report the encounter.

The bizarre request doesn’t line up with how one man knew him, though.

Shakari Moore, who said he lived with Ajayi for a few months, told the Salt Lake Tribune that Ajayi was an Airbnb host who was intelligent and had a good relationship with his clients.


“A.J. would be the kind of guy that’s, ‘Hey, let’s go to the Asian supermarket and buy a couple of crabs and go back to my house and eat,’ ” Moore said.

He invited women over but did not seem to have long-term relationships, Moore said, noting that he wasn’t aware Ajayi had married in Texas in 2011 and separated in 2017. The divorce was finalized in January, according to the Salt Lake Tribune.

It was Ajayi’s anger issues that drove Moore to move away, he said.

Ajayi would suddenly become “irate and disruptive” over small things, like disagreements over how furniture was arranged. “He doesn’t like to be told anything other than his way,” Moore said. “He snaps or loses his temper, [then] he comes back to his sweet self.”

Still, Moore said he never saw his roommate act violently.

Ayoola Ajayi is the author of a crime novel, "Forge Identity," according to Goodreads.
Ayoola Ajayi is the author of a crime novel, “Forge Identity,” according to Goodreads. (Goodreads)

According to inmate records, Ajayi is a naturalized U.S. citizen, born in Nigeria. He joined the Utah National Guard and was discharged in June 2015 after six months of service, said Maj. David Gibb. He had been a member of the 214th Forward Support Company in Tooele, Utah, but did not attend training.

“As a result, he did not receive any certificates or awards from the Army National Guard,” Gibb said in a statement. “He was therefore ineligible to deploy or conduct any tours of duty with the Utah Army National Guard.”

Officials at Utah State University said Ajayi attended the school three separate times for short periods between 2009 and 2016. He never earned a degree, though, said Tim Vitale, a spokesman with the university.

According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Ajayi’s LinkedIn profile indicated he had worked in IT for companies like Dell and Microsoft. His account has since been deactivated.

He also is an author, publishing the crime novel “Forge Identity” last year. According to Goodreads, the novel is about a man drawn to crime after witnessing gruesome murders at age 15.


Charges against Ajayi are expected to be filed in the next day, according to the Salt Lake County district attorney’s office.

In a statement, Lueck’s family said they would not give interviews.

“The Lueck family would like to express their gratitude for the effort put forth by the Salt Lake City Police Department and partnering agencies who assisted, as well as all of the people that provided tips on this case,” the statement said, “They are also grateful to her community, her friends, and people around the nation who have supported this investigation.”


A GoFundMe account created by friends and family has raised more than $19,000 for Lueck’s funeral expenses.

The young woman’s death sparked grief from her sorority sisters, who recalled her as “a ball of light.”


The University of Utah’s student government is hosting a vigil night at the university’s Union lawn.


“The death of Mackenzie Lueck is devastating news,” university President Ruth V. Watkins said in a statement. “On behalf of the university, I express our heartfelt sympathy to the family, friends and classmates of Mackenzie during this very difficult time.”

Times staff writer Hannah Fry contributed to this report.


U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel

January 5, 2006 – April 10, 2018

This report provides an overview of U.S. foreign assistance to Israel. It includes a review of past aid programs, data on annual assistance, and analysis of current issues. For general information on Israel, see CRS Report RL33476, Israel: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jim Zanotti.

Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel $134.7 billion (current, or noninflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistance and missile defense funding. Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance, although in the past Israel also received significant economic assistance.

At a signing ceremony at the State Department on September 14, 2016, representatives of the U.S. and Israeli governments signed a new 10-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on military aid covering FY2019 to FY2028. Under the terms of the MOU, the United States pledges to provide $38 billion in military aid ($33 billion in Foreign Military Financing grants plus $5 billion in missile defense appropriations) to Israel. This MOU replaces a previous $30 billion 10-year agreement, which runs through FY2018.

Israel is the first international operator of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Department of Defense’s fifth-generation stealth aircraft, considered to be the most technologically advanced fighter jet ever made. To date, Israel has purchased 50 F-35s in three separate contracts.

P.L. 115-141, the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, provides the following for Israel:

$3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing, of which $815.3 million is for off-shore procurement;

$705.8 million for joint U.S.-Israeli missile defense projects, including $92 million for Iron Dome, $221.5 million for David’s Sling, $310 million for Arrow 3, and $82.3 million for Arrow 2;

$47.5 million for the U.S.-Israeli anti-tunnel cooperation program;

$7.5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance;

$4 million for the establishment of a U.S.-Israel Center of Excellence in energy and water technologies;

$2 million for the Israel-U.S. Binational Research & Development Foundation (BIRD) Energy program; and

The reauthorization of War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel (WRSA-I) program through fiscal year 2019.

For FY2019, the Trump Administration is requesting $3.3 billion in Foreign Military Financing for Israel and $500 million in missile defense aid to mark the first year of the new MOU. The Administration also is seeking $5.5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) funding for humanitarian migrants to Israel.

U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel

April 10, 2018 (RL33222)
Jump to Main Text of Report



This report provides an overview of U.S. foreign assistance to Israel. It includes a review of past aid programs, data on annual assistance, and analysis of current issues. For general information on Israel, see CRS Report RL33476, Israel: Background and U.S. Relations, by [author name scrubbed].

Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel $134.7 billion (current, or noninflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistance and missile defense funding. Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance, although in the past Israel also received significant economic assistance.

At a signing ceremony at the State Department on September 14, 2016, representatives of the U.S. and Israeli governments signed a new 10-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on military aid covering FY2019 to FY2028. Under the terms of the MOU, the United States pledges to provide $38 billion in military aid ($33 billion in Foreign Military Financing grants plus $5 billion in missile defense appropriations) to Israel. This MOU replaces a previous $30 billion 10-year agreement, which runs through FY2018.

Israel is the first international operator of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Department of Defense’s fifth-generation stealth aircraft, considered to be the most technologically advanced fighter jet ever made. To date, Israel has purchased 50 F-35s in three separate contracts.

P.L. 115-141, the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, provides the following for Israel:

  • $3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing, of which $815.3 million is for off-shore procurement;
  • $705.8 million for joint U.S.-Israeli missile defense projects, including $92 million for Iron Dome, $221.5 million for David’s Sling, $310 million for Arrow 3, and $82.3 million for Arrow 2;
  • $47.5 million for the U.S.-Israeli anti-tunnel cooperation program;
  • $7.5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance;
  • $4 million for the establishment of a U.S.-Israel Center of Excellence in energy and water technologies;
  • $2 million for the Israel-U.S. Binational Research & Development Foundation (BIRD) Energy program; and
  • The reauthorization of War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel (WRSA-I) program through fiscal year 2019.

For FY2019, the Trump Administration is requesting $3.3 billion in Foreign Military Financing for Israel and $500 million in missile defense aid to mark the first year of the new MOU. The Administration also is seeking $5.5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) funding for humanitarian migrants to Israel.

U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel


For decades, the United States and Israel have maintained strong bilateral relations based on a number of factors, including robust domestic U.S. support for Israel and its security; shared strategic goals in the Middle East; a mutual commitment to democratic values; and historical ties dating from U.S. support for the creation of Israel in 1948. U.S. foreign aid has been a major component in cementing and reinforcing these ties. Although successive Administrations have disapproved of some Israeli policies, including settlement construction in the West Bank, U.S. officials and many lawmakers have long considered Israel to be a vital partner in the region, and U.S. aid packages for Israel have reflected this calculation. Some observers, including opponents of U.S. aid to Israel, argue that U.S. assistance to Israel supports Israeli arms purchases without providing sufficient scrutiny of controversial Israeli military actions that—these observers assert—contravene various laws and international norms, particularly regarding treatment of Palestinians.

Table 1. Total U.S. Foreign Aid Obligations to Israel: 1946-2017

current, or noninflation-adjusted, dollars in millions

Fiscal Year Military Economic Missile Defense Total
1946-2016 91,617.786 34,265.675 5,104.874 130,988.340
2017 3,175.000 600.735 3,775.740
2019 Request 3,300.000 500.000 3,800.000
Total 94,792.790 34,265.675 5,705.61 134,764.080

Sources: U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants (Greenbook) and the U.S. State Department.

Notes: The Greenbook figures do not include missile defense funding provided by the Department of Defense. As of February 2018, Congress has not appropriated FY2018 funds.

While overall U.S. public support for Israel remains strong, American public attitudes toward Israel are growing more polarized. In January 2018, the Pew Research Center released poll results about the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians. Among other findings, Pew reported that “46% of Americans say they sympathize more with the Israelis, 16% say they sympathize more with the Palestinians and about four-in-ten (38%) either volunteer that their sympathies are with both (5%), neither (14%) or that they do not know (19%).”1 Pew also highlighted a widening partisan divide between Republicans and Democrats over their support for Israel, noting that 79% of Republicans sympathize more with Israel than the Palestinians, compared with 27% of Democrats.

Qualitative Military Edge (QME)


Almost all current U.S. aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance.2 U.S. military aid has helped transform Israel’s armed forces into one of the most technologically sophisticated militaries in the world. U.S. military aid for Israel has been designed to maintain Israel’s “qualitative military edge” (QME) over neighboring militaries.3 The rationale for QME is that Israel must rely on better equipment and training to compensate for being much smaller in land area and population than its potential adversaries. U.S. military aid also has helped Israel build its domestic defense industry, which ranks as one of the top global suppliers of arms.4

Successive Administrations have routinely affirmed the U.S. commitment to strengthening Israel’s QME. However, for years, no official or public U.S. definition of QME existed.5 In order to clarify U.S. policy on preserving Israel’s QME, Congress has passed several pieces of legislation addressing the issue. For example, in 2008, Congress passed legislation (P.L. 110-429, the Naval Vessel Transfer Act of 2008) that defined QME as

the ability to counter and defeat any credible conventional military threat from any individual state or possible coalition of states or from non-state actors, while sustaining minimal damage and casualties, through the use of superior military means, possessed in sufficient quantity, including weapons, command, control, communication, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities that in their technical characteristics are superior in capability to those of such other individual or possible coalition of states or non-state actors.

Section 201 of P.L. 110-429 required the President to carry out an “empirical and qualitative assessment on an ongoing basis of the extent to which Israel possesses a qualitative military edge over military threats to Israel.” The 2008 law also amended Section 36 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) to require certifications for proposed arms sales “to any country in the Middle East other than Israel” to include “a determination that the sale or export of the defense articles or defense services will not adversely affect Israel’s qualitative military edge over military threats to Israel.” What might constitute a legally defined adverse effect to QME is not clarified in U.S. legislation.

Congress has passed additional legislation addressing Israel’s QME. In 2012, Congress passed the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act (P.L. 112-150), which, among other things, reiterated that it is the policy of the United States to “to help the Government of Israel preserve its qualitative military edge amid rapid and uncertain regional political transformation.” In 2014, Congress passed The U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act (P.L. 113-296). This act amended Section 36 of the AECA to require that the Administration explain, in cases of sales or exports of major U.S. defense equipment to other Middle Eastern states, what is “Israel’s capacity to address the improved capabilities provided by such sale or export.”6 The act also requires the Administration to

  • Evaluate “how such sale or export alters the strategic and tactical balance in the region, including relative capabilities; and Israel’s capacity to respond to the improved regional capabilities provided by such sale or export.”
  • Include “an identification of any specific new capacity, capabilities, or training that Israel may require to address the regional or country-specific capabilities provided by such sale or export; and a description of any additional United States security assurances to Israel made, or requested to be made, in connection with, or as a result of, such sale or export.”

Finally, P.L. 113-296 amends Section 201(c) of the Naval Vessel Transfer Act of 2008 (22 U.S.C. 2776) by requiring Administration reports on QME every two years rather than (as previously required) every four.7

QME and U.S. Arms Sales to the Gulf

Israeli officials periodically express concern over U.S. sales of sophisticated weaponry, particularly aircraft, airborne radar systems, and precision-guided munitions, to Arab Gulf countries. As the United States has been one of the principal suppliers of defense equipment and training to both Israel and the Arab Gulf states, U.S. policymakers and defense officials have sought to carefully navigate U.S. defense commitments, while following the legal requirement to maintain Israel’s QME.

Although at times Israel and the Arab Gulf states have coalesced against a commonly perceived Iranian threat, U.S. arms sales to states such as Saudi Arabia still periodically raise Israeli QME concerns. In May 2017, the Trump Administration announced that the United States and Saudi Arabia had completed and proposed defense sales with a potential value of more than $110 billion. While most Israeli government officials refrained from publicly objecting to the deal, several did express concern over whether new U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia would erode Israel’s QME.8 According to Israeli Minister of Energy Yuval Steinitz, “We have also to make sure that those hundreds of billions of dollars of weapons to Saudi Arabia will not, by any means, erode Israel’s qualitative edge, because Saudi Arabia is still a hostile country without any diplomatic relations and nobody knows what the future will be.”9 The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) also called for the preservation of Israel’s QME in light of proposed U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia, specifically warning that the U.S. sale to Saudi Arabia of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system (notified to Congress in October 2017) could “negatively impact Israel’s QME” and would “also improve the kingdom’s ability to track Israeli F-15 and F-16 fighters.”10 Some experts note that even after a sale of U.S. major defense systems to Saudi Arabia, U.S. personnel are often involved in the operation, maintenance, and end-use monitoring of equipment, thereby serving as a possible bulwark against client misuse.11

United Arab Emirates (UAE) interest in becoming the first Arab state operator of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter also may raise Israeli QME concerns. The Trump Administration reportedly has agreed to enter into preliminary talks with the UAE on procurement of the F-35.12 Previously, U.S. officials had said that the United States would not sell the aircraft to the UAE before Israel receives the weapon. In addition to satisfying QME concerns before considering a F-35 sale to the UAE, the United States may also require the UAE to improve its protection of data security due to the sensitive technologies in the F-35’s hardware and software.13 To date, no specific decision has been announced to begin preliminary U.S.-UAE talks on the subject.

U.S. Bilateral Military Aid to Israel

Since 1999, overall U.S. assistance to Israel has been outlined in 10-year government-to-government Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs). MOUs are not legally binding agreements like treaties, and thus do not require Senate concurrence. Also, Congress may accept or change year-to-year assistance levels for Israel, or provide supplemental appropriations. Nevertheless, past MOUs have significantly influenced the terms of U.S. aid to Israel; Congress has appropriated foreign aid to Israel largely according to the terms of the current MOU.

Brief History of MOUs on U.S. Aid to Israel

The first 10-year MOU (FY1999-FY2008), agreed to under the Clinton Administration, was known as the “Glide Path Agreement” and represented a political commitment to provide Israel with at least $26.7 billion in total economic and military aid over its duration (of which $21.3 billion was in military aid).14 This MOU provided the template for the gradual phase-out of all economic assistance to Israel.

