The Brutal Truth. Articles, stories, commentaries, videos, etc. are all Conservative based. We present multiple facts, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses, and information. The opinions expressed through the thousands of stories here do not necessarily represent those of The Brutal Truth.
We are not going to censor the news and information here. That is for you to do.
Do U.S. Political Candidates Have to Sign a Pledge for Israel? Here's What It Means
Get link
Facebook
X
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps
Many U.S. political candidates—especially those running for Congress—are not required by law to sign any pledge specifically for Israel. However, a powerful political group called AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) often wants candidates to promise that they will support close ties with Israel. This isn't an official rule, but if candidates agree, they might get more help in their campaigns—like donations, advice, and connections to voters American Civil Liberties Union+4AIPAC+4REJECT AIPAC+4.
Why It Matters
No legal rule—but lots of pressure: Some states do require private businesses or government contractors to pledge they won't boycott Israel to get contracts American Civil Liberties Union. But for candidates, it's more like a political handshake—a way to signal support and gain help from AIPAC.
Big impact on elections: AIPAC is one of the strongest political groups in the U.S. They give money, send volunteers, and help with campaign messages. Saying “yes” to their pledge can help a candidate win AIPAC+1Mondoweiss+1.
Controversy and opposition: Many Americans believe such pledges make politicians less free to ask questions about U.S. support for Israel, especially during tough times in the Middle East. Some groups, like “Reject AIPAC,” are pushing candidates to promise they won't accept AIPAC moneyREJECT AIPACMondoweiss.
Even though there’s no law forcing politicians to promise loyalty to Israel, there’s still a lot of pressure to do it. Some states have even made businesses sign pledges saying they won’t boycott Israel if they want a government contract, which shows how far this influence can go.
For politicians, it’s more like a quiet deal—if you show support for Israel, groups like AIPAC will back you with money, volunteers, and campaign help. That can make or break someone’s run for office. But not everyone agrees with this.
Some people say these pledges make it harder for leaders to ask fair questions or speak out when Israel does something wrong. Groups like “Reject AIPAC” want politicians to stay independent and not be tied to outside promises. When support becomes a requirement, it stops being just about friendship—it starts shaping who gets power in America and what they’re allowed to say.
Major Lobbying Efforts
1960s–1970s: Cold War & Israel’s Defenses After Israel's 1967 Six-Day War, AIPAC persuaded Congress to send more money, weapons, and support. In 1973, during the Yom Kippur War, AIPAC successfully pushed for emergency arms—showing they could help win votes in Congress for Israel’s safetyOpenSecrets+15Jewish Currents+15matthew edward reveles+15.
During the Cold War, when the U.S. was competing with the Soviet Union for global influence, AIPAC found the perfect moment to rise in power. After Israel's big win in the 1967 Six-Day War, AIPAC used the fear of communism and instability to convince Congress that keeping Israel strong would also help America. Then in 1973, when Israel was suddenly attacked in the Yom Kippur War, AIPAC worked quickly behind the scenes to push Congress and the White House to send emergency weapons and supplies. But it wasn’t just about helping an ally—it was also about showing how much influence AIPAC had gained over U.S. leaders in just a few years. While Americans thought these moves were about freedom and peace, some believe it also quietly gave AIPAC a seat at the table of power—where they could shape how billions of dollars and military tools were sent out, without much debate. This early success taught AIPAC that in times of fear, especially during war, it could push the U.S. government into action—fast.
1983 Strategic Cooperation AIPAC backed a deal linking U.S. and Israeli defense strategies. Their influence helped make the agreement happenThe New Yorker.
In 1983, something big happened between the U.S. and Israel—they signed a deal that made their military strategies work more closely together. It wasn’t just about friendship; it was about building a team that shared secrets, plans, and technology. AIPAC worked hard behind the scenes to make sure this deal went through, telling lawmakers it would keep America safer by making Israel even stronger. But some people started to notice that this was more than just helping an ally—it gave Israel deeper access to U.S. military tools and intelligence, almost like they were part of America’s own defense system. While most Americans never heard about the fine print, this deal marked a moment when AIPAC showed it could do more than pass laws—it could shape global military partnerships. That kind of influence meant that even decisions about war and peace could now be steered by people who didn’t wear uniforms or work in the Pentagon, but who knew exactly which doors to knock on in Washington.
1995: Jerusalem Embassy Act Congress approved moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Strong majorities in both the Senate (93–5) and the House (374–37) supported it—a sign of AIPAC’s broad reachMERIP+13Wikipedia+13Cambridge University Press & Assessment+13.
