A keen interest in the Jews


At the SpinWatch affiliated site Neocon Europe, David Miller and his research students argue the Jewish Conspiracy theory of recent history.

The hate-word that their website is organised around is Neocon, or Neo-Conservative.

But as the SpinWatchers say out loud ‘Neocon’ is a euphemism for Jew, the two words more or less interchangeable, and the course of the Neoconservative ideology explained wholly in terms of Jewish resentment against the gentile elite. So

‘the movement remains predominantly Jewish in its composition and concerns’ and again ‘it remains largely Jewish in its composition’. Also ‘neoconservatives, such as Elliot Abrams are unabashed proponents of Jewish separatism’.

But what are Jewish ‘concerns’ exactly? The idea that Jews have a distinct set of interests apart from the rest of the population is at the core of the Jewish conspiracy theory. And how did the political idea of neoconservatism in particular get identified as the vehicle of these ‘Jewish concerns’?

The first thing to say is that neoconservatism is by no means as as Jewish as the SpinWatchers say. Ronald Reagan, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Jack Kemp, Francis Fukuyama, William Bennett, Donald Rumsfeld were not Jews, but they were among the most important proponents of neoconservatism in the twentieth century.

Nor, indeed, is neoconservatism as important as the SpinWatchers say. Under the Democrat administrations of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, America has been just as aggressive militarily, drawing on liberal interventionst ideas.

Trying to find the ‘Jewish influence’ behind U.S. foreign policy, ‘NeoCon Europe’ resorts to that old caricature of hidden networks and infiltration:

‘Neocons have long compensated for their narrow ranks by creating networks of institutions and “citizens’ groups” with overlapping memberships’. And ‘Over the years they have also infiltrated several traditional conservative organizations, such as the American Enterprise Institute and National Review which they have come to dominate over time.’


This is a strange idea. A great many Americans are robust patriots, and believers in a confident foreign policy, as they are in the defence of American interests. Why do we need a conspiracy theory to explain the popularity of what is, in the end, the mainstream American outlook?

For the Jew-watching conspiracy theorists at Neo-Con Europe, though, what shaped U.S. foreign policy was not the interests of American imperialism, but a secret cabal of Jews.

‘Resentful of their exclusion from the WASP-dominated elite’ say Neocon Europe, ‘the neocons proceeded to create their own parallel national security establishment’. Further ‘this parallel establishment replaced the traditional foreign policy elite to itself become the new establishment.’

The Jewish conspiracy theorists of Neocon Europe find some support for their ideas in Washington, lately. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s 2007 best-seller The Israel Lobby blames Jewish supporters of Israel for the failures of US foreign policy in the Middle East. At NeoCon Europe, they put it more bluntly: ‘the Neoconservative movement was born as the nexus of the Israel lobby with the Military Industrial Complex at the instigation of Paul Nitze’.

But in the case of America and Israel the dog really does wag the tail, not the other way around. For decades, Israel has been America’s proxy in the Middle East. Now that U.S. middle eastern policy is in ruins, more U.S. leaders are willing to shift the blame onto supporters of Israel in America.

After all, it is not unheard of to blame the Jews when foreign adventures go wrong. In the 1890s the French newspaper L’Intransigent attacked Jewish financiers it said were behind the Panama Canal Company failure. Then later they attacked Captain Dreyfus, accused of selling secrets military secrets to Germany.

The man behind NeoCon Europe David Miller shifts the blame for western policy failure onto a small clique of ideologues, whose outlook he psychologises as Jewish resentment at the WASP establishment.

Why does Miller have a need of this fabulous conspiracy to explain what went wrong with western foreign policy? The answer is that he himself supported western military intervention in the 1990s, and now needs to find a reason why it went so badly wrong.

Back when Bill Clinton was invading Somalia and bombing Bosnia, David Miller denounced those who were ‘totally opposed to armed intervention’.  

That was because, like so many on the left, Miller was carried away with the promise of humanitarian imperialism. They invested great hopes in western troops as a force for good. When the wheels came off that policy in the Iraq War of 2003, they looked around for someone to blame – and the blame fell squarely on the Jews that they imagined were running US foreign policy.



Yes, he's Jewish, but so what?