In 2007, the Bush Administration and the Israeli government agreed to the current $30 billion military aid package for the 10-year period from FY2009 to FY2018. Under the terms of the agreement, Israel was explicitly permitted to continue spending up to 26.3% of U.S. assistance on Israeli-manufactured equipment (known as Off-Shore Procurement or OSP – discussed below). The agreement states that “Both sides acknowledge that these funding levels assume continuation of adequate levels for U.S. foreign assistance overall, and are subject to the appropriation and availability of funds for these purposes.”15

The Current 10-Year Security Assistance Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

At a signing ceremony at the State Department on September 14, 2016, representatives of the U.S. and Israeli governments signed a new 10-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on military aid covering FY2019 to FY2028. Under the terms of this MOU, the United States pledges to provide $38 billion in military aid ($33 billion in FMF grants, plus $5 billion in defense appropriations for missile defense programs) to Israel. According to the terms of the MOU, “Both the United States and Israel jointly commit to respect the FMF levels specified in this MOU, and not to seek changes to the FMF levels for the duration of this understanding.”16 The agreement also acknowledges that “the funding levels in this understanding assume continuation of adequate funding levels for U.S. foreign assistance and missile defense overall, and are subject to the appropriation and availability of funds for these purposes.”17 The new MOU will replace the current $30 billion, 10-year agreement, which runs through FY2018.18

Figure 1. Phasing Out Off-Shore Procurement Under the MOU
Source: CRS.

The terms of the 2019-2028 MOU differ from previous agreements on such issues as

  • Phasing out Off-Shore Procurement (OSP). Under the terms of the new MOU, OSP will remain until FY2024, but will then be gradually phased out, ending entirely in FY2028. The MOU calls on Israel to provide the United States with “detailed programmatic information related to the use of all U.S. funding, including funds used for OSP.” In response to the planned phase-out of OSP, some Israeli defense contractors may be seeking to merge with U.S. companies or open U.S. subsidiaries in order to continue their eligibility for defense contracts financed through FMF.19
  • Missile Defense. Under the terms of the new MOU, the Administration pledges to request $500 million in annual combined funding for missile defense programs with joint U.S.-Israeli elements—such as Iron Dome, Arrow II and Arrow III, and David’s Sling. Previous MOUs did not include missile defense funding, which has traditionally been appropriated via separate interactions between successive Administrations and Congresses. While the MOU commits both the United States and Israel to a $500 million annual U.S. missile defense contribution, it does stipulate that under exceptional circumstances (major armed conflict involving Israel), both sides may agree on U.S. support above the $500 million annual cap.
  • No FMF for Fuel. According to the new MOU, Israel will no longer be permitted to use a portion of its FMF to purchase fuel (“or other consumables”) from the United States. Under the previous MOU, Israel had budgeted an estimated $400 million a year in FMF to purchase jet fuel from the United States.”20
  • No “extra FMF” for 2017/2018. Prime Minister Netanyahu, in a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry accompanying the MOU, pledged to reimburse the U.S. government if Israel receives more congressional assistance than specified ($3.1 billion a year) in the last years (FY2017 and FY2018) of the current 2009-2018 MOU. 21 Some lawmakers criticized this addendum to the MOU, asserting that appropriations are the prerogative of the legislative branch. According to Senator Lindsey Graham, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, the MOU is “not a treaty, and we’re not a party to this.”22 Section 7041(d) of P.L. 115-31, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $75 million in FMF-Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) for FY2017, which was in addition to the $3.1 billion in regular FMF provided in Title IV in the same Act. In fall 2017, news reports surfaced questioning whether Israel would receive the $75 million of “extra FMF” appropriated in P.L. 115-31. In response, State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert remarked that Israel is “going to get the money.”23
Figure 2. U.S. Military Aid to Israel over Decades
Source: CRS Graphics.

Notes: Figures included Foreign Military Financing only. Missile defense funds are not included. Figures are not adjusted for inflation.

Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and Arms Sales

Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. Foreign Military Financing. For FY2019, the President’s request for Israel would encompass approximately 61% of total requested FMF funding worldwide. Annual FMF grants to Israel represent approximately 19% of the overall Israeli defense budget.24 Israel’s defense expenditure as a percentage of its Gross Domestic Product (5.8% in 2016) is one of the highest in the world.25

Cash Flow Financing26

Section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. §276351) authorizes the President to finance the “procurement of defense articles, defense services, and design and construction services by friendly foreign countries and international organizations, on such terms and conditions as he may determine consistent with the requirements of this section.” Successive Administrations have used this authority to permit Israel27 to finance multiyear purchases through installment payments, rather than having to pay the full amount of such purchases up front. Known as “cash flow financing,” this benefit enables Israel to negotiate major arms purchases with U.S. defense suppliers with payments scheduled over a longer time horizon.28

Early Transfer and Interest Bearing Account

Since FY1991 (P.L. 101-513), Congress has mandated that Israel receive its FMF aid in a lump sum during the first month of the fiscal year.29 The FY2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-31) states that “the funds appropriated under this heading for assistance for Israel shall be disbursed within 30 days of enactment of this Act.” Once disbursed, Israel’s military aid is transferred to an interest bearing account with the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank.30 Israel has used interest collected on its military aid to pay down its bilateral debt (nonguaranteed) to U.S. government agencies, which, according to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, stood at $148.8 million as of December 2015.31 Israel cannot use accrued interest for defense procurement inside Israel.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Israel is the first international operator of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Department of Defense’s fifth-generation stealth aircraft considered to be the most technologically advanced fighter jet ever made. In September 2008, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale of up to 75 F-35s to Israel in a deal with a possible total value of $15.2 billion.32 Since then, Israel has purchased 50 F-35s in three separate contracts (see table below) using FMF grants. Israel is to install Israeli-made C4 (command, control, communications, computers) systems in the F-35s it receives, and call these customized F-35s “Adirs.33

Table 2. Israel’s Purchases of the F-35

Year # of Planes Purchased Total Cost # of Planes in Service
2010 19 $2.75 billion 7
2015 14 $2.82 billion n/a
2016 17 unspecified n/a

Source: Jane’s World Air Forces, Israel, February 12, 2018.

As part of the F-35 deal, the United States agreed to make reciprocal purchases of equipment (known as “offsets”) from Israeli defense companies. If Israel elects to purchase all 75 F-35s, it is estimated that its business offsets could be as high as $4 billion. As of 2017, Israeli firms had received more than one billion dollars’ worth of business from Lockheed Martin in building components for the F-35. 34

Figure 3. The Israeli Variant of the F-35A Lightning II

Known as the “Adir” (translated from Hebrew as ‘Mighty One’)

Source: Lockheed Martin.

Notes: Israel’s Minister of Defense Avigdor Lieberman inside the cockpit of the “Adir” during a June 2016 visit to Lockheed Martin’s F-35 production facility in Fort Worth, TX.

Excess Defense Articles

The Excess Defense Articles (EDA) program provides a means by which the United States can advance foreign policy objectives—assisting friendly and allied nations through provision of equipment in excess of the requirements of its own defense forces. This program, managed by DSCA, enables the United States to reduce its inventory of outdated equipment by providing friendly countries with necessary supplies at either reduced rates or no charge.35

As a designated “major non-NATO ally,”36 Israel is eligible to receive EDA under Section 516(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act and Section 23(a) of the Arms Export Control Act. According to DSCA, from 2007 to 2017, Israel received $374.399 million in EDA deliveries (current value only).37

Defense Budget Appropriations for U.S.-Israeli Missile Defense Programs

Congress and successive Administrations have demonstrated strong support for joint U.S.-Israeli missile defense projects designed to thwart a diverse range of threats. The range spans from short-range missiles and rockets fired by nonstate actors, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, to mid- and longer-range ballistic missiles in Syria’s and Iran’s arsenals. Congress provides regular U.S. funding for Israeli and U.S.-Israeli missile defense programs in defense authorization and appropriations bills. Israel and the United States each contribute financially to several weapons systems and engage in codevelopment, coproduction, and/or technology sharing in connection with them.

The following section provides background on Israel’s four-layered active defense network: Iron Dome (short range), David’s Sling (low to mid-range), Arrow II (upper-atmospheric), and Arrow III (exo-atmospheric).

Figure 4. Congressional “Plus Up” for Israel Missile Defense: FY2010-FY2017

dollars in millions

Source: Missile Defense Agency

Notes: The FY2019 request reflects the $500 million pledged to Israel as part of the Memorandum of Understanding on U.S. assistance for FY2019-FY2028.

Iron Dome

Iron Dome is a short-range antirocket system developed by Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and originally produced in Israel. Iron Dome’s targeting system and radar are designed to fire its Tamir interceptors only at incoming projectiles that pose threats to the area being protected (generally, strategically important sites, including population centers); it is not configured to fire on rockets headed toward unpopulated areas. Israel can move Iron Dome batteries as threats change. Israel recently developed a naval version of Iron Dome, which it will install on its corvettes to protect off-shore natural gas facilities.38

Iron Dome’s Performance

Iron Dome was declared operational in early 2011. Its first major test came in November 2012 during a weeklong Israel-Hamas conflict (termed “Operation Pillar of Cloud/Defense” by Israel). Israeli officials claim that Iron Dome intercepted 85% of the more than 400 rockets fired by Gaza-based militants.

Between 2012 and 2014, Israel upgraded Iron Dome’s various tracking and firing mechanisms and expanded the number of batteries deployed from five to nine. During Israel’s 2014 conflict with Hamas and other Palestinian militants, media reports (generally based on Israeli claims) seem to indicate that Iron Dome had a successful interception rate close to 90%.

According to statistics reported by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), Gaza-based terrorist groups fired 35 projectiles into Israel in 2017, of which the vast majority landed in open territory and an estimated 10 struck in residential areas or were intercepted by Iron Dome.39

Figure 5. Iron Dome Launcher
Source: Raytheon.

Coproduction and U.S. Funding

To date, the United States has provided $1.397 billion to Israel for Iron Dome batteries, interceptors, coproduction costs, and general maintenance. Because Iron Dome was developed by Israel alone, Israel initially retained proprietary technology rights to it. The United States and Israel have had a decades-long partnership in the development and coproduction of other missile defense systems (such as the Arrow). As the United States began financially supporting Israel’s development of Iron Dome in FY2011, U.S. interest in ultimately becoming a partner in its coproduction grew. Congress then called for Iron Dome technology sharing and coproduction with the United States.40

In March 2014, the United States and Israeli governments signed a coproduction agreement to enable components of the Iron Dome system to be manufactured in the United States, while also providing the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) with full access to what had been proprietary Iron Dome technology.41 U.S.-based Raytheon is Rafael’s U.S. partner in the coproduction of Iron Dome.

On September 30, 2014, Raytheon received a $149 million contract from Rafael to provide parts for the Tamir interceptor. The FY2014 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Resolution, P.L. 113-145, exempted $225 million in Iron Dome funding—requested by Israel on an expedited basis during the summer 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict—from the coproduction requirements agreed upon in March 2014.

Section 1684 of P.L. 115-91, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2018, authorizes “not more than” $92 million to Israel for the procurement of Tamir interceptors for Iron Dome. It also requires U.S. defense officials to certify that before the United States provides funds to Israel, both the United States and Israel are properly implementing their coproduction agreement for Tamir interceptors.

Table 3. NDAA 2018 Authorized Missile Defense Funding for Israel

dollars in millions

System Title XLII Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
(P.L. 115-91)
Title XLI Procurement (P.L. 115-91) Total
Iron Dome 92.000 92.000
David’s Sling 63.848 120.000 183.848
Arrow II 71.459 71.459
Arrow III 133.139 120.000 253.139
Unspecified Israel Coop 105.354 105.354
Total 373.800 332.000 705.800

David’s Sling


In August 2008, Israel and the United States officially signed a “project agreement” to codevelop the David’s Sling system.42 David’s Sling (aka Magic Wand) is a short/medium-range system designed to counter long-range rockets and slower-flying cruise missiles fired at ranges from 40 km to 300 km, such as those possessed by Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. David’s Sling is designed to intercept missiles with ranges and trajectories for which Iron Dome and/or Arrow interceptors are not optimally configured. It is being developed jointly by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Raytheon. David’s Sling uses Raytheon’s Stunner missile for interception, and each launcher can hold up to 16 missiles. Once the United States and Israel reach a coproduction agreement for the Stunner, the interceptors may be built in Tucson, Arizona by Raytheon. In April 2017, Israel declared David’s Sling operational and, according to one analysis, “two David’s Sling batteries are sufficient to cover the whole of Israel.”43

Figure 6. David’s Sling Launches Stunner Interceptor
Source: Israel Ministry of Defense.

Coproduction and U.S. Funding

Since FY2006, the United States has contributed over $1.39 billion to the development of David’s Sling. The United States and Israel are negotiating a coproduction agreement to jointly manufacture the Stunner interceptor.

Section 1684 of P.L.115-91, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2018, authorizes a total of $183.848 million for David’s Sling in two tranches ($63.848 million in Title XLII and $120 million in Title XLI). For the $120 million in procurement funds, the act requires a certification regarding coproduction of components. The act also specifies that prior to the transfer of funds, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment must certify that, among other things, Israel has successfully demonstrated production readiness reviews required by bilateral agreements.

The Arrow and Arrow II

Since 1988, Israel and the United States have been jointly developing the Arrow Anti-Missile System.44 The Arrow is designed to counter short-range ballistic missiles. The United States has funded just under half of the annual costs of the development of the Arrow Weapon System, with Israel supplying the remainder. The Arrow II program (officially referred to as the Arrow System Improvement Program or ASIP), a joint effort of Boeing and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), is designed to defeat longer-range ballistic missiles. One Arrow II battery is designed to protect large swaths of Israeli territory. In March 2017, media sources reported the first known use of the Arrow II, when it successfully intercepted a Syrian surface-to-air missile (SAM) that had been fired on an Israeli jet returning to Israel from an operation inside Syria.

Table 4. U.S. Contributions to the Arrow Program (Arrow, Arrow II, and Arrow III)

dollars in millions

Fiscal Year Total Fiscal Year Total
1990 52.000 2004 144.803
1991 42.000 2005 155.290
1992 54.400 2006 122.866
1993 57.776 2007 117.494
1994 56.424 2008 118.572
1995 47.400 2009 104.342
1996 59.352 2010 122.342
1997 35.000 2011 125.393
1998 98.874 2012 125.175
1999 46.924 2013 115.500
2000 81.650 2014 119.070
2001 95.214 2015 130.908
2002 131.700 2016 146.069
2003 135.749 2017 272.224
Total 2,914.511

Source: U.S. Missile Defense Agency.

Under the 1986 agreement (see footnote 44) allowing Israel to participate in the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), the United States and Israel have codeveloped different versions of the Arrow anti-ballistic missile. The total U.S. financial contribution exceeds $2.9 billion. The system became operational in 2000 in Israel and has been tested successfully. Since 2001, Israel and the United States have conducted a joint biennial exercise, called Juniper Cobra, to work on integrating their weapons, radars, and other systems.