Congress voted to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This wasn’t just about changing a building’s address. It was a big deal because many people around the world don’t agree on who should control Jerusalem. By saying it was Israel’s capital, the U.S. was picking a side. AIPAC had spent years pushing for this move, talking with lawmakers, building support, and reminding everyone that helping Israel would also help America. When the vote came, nearly everyone in Congress said “yes,” which showed just how much AIPAC had grown in power. But here’s where it gets interesting—presidents kept delaying the move for over 20 years, saying it might cause trouble. Still, the law stayed on the books, waiting. Some say it was a quiet signal to Israel: “We’ve got your back, no matter what.” And when the embassy finally moved in 2018, it showed how old promises made behind closed doors can finally come true when the right people are in charge.
2010: Iran-Sanctions Push AIPAC supported a big law that added tough penalties against Iran—showing their influence on foreign policy beyond just IsraelWikipedia.
In 2010, AIPAC pushed for a major law that hit Iran with some of the hardest penalties the U.S. had ever used. This wasn’t just about stopping Iran from making weapons—it was about using money and business rules to squeeze another country’s economy until it gave in. AIPAC worked with Congress to pass the law, but many people didn’t realize it also helped Israel by weakening one of its biggest rivals. Behind the scenes, AIPAC was showing that it could shape U.S. foreign policy in places far outside Israel’s borders. The law didn’t just hurt Iran—it also made other countries nervous about doing business with them, because they didn’t want to get punished too. Even banks and companies that had nothing to do with war felt the pressure. This showed that when AIPAC wants something to happen, it doesn’t just knock on doors—it helps write the rules, making sure U.S. power is used in ways that match their goals.
In 2014 and again in 2016, Congress passed laws that made the U.S.-Israel relationship even tighter, calling it a “strategic partnership.” These weren’t just feel-good friendship acts—they were about money, weapons, and shared research. The laws gave Israel special status to access high-level U.S. defense tech and allowed joint military projects, including cybersecurity and missile programs. AIPAC didn’t just cheer from the sidelines—they helped write the game plan. They worked with both Republicans and Democrats, like Rep. Ros-Lehtinen and Sen. Boxer, proving their reach across party lines. Some people started asking why Israel was being treated like a part of the U.S. military system, with nearly no debate about the risks. These deals made Israel not just a partner but something like a teammate with VIP access, even while other allies waited in line. Quietly, these acts gave Israel tools that could be used in secret operations, while AIPAC kept smiling for the cameras, claiming it was all just about keeping friends close.
Between 2017 and 2019, AIPAC took aim at people and groups who didn’t want to do business with Israel by pushing hard for laws to stop the BDS movement—Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions. They helped create laws like the Israel Anti-Boycott Act and the Combating BDS Act, which tried to punish companies and individuals who chose not to support Israeli products or investments. With help from leaders like Senator Marco Rubio, AIPAC made these laws sound like they were about protecting trade, but critics warned they were really about controlling speech and protest. Some Americans—even ones who didn’t support BDS—were shocked that the government could fine or ban people just for making peaceful choices. These laws gave Israel an unusual shield that most other countries don’t get. While supporters said the laws were about fighting hate, others said they blurred the line between protecting an ally and silencing Americans who had questions about U.S. foreign policy. Quietly, AIPAC had helped turn personal beliefs into possible legal risks.
2021–Present: Super PAC Launch For the first time, AIPAC formed a Super PAC called the United Democracy Project to directly influence U.S. elections—spending tens of millions to support candidates who back IsraelResearchGate+2The Guardian+2JCSSFA+2.
Starting in 2021, AIPAC took a bold new step by creating a Super PAC called the United Democracy Project. This wasn’t just about lobbying behind closed doors anymore—it meant pouring huge amounts of money directly into U.S. elections to help certain candidates win. These weren’t just any candidates; they were the ones who promised to support Israel no matter what. With tens of millions of dollars at its fingertips, this group began shaping who gets into Congress and who doesn’t. It made some people wonder: if outside money can decide who runs America’s laws, how much power does the average voter really have? Some candidates who didn’t get AIPAC’s approval found themselves drowned in attack ads or quietly pushed out. While it was all legal, it showed how groups like AIPAC can use money to steer democracy like a ship—even when the people on board think they’re the ones steering.
Who Backed Them?
Bipartisan Support: Even Democrats helped pass major bills—e.g., Sen. Barbara Boxer cosponsored the 2014 Strategic Partnership ActWikipedia.