Under the delusion that ‘Labour originally carried a reputation for having more voices sympathetic to the Palestinians’ (the Labour Party has been pro-Israel throughout its existence) SpinWatch fulminates against the influence of the Labour Friends of Israel. The SpinWatchers method of following the money takes a particularly sinister turn, though, as they list the prominent Jews who have supported the Labour Party

In 1997, prominent members of LFI contributed generously to the coffers of Labour, including Lord Sainsbury, who donated £1 million – the biggest single donation ever –  Michael Levy, who raised 7 million pounds, Sir Trevor Chinn, who was reported to have donated a six figure sum, and Emmanuel Kaye, who donated a sizable sum to Blair’s blind trust. According to one party official, by 2001, Levy had raised up to 15 million pounds for the party. David Goldman – the Chairman of an Israeli telecommunications equipment company BATM Advanced Communications – is also reported to have made several 5-figure donations.The amount of influence such money could buy in today’s politics cannot be discounted, and from Britain’s unconditional support for Israel’s brutal policies, it seems like the government is keen to deliver.

There are many things to object to about this Jew-listing. It summons up a false picture of wealthy Jews, and their apparently sinister influence behind the scenes – after all, many people contributed to Labour, of all different faiths and races. Cherry-picking the Jewish contributors creates a false impression.

But much more important is the crazed conclusion that the British government’s policy in the Middle East was written to meet Jewish demands. This is to put the cart before the horse. Britain’s belligerent policy towards the Middle East arises out of its position as an Imperial power, with extensive interests across the globe.

In the topsy-turvy world of SpinWatch, the Jewish supporters of the Labour Friends of Israel are in their words, the ‘obstacles to peace’. They blame Jewish money for stopping Britain from making peace in the Middle East: ‘Given the hard line position of its donors, LFI has grown increasingly tendentious in its approach towards any resolution of the Middle East conflict’.

In all seriousness, what planet is SpinWatch spinning on? Do they really think that the British State is just desperate to promote democracy all over the world, but for the wicked influence of Jewish financiers? That is what they are saying. But then, considering that they think Labour was a pro-Palestinian party until the LFI corrupted them, you can see how they might get confused.

Elsewhere, the loons at SpinWatch ‘uncover’ this shocking secret: ‘that an apparently London based organisation offering expertise on Iran to journalists and politicians is a covert propaganda operation run by a pro-Israel organisation in the United States’.

Well, hang on a minute, there – what is is that you are saying, exactly? You might not agree with what it is that they have to say, but surely it is a matter of no moment that people in London and Washington work together (after all, SpinWatch gets funds from Lebanese-based Jallad Group, without owning up to it). The ‘dog-whistle’ that is being blown here is not so hard to discern: SpinWatch means that these are foreigners, interfering in our Blessed Plot, because, apparently ‘Both Réalité-EU and The Israel Project also appear to be connected to a Jewish organisation’. The last time we checked, being Jewish is not illegal, so what’s your point, exactly? If you mean that you disagree with what Réalité-EU have to say, why not state your argument – instead of making an issue out of their racial origins?



For reasons best known to themselves, SpinWatch’s watching brief leads all too often to the racial origins of those they disapprove of, especially if they are Jewish.

So, we read,

‘While [Steven] Emerson maintains close ties to the Israeli intelligence and Jewish organizations in the US, he has been curiously sensitive about revealing what religion he is…’

you mean, he has a chip on his shoulder? anyway the SpinWatchers go on to say

 (his associates told the Washington Post he is Jewish).’ – glad we sorted that question out!

But think of Rita Katz, who presses all the Jewish stereotype buttons…

‘one of four children of a wealthy Iraqi Jewish businessman …a family who had been one of the wealthiest in Iraq for  generations … lived in a huge mansion and went to a private school …servants who took care of all [her] needs … joined her mother’s business, manufacturing and selling clothes to Orthodox Jews’.

What is more, we read, ‘her father was arrested by the Iraqi authorities, accused of being an Israeli spy’ and ‘hanged’ – an experience you might have thought would have melted the cruellest heart, but not at SpinWatch, which goes on to gloat that the hanging drew ‘the cheers of a half a million spectators …’.

‘Most’ neoconservatives (not a group of people that SpinWatch likes) ‘originated in New York, and most were Jews’.

Still, warns SpinWatch, the influence of the Jews extends beyond neoconservatism, and Democratic House speaker Nancy ‘Pelosi has strong ties to a number of Jewish groups’

Jews even made it in the British Foreign Office, with the appointment of David Miliband.

‘Miliband is reported to have said that it was “a privilege to be amongst friends”’ [at the The United Jewish Israel  Appeal dinner, and] ‘divulged that he had hosted the Foreign Office’s first Chanukah party in December 2007.’



Over on another David Miller edited site, NeoCon Europe, Professor Miller was forced to pull a rant from copied from the anti-Semite Kevin Macdonald. But here is a screen grab of ‘NeoCon Europe”s account of the Jewish characteristics that explain the failure to understand the Miller worldview:


One Response to A keen interest in the Jews

  1. Pingback: SPINWATCH: FOR OR AGAINST WAR? | SpinWatch-Watch

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s