High Altitude Missile Defense System (Arrow III)


Citing a potential nuclear threat from Iran, Israel has sought a missile interceptor that operates at a higher altitude and greater range than the original Arrow systems. In October 2007, the United States and Israel agreed to establish a committee to evaluate Israel’s proposed “Arrow III,” an upper-tier system designed to intercept medium-range ballistic missiles. The Arrow III is a more advanced version—in terms of speed, range and altitude—of the current Arrow II interceptor. In 2008, Israel decided to begin development of the Arrow III and the United States agreed to co-fund its development despite an initial proposal by Lockheed Martin and the Department of Defense (DOD) urging Israel to purchase the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system instead.

The Arrow III, made (like the Arrow II) by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) and Boeing, has been operational since January 2017. In July 2010, the United States and Israel signed a bilateral agreement (The Upper-Tier Interceptor Project Agreement) to extend their cooperation in developing and producing the Arrow III, including an equitable U.S.-Israeli cost share. In 2018, the Israel Missile Defense Organization plans to hold a series of Arrow III interception tests conducted from Alaska.45

Coproduction and U.S. Funding

Since codevelopment began in 2008, Congress has appropriated $743.7 million for Arrow III. Section 1684 of P.L.115-91, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2018, authorizes a total of $253.139 million for Arrow III in two tranches ($133.139 in Title XLII and $120 million in Title XLI). For the $120 million in procurement funds, the act requires a certification regarding coproduction of components. The act also specifies that prior to the transfer of funds, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment must certify that, among other things, Israel has “demonstrated the successful completion of the knowledge points, technical milestones, and production readiness reviews required by the research, development, and technology agreements for the Arrow 3 Upper Tier Development Program.” The certification also requires that missile defense funds for Israel will be provided “on the basis of a one-for-one cash match made by Israel or in another matching amount that otherwise meets best efforts (as mutually agreed to by the United States and Israel).” One observer has identified some congressional concern about whether the United States has sufficient data to determine Israeli contributions relative to U.S. contributions in funding missile defense systems.46

The FY2018 NDAA did include a waiver, allowing the Under Secretary to waive the certification requirement if the United States receives sufficient data from Israel demonstrating that, among other things, U.S. contributions are provided to Israel “solely for funding the procurement of long-lead components and critical hardware in accordance with a production plan, including a funding profile detailing Israeli contributions for production, including long-lead production, of the Arrow 3 Upper Tier Interceptor Program.” An earlier Senate version of the FY2018 NDAA (S. 1519) included a provision that would have withheld funding for Arrow III until “after the successful completion of two flight tests at a test range in the United States to validate Arrow Weapon System capabilities and interoperability with ballistic missile system components of the United States.” According to one account, some lawmakers sought further testing of the Arrow III since “the Israeli military tends to deploy its systems with only limited testing, which is essentially the opposite of the U.S. government’s general approach.” 47

Table 5. Defense Budget Appropriations for U.S.-Israeli Missile Defense:
FY2006-FY2019 Request

current dollars in millions

Fiscal Year Arrow II Arrow III (High Altitude) David’s Sling (Short-Range) Iron Dome Total
FY2006 122.866 10.0 132.866
FY2007 117.494 20.4 137.894
FY2008 98.572 20.0 37.0 155.572
FY2009 74.342 30.0 72.895 177.237
FY2010 72.306 50.036 80.092 202.434
FY2011 66.427 58.966 84.722 205.000 415.115
FY2012 58.955 66.220 110.525 70.000a 305.700
FY2013 After Sequestration 40.800 74.700 137.500 194.000 447.000
FY2014 44.363 74.707 149.712 460.309 (includes supp) 729.091
FY2015 56.201 74.707 137.934 350.972 619.814
FY2016 56.519 89.550 286.526 55.000 487.595
FY2017 67.331 204.893 266.511 62.000 600.735
FY2019 Request TBD TBD TBD TBD 500.000
Total 876.176 743.779 1,393.817 1,397.281 4,411.053

a. These funds were not appropriated by Congress but reprogrammed by the Obama Administration from other Department of Defense accounts.

Emergency U.S. Stockpile in Israel

In the early 1980s, Israeli leaders sought to expand what they called their “strategic collaboration” with the U.S. military by inviting the United States to stockpile arms and equipment at Israeli bases for use in wartime.48 In 1989,49 the United States agreed to establish munitions stockpiles in Israel for use by the United States and, with U.S. permission, by Israel in emergency situations. Section 514 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. §2321h) enables U.S. defense articles stored in war reserve stocks to be transferred to a foreign government through Foreign Military Sales or through grant military assistance, such as FMF.

The United States European Command (EUCOM) manages the War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel (WRSA-I) program. The United States stores missiles, armored vehicles, and artillery ammunition in Israel.50 According to one Israeli officer, “Officially, all of this equipment belongs to the US military…. If however, there is a conflict, the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] can ask for permission to use some of the equipment.”51 According to one analyst, “WRSA-I is a strategic boon to Israel. The process is streamlined: No 60-day congressional notification is required, and there’s no waiting on delivery.”52 During the 2006 war against Hezbollah in Lebanon, the United States granted Israel access to the stockpile. In July 2014, during Israeli military operations against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the Defense Department permitted Israel to draw from the stockpile, paid with FMF, to replenish 120 mm tank rounds and 40 mm illumination rounds fired from grenade launchers.53

Section 7034(k)(11)(A) of P.L. 114-113, the FY2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act, extended the authorization of WRSA-I through FY2017.54

At times, Congress has passed legislation that has authorized EUCOM to increase the value of materiel stored in Israel. If EUCOM contributed the maximum amount legally permitted in each applicable fiscal year, then the noninflation adjusted value of materiel stored in Israel would currently stand at $2.2 billion. The following legislation authorized increases in value to the stockpile:

  • FY1991: P.L. 101-513, the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for FY1991, authorized additions to defense articles in Israel up to $200 million in value for FY1991.
  • FY1993: P.L. 102-391, the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for FY1993, authorized additions to defense articles in Israel up to $100 million in value for FY1993.
  • FY1994: P.L. 103-87, the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for FY1994, authorized additions to defense articles in Israel up to $200 million in value for FY1994.
  • FY1995: P.L. 103-306, the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for FY1995, authorized additions to defense articles in Israel up to $100 million for FY1995.
  • FY2007-FY2008: Section 13(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Department of State Authorities Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-472) amended Section 514 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (P.L. 87-195; 22 U.S.C. §2321h) to authorize additions to defense articles in Israel of up to $200 million in value for each of FY2007 and FY2008.55
  • FY2011-FY2012: P.L. 111-266, the Security Cooperation Act of 2010, authorized additions to defense articles in Israel up to $200 million in value for each of FY2011 and FY2012.
  • FY2014-FY2015: P.L. 113-296, the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014, authorized additions to defense articles in Israel up to $200 million in value for each of FY2014 and FY2015.
  • FY2016-FY2017: Section 7034(k)(11)(B) of.P.L.114-113, the FY2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act, authorized additions to defense articles in Israel up to $200 million in value for each of FY2016 and FY2017.

Defense Budget Appropriations/Authorization for Anti-Tunnel Defense

In 2016, the Israeli and U.S. governments began collaborating on a new system to detect underground smuggling tunnels and counter cross-border tunnels used (most prominently by Hamas in the summer 2014 conflict) to infiltrate Israel. Reportedly, this new technology uses acoustic or seismic sensors and software to detect the sounds of digging by monitoring vibrations underground.56

Section 1279 of P.L. 114-92, the FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act, authorized the establishment of a U.S.-Israeli anti-tunnel cooperation program. This authorization allowed funds from the research, development, test, and evaluation defense-wide account to be used (in combination with Israeli funds) to establish anti-tunnel capabilities that detect, map, and neutralize underground tunnels that threaten the United States or Israel. The authorization requires the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on, among other things, the sharing of research and development costs between the United States and Israel. Section 1278 of P.L.115-91, the FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act, extended the authority of the anti-tunnel cooperation program through December 31, 2020. It also required that not less than 50% of U.S. contributions to the program should be used for “research, development, test, and evaluation activities in the United States in connection with such support.”

Table 6. U.S.-Israeli Anti-Tunnel Cooperation

dollars in millions

Fiscal Year Appropriation
FY2016 40.0
FY2017 42.5
FY2018 TBD

Source: Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying Consolidated Appropriations Acts for FY2016-2017.

Aid Restrictions and Possible Violations

U.S. aid and arms sales to Israel, like those to other foreign recipients, are subject to U.S. law. Some U.S. citizens and interest groups periodically call upon Congress to ensure that U.S. military assistance to Israel is conditioned on the Israeli government’s compliance with applicable U.S. laws and policies and with international humanitarian law.57

Arms Sales and Use of U.S.-Supplied Equipment

The 1952 Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement and subsequent arms agreements between Israel and the United States limit Israel’s use of U.S. military equipment to defensive purposes.58 The Arms Export Control Act (AECA, 22 U.S.C. §2754) authorizes the sale of U.S. defense articles and services for specific purposes, including “legitimate self-defense.” The AECA (22 U.S.C. §2753) states that recipients may not use such articles “for purposes other than those for which [they have been] furnished” without prior presidential consent.59 The act stipulates that sale agreements entered into after November 29, 1999, must grant the U.S. government the right to verify “credible reports” that articles have been used for unauthorized purposes. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, also contains general provisions on the use of U.S.-supplied military equipment.60

In the late 1970s and early to mid-1980s, the Carter and Reagan administrations questioned Israel’s use of U.S.-supplied equipment during various military operations in the region. After Israel’s 2006 war in Lebanon, the State Department issued a preliminary report to Congress concluding that Israel may have violated the terms of agreements with the United States that restrict Israel’s use of U.S.-supplied cluster munitions to certain military targets in noncivilian areas.61

Human Rights Vetting (Leahy Law)62

Section 620M of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), as amended, prohibits the furnishing of assistance authorized by the FAA and the AECA to any foreign security force unit where there is credible information that the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights. The State Department and U.S. embassies overseas implement Leahy vetting to determine which foreign security individuals and units are eligible to receive U.S. assistance or training.

In February 2016, Senator Leahy and 10 other Members of Congress sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry asking the State Department to determine whether alleged extrajudicial killings or torture by Israeli military and police (and Egypt separately) should trigger Leahy law restrictions.63 In its response to Congress, the State Department stated that no Israeli individual or unit potentially involved in the letter’s alleged incidents had been submitted to receive U.S. assistance.64

Use of U.S. Funds within Israel’s Pre-June 1967 Borders

In some instances, U.S. assistance to Israel may be used only in areas subject to the administration of Israel prior to June 1967 (see “Loan Guarantees”). For example, U.S. State Department-provided Migration and Refugee (MRA) assistance (see below), per agreement between the State Department and United Israel Appeal, may only be used for absorption centers, ulpanim (intensive Hebrew-language schools with particular focus on immigrants to Israel), or youth aliyah (relocation to Israel) institutions located within Israel’s pre-June 1967 area of control.65 In addition, according to agreements between the U.S. and Israeli governments, programs funded by certain U.S.-Israeli binational foundations, such as the U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation (see below), “may not be conducted in geographic areas which came under the administration of the Government of Israel after June 5, 1967 and may not relate to subjects primarily pertinent to such areas.”66

Other Ongoing Assistance and Cooperative Programs

Migration & Refugee Assistance

Since 1973, Israel has received grants from the State Department’s Migration and Refugee Assistance account (MRA)67 to assist in the resettlement of migrants to Israel. Funds are paid to the United Israel Appeal, a private philanthropic organization in the United States, which in turn transfers the funds to the Jewish Agency for Israel.68 Between 1973 and 1991, the United States gave about $460 million for resettling Jewish refugees in Israel. Annual amounts have varied from a low of $12 million to a high of $80 million, based at least partly on the number of Jews leaving the former Soviet Union and other areas for Israel.

Table 7. Migration and Refugee Assistance Funding Levels for Israel

FY2000-FY2012 $519.3 million total
FY2013 $15 million
FY2014 $15 million
FY2015 $10 million
FY2016 $10 million
FY2017 $7.5 million
FY2018 TBD
FY2019 Request $5.0 million

Source: U.S. State Department.

Congress has changed the earmark language since the first refugee resettlement funds were appropriated in 1973. At first, the congressional language said the funds were for “resettlement in Israel of refugees from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and from Communist countries in Eastern Europe.” But starting in 1985, the language was simplified to “refugees resettling in Israel” to ensure that Ethiopian Jews would be covered by the funding. Technically, the legislative language designates funds for refugee resettlement, but in Israel little differentiation is made between Jewish “refugees” and other Jewish immigrants, and the funds are used to support the absorption of all immigrants.

Loan Guarantees


Since 1972, the United States has extended loan guarantees to Israel to assist with housing shortages, Israel’s absorption of new immigrants from the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia, and its economic recovery following the 2000-2003 recession, which was probably caused in part by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict known as the second intifada. Loan guarantees are a form of indirect U.S. assistance to Israel, since they enable Israel to borrow from commercial sources at lower rates. Congress directs that subsidies be set aside in a U.S. Treasury account in case of a possible Israeli default. These subsidies, which are a percentage of the total loan (based in part on the credit rating of the borrowing country), have come from the U.S. or the Israeli government. Israel has never defaulted on a U.S.-backed loan guarantee.

Loan Guarantees for Economic Recovery

In 2003, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon requested an additional $8 billion in loan guarantees to help Israel’s ailing economy. The loan guarantee request accompanied a request for an additional $4 billion in military grants to help Israel prepare for possible attacks during an anticipated U.S. war with Iraq. P.L. 108-11, the FY2003 Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, authorized $9 billion in loan guarantees over three years for Israel’s economic recovery and $1 billion in military grants. P.L. 108-11 stated that the proceeds from the loan guarantees could be used only within Israel’s pre-June 5, 1967, area of control; that the annual loan guarantees could be reduced by an amount equal to the amount Israel spends on settlements outside of Israel’s pre-June 1967 area of control; that Israel would pay all fees and subsidies; and that the President would consider Israel’s economic reforms when determining terms and conditions for the loan guarantees.69

On November 26, 2003, the Department of State announced that the $3 billion in loan guarantees for FY2003 were reduced by $289.5 million because Israel continued to build settlements in the occupied territories and continued construction of a security barrier separating key Israeli and Palestinian population centers. In FY2005, the U.S. government reduced the amount available for Israel to borrow by an additional $795.8 million. Since then, Israel has not borrowed any funds.

