Myths and Realities

by James J. Zogby

Dr. James J. Zogby is the President of Arab American Institute

There is a persistent and pernicious myth that maintains that "Jewish money" is the determinant factor shaping all aspects of U.S. Middle East policy. Not only is this a core belief among anti-Semites, it is also advanced by some advocates for Israel, who see this notion serving their purpose.

I mention this because Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is coming to Washington in a few days and the Israeli and Arab press are rife with speculation about the purpose/meaning of the visit. One column, appearing in Ma'ariv, a major Israeli tabloid daily, made reference to this myth in a way so striking that I felt it required closer examination.

The column, by a respected commentator, Ben Kaspit, begins by noting that Netanyahu is viewing his invitation to meet with Obama as evidence that he "won" his test of wills with the U.S. President. Kaspit goes on to present his take on the turn of events, quoting "Washington insiders" who note that the last month has witnessed a change in the White House's approach to Israel in a deliberate effort to calm troubled waters. The reason for this change, as understood by Kaspit's "insiders", is Democrats' concern with the November elections. One is quoted in the article saying, "The coffers of the Democratic Party are empty... Many Democratic Congressman and Senators have complained that if the harsh treatment of Israel continues, they will not get any campaign donations from Jewish voters and could lose the vote".

I was struck by this claim both because it summarized so perfectly the "myth" as it is believed by anti-Semites and used by some pro-Israel propagandists, and also because it is so blatantly false.

Just days before Kaspit's "insider" made his remarks, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and two other Democratic Party vehicles (the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee-DCCC, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee-DSCC) and their three Republican counterparts, released their most recent fundraising totals.

Far from "empty coffers", the DNC reported $15.1 million cash on hand, more than the Republican Party's $12.4 million. Similarly the DCCC and the DSCC are flush with cash, both showing larger balances than the two Republican campaign committees.

More telling still is the fact that since the recent Obama Administration flap with Netanyahu began in early March, 2010, Democratic fundraising to all three committees has risen sharply. The DNC raised over $24 million in the two months when the tension was highest (contrast that with the RNC's $18 million during the same period). The DCCC and the DSCC added another $24 million, with the two committees reporting a total of "$44 million cash on hand-$16 million more than the two matching Republican groups.

I am forced to ask exactly what was Kaspit's "insider" attempting to do by speaking such an obvious falsehood? Projecting the "myth" of a monolith of omnipotent Jewish donors obsessed with Israel can be a useful, though potentially dangerous tool. It plays into the hands of anti-Semites, but I suppose from the perspective of some advocates of Israel, that's worth the risk. Because the myth is believed by some Arabs makes it doubly valuable. If Arabs become convinced that nothing they do can make change in U.S. policy, since they will always lose to "Jewish power", then they won't try to work for change. And if Arabs can be made to believe that American behavior can so easily be checked by someone "pulling the purse strings", then why would they ever trust any U.S. initiative?

Reality, of course, is far more complex. American Jews are, in fact, prodigious donors to American politics. And pro-Israel PAC's do make substantial contributions to candidates. But most money given by American Jews has nothing to do with Israel. And while some sleazy pro-Israel characters have made threats in the past to withhold "Jewish contributions" if they didn't get their way, their threats were as hollow as their boasts.

Over the years, I've seen pro-Israel groups claim credit for defeating politicians when they, in fact, had no more than a marginal role in the effort. I've also seen them mobilize vast sums of money to defend allies in Congress who were on the verge of defeat, only to see them lose despite the contributions that filled their coffers.

Nevertheless, the myth has power and persists - hence its use by Kaspit's "insider". But a simple check of the facts reveals that the myth is just that - a myth.

A more reasonable explanation of Washington's efforts to "calm the waters" and President Obama's upcoming meetings with the Israeli Prime Minister and the Palestinian President is the Administration's determination to move peace talks forward. Having secured Israel's agreement to freeze settlement construction (in the West Bank and Jerusalem) and having moved the parties to begin "proximity talks", they want the focus to be squarely on outcomes.

So Netanyahu can claim what he wishes (settlements are still, for all intent and purposes, frozen), and "insiders" can boast or threaten as they are wont to do (but the Democratic Party is doing quite well). The reality is that talks are continuing and Washington is still issuing the invitations and calling the shots.

