nuclear-news

Blood Money: The Top Ten Politicians Taking the Most Israel Lobby Cash

SCHEERPOST, By Alan MacLeod / MintPress News 20 Dec 23

As the Israeli attack on Gaza, Lebanon and Syria intensifies, the U.S. public watch on aghast. A new poll finds that Americans support a permanent ceasefire by a more than 2:1 ratio (including the vast majority of Democrats and a plurality of Republicans).

And yet, despite this, only 4% of elected members of the House support even a temporary ceasefire, and the United States continues to veto U.N. resolutions working towards ending the violence. Walter Hixson, a historian concentrating on U.S. foreign relations, told MintPress News:

“Unfettered support for Israel and the lobby consistently puts the United States at odds with international human rights organizations and the vast majority of nations over Israel’s war crimes and blatant violations of international law. The current U.N. vote on a ceasefire in Gaza [which the U.S. vetoed] is just the latest example.”

Here, Hixson is referring to the pro-Israel lobby, a loose connection of influential groups that spend millions on pressure campaigns, outreach programs, and donations to American politicians, all with one goal in mind: making sure the United States supports the Israeli government’s policies full stop, including backing Israeli expansion, blocking Palestinian statehood and opposing a growing boycott divestment and sanctions movement (BDS) at home.

Internationally, Israel has lost virtually all its support. But it still has one major backer: the United States government. Part of this is undoubtedly down to the extraordinary lengths the lobby goes to secure backing, including showering U.S. politicians with millions of dollars in contributions. 

In this investigation, MintPress News breaks down the top ten currently serving politicians who have taken the most pro-Israel cash since 1990.

1 JOE BIDEN, $4,346,264

The largest recipient of Israel lobby money is President Joe Biden. From the beginning of his political career, Biden, according to his biographer Branko Marcetic, “established himself as an implacable friend of Israel,” spending his Senate career “showering Israel with unquestioning support, even when its behavior elicited bipartisan outrage.” The future president was a key figure in securing record sums of U.S. aid to the Jewish state and helped block a 1998 peace proposal with Palestine.

The support for Israeli policies has continued into the present, with his administration insisting that there are “no red lines” that it could cross that would cause it to lose American support. In essence, Biden has given Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a carte blanche to break any rules, norms or laws he wishes to.

This has included ethnic cleansing and war crimes such as the bombing of schools, hospitals and places of worship using banned weapons like white phosphorous munitions. The arms Israel is using come supplied directly by the U.S. In November, the Biden administration rubber-stamped another $14.5 billion military aid package to Israel, ensuring the carnage would continue.

For his staunch support, Biden has received more than $4.3 million from pro-Israel groups since 1990.

2 ROBERT MENÉNDEZ, $2,483,205

The New Jersey senator has received nearly $2.5 million in contributions and, in the wake of the Hamas attack on October 7, has been a key figure in drumming up support for Israel. Describing Operation Al-Aqsa Flood as “barbaric atrocities” that were an “affront to humankind itself,” Menéndez gave an impassioned speech on the Senate floor where he addressed Biden directly, stating:

“33

He went on to claim that Israel and the United States are intrinsically linked and were founded on the same principles.

Menéndez also courted controversy after he demanded that the U.S. help Israel “wipe Hamas from the face of the Earth,” even as Israel was leveling Gaza by carpet bombing it.

In October, he co-sponsored a Senate resolution “standing with Israel against terrorism” that passed unanimously, without dissent.

3 MITCH MCCONNELL, $1,953,160

The Senate Minority Leader is one of the most powerful politicians in America and has used his influence to attempt to force through legislation criminalizing BDS. He has described the peaceful tactic as “an economic form of anti-Semitism that targets Israel.”

McConnell is known to be very close to Prime Minister Netanyahu and supported a bill condemning the United Nations and calling on the U.S. to continue to veto any U.N. resolution critical of Israel. Last month, he strongly opposed steps taken towards applying basic U.S. and international law on weapons shipments to Israel.

