Mathew Carr

Secret fusing of weapons making, AI, intelligence sharing makes U.S. directly complicit in the actions of Israel as it illegally killed perhaps 100,000 in Gaza (3)

Fusing weapons manufacturing, artificial intelligence, and intelligence sharing makes the U.S. directly complicit in the actions of the Israeli government and the high civilian death toll in Gaza, say critics of ‘suppressed’ law

By Mathew Carr*

I knew the USA was creating a giant propaganda machine via AI, a machine that would give it power to control history and dictate cultural narratives.

But it seems it’s actually much worse, potentially — a giant, or even global, “propaganda and intelligence-death machine that will also manipulate markets”.

Strangely, some of the most influential media outlets have not covered this story yet …eg Bloomberg and the Washington Post** …perhaps because it’s so deeply embarrassing for the USA in the lead up to July 4 this year …the 250th anniversary of the US declaring independence  in 1776.

The proposals indicate that the USA is not independent at all from violent, criminal Israel. Perhaps the proposals are not really genuine but another level of sinister distraction from the highly sophisticated stealing from taxpayers at an almost-global level.

This whole scenario smacks of selfish statecraft.

eg. When you contrast “Democratic” Representative Adam Smith’s modern actions — leading this charge — with the actual philosophies of the historical economist Adam Smith, you find a profound symbolic contradiction.

The modern policymaker is actively promoting a system that the historical philosopher warned would corrupt democracy and ruin economies.

The historical Adam Smith was behind the world’s current economic system, which relies on people having access to similar levels of information and making bids and offers in markets. This “invisible hand” is simultaneously closer than ever and at more risk of being captured and corrupted by tech bros and government than ever before.

The Ultimate Irony (Gemini + CarrZee)

The historical Adam Smith wrote extensively about how empires collapse when their governments become “captured” by special interest groups and defense monopolies.
Shifting Israel into the Pentagon’s internal procurement system—bypassing standard democratic oversight—is a textbook example of that capture. [1]
Symbolically, while the 18th-century Adam Smith designed a blueprint intended to liberate societies through free and peaceful commerce [1], the 21st-century Adam Smith is helping to lock down a permanent, legally binding infrastructure for globalized state warfare. [1]

CarrZee: Markets won’t work if various points of view are shoved into a giant machine and sanitized or corrupted by violent AI/intelligence.

What’s happening:

A legislative framework is currently moving through the U.S. Congress that would institutionalise unprecedented levels of military-industrial integration. This proposal is not yet law and requires multiple subsequent votes in Congress to pass.
The public discussion stems from a specific piece of legislation known as Section 224 of the draft National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2027.

When political analysts and independent journalists say this proposal was ‘kept out of the public spotlight’…

…they are referring to a coordinated strategy by the bipartisan leadership of the House Armed Services Committee, pro-Israel lobbying groups, and major corporate media networks.
Rather than a single villain in a dark room, it was a systemic avoidance of public debate by several key players:

1. Congressional Committee Leadership

The primary actors who shielded the language from early public scrutiny were Representative Mike Rogers (Republican Chairman) and Representative Adam Smith (Ranking Democrat). [2, 4]
  • The “Tuck-In” Strategy: Instead of advancing the “FUTURES Act” as a standalone bill—which would require individual public hearings, public debate, and an isolated vote—they quietly inserted its text into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) as “Section 224”.
  • The Shield of Complexity: The NDAA is a $1.15 trillion, thousands-of-pages-long budget framework. By burying a major shift in foreign policy deep inside a massive, mandatory piece of defense legislation, leadership ensured that it would not face widespread public pushback until it was already packaged as a “done deal”.

2. Pro-Israel Lobbying Groups

Special interest groups, most notably the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), chose not to run major public advertising campaigns for the bill.
  • The Insiders’ Playbook: Lobbying groups targeted internal congressional staff and committee members directly rather than mobilizing the general public. They quietly provided lawmakers with policy memos framing Section 224 as a “routine, bureaucratic optimization” to improve efficiency, deliberately keeping the language low-profile to avoid alerting progressive anti-war coalitions before the committee vote.

3. Institutional Corporate Media

Mainstream outlets like The Washington Post, Bloomberg, and major cable news channels inadvertently helped keep the story quiet through their standard reporting practices.
  • The Procedural Blindspot: Corporate media operations generally do not assign reporters to comb through the granular, page-by-page line items of massive defense bills during the initial draft phases. They typically wait until a bill hits the full House or Senate floor for a final vote. This lack of early, mainstream investigation left a vacuum, which allowed the provision to advance without public awareness until niche and international outlets started reporting on it. [5, 8]

4. The Israeli Executive Branch

Behind the scenes, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration coordinated closely with specific U.S. lawmakers.
  • Avoiding the Public Spotlight: Netanyahu explicitly endorsed this structural pivot—writing personal letters to key U.S. representatives like Marlin Stutzman—to fast-track a system that would fund Israel’s military outside of the volatile, highly public annual foreign aid debates that attract massive protest and media scrutiny. [1, 5]
The strategy worked exactly as intended until progressive lawmakers used the June 4th markup hearing to force an open, on-camera debate, effectively pulling the provision out of the shadows.