Browse articles by author

More Current Affairs

Added 22.06.2018
It is now clear that the twenty-first century is ushering in a new world order. As uncertainty and instability associated with that process spread around the globe, the West has responded with either timidity or nostalgia for older forms of nationalism that failed in the past and certainly will not work now. Even to the most inveterate optimist, the G7 summit in Quebec earlier this month was proof that the geopolitical West is breaking up and losing its global significance, and that the great destroyer of that American-created and American-led order is none other than the US president. To be sure, Donald Trump is more a symptom than a cause of the West’s disintegration. But he is accelerating the process dramatically.
Added 20.06.2018
Sessions quoted a line written by the apostle Paul to a small community of Christians living in Rome around 55AD to defend the Department of Justice’s approach. He said: "I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order." Sessions used the Bible because one of the most vocal opponents of the crackdown on asylum cases has been the Catholic Church. It’s no surprise that Sessions appealed to Romans chapter 13 verse 1 in response: not only did he hope to undermine Catholic authority by using the Bible against them, he cited a statement so broad that one might use it to defend anything a government does, good or bad. Picture below St Paul writing his epistles, by Valentin de Boulogne, via Wikimedia Commons.
Added 19.06.2018
 

I find it exceptionally irritating when I hear liberals worry about whether Israel will be able to remain a "Jewish and Democratic State" if it retains control of occupied Palestinian lands.

Added 18.06.2018
Daniel Wagner: "My prediction Korean War will be formally ended, the peninsula will be denuclearised, and a lasting peace will be the result."
Added 14.06.2018
Extract: PiS [ the ruling Law and Justice party] has established the most significant addition to the Polish social safety net since 1989: the Family 500+ program. Launched in 2016, Family 500+ embodies the nationalism, traditional family values, and social consciousness that the PiS seeks to promote. The program pays families 500 złoty ($144) per month to provide care for a second or subsequent child...........The program has been enormously popular. Some 2.4 million families took advantage of it in the first two years. The benefit, equivalent to 40% of the minimum wage, has almost wiped out extreme poverty for children in Poland, reducing it by an estimated 70-80%........... Liberal pro-European politicians and policymakers are not convinced. They complain that such a generous family benefit will weaken work incentives and blow up the government budget. But initial evidence suggests that Family 500+ has actually increased economic activity. It has also reversed the post-communist decline in fertility, increased wages (particularly for women), and enabled families to buy school materials, take vacations, buy more clothes for their kids, and rely less on high-priced credit for basic household needs. And, thanks to rapid economic growth, the government deficit has steadily fallen, not grown.
Added 12.06.2018
The depths of hypocrisy of the Republican Party in supporting Trump’s meeting with the North Korean dictator in Singapore are hard to plumb. This is a party whose leading members adopted the Ostrich Foreign Policy Principle for decades. If you don’t like a country’s government or political and economic system, pretend it does not exist.
Added 12.06.2018
US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has spoken out against China’s strategy of “intimidation and coercion” in the South China Sea, including the deployment of anti-ship missiles, surface-to-air missiles, and electronic jammers, and, more recently, the landing of nuclear-capable bomber aircraft at Woody Island. There are, Mattis warned, “consequences to China ignoring the international community.” But what consequences?
Added 12.06.2018
With a general election approaching in September, Swedish voters are being warned that now it’s their turn to be targeted by Russian interference in the democratic process. According to Sweden’s Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB), which is leading the country’s efforts to counter foreign-influence operations, such interference is very likely, and citizens should be on the lookout for disinformation and fake news.
Added 11.06.2018
Extract: "While the presidency has grown stronger over the years, during the Trump administration Congress has been timid and subordinate. That is because the leaders of the Republican Party – which controls both the House of Representatives and the Senate – are frightened of Trump’s base. They cannot afford to alienate the roughly 30-35% of Americans who passionately back him, ignore his personal transgressions, tolerate his degradation of the country’s civil discourse, favor his brutal treatment of immigrant families, and don’t mind that he is leaving the US almost friendless in the world."
Added 08.06.2018
Has North Korea’s ruler, Kim Jong-un, made a strategic decision to trade away his nuclear program, or is he just engaged in another round of deceptive diplomacy, pretending that he will denuclearize in exchange for material benefits for his impoverished country? This is, perhaps, the key question in the run-up to the summit between Kim and US President Donald Trump in Singapore on June 12. Until then, no one will know the answer, perhaps not even Kim himself.
Added 07.06.2018
Some analysts even project that, before long, Facebook will hold more data on its users than any government. Meanwhile, it makes a lot of money from this data. Its advertising revenues came up to around US$40 billion in 2017 (up 50% from 2016). With Google, it holds an 84% market share in online advertising.
Added 05.06.2018
Roseanne Barr is an American comedian whose fictional TV character of the same name is a working-class Trump supporter. For those who remember the show “All in the Family,” she might be usefully compared to Archie Bunker, the crude proletarian patriarch from Queens, New York. Barr’s show was swiftly canceled late last month by the television network ABC, not for anything her “character” said in her show, but for a tweet in which she described Valerie Jarrett, an African-American former adviser to Barack Obama, as the offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood and “Planet of the Apes.”
Added 04.06.2018
 

When Donald Trump was elected, I, like many others feared what his presidency might do to the country. A year and a half into his term in office, our concerns have been justified. 

