Jew World Order

As you surely know, two days ago Donald Trump issued a venomous warning to American Jews to back him because of what he did for Israel that many have seen as antisemitic. Trump trumpeted what he had done for Israel and how popular he is in Israel, and bewailed the lack of reciprocity of Jewish voters. “No President has done more for Israel than I have…. U.S. Jews have to get their act together and appreciate what they have in Israel – Before it is too late!”

Benjamin Netanyahu stood up for Trump, as well he should. As Maggie Haberman’s new book on Trump makes clear, Netanyahu’s friend the late Sheldon Adelson contributed over $100 million to Trump and Republican campaigns, and Trump duly did just what Adelson and Netanyahu wanted him to do: moving the embassy, trashing the Iran deal, closing the Jerusalem consulate that served Palestinians, recognizing the illegal annexation of the Golan Heights.

These were dramatic policy shifts that Biden has done nothing to reverse. Because he doesn’t want to alienate pro-Israel donors.

But you can’t talk about this in mainstream media. For two nights in a row, the PBS News Hour covered Trump’s post and left out the money issue.

Last night, in fact, the News Hour’s John Yang used the Trump comment to attack Ilhan Omar. “Of course, Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar has been criticized in the past for her comments, saying that congressional support for Israel is based on money, not principle.”

And guest/scholar Dov Waxman, who knows better, didn’t say a word in favor of Omar. “I think antisemitism is a concern on all sides of the political spectrum. Antisemitic ideas, stereotypes, ways of thinking can come up across the political spectrum, and left, right or center,” he said. “[W]hile statements about the power of the pro-Israel lobby or allusions to its control over Congress can certainly draw upon old antisemitic ideas, I don’t think we should equate that with the kind of mainstreaming of antisemitic conspiracy theories that is happening today within the Republican Party.”

Let’s recall that Omar said in 2019 that efforts by the Congressional leadership to punish critics of Israel in the House were “all about the Benjamins,” and then explained that she meant AIPAC. This was a completely legitimate criticism, for which Omar had to apologize, on the grounds it was antisemitic.

When in fact AIPAC has been channeling tons of money to Congressional candidates, and the blackmail is effective on the Democratic side, where 3/4 of the big givers to the party are Jewish, and are assumed to be Zionist — the “elephant in the room,” as The New York Times once described the role of campaign contributions in shaping policy in the Middle East. Jewish donors’ role for Democrats is “gigantic,” and “shocking,” J Street panelists said in 2016.

PBS News Hour also brought up the Trump post two nights ago, in a political discussion with experts Amy Walter and Tamara Keith. You could not assemble a more knowledgeable trio than Walter, Keith and host Judy Woodruff, but they all covered up the Adelson angle. Keith said that Trump was sounding an antisemitic trope of dual loyalty while Walter said that Trump was “transactional.” 

They are both avoiding the crucial issue here: Trump did do more for Israel than any other president, and he did it because of all the money he got from Sheldon Adelson. Even Tom Friedman has said Trump moved the embassy for Adelson’s money. And P.S. Adelson has expressed loyalty to Israel, saying he wished he had served in their army, not ours.

Also on PBS two nights ago, Lisa Desjardins did a piece on how money is being spent ahead of the midterms and never mentioned pro-Israel money. “Judy, we are seeing a storm of campaign spending.” Her focus on “dark money” included Senator McConnell’s “Senate Leadership” superpac, Peter Thiel’s spending, and George Soros too.

But in the last few days able journalists at the Intercept and the Guardian have focused on a very important story about dark money: the extent to which pro-Israel money is defining races in the Democratic Party and demolishing progressive candidacies.

Ryan Grim reported on the millions spent by Democratic Majority for Israel and AIPAC to “pummel” Democratic candidates who dared to criticize Israel. The thrust of the article was that progressive candidates for Congress are terrified of this money pouring into their districts so they avoid Palestine.

Grim focused on Florida congressional candidate and progressive hero Maxwell Frost scrubbing Palestine from his messaging so he wouldn’t get stomped by the lobby.

Frost told another ally that his goal was to avoid getting crushed by DMFI. “We’re just trying to see if we can keep them out, and maybe if they come in, they won’t spend anything,” they recalled him speculating.Campaign sources, however, say the issue was front and center, with questions about what type of positioning might keep the outside money out. When allies in the free Palestine movement warned him that capitulating to DMFI and AIPAC wouldn’t let up even after he was elected, whether he capitulated or not, they recall Frost saying, “I’ll figure that out when I get there.”

Grim says what so many others said during the primary season, that this money is the biggest game in town.

In fact, DMFI, Mainstream Democrats PAC, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee have spent so much money that the question of Israel-Palestine now dominates Democratic primaries.

So the money “dominates” Democratic primaries but it would be antisemitic to even discuss this on public television. And Liberal Zionists don’t rate.

“It’s been a radical transformation in the politics of Israel-Palestine and the politics of Democratic primaries,” said Logan Bayroff, director of communications for J Street, which describes itself as a “pro-Israel, pro-peace” organization. This cycle, Bayroff helped run J Street Action Fund, an outside spending group designed specifically to counter the influence of DMFI and AIPAC. It spent less than 10 percent the amount its rivals were able to put in the field.

Right after Grim’s article, the Guardian ran a story by Chris McGreal on AIPAC’s superpac’s funding of Republican extremists, so long as they are supportive of Israel.

That piece focused on the fact that Democrats still take AIPAC’s money because it’s too powerful to alienate:

“Aipac is now an embarrassment but frankly it’s too powerful to go up against,” the [anonymous Democratic] staffer said. “We don’t need them pouring money in against us so we hold off on the public criticisms. But that doesn’t mean to say there are not some serious policy differences, particularly on Iran.”

The Guardian said Aipac had spent $27 million in primaries because it is worried about eroding support for Israel in the wake of reports by leading human rights groups saying that Israel is an apartheid state.

And of course AIPAC is not alone.

The Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) was founded three years ago to bolster support for Israel within the party after polls showed younger supporters increasingly wanted to see Washington take a stronger stand in favour of the Palestinians.

The big fear, the Guardian says, is that Israel won’t remain a bipartisan issue.

So all this money is distorting and corrupting U.S. policy on one of the most important foreign relations issues the country faces. AIPAC drops $27 million in one short cycle; and public television covers “dark money” and can’t talk about the issue. Good luck to all of us.

Source