Under current U.S. law, Washington is duty-bound to stop supplying arms to nations committing serious human rights violations. McConnell, however, said that applying these standards to Israel would be “ridiculous,” explaining that:

“Our relationship with Israel is the closest national security relationship we have with any country in the world, and to condition, in effect, our assistance to Israel to their meeting our standards it seems to me is totally unnecessary… This is a democracy, a great ally of ours, and I do not think we need to condition the support that hopefully we will give to Israel very soon.”

McConnell has received nearly $2 million from pro-Israel groups.

4 CHUCK SCHUMER, $1,725,324

“Next on the list is McConnell’s Democratic opponent, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who had taken over $1.7 million from Israel lobbying groups. In recent weeks, Schumer has taken the lead in steering the public conversation away from Israel’s crimes and towards a supposed rise in anti-Semitism across America. “To us, the Jewish people, the rise in anti-semitism is a crisis. A five-alarm fire that must be extinguished,” the New York Senator said, adding that “Jewish-Americans are feeling singled out, targeted and isolated. In many ways, we feel alone.”

The idea that anti-Semitic hate is exploding across the United States comes largely from a report published by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which claims that anti-Semitic incidents have risen by 337% since October 7. Buried in the small print, however, is the fact that 45% of these “anti-Semitic” incidents the ADL has tallied are pro-Palestine, pro-peace marches calling for ceasefires, including ones led by Jewish groups like If Not Now or Jewish Voice for Peace. (MintPress recently published an investigation into the ADL’s fudged numbers and its history of working for Israel and spying on progressive American groups.)

Schumer, however, has deliberately tried to conflate opposition to Israel’s bombardment of its neighbors with anti-Jewish racism, ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

5 STENY HOYER, $1,620,294………………………………………………..

TED CRUZ, $1,299,194………………………………………………………………….

7 RON WYDEN, $1,279,376…………………………………………………………….

8 DICK DURBIN, $1,126,020…………………………………………………

9 JOSH GOTTHEIMER, $1,109,370………………………………………….

10 SHONTEL BROWN, $1,028,686…………………………………….

 

A DARK FORCE IN US POLITICS

The most well-known and likely most influential group in the loose coalition referred to as the Israel lobby is AIPAC, American Israel Public Affairs Committee. With a staff of around 400 people and annual revenues that frequently top over $100 million, the organization is a huge, conservative force in American politics, flooding the system with gigantic amounts of money. Worse still, the group does not disclose the sources of its funding.

AIPAC’s stated goal is:

“To make America’s friendship with Israel so robust, so certain, so broadly based, and so dependable that even the deep divisions of American politics can never imperil that relationship and the ability of the Jewish state to defend itself.”

Yet Israel is widely recognized by international bodies such as the United Nations and human rights groups like Amnesty Internationaland Human Rights Watch as an apartheid state. It has near total control over the Gaza Strip, which, even before the latest attack, was an “unlivable” “open-air prison.” It is this state and these injustices that AIPAC and others seek U.S. support for.

American intransigence on Israel has helped make it a pariah nation, one that constantly has to veto U.N. resolutions and has lost its voting rights at UNESCO.

Not only does it give more money to Republicans than Democrats, but AIPAC also floods conservative Democrats’ coffers with funds, especially when they are up against progressive, pro-Palestine challengers……………………………………………………………….

IS THE TAIL WAGGING THE DOG?

As such, AIPAC acts as a bulwark against progressive political change. In such a divisive political environment, few political issues unite Democrats and Republicans, as well as Israel and shutting down anti-establishment figures. As Hixson told MintPress:

Other than a handful of progressives (Bernie Sanders, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, etc.), the U.S. Congress invariably gives the lobby everything it wants, namely massive regular funding for Israeli militarism and an endless series of resolutions condemning Israel’s international foes and domestic critics.”

The question that arises from this is why? Why does Israel always seem to receive full support from Washington? Is the lobby really that effective? Why do so many U.S. politicians go along with it? Mazin Qumsiyeh, a professor at Bethlehem University, characterized Washington as full of amoral careerists, telling MintPress that:

“”They [Senators and Congresspersons] do not buy the Zionist argument. It is strictly personal interest: money and good media coverage and avoiding blackmail, as the Zionists have their dirty secrets which they could expose if they step out of line.”

