Guardian

Continuing Guardian narrative regarding undue influence of Jewish money on U.S. politics


Explicitly antisemitic commentators often complain that Jewish money distorts U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, and warn of the broader danger posed by Jewish influence in politics.

Such narratives can be found on the extreme left, the Jewish far left, the extreme right, and Islamic /Arab sites

And, the Guardian is certainly no slouch at employing rhetoric suggesting the nefarious influence of Jewish Americans on U.S. policy or the election process.

E, writing in the Guardian on Jan. 25, commenting on Obama’s State of the Union address, wrote:

On foreign policy, a president who has been at loggerheads with the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, over a Middle East peace process promised unflinching support for the state. With an election looming and in need of votes and funds from American Jews, some of whom have been unhappy over his approach to Israel, Obama referred to “our iron-clad, and I mean iron-clad, commitment to Israel’s security”.

In nearly 3000 words in two separate Guardian reports (both published on Jan. 28,), Paul Harris and Arun Kundnani played to their Guardian base by evoking the injurious effects of (Zionist) Jewish money on the American body politic.

Harris’s “The Secrets of the billionaire bankrolling Gingrich’s shot at the White House, warned darkly of Adelson’s billions attempting to purchase the outcome of the U.S. elections, but Arun‘s account of Adelson, in “Newt Gingrich’s agenda-setting big donor, represented a far more egregious polemical assault on pro-Israel Jews.  Concluded Arun:

we should not be discouraged from properly scrutinising the millions of dollars being spent to advance the career of a politician who…is running for the presidential nomination while espousing a Greater Israel agenda.

The mere fact the Guardian’s hitherto favorite wealthy Jewish bogeyman, Sheldon Adelson, failed to propel his preferred candidate, Newt Gingrich, to political supremacy within the Republic primary for President doesn’t mean that such narratives on the “disproportionate” influence of Jewish money on the campaign will cease.

The latest Guardian piece consistent with such narrative isn’t nearly as egregious as the above examples, but again demonstrates that such memes are increasingly accepted within the Guardian Left and mainstream media.

In “FACT CHECK: ‘Record-low’ ignores money for Israel“, Guardian/Associated Press, Feb. 18, Donna Cassata (Political Editor at AP) attempts to refute allegations by “two powerful House Republican chairmen accused President Barack Obama of jeopardizing Israel’s security with a ‘record-low’ budget request for a cooperative U.S.-Israeli missile defense program.”

While Cassata cites some budgetary facts to counter the argument made by Foreign Affairs Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., and Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif. that “the administration is requesting record-low support for”, she then attempts to contextualize the criticism:

Election-year politics and the increasing Iranian threat to Israel have ratcheted up the bitter rhetoric in Washington and on the presidential campaign trail. Republicans and Democrats are keeping a close watch on Jewish voters who not only are an important political base for Democrats but whose financial contributions are critical for either party.

Commanders in chief propose a specific amount for the missile defense program knowing full well that Israel will contact members of Congress and ask that they come up with more money. Congress routinely complies.

Cassata’s argument is clear: U.S. Congressional support for Israel, and criticisms that President Obama’s proposed funding for Israel’s security, are a product of the influence of both American Jewish money and the government of the Jewish state.

As is typical when journalists write about Jews’ allegedly disproportionate influence on U.S. policy towards Israel, Cassata fails to contextualize the story by citing evidence that strong support for Israel among the Jewish and non-Jewish U.S. electorate is undeniable – empirically demonstrated by annual polls conducted by Gallup going back to 1967.

The degree that Congress is pro-Israel merely reflects something of a political consensus across the American political spectrum.

Yet, the belief that Jewish money (and/or Israel) is purchasing pro-Israel congressional support reflects something of a consensus among the Guardian Left and those politically aligned with their brand of “progressive” politics.

3 replies »

  1. Careful Adam. You have criticized 3 men in this report – Ewan MacAskill, Paul Harris and Arun Kundnani – and only one woman. Where are your misogynist credentials now?

    • GoonerEll,

      In the warped anti-Zionist mind, that in itself could pass for misogyny. You know, like that old line that Israeli soldiers are “racist” because they don’t rape Arab women. Heads you’re a bigot, tails you’re a racist.

      The first thing to find out before a debate is what the other side’s biases are. The second thing, to find out if they are correctible by simple presentation of the facts. If not, this is not a debate but a war (be it only in the figurative sense). The anti-Zionist invites the Zionist to a “debate,” not because he desires free and frank enquiry and evaluation of the issues, but because he wishes to undermine the Zionist’s confidence in his own cause by presenting Zionism and the opposition to it as equal claimants to the crown of justice. In reality, no amount of verbal sleight of hand could whitewash the inherent injustice of anti-Zionism, the belligerent movement centered on robbing the Jewish nation of their one and only rightfully held piece of land in the world and their right to sovereignty on it. That’s why anti-Zionists use subterfuge as their main weapon, and the power of their worldwide media muscle.

  2. “Explicitly antisemitic commentators often complain that Jewish money distorts U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, and warn of the broader danger posed by Jewish influence in politics. Such narratives can be found on the extreme left, the Jewish far left, the extreme right, and Islamic /Arab sites”

    Actually, such narratives can be found in the mainstream left — such as the New York Times editorial page. And, rather than display shame or contrition for its anti-Semitism, the Times supports its narrative by subsequently obsessing over a Jewish donor to a Republican (Adelson/Gingrich).

    The left stinks of anti-Semitism.