Sunday, July 17, 2022
Elder of Ziyon
Notice that the headline doesn't say that AIPAC supports pro-Israel candidates - but tries to defeat candidates that don't pass their litmus test. This emphasis supports the idea of the group being a menace to good, honorable candidates who think for themselves.
To say that the New York Times is obsessed with AIPAC is an understatement. Earlier this year we saw:
Anti-AIPAC sentiment also was obvious throughout its fawning article this year on Rashida Tlaib, and the pro-Israel lobby was the subject of another article about local New York elections.
The underlying but largely unspoken theme is how the Israel lobby is the Jewish lobby, as was made explicit in this 2019 article about Ilhan Omar's antisemitic statement that concentrated on whether she was correct, asking whether AIPAC was "too powerful," that featured this photo of an AIPAC activist praying:
According to OpenSecrets, AIPAC is number 5 in spending money among ideology/ single issue groups in the 2022 election cycle:
#1, spending far more than AIPAC, is the Fund for Policy Reform. You probably haven't heard of it because it has only been mentioned once in the New York Times, in the last paragraph of a 2015 article about Bill DeBlasio's consultants - not even about lobbying.
That fund, which spent $75 million in 2020, is a George Soros organization within his Open Society Foundations network, with a definite political bias towards far Left causes.
That money being spent to influence elections, which dwarfs the Israel lobby, gets literally no coverage in the New York Times.
Similarly, Majority Forward, another pro-Democrat lobbying group, is only mentioned once this past year, as an aside in an article about Latino voters in Nevada.
The New York Times is insinuating that the pro-Israel lobby has inordinate and malicious influence over elections with their immense budgets - but it is almost completely silent on liberal lobby groups, more likely to be anti-Israel, who spend far more on their lobbying.
Rarely has bias been so obvious as with how the New York Times covers political lobbying.
