General Antisemitism

Jewish money: The Guardian leaps once more into the sewer of antisemitic conspiracies

A guest post by AKUS

Adam Levick has already demonstrated the prevalence of typically anti-Semitic language and themes that form the core of the disgusting article by Arun Kundnani, Newt Gingrich’s agenda-setting big donor, with its implication of “Jewish money” setting the agenda for the US elections, and the twinned article by  Paul Harris, The Secrets of the billionaire bankrolling Gingrich’s shot at the White House, with its juicy hint of a secretive Jewish donor manipulating the Republican nomination campaign.

Arun Kundnani claims that Adelson is “setting the agenda” for Gingrich by donating money to a Super-PAC that supports Gingrich’s candidacy.

This, of course, is nonsense. A PAC does not “set the agenda” for a candidate. All PACs promote the agenda of candidates they find consistent with their donors’ views by placing advertizing in the media. Kundnani basically admits as much:

Of course, like all private funding of politics, there is no way of knowing with certainty what the Adelsons expect to achieve with their money.

Precisely.  There is no way to know what donors expect other than they hope their preferred candidate will win the nomination and will, therefore, implement polices the donors support – but do not control. The idea that because Adelson is Jewish (and even worse – a Jew who loves and supports Israel) he must be setting Newt’s agenda is clearly a reversion to the age-old theme that “Jewish money” controls politics (among other things).

Money is flooding into the coffers of all candidates now that the Supreme Court has (foolishly, I believe) opened the doors to corporate donors. The Sunlight Foundation has been tracking Super PAC money, and it reveals that although the pro-Gingrich Super PAC that Adelson supports, Winning Our Future, has  spent $8,511,433, the pro-Romney Super PAC, Restore Our Future, has outspent Gingrich’s Super Pac by more than 2:1 – $17,485,657.

PACs supporting other candidates have spent or raised amounts in the $1 million to $4 million range, including, by the way, a PAC that supports perennial Guardian favorite, the anti-Israeli Ron Paul.

Yet we do not see an investigative piece in the Guardian that tries to tie Romney’s donors to powerful and wealthy Mormons, or Ron Paul’s PAC to – well, some lunatic fringe Texan, I suppose who hopes to “achieve something with his money” such as restoring the US to the gold standard.

In fact, while Adelson might support Gingrich because Gingrich supports Israel is very likely true, it is apparently not necessarily true that Gingrich is supporting Israel to court “Jewish money”.  Even the virulently anti-Israeli Guardian journalist, Chris McGreal, has dropped his blinkers long enough to note what everyone else already realized some time ago – that Newt’s real audience is the vastly greater evangelical voting bloc:

But Gingrich’s vocal support of Israel has less to do with support from the Jewish community than the votes of a much larger group: Christian evangelicals, who are strongly supportive of Israel for theological reasons

McGreal went on to cite a person claiming that the evangelicals are to the right of Netanyahu’s government when it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict. Nevertheless, he also could not avoid bringing Adelson into the mix, even though he is only one of Gingrich’s donors and we have no way to know how he compares with other donors – for example, to donors to Romney’s far greater Super PAC. For those interested, it is worth noting that Jeffrey Katzenberg has donated $2 million to Barak Obama’s Super PAC, but the Guardian editorial pool does not seem to feel that this donation raises the specter of “Jewish money” at work distorting the electoral process.

Harris article, The Secrets of the billionaire bankrolling Gingrich’s shot at the White House, was typical of the worst of the Guardian’s feeble attempts at investigative reporting. In more than 2,000 words, Harris revealed “secrets” that a few milliseconds on Google would turn up. The gist, of course, was that as a result of the Adelsons’ support, heavily outspent Gingrich “…suddenly has an outside chance of becoming president”. Perhaps to put this whole affair in perspective, take a look at the billions spent by lobbying companies  listed at

It is the delicious conjunction of “Adelson” – “Jewish” – “Israel”- Abe Foxman” – “AIPAC” and, of course, “money” that makes the whole issue of Adelson’s very public “secrets” so interesting to Harris and the Guardian. The Guardian even foolishly added the sub-header claim, ludicrous to every sane observer of the Republican nomination process, that is being debunked even as I write this, that “Sheldon Adelson is not running for office – but his cash could swing Tuesday’s Florida primary”.

Well, it may not. Romney is trouncing Gingrich in the Florida primary polls.

If it is inappropriate for wealthy people to support Gingrich, why is it not inappropriate for Romney to raise at least twice as much money, and far more than twice as much before the Adelsons stepped forward with their donation or donations? There is really only one answer, and it runs like a shameful thread through all three articles. It is because Adelson is Jewish and a supporter of Israel, and Newt has been more outspoken in his support of Israel than Romney (but less, by the way, than former candidate Michele Bachman, for example).

The Guardian moderators were out in force shredding comments BTL to Kundani’s article. One of the comments deleted was this one, and I would say that SantaMoniker only got it half right:

The fact is, there was nothing “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” about the articles by Kundnani and Harris, in particular. They were blatant invocations of the age-old anti-Semitic idea that “Jewish money” controls politicians. The Guardian has been slipping more and more frequently into the sewer of anti-Semitism, and this time was in it up to its neck.

But the Republicans of Florida will vote, and it appears that Romney will trounce Gingrich.

Will we then see a shame-faced retraction by the Guardian? Of course not.

13 replies »

  1. From
    ‘in a 2005 Middle East Quarterly article, Gingrich urged the “Palestinian diaspora” to invest in “their ancestral lands,” and even proposed that Congress “establish a program of economic aid for the Palestinians to match the aid the U.S. government provides Israel.”’

    Read more:

    $10 million later

    ‘the Palestinians were an “invented” people who “had the chance to go many places.’’ No Palestinians, no need to negotiate a state’

    Go figure

    Andelson’s a nasty piece of work regardless of his religious persuasion

  2. If Arun Kundnani wants to see racism and hatred, all he has to do is look at the Palestinians racist media against Jews.
    PA denying Israel’s right to exist.
    PA promoting virulent antisemitism in their schools, mosques, and popular media; and deny the Holocaust suddenly have discovered the dangers of incitement!
    Case Study: Portraying Jews as “Apes and Pigs”
    See the sickening hatred the PA teach their kids in their schools and camps.

  3. This just appeared at the Washington Post. Romney’s money continues to dwarf Gingrich’s.

    Newt Gingrich raised $10 million in the fourth quarter of 2011 and has pulled in another $5 million in January, his campaign announced in a tweet Tuesday.

    The newly disclosed fundraising numbers represent a big uptick for the former House speaker, who raised less than $1 million in the third quarter and was deeply in debt. The campaign had previously said it raised $9 million in the fourth quarter but is adjusting that up slightly.

    But so far, the amount has not allowed him to compete financially with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who announced earlier this month that he raised $24 million in the fourth quarter and had $19 million at the end of the year.

  4. Ottolenghi in the JC:

    Gingrich was a committed friend of Israel before Adelson put his money into his campaign and there is little evidence that such financial injection had anything to do with Gingrich describing the Palestinians as “an invented people” during a recent interview with a Jewish cable channel. The fact is, Gingrich is known to shoot from the hip, rhetorically speaking, and his comment, which caused a firestorm, is more a reflexion of his mercurial character and style than the improbable input from Adelson.
    Besides, with the single exception of the non-electable Ron Paul, all Republican candidates are pro-Israel….
    More importantly, campaign contributors are unlikely to shape foreign policy if their candidate wins.”