According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Israel is legally obligated to use the proceeds of guaranteed loans for refinancing its government debt and also has agreed that proceeds shall not be used for military purposes or to support activities in areas outside its pre-June 5, 1967, areas of control (the West Bank—including East Jerusalem—and Gaza and the Golan Heights). However, U.S. officials have noted that since Israel’s national budget is fungible, proceeds from the issuance of U.S.-guaranteed debt that are used to refinance Israeli government debt free up domestic Israeli funds for other uses.70

As of 2018, Israel has issued $4.1 billion in U.S.-backed bonds.71 After deducting the amounts mentioned above, Israel might still be authorized to issue up to $3.814 billion in U.S.-backed bonds. However, if the Israeli government sought to issue new U.S.-backed bonds, it is unclear whether the loan guarantees available to Israel might be subject to reduction based on Israel’s estimated expenditures for settlements in the occupied territories. Since the original loan guarantee program authorization for Israel in 2003, Congress has extended the program four times.72 The program is currently authorized through the end of FY2019.

In general, Israel may view U.S. loan guarantees as a “last resort” option, which its treasury could use if unguaranteed local and international bond issuances become too expensive. According to one Israeli official in 2012, “We consider the loan guarantees as preparation for a rainy day…. This is a safety net for war, natural disaster and economic crisis, which allows Israel to maintain economic stability in unstable surroundings.”73 Israeli officials may believe that although they have not used the loan guarantees in the last 13 years, maintaining the program boosts the country’s fiscal standing among international creditors in capital markets.

Table 8. U.S. Loan Guarantees to Israel: FY2003-FY2018

current dollars in millions

Fiscal Year Deductions for Settlement Activity Amount Borrowed by Israel Amount Available for Israel to Borrow
FY2003 289.5 1,600.0 1,110.5
FY2004 1,750.0 1,250.0
FY2005 795.8 750.0 1,454.2
FY2006 3,814.7
FY2007 3,814.7
FY2008 3,814.7
FY2009 3,814.7
FY2010 3,814.7
FY2011 3,814.7
FY2012 3,814.7
FY2013 3,814.7
FY2014 3,814.7
FY2015 3,814.7
FY2016 3,814.7
FY2017 3,814.7
FY2018 3,814.7

Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury and U.S. State Department.

Note: For FY2003-FY2005, the U.S. Treasury Department authorized Israel to borrow up to $3 billion per year of the total $9 billion authorized for the Loan Guarantee program.

American Schools and Hospitals Abroad Program (ASHA)74

Through foreign operations appropriations legislation, Congress has funded the ASHA program as part of the overall Development Assistance (DA) appropriation to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). According to USAID, ASHA is designed to strengthen self-sustaining schools, libraries, and medical centers that best demonstrate American ideals and practices abroad. ASHA has been providing support to institutions in the Middle East since 1957, and a number of universities and hospitals in Israel have been recipients of ASHA grants. In FY2015 (the most recent year for which data are available), ASHA grant recipients in Israel included Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem, St. John Eye Hospital Group, Nazareth Hospital, and the Hadassah Medical Organization. According to USAID, institutions based in Israel have received the most program funding in the Middle East region.

Table 9. ASHA Program Grants from Israel Account, FY2000-FY2015

Fiscal Year Amount
FY2000 $2.75 million
FY2001 $2.25 million
FY2002 $2.65 million
FY2003 $3.05 million
FY2004 $3.15 million
FY2005 $2.95 million
FY2006 $3.35 million
FY2007 $2.95 million
FY2008 $3.90 million
FY2009 $3.90 million
FY2010 $3.80 million
FY2011 $4.225 million
FY2012 $3.00 million
FY2013 $3.800 million
FY2014 $3.052 million
FY2015 $3.075 million
Total $45.000 million

Source: USAID.

U.S.-Israeli Scientific & Business Cooperation

In the early 1970s, Israeli academics and businessmen began looking for ways to expand investment in Israel’s nascent technology sector. The sector, which would later become the driving force in the country’s economy, was in need of private capital for research and development at the time. The United States and Israel launched several programs to stimulate Israeli industrial and scientific research, and Congress has on several occasions authorized and appropriated75 funds for this purpose to the following organizations:

  • The BIRD Foundation (Israel-U.S. Binational Research & Development Foundation).76 BIRD, which was established in 1977, provides matchmaking services between Israeli and American companies in research and development with the goal of expanding cooperation between U.S. and Israeli private high-tech industries. The mission of the Foundation is “to stimulate, promote and support joint (nondefense) industrial R&D of mutual benefit to…” the two countries.77 Projects are supported in the areas of homeland security, communications, electronics, electro-optics, software, life sciences, and renewable and alternative energy, among others.78 According to the Foundation, $339 million in grants have been awarded to almost a thousand projects. Awards typically range from $700,000 to $900,000. The award size varies based on total project budget and other considerations. The recipients must provide at least 50% of the total project budget. While support for military projects are not a part of the program, several of the completed ventures have yielded products that might be useful in a military setting, including the Aircraft Enhanced Vision System (EVS) camera, “which is designed to provide day/night improved orientation during taxiing or flying. It allows visual landing in reduced visibility conditions, such as fog, haze, dust, smog etc.” The Foundation also funded the creation of a Through-Wall Location and Sensing System that is portable and “detects whether people are present behind walls, how many, and where they are situated.”79
  • The BSF Foundation (U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation).80 BSF, which was started in 1972, promotes cooperation in scientific and technological research.
  • The BARD Foundation (Binational Agriculture and Research and Development Fund). BARD was created in 1978 and supports U.S.-Israeli cooperation in agricultural research.81
  • In 1995, the United States and Israel established The U.S.-Israel Science and Technology Foundation (USISTF) to fund and administer projects mandated by the U.S.-Israel Science and Technology Commission (USISTC),82 a bilateral entity jointly established by the United States Department of Commerce and the Israel Ministry of Industry, Trade, and Labor in 1994 to foster scientific, technological, and economic cooperation between the two countries.

U.S.-Israeli Energy Cooperation (BIRD Energy)

In 2005, Congress began to consider legislation to expand U.S.-Israeli scientific cooperation in the field of renewable energy. Lawmakers reviewed legislation in the House and the Senate entitled, “The United States-Israel Energy Cooperation Act.” Various forms of the bill would have authorized the Department of Energy to establish a joint U.S.-Israeli grant program to fund research in solar, biomass, and wind energy, among other directives. Section 917 of P.L. 110-140, the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007, contains the original language of the U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperation Act (H.R. 1838). Although it did not appropriate any funds for joint research and development, it did establish a grant program to support research, development, and commercialization of renewable energy or energy efficiency. The law also authorized the Secretary of Energy to provide funds for the grant program as needed. Congress authorized the program for seven years from the time of enactment, which was on December 19, 2007. Then, in December 2014, the President signed into law P.L. 113-296, the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014, which reauthorized the U.S.-Israeli Energy Cooperation program for an additional 10 years until September 30, 2024.

To date, Congress and the Administration have provided a total of $15.7 million for the grant program, known as BIRD Energy. As of 2017, total combined U.S. and Israeli investment in BIRD Energy for 37 approved projects stands at $30 million.83

U.S.-Israeli Water Cooperation

As one of the world’s leaders in water reuse and desalination technology, Israel has expanded its cooperation with various U.S. states to export water reuse technology. At the federal level, Congress has supported U.S.-Israeli cooperation through legislation. P.L.114-322, the WIIN Act (Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act), calls on the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a coordinated strategic plan that, among other things, strengthens “research and development cooperation with international partners, such as the State of Israel, in the area of desalination technology.”

U.S.-Israeli Cybersecurity Cooperation

In 2016, Congress passed P.L.114-304, the United States-Israel Advanced Research Partnership Act of 2016, a law that permanently authorized the expansion of an existing joint research-and-development program at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and expanded it to include cybersecurity technologies. In January 2017, the House passed H.R. 612, the United States-Israel Cybersecurity Cooperation Enhancement Act of 2017. If enacted, the bill would “establish a grant program to support cybersecurity research and development in accordance with existing bilateral agreements between the United States and Israel.”

Author Contact Information

[author name scrubbed], Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs ([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])


1. “Republicans and Democrats Grow Even Further Apart in Views of Israel, Palestinians,” Pew Research Center, January 23, 2018. Some observers have criticized this poll, asserting that it conflates American attitudes toward Israel with public opinion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. See, “How Not to Measure Americans’ Support for Israel,” The Atlantic, January 26, 2018.
2. For many years, U.S. economic aid helped subsidize a lackluster Israeli economy, but since the rapid expansion of Israel’s high-tech sector and overall economy in the 1990s (sparked partially by U.S.-Israeli scientific cooperation), Israel has been considered a fully industrialized nation. Consequently, Israel and the United States agreed to gradually phase out economic grant aid to Israel. In FY2008, Israel stopped receiving bilateral Economic Support Fund (ESF) grants. It had been a large-scale recipient of grant ESF assistance since 1971.
3. The concept of QME (independent of its application to Israel) dates back to the Cold War. In assessing the balance of power in Europe, U.S. war planners would often stress to lawmakers that because countries of the Warsaw Pact had a numerical advantage over U.S. and allied forces stationed in Europe, the United States must maintain a “qualitative edge” in defense systems. For example, see, Written Statement of General William O. Gribble, Jr., Hearings on Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Program for Fiscal Year 1973, Before Subcommittee No. 1 of Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Ninety-Second Congress, Second Session. February 2, 3, 7, 9, 22, 23, 24, March 6, 7, and 8, 1972. The concept was subsequently applied to Israel in relation to its Arab adversaries. In 1981, then-U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig testified before Congress, saying, “A central aspect of US policy since the October 1973 war has been to ensure that Israel maintains a qualitative military edge.” Secretary of State Al Haig, Statement for the Record submitted in response to Question from Hon. Clarence Long, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations Appropriations, April 28, 1981.
4. See, CRS Report R44716, Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2008-2015, by [author name scrubbed]. Also, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), from 2012 to 2016, Israel was the 10th largest arms exporter worldwide, accounting for 2.3% of world deliveries. See, “Trends in International Arms Transfers, 2016,” SIPRI Fact Sheet, February 2017.
5. William Wunderle and Andre Briere, U.S. Foreign Policy and Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge: The Need for a Common Vision, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Policy Focus #80, January 2008.
6. Upon signing P.L. 113-296 into law, President Obama issued a signing statement noting: “Sections 11(b) and 12(c)(2) of this bill purport to require me to provide to the Congress certain diplomatic communications and direct the Secretary of State to undertake certain diplomatic initiatives. Consistent with longstanding constitutional practice, my administration will interpret and implement these sections in a manner that does not interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct diplomacy and to protect the confidentiality of diplomatic communications.” See Barack Obama: “Statement on Signing the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014,” December 19, 2014. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.
7. QME reports to Congress are reportedly classified.
8. “Israeli Defence Minister says Uneasy over US-Saudi Arms Deal, Agence France Presse, May 24, 2017.
9. “Israeli Minister Expresses Concern over U.S.-Saudi Arms Deal, Reuters, May 21, 2017.
10. “Congress Must Examine Impact of Saudi Arms Sale,” American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Near East Report, June 2017.
11. “Congress OK with Saudi Missile Defense Sale amid warming Israel-Gulf Ties, Al Monitor, May 11, 2017.
12. “Trump could let the UAE buy F-35 jets,” Defense News, November 4, 2017.
13. “To Seal F-35 Deal, UAE Must Agree To Protect Sensitive Information,” Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, November 14, 2017.
14. See, Joint Statement by President Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barak, July 19, 1999. According to the statement, “The United States and Israel will sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which will express their joint intention to restructure U.S. bilateral assistance to Israel. The MOU will state the United States’ intention to sustain its annual military assistance to Israel, and incrementally increase its level by one-third over the next decade to a level of $2.4 billion subject to Congressional consultations and approval. At the same time, the MOU will provide for a gradual phase-out of U.S. economic aid to Israel, over a comparable period, as the Israeli economy grows more robust, less dependent on foreign aid, and more integrated in world markets.”
15. United States-Israel Memorandum of Understanding, Signed by then U.S. Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns and Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director General Aaron Abramovich, August 16, 2007.
16. Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Israel, September 14, 2016.
17. Ibid.
18. Congress also separately appropriated $3.984 billion in missile defense funds during that period, not including FY2018.
19. “Israeli UAV Firm agrees deal for Unnamed US Company,” Jane‘s Defence Weekly, July 18, 2017.
20. The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Fact Sheet: Memorandum of Understanding Reached with Israel, September 14, 2016.
21. “Caveats of 2016 US-Israel Aid Deal Come into Focus,” Defense News, January 10, 2017.
22. “Obama, Lawmakers at Odds over Israel Aid Deal,” Defense News, September 16, 2016. Senator Graham also filed an amendment to the Senate version of H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (P.L. 115-91 as passed). That amendment (S.Amdt. 813) was not adopted. If it had been, it would have maintained the percentage of FMF to Israel designated for OSP at “not less than 26.3 percent from fiscal years 2019 through 2028.”
23. U.S. State Department, Department Press Briefing, September 12, 2017.
24. The Israeli Ministry of Defense provides funding figures for its domestic defense budget but excludes some procurement spending and spending on civil defense. The estimate referenced above is based on figures published by Jane’s Defence Budgets, Israel, IHS Global Insight, January 29, 2018.
25. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Military expenditure by country as percentage of gross domestic product, 2003-2016, SIPRI Military Expenditure Database, 2017.
26. For more background, see CRS Report R44060, Ending Cash Flow Financing to Egypt: Issues for Congress, by [author name scrubbed].
27. The United States initially began authorizing installment-style sales to Israel to help it rebuild its military capabilities after the 1973 war with Egypt. Congress appropriated $2.2 billion for Israel in P.L. 93-199, the Emergency Security Assistance Act of 1973. Section 3 of that act stated that “Foreign military sales credits [loans or grants] extended to Israel out of such funds shall be provided on such terms and conditions as the President may determine and without regard to the provisions of the Foreign Military Sales Act as amended.” At the time, the Foreign Military Sales Act of 1968 (amended in 1971 and the precursor to the Arms Export Control Act of 1976), capped the annual amount of foreign military sales credit that could be extended to a recipient at no more than $250 million per year. Under the authorities contained in P.L. 93-199, President Nixon, in two separate determinations (April & July 1974), allocated the $2.2 billion to Israel as $1.5 billion in grant military aid, the largest U.S. grant aid package ever for Israel at the time. The remaining $700 million was designated as a military loan.

A year and a half later, the Ford Administration reached a new arms sales agreement with Israel providing that, according to the New York Times, “the cost of the new military equipment would be met through the large amount of aid approved by the just-completed session of Congress as well as the aid that will be approved by future Congresses.” See, “U.S. Decides to Sell Some Arms to Israel that it had Blocked in the Past,” New York Times, October 12, 1976.

