Friday, August 24, 2007


From a long and detailed review published last year by Stephen Lendman of James Petras’ book “The Power of Israel in the United States” (for the book, see here):

“He notes what author JJ Goldberg reported in his book Jewish Power: Inside the Jewish Establishment. Goldberg wrote in the early 1990s that 45% of the Democrat Party’s fundraising and 25% of that for the Republicans came from Jewish-funded Political Action Committees (PACS). Petras then updates the numbers using the ones Richard Cohen published in the Washington Post showing them now at 60% and 35% respectively, and that this funding relates to a single core issue – unconditional US support for Israel’s agenda including those parts of it human rights activists and observers of conscience judge most egregious and illegal. Petras stresses that no other single US lobby including Big Pharma, Big Oil, agribusiness, or any other one has this kind of dominant influence over the political process here.”

Bill Clinton actually had a lot to do with this.  Fearing that the Democrats were going to be a permanent opposition party due to their inability to source the massive amount of funds available to the Republicans from Wall Street, Clinton went looking for money wherever he could find it.  Where else are you going to find ‘liberal’ billionaires other than in what is generally called the ‘Entertainment Industry’ (which includes Hollywood, the media, advertising, and that part of ‘high tech’ that relates to media or advertising)?  The big advantage of these donors is that their sole issue means that you don’t have to worry about the usual give and take of political horse trading.  Haim Saban, the man who, according to Terry McAuliffe “saved the Democratic Party”, said:

“I'm a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel."

As long as you toe the Likudnik party line, they will leave you alone.  This makes their political donations even more powerful than donations from ordinary donors, who have a range of issues, and are often looking for conflicting results.

The other issue which makes the Jewish money so important is that there is no countervailing lobby to speak of advocating sane policies towards the Middle East.  Along with the single view expressed in the American media – and thoughtful Americans might want to ask themselves why Likudnik policies, alone amongst all policies and political issues debated in the debate-loving United States, are the only view, at least until very recently, expressed in the American media – the lack of any opposing lobby, even a ‘lobby’ representing real American interests, means that it is very easy for politicians to go with the flow, now matter how immoral or how dangerous to real American interests. 

Any dissenters are dealt with by using the anti-Semitism slur, which cuts such a wide swath through American political debate that it prevents most people from even entering the discussion.  That’s why anybody who stoops to use the anti-Semitism slur is the moral equivalent of the guy in the Israeli bulldozer burying the Palestinian grandmother under the remains of her illegally demolished home, and why truth tellers have a strict moral obligation to treat the anti-Semitism slur with all the lack of respect it deserves.  Petras and Lendman are very brave for even discussing the issue.