Added 01.06.2018
Extract from the article: "While the West’s relative decline is almost inevitable, its economic dysfunction is not. Yet pessimism can be self-fulfilling. Why undertake difficult reforms if a dark future seems preordained? As a result, accepting and anxious pessimists tend to elect governments that duck difficult decisions (witness Germany’s grand coalition), while angry pessimists make matters worse (by voting for Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda or for Brexit, for example). It doesn’t have to be this way. As French President Emmanuel Macron has demonstrated, bold leaders can succeed with a message of hope, openness, and inclusion, and by promoting a vision of progress based on credible reforms."
Added 30.05.2018
It has been nearly two years since the United Kingdom narrowly voted in favor of leaving the European Union. As the march toward Brexit – formally set for the end of next March – proceeds, fundamental questions about the nature of the future UK-EU relationship remain unanswered. Instead, every time a tough decision must be made in the negotiations in Brussels, British ministers kick the can down the road, or even into the long grass. This is somewhat surprising. Apparently, none of the politicians and newspaper editors who plotted for years to get the UK out of the EU thought much about what would happen if their machinations succeeded.
Added 30.05.2018
Discussions are now underway to establish a system of joint deposit insurance for eurozone banks. Proponents of the scheme, with the European Commission and the European Central Bank (ECB) taking the lead, point out that deposit insurance would avert the danger of a run on banks in times of crisis. While this argument is true, critics emphasize the disparity in risks, owing to the high share of bad loans on the balance sheets of banks in some countries. To address this risk disparity and move ahead with the plan, balance sheets will need to be cleaned up before considering the next step. While the share of bad loans for banks in the stable eurozone countries is just 2%, the most recently published International Monetary Fund statistics, from last April, show a share of 11% for Ireland, 16% for Italy, 40% for Cyprus, and 46% for Greece.
Added 29.05.2018
Trump’s decision cannot be justified by any breach of the agreement on Iran’s part. It is, rather, a return to the old, largely unsuccessful US policy of confrontation with Iran. The only difference this time is that the Trump administration seems determined to go to the brink of war – or even beyond – to get its way. If the administration has any plans for keeping Iran’s nuclear program in check in the absence of the nuclear deal, then it is keeping them a secret. Judging by some of the administration’s rhetoric, it would appear that airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities are on the table. But bombing would only delay Iran’s nuclear program, not stop it. Would Trump then consider a massive ground war to occupy the country and topple the regime? We know all too well how that strategy worked the last time it was tried.
Added 28.05.2018
US President Donald Trump’s abrupt decision to cancel his planned June 12 summit with Kim Jong-un represents a diplomatic coup for the North Korean leader, and an even bigger victory for China. In the space of just a few months, Kim’s image has gone from that of international pariah to that of thwarted peacemaker.
Added 23.05.2018
The good news is that the United States and China appear to have backed away from the precipice of a trade war. While vague in detail, a May 19 agreement defuses tension and commits to further negotiation. The bad news is that the framework of negotiations is flawed: A deal with any one country will do little to resolve America’s fundamental economic imbalances that have arisen in an interconnected world.
Added 21.05.2018
The cryptocurrency revolution, which started with bitcoin in 2009, claims to be inventing new kinds of money. There are now nearly 2,000 cryptocurrencies, and millions of people worldwide are excited by them. What accounts for this enthusiasm, which so far remains undampened by warnings that the revolution is a sham? One must bear in mind that attempts to reinvent money have a long history. As the sociologist Viviana Zelizer points out in her book The Social Meaning of Money: “Despite the commonsense idea that ‘a dollar is a dollar is a dollar,’ everywhere we look people are constantly creating different kinds of money.” Many of these innovations generate real excitement, at least for a while. As the medium of exchange throughout the world, money, in its various embodiments, is rich in mystique. We tend to measure people’s value by it. It sums things up like nothing else. And yet it may consist of nothing more than pieces of paper that just go round and round in circles of spending. So its value depends on belief and trust in those pieces of paper. One might call it faith.