The BBC Guide to Zionist Plots
This feels kind of thinly veiled to me. Especially with lines like this:
“Whilst Aipac is the largest pro-Israel group in America, there are many other organisations representing Jewish interests in the US – interests that often coincide with those of Israel.”
I can also give my last 8 years working on and off in publishing, that this thing reads like it’s been to the chopping block more than a few times. It’s got that stiff feel to it.
BBC loves us. It is, after all, at at least as fair and balanced as, say, American television. Especially given that it is a government chartered organization, and thus completely bias free.
Right?
The article’s title, btw, which is listed under ‘Don’t Miss’ on the BBC homepage, is ‘In Israel’s corner: Both Christians and Jews influence US support for Israel’, which I found both sensitive and subtle.
What I’d like to know is… who influences UK policy then?
Here’s a note I sent to the BBC.com:
This is in response to Mr. Nick Miles article, “Pro-Israel pressure strong in US” posted on your site August 11, 2006. This article keeps alive and well the canard that Jews control the government, or in this case, US policy towards Israel. I’m saddened that your journalists and editors contribute to Jew-baiting and anti-Semitism while cloaking it as journalism. A closer scrutiny by an editor would have spiked this article. Since you cannot or do not have the will to regulate your racist conclusions, allow me to point out a few problems:
1) Mr. Niles refers to Jews increasing switch to the Republican party, which explains Jewish influence of the current administration. In fact, 75% of Jews voted for John Kerry in 2004. If Jews were so invested in controlling the levers of power, how come they missed the boat on Bush’s election? And then why would Bush allow a minority group who clearly doesn’t support him to impose their will on his policies? Are Jews really that crafty and manipulative, or is Mr. Niles more interested in innuendo to make his arguments?
2) Mr. Niles states that the US gives $3 Billion a year to Israel as the US’ largest recipient of foreign aid. The US does indeed support Israel, and Egypt. The US give $3 Billion to Egypt each year as party of the original Camp David Accords under former President Jimmy Carter. Where is the article condemming the Egyptian Americans for ruling the roost in the State Department?
3) Finally, Mr. Niles notes that Jews have far less political power in Europe. First of all, it’s debatable if organized American Jews have as much influence as he asserts. Second, for Mr. Niles to compare American Jewish political power with European Jewish influence is outrageous. Is Mr. Niles so wrapped up in exposing elder Zionist control that he has missed the occurrence of the Holocaust, which murderd 1/3 of all world Jewry and reduced the indigenous Jewish population of Europe to a memory? How could German or Polish or Hungarian Jews play any substantial role in those countries foreign policy when all their population has been killed or chased off?
The offensiveness of Mr. Niles opinion piece, because clearly it isn’t an objective observation of American affairs, only suggests that the BBC has a clear policy of fomenting anti-Semitism. Perhaps it’s time for your editors to leave their own “dark cave” and examine your own editorial policies.
Respectfully,
Zachary Thacher
Zach
I could fucking KISS you right now.
No shit.
Next time you’re in the Bronx, dinner’s on me.
‘What I’d like to know is… who influences UK policy then? ”
Muslims and the people who are scared of them.
Awesome letter, Zachary.
Thanks, Zach.
Great letter, Zachary.
I don’t know, the article did notseem that outrageous to me.
Can you seriously claim that American policy towards Israel is not influenced by AIPAC and related groups?
That is after all, the entire raison d’etre of these organizations.
Secondly, noting such influence is not anti-semitic.
Gun-control policy is influenced by the NRA.
Church state policy is influenced by the Evangelical Right.
These are just common sense observations, not conspiracy theories.
Also, the article correctly notes that the evangelicals might actually be the bigger influence on bush since they control more votes and are a bigger part of his “base.”
I think in the absence of the evangelicals and AIPAC, the US would probably still support Israel (out of antipathy to Arabs if nothing else) but a lot more mildly than it has done recently.
“Thinly veiled”? The veil isn’t even that thin!
My favorite quote from the BBC article: “Back in 2000, the Jewish vote in Florida was a key factor in the Republican victory there, and by extension nationwide.” This quote comes just after the article describes the Jewish-American electorate as an “important voting block.” The suggestion is clearly that Jewish Floridians voted, as a block, for George W. Bush in 2000, thus pushing him over the edge in a tight election. Translation: Jewish support gave George W. Bush the Presidency.
Of course, Jews in Florida did not vote en masse for George W. Bush; if anything, Jews in Florida could be more accurately described as having voted en masse for George W. Bush’s opponent, John Kerry (aside from those fooled by the butterfly ballot into voting for Pat Buchanan!).
There are two possibilities for this egregious error: (1) The author — and the BBC editors — have a very shaky grasp on US politics and what happened in Florida in 2000, or (2) the story that Jewish votes were critical to George W. Bush’s election was just too good to leave out, even if it was verifiably false.
I suspect the latter.
Nobody’s mentioned the Saudi lobbying. In fact, given the amount of money the Saudis throw around, the US support for Israel is a clear demonstration of principle over greed.