28. Cash flow financing is defined in Section 25(d) of the Arms Export Control Act and Section 503(a)(3) of the Foreign Assistance Act.
29. When government operations are funded by a continuing appropriations resolution, Congress may at times include provisions in such resolutions that would prevent the early transfer of FMF to Israel (presumably until a final year appropriations bill is passed). For example, see Section 109 of P.L. 113-46, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014.
30. According to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), “Some countries may establish an account with the federal reserve bank (FRB), New York, for their FMS [Foreign Military Sales] deposits. An agreement between the FMS purchaser’s defense organization, the purchaser’s central bank, FRB New York and DSCA identifies the terms, conditions, and mechanics of the account’s operation. Countries receiving FMFP funds must maintain their interest bearing account in the FRB.” See, Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management (DISAM), “The Management of Security Cooperation (Green Book),” 34th Edition, April 2015.
31. Foreign Credit Reporting System (FCRS), Amounts Due the U.S. Government from Sovereign and Other Foreign Official Obligors as of 12/31/2015, United States Department of the Treasury, Office of International Debt Policy.
32. Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Transmittal No. 08-83, Israel – F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft, September 29, 2008.
33. “After F-35 makes Aliyah, it will get new Israeli Identity,” Israel Hayom, May 2, 2016. “Adir” is a Hebrew expression for “mighty” or “powerful.”
34. “Israeli F-35 Buy-Back Surpasses $1 Billion,” Defense News, February 12, 2017.
35. To access DSCA’s Excess Defense Articles database, see
36. On November 4, 1986, President Reagan signed into law P.L. 99-661, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY1987. In Section 1105 of that act, Congress called for greater defense cooperation between the United States and countries that the Secretary of Defense could designate as a “major non-NATO ally” (MNNA). Such cooperation could entail U.S. funding for joint research and development and production of U.S. defense equipment. In February 1987, the United States granted Israel MNNA status along with several other countries (Egypt, Japan, South Korea, and Australia). According to press reports at the time, in the absence of a U.S.-Israeli mutual defense agreement, supporters of Israel had been advocating for Israel to receive “equal treatment” with regard to certain special military benefits (such as the ability to bid on U.S. defense contracts) that NATO allies received from the United States. See, “Israel seeks to obtain the kind of Financial Aid that NATO Members get from U.S. Government,” Wall Street Journal, February 3, 1987. Nearly a decade later, Congress passed additional legislation that further solidified Israel’s MNNA status. In 1996, Section 147 of P.L. 104-164 amended the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 by requiring the President to notify Congress 30 days before designating a country as a MNNA. According to the act, Israel, along with several other countries, “shall be deemed to have been so designated by the President as of the effective date of this section, and the President is not required to notify the Congress of such designation of those countries.” See, 22 U.S.C. §2321j.
37. Excess Defense Articles Database Tool, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
38. “With high-tech warships, Navy readies to guard gas fields from Hezbollah, Hamas,” Times of Israel, February 5, 2018.
39. “More Rockets Fired at Israel in 2017 than Previous Two Years,” Jerusalem Post, January 8, 2018.
40. In conference report language accompanying P.L. 112-239, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2013, conferees agreed: “The Department of Defense needs to obtain appropriate data rights to Iron Dome technology to ensure us the ability to use that data for U.S. defense purposes and to explore potential co-production opportunities. The conferees support this policy and expect the Department to keep the congressional defense committees informed of developments and progress on this issue.”
41. The co-production agreement is formally titled, “‘Agreement Between the Department of Defense of the United States of America and the Ministry of Defense of the State of Israel Concerning Iron Dome Defense System Procurement.”
42. This joint agreement is a Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) Framework agreement between the U.S. and Israel. The joint program to implement the agreement is known as the Short Range Ballistic Missile Defense (SRBMD) David’s Sling Weapon System (DSWS) Project. The Department of Defense/ U.S.-Israeli Cooperative Program Office manages the SRBMD/DSWS program, which is equitably funded between the U.S. and Israel.
43. “IDF officially declares David’s Sling Operational,” Jane’s Defence Weekly, April 3, 2017.
44. Shortly after the start of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) in 1985, the Reagan Administration sought allied political support through various cooperative technology agreements on ballistic missile defense (BMD). Israeli interest in BMD was strengthened by the missile war between Iran and Iraq in the later 1980s, and the experience of being attacked by Scud missiles from Iraq during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. A memorandum of understanding was signed with Israel on May 6, 1986, to jointly develop an indigenous Israeli capability to defend against ballistic missiles. Subsequently, a number of additional agreements were signed, including, for example, an April 1989 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to develop an Israeli computer facility as part of the Arrow BMD program, a June 1991 agreement to develop a second generation Arrow BMD capability, and a September 2008 agreement to develop a short-range BMD system to defend against very short-range missiles and rockets.
45. “Israeli Arrow 3 Interceptor Test Previews Upcoming Trials in Alaska,” Jane’s Defence Weekly, February 20, 2018.
46. “Congress Generous, Again, With U.S. Funds for Israel’s Defense” CQ News, November 13, 2017.
47. “Senate Diluted Tough Oversight of Israeli Antimissile Program,” CQ News, October 4, 2017.
48. “U.S.- Israel Strategic Link: Both Sides Take Stock,” New York Times, October 2, 1981.
49. In October 1989, the United States and Israel agreed to pre-position $100 million worth of dual-use defense equipment in Israel.
50. The government of Israel, using both its national funds and FMF, pays for the construction, maintenance and refurbishment costs of WRSA ammunition storage facilities. It also pays for the packaging, crating, handling and transportation of armaments to and from the stockpile.
51. “US may give Israel Iraq Ammo,” Jerusalem Post, February 11, 2010.
52. “Best Friends Don’t Have to Ask,” Politico Magazine, August 14, 2014.
53. “U.S. Defends Supplying Israel Ammunition during Gaza Conflict,” Reuters, July 31, 2014.
54. The authorization extension states that (A) Section 12001(d) of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005 (P.L. 109-108–287; 118 Stat. 1011) is amended by striking “more than 11 years after the date of enactment of this Act” and inserting “after September 30, 2017”.
55. This increase for each fiscal year is based on legislative language contained in Section 12002 of P.L. 108-287, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005.
56. “Israel’s Underground War—Technology and Specialist Troops deployed in face of Subterranean Threat,” Wall Street Journal, March 2, 2016.
57. In November 2017, Representative Betty McCollum introduced a bill, H.R. 4391Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act, that would, among other things, prohibit U.S. assistance to Israel (notwithstanding any other provision of law) from being used to support the military detention, interrogation, or ill-treatment of Palestinian children in violation of international humanitarian law.
58. U.S. State Department, Treaties in Force, Agreement relating to mutual defense assistance, Entered into force July 23, 1952; TIAS 2675.
59. Nevertheless, in 22 U.S.C. 2753, the AECA also states that the consent of the President shall not be required for the transfer by a foreign country or international organization of defense articles sold by the United States if the recipient is the government of a member country of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Government of Australia, the Government of Japan, the Government of the Republic of Korea, the Government of Israel, or the Government of New Zealand.
60. For example, see (among other sections), Section 502B, Human Rights (22 U.S.C. 2304), Section 505, Conditions of Eligibility (22 U.S.C. §2314), and Section 511, Considerations in Furnishing Military Assistance (22 U.S.C. §2321d).
61. “U.S. Says Israel May Have Violated Agreement on Cluster Bomb Use,” Reuters, January 29, 2007.
62. For background on the Leahy Law, see CRS Report R43361, “Leahy Law” Human Rights Provisions and Security Assistance: Issue Overview, coordinated by [author name scrubbed].
63. The letter’s text is available at
64. See the text of then Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Julia Frifield’s April 18, 2016, response letter to Representative Henry C. Johnson at
65. This stipulation is found in grant agreements between the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) and United Israel Appeal (clause 8. F. 2 – Use in Territories Subject to the Administration of the State of Israel Prior to June 1967). The FY2013 agreement (S-PRMCO-13-GR-1041 – March 13, 2013) is for $15 million. CRS Correspondence with U.S. State Department, March 2014.
67. The MRA account is authorized as part of the State Department’s institutional budget, with funds for the account appropriated through the foreign operations appropriations bill.
68. The Jewish Agency for Israel’s website is available at
69. According to P.L. 108-11, “[Loan] guarantees may be issued under this section only to support activities in the geographic areas which were subject to the administration of the Government of Israel before June 5, 1967: Provided further, That the amount of guarantees that may be issued shall be reduced by an amount equal to the amount extended or estimated to have been extended by the Government of Israel during the period from March 1, 2003, to the date of issue of the guarantee, for activities which the President determines are inconsistent with the objectives and understandings reached between the United States and the Government of Israel regarding the implementation of the loan guarantee program: Provided further, That the President shall submit a report to Congress no later than September 30 of each fiscal year during the pendency of the program specifying the amount calculated under the preceding proviso and that will be deducted from the amount of guarantees authorized to be issued in the next fiscal year.”
70. CRS correspondence with the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of International Affairs, October 2009.
71. This includes $1.6 billion in FY2003; $1.75 billion in FY2004; and $750 million in FY2005.
72. P.L. 108-447, the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act, first extended the authority of the loan guarantees from FY2005 to FY2007. P.L. 109-472, the 2006 Department of State Authorities Act, extended the authority to provide loan guarantees through FY2011. Under that legislation, the loan guarantee program had a stated end of September 30, 2011; however, there was also a “carryover” provision in the statute under which Israel could draw on unused U.S. guarantees until September 30, 2012. In the summer of 2012, Congress passed and the President signed into law P.L. 112-150, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012. Section 5(b) of the law extended the loan guarantee authority until September 30, 2015. Section 7034(k)(10) of P.L. 114-113, the FY2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act, further extended the program until September 30, 2019, allowing unused amounts to be carried over into FY2020.
73. “U.S. to Grant Three-year Extension of Loan Guarantees to Israel,” Ha’aretz, January 24, 2012.
74. According to USAID, recipients of ASHA grants on behalf of overseas institutions must be private U.S. organizations, headquartered in the United States, and tax-exempt. The U.S. organization must also serve as the founder and/or sponsor of the overseas institution. Schools must be for secondary or higher education and hospital centers must conduct medical education and research outside the United States. Grants are made to U.S. sponsors for the exclusive benefit of institutions abroad. See
75. With the exception of recent funding for U.S.-Israeli energy cooperation (see “U.S.-Israeli Energy Cooperation” section below), Congress has not appropriated funding for binational foundations since the mid-1980s. At this point, the foundations are able to sustain grant making with interest earned from their respective endowments and fees collected from companies who successfully profited after receiving research support from the foundations.
76. See Congress helped establish BIRD’s endowment with appropriations of $30 million and $15 million in 1977 and 1985, respectively. These grants were matched by the Israeli government for a total endowment of $90 million.
77. Eitan Ydilevich, “Building U.S.-Israel Economic Partnerships, The BIRD Model,” Washington, DC. June 10, 2010, p. 2.
78. BIRD Foundation, What is BIRD?, available at
79. Information from the BIRD Foundation website,
80. See Congress helped establish BSF’s endowment with appropriations of $30 million and $20 million in 1972 and 1984, respectively. These grants were matched by Israel for a total endowment of $100 million. According to the treaty establishing the Foundation, the Foundation shall use the interest, as well as any funds derived from its activities, for the operations of the Foundation.
81. See Congress helped establish BARD’s endowment with appropriations of $40 million and $15 million in 1979 and 1985, respectively. These grants were matched by the State of Israel for a total endowment of $110 million. In recent years, Congress has provided funds for BARD in annual Agriculture Appropriations legislation at approximately $500,000 a year.
82. The U.S.-Israel Science and Technology Commission (USISTC) was established in 1993 to facilitate cooperative ventures between high tech industries in the two countries. The goal of the program is to “to maximize the contribution of technology to economic growth.” While the collaborative work may be somewhat similar to that supported by the BIRD Foundation, “the Science and Technology Commission assists in the commercialization of new technologies with longer lead times to market. These projects involve higher risk and require substantial capital commitments.” The ventures are funded and administered by the U.S.-Israel Science and Technology Foundation. The U.S. and Israeli governments each committed $15 million to the effort over three years for a total of $30 million.
83. U.S. Department of Energy, Department of Energy Announces Five New Projects Through BIRD Energy Partnership with Israel, November 1, 2017.

Judge Orders Antifa Activist to Pay $22,000 in Legal Fees to Conservative Judicial Watch

In a case in which he described Antifa activist Yvette Felarca’s legal claims “entirely frivilous,” California District Judge Vince Chhabria recently ordered her to pay the $22,000 in legal fees incurred by Judicial Watch, and the $4,000 in litigation costs.

Felarca, a middle school teacher in the Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD), and two co-plaintiffs, had sued the BUSD to try to prevent it from turning over to Judicial Watch their communications mentioning Felarca, Antifa, and BAMN, By Any Means Necessary.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. (YouTube)

As Judicial Watch stated in a May 21 press release, Felarca is a prominent member of BAMN, a radical leftist group that was “founded by the Marxist Revolutionary Workers League that protests conservative speaking engagements.”

“This is a huge victory for Judicial Watch against Antifa and the violent left,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Ms. Felarca attacked Judicial Watch without basis and the court was right to reject her ploy to deny our ‘right to know’ because we don’t share her violent left views.”

“In 2017, Judicial Watch filed a California Public Records Act (CPRA) request seeking public records information about Felarca’s Antifa activism and its effect within the Berkeley Unified School District,” stated the legal group.  “In her lawsuit aimed at keeping the Berkeley school district from furnishing the records, Felarca alleged that Judicial Watch was misusing the law for political means and the district should refuse to provide the information.”

Despite Felarca’s claims, the judge said, “Judicial Watch is entitled to attorney’s fees because the plaintiffs’ lawsuit was frivolous, and their litigation conduct was unreasonable.”

Public school teacher and radical left activist Yvette Felarca. (Photo by Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images)

The plaintiffs “had no reasonable argument to protect those documents from disclosure,” stated Judge Chhabria.

Felarca has a history of radical left activism. In January she was ordered to stand trial in Sacramento, Calif., because of an alleged assault that occurred at a demonstration in 2016.

CNSNews Reader,

The liberal media are terrified of the truth, especially when it leads to uncomfortable questions about their own leftist worldview.

CNSNews covers the stories that the liberal media are afraid to touch. It drives the national debate through real, honest journalism — not by misrepresenting or ignoring the facts.

CNSNews relies on the support of our loyal readers to keep providing the news and commentary that matter to the American people, not just stories that prop up the liberal agenda.

Make a donation today. Just $15 a month would make a tremendous impact and enable us to keeping shining the light where the liberal media are afraid to tread.

— The CNSNews Team

Twitter Bans Analyst Who Revealed AntiFa Connections With Journalists

Twitter banned a researcher dedicated to mapping out AntiFa’s connections to journalists and the SPLC.

Former teacher and analyst Eoin Lenihan has been banned from Twitter after revealing major links between so-called “anti-extremism” campaigners and the hard-left AntiFa group.

Lenihan published his findings in Quillette, revealing links between journalists who write for the the Guardian newspaper, HuffPost, Al Jazeera, and various other publications to the hard left group.

Lenihan was suspended early Wednesday morning, prompting speculation about the ban.

Andy Ngo, a Wall Street Journal contributor and editor at Quillette, alleges that Lenihan was suspended following mass reports by members of AntiFa on Twitter.

It has long been suspected that establishment journalists maintain close ties to far-left activists including AntiFa. Until now, these connections remained largely in the realm of speculation.