Yet Israel also serves a vital purpose for the American empire. The region is not only geographically strategic but home to the world’s largest resources of hydrocarbons. Washington has always made it a top priority to control the flow of oil around the world, and Israel helps them do this. Militarily, Israel serves as a conduit the U.S. can work through, farming out its dirty work to Tel Aviv. It, therefore, represents an unofficial and beneficial “51st state.” As Joe Biden said in 1986 and has regularly repeated, Israel is the best investment the U.S. makes. “Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to invent an Israel to protect our interests in the region,” he added.

Many other nations or industries have lobbied in Washington, D.C. But few have proven to be as organized or effective as the pro-Israel one. Nevertheless, public opinion, particularly among young people, has begun to drift away from it.

 The Overton Window is shifting; Professor Qumsiyeh told MintPress. “When I first went to the U.S. in 1979, the average citizen did not know anything about Palestine or knew only a negative, distorted picture driven by Hollywood and biased media. Things [have] changed,” he said.

Things have indeed changed. The streets of America have been filled with demonstrations against Israeli aggression. Millions of Americans have participated in Palestine solidarity protests, including hundreds of thousands in Washington, D.C. alone. Celebrities have spoken out against injustice. And social media is filled with posts showing sympathy for Gazans. There, too, Israel and pro-Israel groups have attempted to use their financial clout to influence the conversation, but to limited effect.

Fortunately for Israel, for now, at least, they can still rely on the unwavering support of senior American politicians, their pockets filled with AIPAC money, turning the other way as Israel carries out another genocide against Palestine.  https://scheerpost.com/2023/12/20/blood-money-the-top-ten-politicians-taking-the-most-israel-lobby-cash/

December 21, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, USA | Leave a comment

U.S. Nuclear Sector Set for Major Transformation

By ZeroHedge – Dec 18, 2023,  https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/US-Nuclear-Sector-Set-for-Major-Transformation.html

• Suggests reducing government intervention in commercial nuclear operations and focusing on public health and safety regulation.
• Calls for the Department of Energy to exit the commercialization of nuclear technology and for states to play a larger role in nuclear regulation.
• Recommends private sector management of nuclear waste and potential insurance coverage options for nuclear reactor accidents outside the federal Price-Anderson program.

The silver lining of this month’s United Nations COP28 global warming conference is the growing consensus that nuclear energy is critical to meeting national carbon dioxide reduction goals.

Denying the world access to clean, affordable fuels like gas, oil, and coal is a real problem. But recognizing that nuclear energy must play a pivotal role in our energy future is a major step forward—one that should enjoy widespread support, regardless of one’s views on CO2 reductions.

But to go big on nuclear requires thinking big on nuclear energy policy, and that means questioning the subsidize-first mentality that has defined U.S. energy policy for decades

The goal should not be to build a few nuclear power plants. Rather, we should strive to create an economically sustainable, competitive, innovative and uniquely American nuclear industry.

This will require a realignment of responsibility. The government’s role should be to protect public health and safety. The private sector’s role should be to operate a competitive commercial nuclear sector.

That means getting rid of the subsidies, rethinking regulation and getting Washington out of nuclear waste management. Washington should have a regulatory role, but not its current role as Nuclear CEO.

The reason is simple: Governments are not good at business, because they make decisions based on politics rather than on good economic sense. This never yields a successful industry.

Some argue that nuclear energy requires more governmental control, suggesting that nuclear presents more financial, technical, and political risks than other industries.

But all big projects have financial risk. Private oil refineries can cost billions of dollars, and projects like skyscrapers, liquid natural gas export terminals and other large industrial projects all require massive capital outlays. Companies and individuals regularly take big financial risks.

Then there is technological risk. But nuclear is not really that different from other industries. With 440 nuclear reactors operating globally, technical risk for existing technology is relatively low. Industry knows how to build and operate nuclear plants.