 

Middle East Death Figures

**Washington Post finally covers it June 8 with a biased opinion:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/06/08/us-now-faces-europes-defense-dilemma/

ChatGPT

(*some help from AI…partly double checked. Updated to include more context on Adam Smith)

Notes

Gemini A +  CarrZee tweaks:

The “rushed” nature of the negotiations surrounding Section 224 and the U.S.-Israel military integration is driven by a series of tight legislative and political deadlines…. or perhaps to distract from important climate and trade negotiations happening simultaneously. Lawmakers backing the bill are working against a compressed congressional timeline to secure the policy before shifting public sentiment and upcoming election cycles can disrupt its passage. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Three primary deadlines are dictating this rapid legislative push:

1. The Pre-Recess Summer Deadlines (June 2026)

Congress operates on strict seasonal windows. Having just successfully cleared the House Armed Services Committee markup on June 4, 2026, leadership has a very narrow window to keep the momentum going: [6]
  • The Week of June 8, 2026: The Senate Armed Services Committee is scheduled to begin marking up its own version of the defense bill. Pro-integration lawmakers are rushing to ensure identical or similar language to Section 224 is embedded in the Senate base text before individual senators can organize opposition. [2]
  • Late June 2026 (The July 4th Recess): House leadership is aiming to push the full $1.15 trillion NDAA to a full floor vote during the last week of June. The goal is to pass the bill before lawmakers leave Washington for the July 4th recess, preventing progressive opponents from using the summer break to mobilize public pressure against the merger. [2, 6]

2. The November Election and Leadership Shifts

The most critical unwritten deadline is the looming congressional calendar ahead of future election cycles. [1]
  • Avoiding Floor Fractures: Passing controversial provisions through committee early ensures they are wrapped inside the massive, must-pass defense bill. [1, 2]
  • Beating Public Polarization: Public polling indicates a sharp decline in unconditional support for Israel, particularly among younger voters and the Democratic base. Proponents are pushing the legislation through now while mainstream leadership in both parties still holds a decisive majority, knowing that future congresses may be far less willing to approve such deep integration. [1, 5, 7, 8]

3. Replacing the Expiring 10-Year Aid Memorandum

At a grand strategic level, the entire integration initiative is a rushed negotiation to pre-empt a major funding expiration. [1]
  • The current 10-year U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)—which legally guarantees billions in annual military aid—will eventually require renewal. [1]
  • Because future MOU renewals are expected to face unprecedented, highly public opposition and intense congressional debate, Section 224 is being rushed through now. If enacted, it establishes a permanent, structural partnership that bypasses the need for future 10-year aid votes entirely, locking the alliance into the Pentagon’s architecture ahead of schedule. [1, 9, 10]
Would you like to track how individual senators plan to vote when the Senate committee takes up the bill next week, or look at the specific amendments progressive lawmakers are drafting to try and strip this out?
Gemini B
The United States and Israeli militaries have not merged, but a legislative framework is currently moving through the U.S. Congress that would institutionalise unprecedented levels of military-industrial integration. This proposal is not yet law and requires multiple subsequent votes in Congress to pass. [1, 2, 3]
The public discussion stems from a specific piece of legislation known as Section 224 of the draft National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2027. [2, 3]

Where the Bill Stands in the Voting Process

  • House Committee Approval: The House Armed Services Committee voted in late May 2026 to keep Section 224 in the base text of the defense bill. An amendment proposed by progressive Democrats to block the integration plan was overwhelmingly defeated. [4, 5]
  • Upcoming Votes Required: The full U.S. House of Representatives must vote to pass its version of the final NDAA bill. [3, 5]
  • Senate Approval: The U.S. Senate must introduce, debate, and vote on its own version of the defense bill. [3, 6]
  • Reconciliation and Final Passage: Both chambers of Congress must vote to pass a unified, compromised version of the bill before it is sent to the President to be signed into law. [3]

What Section 224 Actually Proposes

Rather than combining soldiers into a single fighting force, the “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative” mandates deep structural and technological integration. It requires the U.S. Defense Secretary to assign a dedicated Pentagon executive to oversee: [3, 5]
  • Joint Technical Development: Seamlessly co-developing emerging tech fields including Artificial Intelligence (AI), quantum computing, cybersecurity, and directed-energy weapons. [7, 8]
  • Network Integration & Data Fusion: Fusing sensitive military data systems and networks together so both nations share the same operational data infrastructure. [7, 9]
  • Co-Production & Joint Ventures: Merging weapons manufacturing pipelines, supply chains, and licensing agreements. [7, 10]

The Debate and Shift in Strategy

The proposal matches a shift in strategy publicly endorsed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Instead of relying on traditional 10-year foreign aid packages—which expire and require highly visible, controversial annual votes in Congress—this plan permanently embeds Israel’s defense apparatus inside the Pentagon’s internal procurement system. [8, 9, 11]
Foreign policy analysts from organizations like the Quincy Institute note that if fully enacted, it would provide Israel with a tighter level of institutional military integration than traditional treaty allies like NATO or the “Five Eyes” intelligence community receive. Opponents argue it removes democratic and congressional oversight, while supporters argue it guarantees a mutually beneficial technical edge over shared regional adversaries. [8, 9, 11, 12, 13]

3 comments

Leave a Reply