The researcher identified over a dozen verified “national-level journalists,” who were in his estimation never “markedly critical of AntiFa in any way” in their coverage of leftist political violence.

“In all cases, their work in this area consisted primarily of downplaying AntiFa violence while advancing AntiFa talking points, and in some cases quoting AntiFa extremists as if they were impartial experts,” wrote Lenihan, who cited Jason Wilson, a Portland-based writer for the Guardian as one such example.

“One of his recent articles focused on a U.S. regional intelligence report whose authors concluded that Antifa and the far right share responsibility for street violence. “Experts say the report mischaracterizes the dynamics of the street violence,” Wilson complained.

One of Wilson’s main “experts” in the piece, it turned out, was none other than Antifa handbook author Mark Bray, who, predictably, denounced the report’s contents as “ludicrous.” In fact, Bray makes regular appearances in Wilson’s articles. So does fellow Portland resident and eco-extremist Alexander Reid Ross, who regularly writes for Antifa publications such as the It’s Going Down anarchist news site. (Ross also contributed to a 30-year-anniversary edition publication for Earth First!, an extremist environmentalist collective that advocates what activists euphemistically call “direct action.”)

Following publication of the report and subsequent coverage from conservative outlets like PJ Media, Lenihan faced a barrage of insulting remarks and attacks from AntiFa-affiliated accounts.

It’s Going Down, a far-left publication dedicated to AntiFa activism identified Lenihan as the proprietor of the @ProgDadTV satirical Twitter account created years ago in the same vein as the satirical accounts Titania McGrath and Godfrey Elfwick.

In his analysis, Lenihan revealed:

We created a data set of 58,254 Antifa or Antifa-associated Twitter accounts based on the follows of 16 verified Antifa seed accounts. Using a software tool that analyzed the number and nature of connections associated with each individual account, we winnowed the 58,254 Antifa or Antifa-associated Twitter accounts down to 962 accounts. This represents a core group of Twitter users who are connected in overlapping ways to the most influential and widely followed Antifa figures. Of these 962 accounts, 22 were found to be verified Twitter accounts of journalists—of which 15 were journalists who work regularly with national-level news outlets.

Lenihan’s suspension on Twitter follows the ban of another independent journalist, Nick Monroe, best known for his news aggregation of political news.

Ian Miles Cheong is the managing editor of Human Events

Written By

Ian Miles Cheong is a journalist and runs the gaming YouTube channel Hype Break. The gaming channel features all manner of insightful analysis of games, criticism of game journalism, and the culture surrounding video games.

A black man claims ownership of a Neo-Nazi group

– He’s a black civil rights leader and the leader of a Neo Nazi group. Seems improbable? Even impossible? Meet the Moreno Valley man who says, he outsmarted the national socialist movement. A story you’ll see only on FOX 11.

Charlottesville, 2017.

The National Socialist Movement was there along with other white nationalist and Neo-Nazi groups.

Video from the NSM’s website shows members clad in helmets and carrying confederate flags and swastikas.

The NSM claims to be the largest and most active white supremacy group in the U.S. established in Michigan in 1994.

For more than 20 years, the group’s leader was Jeff Schoep, right there in the thick of the action.

Also on the NSM website, Jeff Schoep saying, “History has proven to us time and again, it’s through the streets, through activism, through fighting in the public. These are the things that will bring us to power.“

Now meet James Hart Stern.

He  sure doesn’t look or sound like a man that could head up a Neo-Nazi group. He says, “I believe there’s only one race.. That’s the human race.”

But he has the documents to prove he is the president and director of the National Socialist Movement.

A black man heading up a Neo-Nazi party? How did this happen?

Stern says he outsmarted Schoep.

Schoep says he was mislead.

Stern became acquainted with Schoep when he says, Schoep called him in 2014. Stern says, “We knew from the beginning we were ying and yang.”

Stern had spent some prison time with edgar ray killen, the reputed kkk member and former grand wizard.

Stern claims, Schoep wanted to buy something stern owns…Killen’s prison I.D. Card

“He said, the card means power to me,”stern recalls him saying.

Both say, the two formed an on again off again  relationship that included  enough dialogue, Schoep changed the group’s logo from a swastika to the less objectionable othala rune.

“He did that because he wanted to turn the organization into a mini NAACP. He wanted to have an organization for white people rights.”

Now back to Charlottesville, when 32-year-old Heather Heyer was mowed down by a Neo-Nazi sympathizer.

Not long after ten  njured survivors sued key people from that united the right rally, including Jeff Schoep and his group, NSM.

He told Stern, “They’re trying to take my house, my income, everything I have.”

Stern’s response to him, “okay, I told him, I can understand you no wanting that to happen, but at the end of the day, it’s true.”

Stern told Schoep he had an idea.  “I said, tell you what sign it over to me. I’ll put it on the shelf and let nobody use it.”

Late January, Schoep signed a notarized affidavit naming James Hart Stern President of the National Socialist Movement.

And then in February, he signed another one, which reads in part,  I have turned both the National Socialst Movement and the domain website to him.

Jeff Schoep refused my request for a  formal interview multiple times. I did talk to him briefly on the phone. He told me he believes signing over the group to Stern would relieve hiim of legal liability in the Charlottsville lawsuit. He then pointed out his name is misspelled twice on the February affidavit.

On the NSM website, Schoep wrote stern  “Fraudulently manipulated me.”

That’s a different story than what happened in a court proceeding in Charlottesville, March first.

The judge recognized Stern as NSM’s president with no recorded objection from Schoep.

Schoep represented himself in that proceeding. Now, through his new attorney, Schoep says, the transfers to Stern were invalid and is preparing to mount a legal challenge to Stern’s asserted rights of NSM.

Schoep’s attorney has sent a cease and desist letter to stern and shared it with us.

A letter stern insists he hasn’t received.

Chances are, Schoep would say the same about this. The Riverside Superior Court granted Stern a  restraining order against Schoep.

And the Michigan attorney general has launched a hate crimes investigation after Schoep changed the officers for the NSM and removed Stern from the group.

Skinhead laureate: How Philly poets feel betrayed by former revered poet with white nationalist past

On the last day of January 2014, Frank Sherlock stood at a lectern at City Hall, read his poem celebrating the toughness of a black woman from Point Breeze, and shook the hand of then-Mayor Michael Nutter.


Sherlock was named Philadelphia’s second poet laureate that day, succeeding activist Sonia Sanchez. With a long, salt-and-pepper beard at age 44 and a trademark scarf, he looked the part of a bard. Decades before that Friday afternoon, though, Sherlock was a 19-year-old skinhead, expressing himself in vastly different ways as the vocalist for the band New Glory.


“We are white nationalists,” Sherlock, who went by “Fran” at the time, told a British zine in 1988. “Subsequently, we hold our beliefs of white power for white people. The Aryan people must forge their own destiny, free from the rule of an alien occupational government that serves no representation to the American white masses.”

On social media last month, the revelation that Sherlock, recipient of a Pew Fellowship in 2013, was once a skinhead tore through Philadelphia’s close-knit poetry community, then rippled out into wider circles, affecting nearly everyone who worked closely with him


Defenders have said Sherlock’s redemption, his work with young poets over the last two decades, is being unfairly canceled.

Others say Sherlock’s redemption story reeks of privilege.

“As a white person, you get to say it’s a youthful indiscretion,” Rasheedah Phillips, a lawyer, artist, and “AfroFuturist,” told The Inquirer. “As a black person, the consequence for youthful indiscretion is lifelong poverty and jail.”

Sherlock’s white nationalist past was revealed in a poem, posted to Twitter and later deleted, by poet Amy Saul-Zerby after the two had a contentious interaction at Tattooed Mom on South Street on March 21. Saul-Zerby said friends had told her of rumors about Sherlock’s days as “Fran,” and her quick Google search proved it to be true — including a photo of him in a flight jacket, head buzzed, on the back of the New Glory album.

Saul-Zerby placed the zine quote, republished in The White Nationalist Skinhead Movement: UK & USA, 1979-1993, at the top of the poem.

Sherlock, in turn, went to Facebook and posted a long admission, including how being raised in a “siege mentality” in Southwest Philadelphia, where “fortress-style racism was palpable and suffocating,” influenced his choices.

Many comments lauded Sherlock for being honest about his past and for the work he’s done in the poetry community. But others called him out for excusing his racism. In an interview with The Inquirer last week, Sherlock, now 50 and a freelance writer, reiterated that he wrote about his neighborhood as context, not an excuse.

“I had a limited worldview and got into punk rock,” he said.


He recalled Mayor Wilson Goode imposing a state of emergency in 1985 in Southwest Philadelphia, where youths, black and white, were killed in what the New York Times described as “racially motivated acts.”

Sherlock said he hung out with classmates from West Catholic and wasn’t involved in any violence. He said he didn’t consider himself a racist, and wasn’t taught racism.

“But it was around,” he said.

Frank Sherlock stands beside his portrait on the exterior wall of Dirty Frank's bar.
Charles Fox / File Photograph

Frank Sherlock stands beside his portrait on the exterior wall of Dirty Frank’s bar.

Sherlock told The Inquirer he worked on a loading dock at Sears after graduation. He listened to the Clash and Siouxsie and the Banshees and hung out on South Street. He was drawn to working-class punk, which led him to Oi!, a British sub-genre of punk with skinhead ties. Often, he attended shows at Club Pizzaz in Frankford and City Gardens in Trenton.


“I got into other bands that were a little more right wing,” he said. “Unity is the theme, and then it’s like pride, and the next step is like, you know, just wanting to have your own thing and blaming other people for your problems. It’s like the transition that we see today. All those dog whistles are the same.”


On iTunes, New Glory is listed as a rock band. Other websites describe the music as Oi! or “Rock Against Communism,” which the Anti-Defamation League says is a euphemism for “white power/hate music,” so that it can still be marketed and sold.

The German company that released Backlash did not return requests for comment. Two former members of New Glory declined, though one laughed when asked if he had ever made money from the group. Sherlock says he has never received any proceeds from the record or the lyrics he wrote.

New Glory's lone album, "Backlash," can still be purchased and downloaded online.

New Glory’s lone album, “Backlash,” can still be purchased and downloaded online.

Sherlock and one former member said the band never played live. New Glory was one of many bands on the bill for a “Nazi Woodstock” festival blocked by a Napa County judge in California, according to a 1989 New York Times article, which described the band’s lyrics as “extolling the supremacy of the white race.”

Song titles for New Glory’s Backlash album include “Sarge,” about a homeless veteran, and “Never Surrender.” On the title track, Sherlock sang: “Will we find strength or will we die? Will the New Glory banner fly? Hear the backstreet battle cry… U.S. skinheads will never die!”

“I haven’t listened to that, because it’s a point of great shame for me,” Sherlock said. “I’m mortified and not just that somebody found out, but that it happened at all.”

Sherlock said that as the skinhead world got narrower and the slope into hate more slippery, he chose to back out, to stop blaming others for his life. His mother, he says, wrote him a letter telling him he was “better than this.”

“There were miserable people entrenched in a worldview that was very limited and negative and nasty,” he said. “Saying this 30 years later seems like ‘duh.’ I think that’s pretty obvious to a lot of people. But when I was, like, 19, it wasn’t.”

When the band split in 1989, Sherlock enrolled at Temple University, studying English. He found meaning in the poems of Pablo Neruda and Yevgeny Yevtushenko, left-leaning, political poets, and his politics turned with them. He started going by “Frank,” he said, not to hide the past but make a change, mentally, into adulthood. For many years, Sherlock said he told new acquaintances about his past. But he said he became less conscious of it over the years while he pursued projects “antithetical” to white nationalism, working with the nonprofit writing program Mighty Writers and the Mural Arts program, and performing at fund-raisers for LGBTQ groups and Hurricane Maria relief.


“I guess in my own mind I made this transformation,” he said. “I wanted to transcend that sh—ty past. I felt like I’ve been doing the work that was going in that direction.”

Raquel Salas Rivera, Philadelphia’s current poet laureate, said Sherlock’s omission took away the choice to be his friend. Salas Rivera had “no idea” of Sherlock’s past before it was revealed online and believes he benefited from accolades and money that might have gone to others.

“Do I, as a person of color, have the choice to associate with a white supremacist? This is someone who was my friend,” Salas Rivera told The Inquirer. “The devastation of this is hard to quantify.”

Current Philadelphia poet laureate Raquel Salas Rivera in 2017.
Tim Tai / File Photograph

Current Philadelphia poet laureate Raquel Salas Rivera in 2017.

Saul-Zerby, the poet who outed Sherlock, said in a statement that she was “troubled by the fact that it had been hidden from his closest friends.” Sherlock, she said, had made references to violence in past poems that concerned her, and compelled her to include his past in a poem she wrote about him.

Saul-Zerby said she also believes she offended Sherlock at Tattooed Mom when she didn’t recall that he had read at an event a week earlier. She said she apologized, but he “stormed out” and made the Facebook post about her.

“Poets with attention spans make better poets because. . . attention,” she recalled the post saying.

Sanchez and Yolanda Wisher, the poet laureate who succeeded Sherlock, could not be reached for comment. Poet CAConrad, who wrote a book of poems with Sherlock in 2010, said in a Facebook post that the publisher was asked to pull all copies “in light of Frank Sherlock’s revelation that he was a former skinhead.”

The city’s poet laureate program was run by the Office of Arts, Culture, and the Creative Economy from its inception in 2012 to 2017, when the Free Library of Philadelphia took over. A library spokesperson, in a statement, said no one involved in the selection committee “was aware of Frank’s hidden history as a member of a white nationalist band from 1988-1989” when he was chosen. Sherlock has since resigned from the committee.

Nutter did not return requests for comment.

The last couple of weeks, Sherlock said, have been among the worst of his life. He said he’s not reading publicly and is deferring to any publisher that decides to pull his work.

Some have come out to defend him.

“Not only is no one allowed to change for the better anymore, no one is even allowed to be understood, much less forgiven,” author Clint Margrave wrote in an essay about Sherlock on, an online literary magazine that promotes “free thought.”

Locally, Heather Phillips, an artist and friend of Sherlock’s from South Philly, said he’s proven himself for decades.

“As a woman of color, I totally understand that people are entitled to be angry and to take time to heal or to even cut ties with Frank if that’s what they need,” she said in an e-mail. “Some people may feel as if they’ve been hoodwinked, but to suggest that he still holds any of those beliefs is absurd.”

Rasheedah Phillips said she shouldn’t have to feel pressured to forgive him.

“He doesn’t get to set the terms for his forgiveness,” she said. “There should be consequences to what he did and that he chose to hide. He benefited from spaces and opportunities other people may have deserved.”

Sherlock said he’s not seeking forgiveness. He plans to “step back, listen, and process” — and hopes to continue to work with whomever will work with him.