Possible technological risks with new designs are not beyond the realm of those posed by innovation in other cutting-edge businesses, such as fracking or offshore energy exploration. e. Beyond that, as it pertains to nuclear energy, there is a vast federal research infrastructure in place that the private sector can access to help mitigate that risk.

Political risk, however, is real and uniquely high when it comes to nuclear energy, and it exacerbates financial and technical risk calculations.

Any justification for government intervention is based on mitigating government-imposed risk.

But here is the problem.

When government intervenes to mitigate a risk that it has created, it adds another layer of political risk. Worse, it creates dependence, distorts capital flows, incentivizes rent-seeking and lobbying, and forces firms to allocate resources to satisfy politicians and bureaucrats rather than improve its business.

This creates misalignments between responsibility and authorities and undermines economic efficiency.

Even worse, politics often changes, making it difficult to build a sustainable business model around political preferences. At best, this approach could yield a couple of reactors or keep some firms above water, but it won’t produce a robust, competitive, innovative nuclear industry. Failure is likely.

The major question is: How does America minimize political risk and allow the private sector to manage other risks, so that a robust industry can emerge?

It will require changing the Department of Energy’s role, bold regulatory reforms, and solving the problem of nuclear waste management.

We need to get the Energy Department totally out of the nuclear commercialization business. The problem is not that people are not doing their jobs, the problem is the nature of government.

The Department should not be funding grants, loans, or demonstration projects. Nor should it be attempting to improve operations or economics of existing plants or new technologies. The private sector can do these better than government.

The Energy Department has an important role to play in nuclear research and scientific discovery, but it needs to get as far from any commercialization or commercial operations as possible.

What about regulation?

Worthwhile attempts are being made to improve the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. An efficient, predictable, and affordable regulatory process for new reactor technologies is essential.

But America needs to think bigger.

For example, states could be authorized to take a larger role in nuclear power plant regulation. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 already allows states to regulate some nuclear materials. That should be expanded. States could regulate existing reactor technology, and the NRC could focus on new technologies. Not all states will use this opportunity, but some will.

This is a reasonable proposition because U.S. utilities have been safely operating large light water reactors for over 50 years. America should not be regulating large light water reactors as new, scary technology, because it is neither new nor scary. The regulatory burden should be significantly lifted on those reactors.

NRC personnel should not be the only ones who can review permit applications and other regulatory review work. Private firms should be able to compete for this business. They would lighten the NRC’s load and likely do a quicker job at lower cost.

Lastly, companies should be allowed to build reactors outside the existing NRC regulatory regime if they obtain their own liability insurance against accidents. In exchange they would forgo participation in the federal Price-Anderson program that currently provides liability coverage.

Some might question whether private insurers would cover a nuclear reactor absent a government backstop. But given outstanding safety records of existing reactors and promises that new technologies are safer, this should be an option. Insurance comes in many forms, and no one can predict what could ultimately emerge.

Either way, the insurance industry is extraordinarily sophisticated and does a tremendous job at pricing risk. It will be effective at ensuring that only the safest nuclear plants are built.

Finally, there is the question of what to do with nuclear waste—or, more accurately, spent nuclear fuel.

The federal government took responsibility for managing the nation’s spent nuclear fuel in 1982. By removing responsibility from the spent fuel producers, the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act removed any incentive for the nuclear industry to integrate spent fuel management into its long-term business planning and left it instead to Washington bureaucrats. It should surprise no one that the plan has failed.

Reforms are needed to reconnect the nuclear industry to waste management. Reforms would allow for a private spent fuel industry to emerge that would drive innovation in reactor technologies and spent fuel processing. They would allow the nuclear industry and communities to engage in real negotiations, bound by legal contracts, to build and operate spent fuel management facilities.

There is no question that these proposed reforms are a major departure from the status quo, but they are reasonable, not radical. They would foster good governance and economic progress in the industry. As COP28 representatives discuss how to reduce carbon while raising global living standards, nuclear energy should be on the front burner.

December 20, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, USA | Leave a comment