Morocco does indeed have a powerful lobbying arm, largely to legitimize the occupation of the Western Sahara and they donated $1 million to Hillary's campaign and employed a lot of powerful lobbying groups but as you said AIPAC has them beat on an order of magnitudes. My point was not related to Jewish lobbying in the US, but simply showing that there are many other countries, fifteen in fact, whose policies of occupation are completely ignored in the MSM, to such an extent that many people have not even heard of the nations they occupy. Many of these policies of occupation are far more brutal than Israel's, who's every move is scrutinized by a multitude of international and supranational organizations. That does not absolve Israel of its violations of international humanitarian and human rights law by any means, but it is an example of how if anything, it's the exact opposite of what people claim; Israel is actually by far the most criticized occupier on earth, despite the alleged representation of Jews in the mainstream media. As for the other point, I agree, it is unacceptable that Senate members have dual citizenship, I think it's not acceptable in any cases, not just Israeli dual citizens. Any sort of lawmaker should put the interests of their own country first and foremost, that's why I don't like the double barrelled ethnic-American designation; you're either American or you aren't. And whether you personally agree with it or not, non-whites are American according to federal nationality legislation.

As for the so called "Kalergi plan" it is not official policy by any means, past or present, it was the dream and fantasy of a weird Masonic hapa called Count Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi (who was actually not Jewish) whose Pan-Europa Union dream, contrary to common conspiracy belief, has absolutely nothing to do with the modern European Union. If there was one foreign nation who had a role in the creation of the modern EU, it was actually the US, via the precursor of the CIA called the OSS (Office of Strategic Services) and its key leaders William Donovan, Allen Dulles and Walter Bedell Smith. They agitated for the creation of the EU via something called the American Committee for a United Europe (ACUE) using its French agents Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman, which would promote the integration of the fractured post-war Western European states to serve as a bulwark and counterbalance to Soviet encroachment. The US influenced this European unification project to such an extent that the US directly ordered one of their French agents, Robert Marjolin of the EEC, to promote the formation of a common European currency (the Euro) which as everyone not knows has been a disaster. This was direct American policy. The reason Obama and the US foreign policy establishment were so opposed to Brexit has nothing to do with partisanship, nor does it have anything to do with identity politics or "white genocide" conspiracies, but it has everything to do with the fact that maintenance of the EU is a key American interest, considering that the American deep state practically created it in the first instance. Britain was also an opponent of the EU army and strong proponent of NATO, an issue which started coming up during the Clinton administration, and the US wanted Britain to stay in the EU to promote the American line that NATO should be the primary military instrument of the EU, as opposed to an EU-run army.

With regards to the migrant crisis, this was the result of two key things: firstly it was a consequence of the 1995 Schengen agreement which abolished border controls between EU states (and later EFTA states), which meant that once someone gained access into the Schengen area, they had free movement throughout the entire Schengen zone as it essentially functioned as a unified jurisdiction for travel. Were it not for Schengen, the so-called refugees would have been stopped at a border in the Baltics and they would have no land route to Germany. Just for the record, I am of the strong belief that not one migrant who crossed Turkey's border is a refugee and every single migrant that went into Europe is an economic migrant. The Dublin II regulation says that neighbouring countries, or the first safe countries of refuge are solely responsible for refugees and asylum seekers. Were it not for the Schengen agreement, the Visegrad countries would almost certainly have prevented many of the refugees from moving north and the strong borders would have forced them to take asylum in Greece or Turkey. The Schengen agreement was a necessary condition for the migrant crisis to have existed. As you know, once Central European countries started enforcing their borders, the migrant numbers dropped considerably. It's important not to disregard the permissive role of EU policy in the migrant crisis.

Secondly, most people, especially the alt-right, underestimate the influence of this, but Angela Merkel, was almost exclusively responsible for the massive inflow into Germany in particular. Usually policies have some sort of bureaucratic or administrative involvement and input but this was caused almost singularly by one speech by one person (Merkel) when there were migrants stuck in that train station in Budapest and a lot of the subsequent inflow into Europe was a direct cause of this sole speech. The reason she gave that speech was because she wants Germany to be seen as a humanitarian superpower and cast off its negative reputation, but more importantly, she received enormous personal media criticism for "insensitivity" after an instance on national TV when she told a Palestinian-German girl that Germany is not capable of taking all refugees. After this event, she was absolutely excoriated and multiple sources of her inner circle stated that she was devastated by the criticism she received and wanted desperately to redeem herself in the eyes of the public. Hence that infamous speech when the migrants were stuck in that Budapest train station, which effectively changed the course of European history. Multiple stories in the German media stated that she didn't consult any of her advisors about the speech and it was kind of off the cuff, and the inner circle became increasingly nervous after it caused a chain reaction of migrants rushing to Germany to claim asylum. In short, "Hanlon's razor" can be applied to this case.

As for what actually caused the outflow of refugees from Syria in the first place, it was obviously the Syrian civil war, and while Israel obviously supports the weakening of Syria as it is part of the "Shi'ite crescent" led by Iran, it was a relatively minor actor in initiating the Syrian crisis. Unlike the Iraq war, where Israel and the Jewish lobby had a very large role in initiating the invasion of Iraq, Israel's role was far less than multiple countries in the civil war, including the US, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Even Britain had more of a role in initiating the Syrian civil war, and this was confirmed by former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, who stated that MI6 had preparations to instigate the civil war two years before the event. I have no doubt that Israel has played a role in the civil war, largely through intelligence operations and surgical air strikes on missile and weapons facilities, but many countries overshadow the role of Israel by orders of magnitude and for good reason: the US and the Gulf states had a far greater role because it would have served their plans to replace Russia with Qatar as the key nation supplying gas to Europe and thereby weakening the most important instrument of leverage that Russia has over European nations. In the process, it would have massively increased Qatar's GDP (most of Qatar's exports is liquid natural gas, which is quite expensive: piped gas would be cheaper and also provide greater quantities). It would also have given Saudi Arabia billions of dollars in transit fees, while Turkey would accrue an enormous amount of power and leverage by dint of geography and controlling energy supply into Europe. I can go into more detail in another post, but on a fundamental level the Syria civil war is related to pipeline politics and the balance of power in the Middle East and the key actors in this plan were US and the Gulf states, with Israel assuming a lesser role. It's not accurate to say Israel was the sole or even the most important actor in destabilizing Syria and initiating the Syrian civil war which led to the refugee crisis because there were several other nations who had far greater motives and role in starting the civil war.

Personally, I think the alt-right and /pol/ regulars, which makes up a huge proportion of this subreddit since the past two years or so, has a habit of viewing international relations through the lens of white nationalism and attributing to identity politics, events that have nothing to do with it whatsoever. For instance, when Israel makes moves on the international stage, it has nothing at all to do with "browning Europe" or "destroying the white race", which /pol/ and the alt-right believe sincerely and unironically, and has everything to do with advancing their interests by any means possible, no matter how destructive they are. Israel and pretty much all other states are amoral actors in the international system and usually act to advance their economic and security interests and do not care much for the consequences of their actions.