Virginia judge rules Charlottesville confederate statues are war monuments

a statue in front of a tree: A statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee stands at Emancipation Park August 10, 2018 near downtown Charlottesville, Virginia.© LOGAN CYRUS/AFP/Getty Images A statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee stands at Emancipation Park August 10, 2018 near downtown Charlottesville, Virginia. A Virginia judge has ruled that statues of Confederate generals Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson in Charlottesville are war monuments that the city cannot remove without permission from the state.

In a nine-page ruling obtained from the University of Virginia School of Law website, Circuit Court Judge Richard E. Moore said neither the intentions of the people who erected the statues nor how they make people feel change the fact that the statues pay homage to the Civil War. Moore cited state code in his ruling that says it is illegal for municipalities to remove such monuments to war.

“I find this conclusion inescapable,” Moore said. “It is the very reason the statues have been complained about from the beginning. It does no good pretending they are something other than what they actually are.”

Don Gathers, the former chair of the city’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials and Public Spaces, said he disagreed with the judge’s ruling because it retraumatizes the city.

“Just because something is legal, doesn’t mean it’s right or it’s moral. I’m fearful what this has done is given the vile evilness that descended upon us in August of 2017 to come back,” he said.

The ruling comes nearly two years after the Unite the Right rally, a white nationalist gathering, left counterprotester Heather Heyer dead. The Charlottesville City Council voted to remove the statues in response to the rally, CNN affiliate WVIR-TV reported.

The city also covered the statues with black tarp while it mourned the deaths of Heyer and two troopers who died during the rally. However Judge Moore ruled the tarps had to be removed because the city never defined what a “temporary” shrouding meant. Moore also said the tarps have interfered with the public’s right to see the monuments and enjoy the parks.

Outstanding motions remain in the case, according to Charlottesville spokesman Brian Wheeler.

“The ruling resolves one major legal issue in the case, specifically it sets forth Judge Moore’s opinion that the statues are war memorials,” he said. The judge will decide whether the question of the statues’ removal will go to trial in September, Wheeler said.

Things you may not know #1

This will be a new topic idea where I will lay out some very simple things that you may be too brainwashed or stupid to realize on your own. Please do a little research from numerous sources to learn more:

#1. The United States directly alters and influences the politics in other countries. We hear a lot about “Russian Collusion,” but we don’t hear anything in the fake news (CNN, Fox, etc) about the United States manipulating currency and oil, in countries such as Venezuela, to overthrow governments we do not agree with. If you happen to be an enemy of Israel (the owners of the United States government), like Iraq or Syria, you will find yourself under military attack as well. Luckier countries, like Iran, have nuclear weapons, so they only have to deal with economic (as well as social attacks to influence the citizens through social media) attacks.

#2. There is NO rise of hate groups. “White Nationalists” are not everywhere, there is no epidemic of “hate crimes,” the only thing that has changed is the massive increase in the number of agencies reporting so-called “hate crimes” and the fact that too many crimes that are supposedly committed by Whites are easily labeled as “hate crimes” now. While minorities are rarely ever charged with “hate crimes” when their victims are Whites, if it is the other way around, you can be sure the charges will be tacked on.

3. Israel was NOT established following a “holocaust.” Although many people are mislead to believe that Palestine was stolen and given to Jews to emigrate merely to escape the atrocities of a “holocaust,” the fact exists that the Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by England in 1917 announcing the support of a “national home for the Jewish people.”  Lord Rothschild was involved in this scam and I welcome everyone to research the Rothschild family.

4. If one single person is not afforded the 1st amendment right to free speech, no one has free speech. Once you begin justifying who is or isn’t given the right to speak their mind with words, music, etc, there is no true sense of freedom remaining. The freedom of speech was not established to protect “popular speech,” but quite the opposite. Think about it, why would the controlling masses not want you to hear or read about any topic? Wouldn’t simple debate prove outlandish ideas wrong? Since almost every avenue used to reach large numbers of people goes through Google, Facebook, Twitter and Youtube, they shape and form the narratives that are allowed to be discussed. Any proud Whites will be censored, terminated or find themselves so far down the search results that it becomes close to impossible to be heard. “To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” – Voltaire



Portland Antifa group flooded the office of lawyer representing ICE’s union

An Antifa group in Portland decided to punish a lawyer representing the union for Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents by flooding his office. Oregon Live reports Sean Riddell’s law office suffered thousands of dollars in damage from the act of vandalism:

Sometime over the weekend, anonymous vandals stuck a garden hose through the front-door mail slot of lawyer Sean Riddell’s Northeast Portland office and left the water running.

Someone who works in the office — a house converted into business space — discovered the mess about 2:30 p.m. Sunday.

Riddell and lawyer Christine Mascal, who run separate legal practices under the same roof, wondered if someone targeted one of them because of a case or whether it was a random vandal, Riddell said.

There are photos of the damage here. As you can see, most of the wood flooring on the first floor and the carpeting in the basement have to be torn up and replaced. The drywall in the basement has been pulled down and the paint was ruined along the walls. Riddell believes the damage will amount to several thousand dollars but expects his insurance will cover it.

As for who did it, that was unclear until Willamette Week ran a story about the vandalism Monday. Then the site received an email from a local Antifa group taking responsibility. Willamette Week forwarded the email to Riddell who has since called the police again to alert them. He says his office had security cameras as do other businesses in the area, so the people who did this may have been recorded in the act.

Reporter Andy Ngo, who covers Antifa in the Portland areas, notes that the letter claiming responsibility was published by It’s Going Down, an anarchist news site. It reads in part:

Sean Riddell currently provides legal representation to the National ICE Council, the union which represents ICE agents, in a lawsuit against the city of Portland in response to the Occupy ICE PDX encampment last summer. Sean’s new law office, located in Portland, was purchased partially with the money he’s made from the work he’s done for the National ICE Council. We decided to congratulate him on his new building by unraveling is garden hose, pushing it through his mail slot, and turning on the water. Our goal was to cause maximum economic damage, that should serve as a warning to all individuals and businesses that profit off the human misery perpetrated by ICE…

For a world without borders and prisons. For the free movement of all people. Smash ICE

If the goal was “maximum economic damage” why didn’t they burn the building down? Once you’ve determined that your cause is so just that you are free to break the law, why hold back?

Last year, Riddell notified the city that ICE’s union intended to sue over a decision by Mayor Ted Wheeler during the Occupy ICE protests. The union accused Mayor Wheeler of ordering them to stand down and not respond to 911 calls for help from ICE agents who were trapped inside their own building by protesters. Police also didn’t respond to regular citizens in the area of the Occupy ICE camp when they called 911 for help. The Occupy camp was finally cleared out after Portland Police Chief Danielle Outlaw went to Mayor Wheeler and said the camp was out of hand. He belatedly agreed to let her act last July. So there’s clearly a bit of revenge in this current act of vandalism. It’s payback for his involvement in the lawsuit over the Occupy ICE camp, a lawsuit which could make things tougher on Antifa in the future.

Finally, the screengrab above (from video shot by Andy Ngo) does come from an Antifa protest in Portland but has nothing to do with this current act of vandalism. I just think the image sort of sums up Portland Antifa.

CNN’s Cuomo forced to explain Antifa comment during interview


CNN anchor Chris Cuomo went to bat for Antifa on Monday night, arguing that what he called the group’s “good cause” was not equivalent to the positions espoused by neo-Nazis and white supremacists — but his panelists pushed back right away.

Ever since former Vice President Joe Biden revived the debate over President Trump‘s remarks after the 2017 attack in Charlottesville, Va., Trump has doubled down, insisting he was acknowledging the “very fine people on both sides” of the issue of whether or not to take down the Confederate monuments.

Cuomo brought on CNN commentators Steve Cortes and Rob Astorino to debate the issue. Cortes started by slamming Antifa, who he compared to modern day “brown shirts,” but Cuomo insisted they should not be compared to actual Nazis.

“You can talk about Antifa. I’ve watched them in streets protesting in different situations, okay?” Cuomo said. “There are certainly aspects of them that are true to a cause, that is a good cause, they want social justice, they want whatever they want in that context.”

“Not Antifa,” Astorino responded.

“You tell me when that has ever happened with neo-Nazis, where they have ever been doing the right thing,” Cuomo continued.

“Chris, Antifa is not a good cause,” Cortes shot back. “Antifa does not have good aims. Antifa wants political power taken through force. That’s what Antifa is all about. I mean, they are the inheritors of Nazis and brown shirts.”

The CNN anchor clarified that he did not want to “espouse Antifa,” which Cortes argued he sounded like he was.

“You don’t draw a moral equivalency between the neo-Nazis and the people there who fight against them,” Cuomo told Cortes. “You don’t do that in that context because that’s not what we are about.”

He went on to blast President Trump for being “so soft” with his condemnation for white nationalists amid recent synagogue and mosque attacks while being “so loud” against Islamic extremists.

This wasn’t the first time Cuomo apparently tried making the case for Antifa. In 2018, he argued that Antifa’s violence against police was “not equal” to violence carried out by white supremacists and neo-Nazis.

FBI probing Antifa plot to buy guns from Mexican cartel, ‘stage an armed rebellion at the border’

The FBI is investigating a supposed radical far-left Antifa plot to “stage an armed rebellion” and “disrupt U.S. law enforcement and military security operations at the US/Mexican border.”

Word of the probe comes after years of the FBI putting greater emphasis on the threat of Antifa activities, with bureau Director Christopher Wray saying the agency is looking into the ideology and individuals associated with the movement.

But according to a December FBI document obtained by the San Diego Union-Tribune, the agency is now tackling actual alleged plots of possible criminal activities that would affect U.S. homeland security.

The FBI report, which wasn’t posted online because the matter is still active, alleged that the anti-fascist activists were looking into buying firearms from a “Mexico-based cartel associate known as Cobra Commander” that would be used to “stage an armed rebellion at the border.”

Antifa, Occupy Wall Street threaten ICE agents

It also warns that the Antifa activists “planned to disrupt U.S. law enforcement and military security operations at the US/Mexican border.”

The document reportedly was shared with multiple federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the CIA and the National Security Administration.

Two law enforcement officials told the Tribune that the investigation is still ongoing but no one has been charged. The leaked document, meanwhile, is an information report supposed to be read only by law enforcement officials, though no security clearance is required.

“This is an information report, not finally evaluated intelligence,” the six-page report states, according to the newspaper. “Receiving agencies are requested not to take action based on this raw reporting without prior coordination with the FBI.”

But two individuals named in the report, Cobra Commander Ivan Riebeling and Evan Duke, say that the alleged plot was unlikely and doesn’t make much sense.

“It doesn’t make any sense that someone in the United States would purchase guns in Mexico,” Riebeling told the Tribune.

“And the Hondurans certainly didn’t bring money to buy guns. It doesn’t make any sense; in fact it’s extremely absurd to say the Hondurans wanted to attack the United States at the border.”

Israel army killed Palestinian paramedic then distributed misleading video

Volunteer Palestinian paramedic Sajed Mizher, was shot by Israeli forces in the southern occupied West Bank city of Bethlehem on 27 March 2019 [Twitter]

Volunteer Palestinian paramedic Sajed Mizher, was shot dead by Israeli forces in the southern occupied West Bank city of Bethlehem on 27 March 2019 [Twitter]


Israeli occupation forces shot and killed a volunteer paramedic during a refugee camp raid, after which the army distributed a misleading propaganda video.

According to the investigation by Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, Sajed Mizher – aged just 17 – was shot in the abdomen while rushing to the aid of a wounded resident.

On 27 March, at around 2.30am, soldiers raided Dheisheh refugee camp located south of Bethlehem, in the southern occupied West Bank. Soldiers arrested a resident, then withdrew.

A few hours later, dozens of Israeli soldiers raided the camp again, and were confronted by local residents who threw stones at the occupation forces.

“During this raid,” B’Tselem noted, “three residents were injured by live fire – one in the shoulder, another in the hand, and a third in the leg. A team of paramedics and volunteers from the camp affiliated with the Palestinian Medical Relief Society (PMRS) was present during both raids.”

As Israeli soldiers were withdrawing, “one of them shot M.J., 20, a resident of the camp, injuring him in the leg”. Sajed Mizher, “who was wearing a medical crew vest and standing a few dozen meters behind the injured man”, ran to the injured man’s aid.

At that point, an Israeli soldier shot Sajed in the abdomen. Rushed to hospital, Sajed succumbed to his wounds roughly an hour after arrival.

Later that day, the Israeli military spokesperson published video footage in Arabic “showing a paramedic taking off his identifying vest and throwing stones from a rooftop while wearing a white shirt”. As B’Tselem noted, “the footage was presumably intended to justify the shooting of Muzhar.”

However, “B’Tselem’s investigation clearly found that the person captured on film was not Sajed Muzhar, who was shot at a different location, on the main road of the refugee camp.”

“Therefore,” the NGO added, “even for purposes of public relations, the footage the military published is of dubious value at best. It certainly does not constitute an explanation or justification for fatally shooting a 17-year-old volunteer medic.”

Soldiers Have to Shoot at Palestinians. It’s Israel’s Way to Keep Them in Check

Israel admits it: The military is in the West Bank to protect settlements. The notion that we want peace is old fake news

A picture taken from the Israeli settlment of Gilo in Jerusalem, shows an Israeli army watchtower and the occupied West bank city of Bethlehem on the background, on April 17, 2019.

The soldiers have no choice but to shoot. They have no choice but to hit demonstrators, stone throwers and paramedics who volunteer during confrontations, to kill and wound those who brandish knives. Surprise that the soldiers fire even at youths who are handcuffed and blindfolded belongs to a different era.

It belongs to the 1970s or ‘80s, when we still thought that military domination over a population of noncitizens was an accident, a temporary deviation that would soon be corrected. When we hadn’t yet recognized that the soldiers’ role is to protect the spoils of war rather than our existence. When there weren’t yet cameras everywhere to shatter our naivete.

Haaretz Weekly Ep. 25Haaretz

If the Palestinians don’t receive a clear message every day that they’re risking their own lives when they resist our rule, tomorrow they will march by the thousands and tens of thousands, empty-handed or armed with spades and stones, toward the Israeli settlements, outposts, checkpoints and military bases in the heart of a civilian population.

They will march and declare: We want our land back. We want water. We want to be able to travel. We want industry. We also want to plan, build and be built. Imagine tens of thousands marching to the settlements in Jerusalem, imagine the demonstrations of October 2000 multiplied by 100, imagine hundreds of flotillas and marches of return. Then our soldiers and policemen will have to shoot to kill and wound dozens, hundreds, thousands in a single day.

The measured but resolute shooting now keeps all this in check. It’s designed to teach the majority to keep quiet, to be afraid, to seclude themselves in their enclaves for fear that the army will engage in mass killing tomorrow. Not only in Gaza but in the West Bank. And in Israel in Sakhnin and on the coast at Acre as well.

Guys, we’ve come a long way, we’re living in different times. There’s no fake news here. On the contrary, the fake news — that Israel wants peace — belonged to the ‘70s and ‘90s.