Military & Security Figures: Leaders like Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) and Rep. James Langevin (D-RI) helped with the cybersecurity partnership in 2016Wikipedia.
Wealthy Donors: Deep-pocketed supporters funded the Super PAC—people like Jan Koum ($5M) and Bernie Marcus ($1M) contributed to shaping electionsThe Guardian+1teenvogue.com+1.
AIPAC didn’t get powerful by working alone—it had help from all sides. In Congress, both Democrats and Republicans teamed up to pass big laws. Even Senator Barbara Boxer, a well-known Democrat, co-sponsored the 2014 Strategic Partnership Act that made Israel a key U.S. ally. Military and national security leaders like Rep. John Ratcliffe and Rep. James Langevin pushed forward cyber partnerships that gave Israel more access to American defense systems.
But it wasn’t just about votes—it was also about money. Big-name donors like Jan Koum, who gave $5 million, and Bernie Marcus, who gave $1 million, helped fund AIPAC’s Super PAC to make sure only the “right” candidates got support. That meant if someone running for office didn’t fully back Israel, they could be outspent and outnumbered. These backers helped AIPAC reach deep into elections, laws, and even military ties—quietly guiding decisions that affect every American, whether they know it or not.
Why It Matters
AIPAC has moved from quietly urging Congress to powerful, modern political muscle—helping pass laws, shape foreign policy, and now directly impacting elections. They've built bridges into both parties, showing that support for Israel isn’t just about one party—it’s become part of how Washington works on national security, diplomacy, and votes.
Final Thought:
There’s no formal rule saying U.S. candidates must sign a pledge supporting Israel. But AIPAC—one of the most powerful pro‑Israel political groups—often makes support part of the deal. For many candidates, saying “yes” means money, help, and a stronger campaign. Saying “no” may cost them that help but might also earn respect from voters who want politicians to be free to speak their minds on tough issues.
The Brutal Truth July 2025
The Brutal Truth Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.
Portugal . That country, which used to have very easy immigration rules, has now approved a plan to tighten its borders . The government wants to create a new Immigration and Borders Unit inside the police, handle visas more strictly, limit family reunions for migrants, and rethink birth-based citizenship. Portugal Just Did the Unthinkable – Globalists Are Panicking | Redacted w Clayton Morris The changes were pushed through by the center-right leaders and a right-wing party called Chega , and now they’re waiting for the president to sign them into law. This shift shows Portugal is moving from being a friendly, open country to being more careful, even strict, about who can come in—and when. Why This Matters Even friendly countries are starting to say “enough.” Portugal was once known for welcoming people. Now it’s acting more like other big European countries that don’t want too many newcomers at once. Politics are rewiring. The center-right government is worki...
Given the Amount of Witnesses who have Unlived themselves... What are the odds Maxwell gets to testify before she gets unalive? A lot of people are wondering something very serious: will Ghislaine Maxwell ever get to tell everything she knows about Jeffrey Epstein and the powerful people they were connected to? Or will something happen to her before that can happen? This question might sound like a mystery movie, but it’s based on real things that have happened. You see, many people who were close to the Epstein case—witnesses, guards, even investigators—have died suddenly. Some were ruled as suicides. Some had strange accidents. A few simply disappeared. Jeffrey Epstein himself died in jail before he could go to trial. That happened while the cameras in his cell were somehow “not working,” and his guards were “asleep.” People from all political sides still ask: was it really a suicide? Or was someone trying to keep him quiet? Ghislaine Maxwell Breaks Silence, Says Government Dest...
SICK AND TIRED OF BEING SICK AND TIRED! Lots of people are upset because Pam Bondi , now Attorney General, promised to release secret Epstein files—including any “client list”—but turned around and said there’s nothing new to share. That reversed promise has made former Trump supporters furious and feeling like they’ve been played The Times +12 The Cut +12 theguardian.com +12 . Meanwhile, Ghislaine Maxwell wants a fresh look at her prison sentence—and even offered to talk to Congress under oath. She claims she knows the names of powerful people who were involved with Epstein . But the DOJ told the Supreme Court to reject her appeal, saying the old agreement didn’t cover her and that she helped cover up serious crimes yahoo.com +8 abcnews.go.com +8 businessinsider.com +8 . So here's the bottom line: Bondi said secrets would come out, then pulled back. Maxwell says she has more to say, but the DOJ is trying to keep her from speaking. For many MAGA supporters, this looks like ...
Comments
Post a Comment