Today we speak the truth: The soldiers are in the West Bank to protect the settlement project. In East Jerusalem, which was occupied and annexed, the policemen and employees of private security firms are deployed to enable the settlers to embitter the lives of more Palestinians so that they’ll evacuate their homes for more settlements, which will embitter the lives of more Palestinians so that they’ll abandon or sell their homes and flee.

The settlement project is the essence. It’s Israel’s raison d’etre. It’s what is preparing the ground for minor and major expulsions.

The commanders have no choice but to fully back their soldiers who fire at paramedics, wound and kill them, shoot people in the back and in the groin, riddle with bullets a car that was just minding its own business.

They have no choice but to say that everything is according to the regulations, everything is proper. And indeed, there is no deviation from the orders and rules of engagement.

If we behave otherwise, the Palestinians will conclude that we recognize that they belong to this place between the river and the sea, that we recognize their right to live like anyone else, their right to water, space, planning, their land. The shooting only complements other activities that crowd the Palestinians into cages.

Go to the Triangle area — the Arab villages and towns in the center of Israel — and to the Galilee, and compare a Palestinian village that has become an overcrowded poverty-stricken town to a new Jewish hilltop community. Behind the huge difference there are planners, bureaucrats and ministers. Go to the West Bank and see those yellow gates attached to concrete blocks at the exits on highways. At any moment two soldiers can lock these gates and cut off a village, town or district to let more Israelis grab another real estate bonanza.

Those in charge of law and order have no choice but to ignore settlers who attack Palestinians in their villages, orchards, roads, grazing areas and wheat fields, take over their springs and agricultural pools. The attackers are doing on a small scale (though in a bacchanalia of sacred physical violence) what the bureaucracy of the Civil Administration, the military advocate general and the housing and agriculture ministries have done and are doing on a large scale. Removing people. Scaring them. Crowding them into pens. Forcing them to surrender. Deceiving them.

Forget Trump 

Guys, we don’t have to wait for the “deal of the century.” Annexation is already here. The West Bank does not exist. It’s only pieces that were torn for lack of choice from the West Bank and have become fenced-in reservations because today it’s impossible to implement the expulsion we implemented in 1948 and 1949. That is, it’s still impossible.

Every settlement produces ripples of ostensibly private violence and official violence with a license, and other slices of stolen land that’s given to selected members of the Chosen People.

Every new slice needs another company or battalion to guard it. The soldiers understand that they must do everything possible to protect the Israelis’ right to continue to settle, and that the settlements have a right to continue to expand, to build another mall and bypass road, and to create green parks for themselves from what were once Palestinian orchards or fields. And the people of Israel saw that it was good, and demanded more.

Is it any wonder that the shooting of a handcuffed boy doesn’t interest them?

The Palestinian doesn’t count. He’s not a citizen whose support the senior politician, formerly a military commander, is seeking. The Palestinian doesn’t vote. He isn’t included as a person in the calculations. The larger the number of settlers and the soldiers who guard them, the more Israelis who conclude that the Palestinian is superfluous.

At a time when some of us are reflecting on debating solutions, the settlements, the army, the military and civilian legal experts who defend the settlements and their architects are outlining the future. A future of blood, expulsion and destruction.

Bible is Jewish deed to Land of Israel, settlement envoy tells UNSC

“Even the Romans themselves admitted the land was ours,” Danon said.

In an unusual speech, Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon defended the Jewish right to the Land of Israel, including the West Bank settlements when he addressed the United Nations Security Council on Monday afternoon.

Those rights rest on four pillars, Danon said, citing the bible, history, legality and the pursuit of international peace and security.

God gave the land to the people of Israel in Genesis, when he made a covenant with Abraham, said Danon.

He held up a copy of the Bible for all the ambassadors present to see and said, “This is our deed to our land.”

Danon set out his arguments at a time when the international community is bracing itself for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to make good on his preelection promise to annex the settlements. The international community holds that Israel’s presence in the West Bank is illegal.

Danon argued that Israel has historical and biblical rights to the Holy Land, including Judea and Samaria.

”From the book of Genesis; to the Jewish exodus from Egypt; to receiving the Torah on Mount Sinai; to the gates of Canaan; and to the realization of God’s covenant in the Holy Land of Israel; the Bible paints a consistent picture. The entire history of our people, and our connection to Eretz Yisrael, begins right here,” Danon said.

The Bible is accepted by all three monotheistic religious, Danon said, adding that “The Quran itself accepts the divine deed of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel.”

Historically there was a Jewish kingdom on the land during Biblical times with Jerusalem as the capital with its Jewish Temple, that was built twice and destroyed twice – first by the Babylonians and second by the Romans, Danon explained.

“Even the Romans themselves admitted the land was ours. Those of you who have visited Rome may have seen that Emperor Titus famously commemorated his victory and the Jewish expulsion by building an enormous arch on the Via Sacra in Rome. If you look at the Arch, it includes an illustration of his men carrying away the menorah from the Jewish Temple,” Danon said.

The Romans attempted to destroy that link by renaming the land Palestina, Danon said. After the Romans, the land was conquered by the Crusaders and then the Ottoman Empire. A Jewish community remained in the land over the next 2,000 years, but the bulk of the Jewish people were in exile, he explained.

“For two millennia, Jews across the world continued to pray three times every day for our long awaited return home to Zion and Jerusalem. As we just said on Passover last week, as we do every year, ‘Next year in Jerusalem!’” Danon said.

He then turned to the issue of international law, starting with the 1917 British Balfour declaration that set out “a national home for the Jewish people” in the land of Israel after Great Britain had taken over that territory from the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I.

Danon explained that in presenting the document, British Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur Balfour wrote that the “declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.”

“In 1922, the mandate of the League of Nations not only stated its support for the establishment of a Jewish national home, it encouraged and facilitated the return of Jews in the diaspora to our homeland. It confirms, and I quote, ‘the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country,’” Danon said.

He added that these documents were Zionist documents and showed that Zionism appeared in international law.

Danon also pointed to the 1945 UN charter which speaks of the right of peoples to self-determination and to the rights of member states to defend themselves from armed attacks.

In 1947, the UN partitioned the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state, the Jews accepted the plan and the Arabs rejected it and then attacked the nascent Jewish state, Danon said.

The 1948 armistice lines that marked the end of the Independence War, “were never considered international borders. They were simply lines designating the end of the first battle in the Arab war against Israel,” Danon said.

“It was the Arabs who insisted that the armistice lines would not be permanent borders,” he added.

“Because these lines are not borders, the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, to this day, do not cross any international borders. They are built on strategic land for Israel’s security and, as agreed by the parties in the Oslo Accords, would be classified as final status issues,” he concluded.

On the issue of security, he noted that Arab leaders had chosen violence long before settlements were built. The PLO was established in 1964, three years prior to the Six Day War in 1967.

“What did they need to liberate before 1967? And in 1964, not a single settlement existed in Judea and Samaria, and our right to exist was still rejected,” he said.

“To blame the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria for the lack of peace between Israelis and Palestinians would be a deliberate oversight of history at best,” he said.

Danon listed the plans the Arabs had rejected starting with the 1937 Peel Commission Report, the 1947 UN Partition Plan, the 1948 Israeli truce offer, the 2000 Camp David Summit, the 2001 Taba Summit, and the 2007 Annapolis Conference.

Israel, he said, is still waiting for a response to 2008 offer of by former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert. With regard to the US 2014 peace process, Danon blamed the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, saying he chose Hamas.

The Palestinians, Danon said, have already rejected the anticipated peace plan by US President Donald Trump.

He charged that the UN’s continued support for Palestinians that rejects peace proposals and its attacks against the party offering solutions, weakens the international body.

“It is dangerous to praise the side that encourages hatred and bankrolls terrorism,” Danon said.

“There should be no reward for rejectionism. There should be no prize for aggression,” he added.

Danon then put forward four pillars on which peace would be based in the future. This includes: Palestinians recognition of Israel as a Jewish state; an end to Palestinians incitement; regional cooperation and acceptance of Israel’s security needs.

“We are ready to work together. We are ready to talk. And we are ready to create a better future for our children. It is only when the four pillars of the past and the four pillars of the future are accepted that peace will come,” Danon said.

Palestinian Ambassador to the UN Riyad Mansor who spoke before Danon said that it was the Palestinians who had a historic and legal right to the land, but that it had given up some of that right when it had accepted a state on the pre-1967 line.

That state, Mansour said, must provide the Palestinians with full sovereignty.

Any action by Israel to hold onto territory over the pre-1967 line and to build there, is illegal and a form of occupation and colonization, Mansour said.

Mansour warned Israel against taking any steps to annex the settlements in the West Bank, which he said.

“The international community must stop normalizing this occupation,” Mansour said.

“Occupation, annexation and human rights violations can never be accepted as just and normal and can never be accepted as the new normal, no matter the spin or the pretext,” he said.

Israel a “racist apartheid state under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu” and warned that the US has emboldened Israel’s flouting of the law, further fueling its .

“Israel’s expansionist appetite is growing. Just listen to their recent cyclical statements on their intent to annex the illegal settlements” and their “blatant dismissal of Palestinian rights,” Mansour said.

Balfour Declaration letter written

So much for the “Holocaust” theory of why Israel was established…


On November 2, 1917, Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour writes an important letter to Britain’s most illustrious Jewish citizen, Baron Lionel Walter Rothschild, expressing the British government’s support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The letter would eventually become known as the Balfour Declaration.

Britain’s support for the Zionist movement came from its concerns regarding the direction of the First World War. Aside from a genuine belief in the righteousness of Zionism, held by Lloyd George among others, Britain’s leaders hoped that a statement supporting Zionism would help gain Jewish support for the Allies.

On November 2, Balfour sent his letter to Lord Rothschild, a prominent Zionist and a friend of Chaim Weizmann, stating that: “His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”

The influence of the Balfour Declaration on the course of post-war events was immediate: According to the “mandate” system created by the Versailles Treaty of 1919, Britain was entrusted with the administration of Palestine, with the understanding that it would work on behalf of both its Jewish and Arab inhabitants.

Orthodox Jews worry about widening discrimination over measles scare

Orthodox Jews worry about widening discrimination over measles scare
A Jewish man and his three sons walk down a street in Williamsburg, Brooklyn on April 24. (JOHANNES EISELE/AFP/Getty Images)

A bus driver tries to speed past a Hasidic Jew waiting at a Brooklyn bus stop — then holds a scarf over her face when he finally boards.

Worried parents complain about Orthodox students flooding the Bronx Zoo.

Jet Blue flight attendants force a well-known Hasidic singer to undergo an humiliating questioning after fellow passengers suspected his children had measles.

As a measles outbreak grows, Orthodox Jews say they are facing a punishing wave of discrimination and profiling by public officials and ordinary people alike.

“There is this fear of an Ebola-type situation which is just not the case at all,” said Alexander Rapaport, a community activist who runs Masbia, a network of kosher food banks and soup kitchens in Brooklyn. “People are very confused.”

Rapaport and others blame the city for singling out Hasidic neighborhoods and for messaging that encouraged panic in the wider community.

“That’s where the seeds for this were planted,” he said.

Mayor Bill de Blasio declared a public health emergency in two Brooklyn zip codes as the nationwide outbreak has grown to 704 cases of the disease which was once eradicated from the U.S. So far more than 50 parents have already been slapped with citations for allowing unvaccinated children in public places like parks.

The de Blasio administration declared a public health emergency in select zip codes in Williamsburg, following a measles outbreak affecting the Orthodox Jewish community.
The de Blasio administration declared a public health emergency in select zip codes in Williamsburg, following a measles outbreak affecting the Orthodox Jewish community. (Ed Reed/Mayoral Photography Office)

Jewish leaders say they share officials’ zeal to promote universal vaccination and want to debunk myths spread by a tiny minority of so-called anti-vaxxers in the Jewish world.

But they insist that it’s 100% wrong to profile or discriminate against Hasids or visibly Orthodox Jews because of unfounded suspicions they could be infected or unvaccinated.

And they say the city has contributed to the panic by repeatedly singling out the Hasidic community, without backing up the scare tactics with money to fund education campaigns.

“People are facing real discrimination because of how they look or who they are,” said Chaskel Bennett, an Orthodox community activist who helped organize 500 doctors to back vaccination. “That’s not acceptable in this country.”

Rapaport recounted a story of a non-Jewish client who asked a Hasidic businessman if he was vaccinated — and asked him to email an invoice instead of meeting in person.

“Even a joke can be very hurtful,” Rapaport said.

Ezra Friedlander, a public relations professional who works with ultra-Orthodox organizations, noted that Hasidic Jews already face widespread discrimination from the general public over their distinctive dress and hairstyle.

“They’re already being profiled every day — and this just makes it worse,” he said.

Alicia McCauley, a spokeswoman for the city Human Rights Commission, urged anyone who feels they have been discriminated against over their religious or ethnic background to file a complaint. It was not immediately clear whether any complaints have been filed over the measles issue.

Robert Krakow, a lawyer who unsuccessfully sued to block the city’s emergency declaration, called the trend blatant anti-Semitism.

“Measles doesn’t discriminate between Jews and those of other religions,” he said.

Police: Lindenwold woman died trying to sell a phone to a stranger

WILLINGBORO – A woman found slain inside her parked car here had arranged to meet a stranger for the sale of a cellphone, authorities said Tuesday.

Maribely Lopez, 21, of Lindenwold was killed with a single shot to her head as she sat outside a vacant home on the night of March 6, according to the Burlington County Prosecutor’s Office.

Her would-be customer, 20-year-old Marvin A. Coleman Jr. of Willingboro, was charged with murder Tuesday.

An investigation showed the suspect had arranged to buy a phone from Lopez through the OfferUp app, the prosecutor’s office said.

“But instead of buying the phone as planned, Coleman executed Lopez by firing a shot through the partially opened driver’s side window,” the prosecutor’s office said in a statement.

Investigators believe the shooting occurred around 11 p.m.

A Medley Lane resident called police after noticing Lopez’ body just before 8:30 a.m. the next day, the statement said.

“Arriving officers found Lopez in the driver’s seat of her Ford Focus with the engine still running,” it said.

“The phone that was advertised for sale was discovered by investigators inside of the car,” the statement added.

It said a motive for the killing remains under investigation.

Coleman was arrested Tuesday afternoon following a traffic stop near his home on the first block of Marlboro Lane.

Coleman’s home is a short walk through a field to the spot where Lopez was shot, the prosecutor’s office said.

Prosecutor Scott Coffina warned people planning transactions with strangers to exercise “appropriate caution, such as utilizing safe transaction zones that many of our local police departments maintain in the parking lots of their stations.”

Willingboro’s police station has a dedicated area in its parking lot, where people can meet to complete transactions under 24-hour video surveillance, noted Lt. Chris Vetter.

Coleman, who’s  also  charged with weapons  offenses, was being held in Burlington County Jail. He awaits a hearing in Superior Court, Mount Holly.

%d bloggers like this: