Blood Libel #14 | “Israel controls the U.S. government and media.”
Anti-Zionist:
Israel controls Congress. The Jewish lobby runs the media.
Pro-Zionist:
This is classic antisemitism — the myth of Jewish control, just with new branding.
Fact check:
The U.S. supports Israel because they share values, not because of some shadowy lobby.
The media in the U.S. is often critical of Israel, and many Jewish journalists report harshly against it.
And the idea that a group of 7.5 million Jews in the US somehow controls global politics is as delusional as it is dangerous.
Between 2014 and 2024, American colleges and universities reported receiving approximately $342 million in gifts and contracts from Israeli sources. These contributions primarily support academic collaborations, research initiatives, and cultural exchange programs
Do you also say Saudi Arabia, Qatar, or China controls the U.S., or is it only the Jewish state you say that about? No - You’re not criticizing power — you’re reviving the oldest hate in the world. That’s not activism. It’s conspiracy theory — dressed in moral language.
Especially when it’s been documented that between 1981 and early 2024, U.S. colleges and universities received nearly $55 billion from foreign sources, with approximately $13.1 billion—nearly one-fourth—originating from Arab individuals, institutions, and governments. The top three contributors among Arab nations are:
· Qatar: Approximately $6 billion
· Saudi Arabia: Approximately $3.5 billion
· United Arab Emirates (UAE): Approximately $1.5 billion
These funds have been distributed across 288 institutions in 49 states and the District of Columbia. Notably, nearly three-fourths of these contributions, amounting to almost $10 billion, do not specify their intended purpose. Among the donations with described uses, a significant portion supports financial assistance for students from Arab countries, particularly Saudi Arabia.
The influx of Arab funding into U.S. higher education has raised concerns about potential influences on academic freedom and the shaping of curricula, especially regarding Middle Eastern studies and perspectives on Israel. Critics argue that such financial involvement may lead to self-censorship or biased academic discourse to align with donor interests.
BEYOND THE TALKING POINTS
Let’s be clear: the idea that Jews secretly control governments or media is one of the oldest antisemitic conspiracy theories in existence — a modern mutation of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Today’s anti-Zionists repackage it as “AIPAC controls Congress” or “the Jewish lobby owns the media.” But dressing up old hate in political language doesn’t make it true. It just makes it more dangerous.
Let’s start with some history.
Chronological List of Instances Where the US Did Not Support Israel or Jews (1920–Present)
In The Arc of a Covenant: The United States, Israel, and the Fate of the Jewish People (2022), Walter Russell Mead offers a sweeping interpretation of the US-Israel relationship, arguing that American support for Israel—and by extension, Jewish causes—stems not from a shadowy "Jewish lobby" or undue influence, but from deep-seated cultural, religious, and identity-based affinities within the American psyche. Mead's central thesis is that "the driving forces behind Americans’ fascination with Israel... originate outside the American Jewish community and are among the most powerful forces in American life." It’s a worthwhile read. Mead's narrative debunks conspiracy theories of Jewish "control," emphasizing instead how evangelical Christians, liberal romantics, and even strategic interests propelled Zionism's acceptance. He highlights historical instances of US non-support to illustrate that the relationship is symbiotic and values-driven, not coerced:
Americans are usually optimists; our history has made us so. The belief that history is ascending toward a future of more freedom, more justice... is one of the foundations of American thought.”
The US has generally been a strong supporter of Jewish communities and Israel since its founding in 1948, providing significant aid, military assistance, and diplomatic backing. However, there have been notable instances of non-support, including immigration restrictions affecting Jews pre-1948, arms embargoes, diplomatic pressures, condemnations of Israeli actions, and abstentions or votes against Israel in international forums that undermine the “blood libel” that Jews control American policy. This list focuses on key historical examples drawn from reliable sources, emphasizing policies or actions that limited aid, imposed restrictions, or opposed Jewish/Israeli interests. It is not exhaustive but covers major documented cases since 1920.
Pre-1948: Focus on US Policies Toward Jews (Amid Rising Antisemitism and Holocaust)
During this period, US policies often restricted Jewish immigration and delayed responses to Nazi persecution, influenced by domestic antisemitism, isolationism, and immigration quotas.
The early 20th century was a period when American cultural affinities for Jews clashed with isolationist policies and domestic antisemitism, limiting support for Jewish refugees. Protestant Zionism simmered among evangelicals (who saw Jewish restoration as a biblical precursor to Christ's return), pragmatic fears of immigration and war delayed action. This era exemplifies the fact that support was latent in American identity but suppressed by "emotionally dense but intellectually thin" debates.
1921–1924: Immigration Quotas and Restrictions
The Emergency Quota Act (1921) and Immigration Act of 1924 severely limited immigration from Eastern Europe, where most Jews lived, capping annual quotas at low levels (e.g., 2% of 1890 census figures). This barred many Jews fleeing pogroms and rising antisemitism in Europe, with quotas filled quickly and strict enforcement. Historians note this contributed to preventing millions of Jews from escaping the Holocaust.
1930s: Limited Refugee Intake Amid Nazi Persecution
Despite reports of Nazi antisemitic policies (e.g., Nuremberg Laws in 1935), the US maintained strict visa requirements and quotas. From 1933–1945, strict visas admitted only about 200,000 Jewish refugees, far below potential capacity. Antisemitism in the State Department and public opinion (polls showed widespread anti-Jewish sentiment) played a role.
1939: Rejection of the MS St. Louis
A ship carrying 937 Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany was denied entry to the US (and Cuba), forcing it back to Europe. About 250 passengers later perished in the Holocaust. This exemplified US reluctance to ease quotas despite pleas from Jewish organizations.
1940s (Holocaust Era)
The US government was aware of Nazi mass killings by 1942 but did not prioritize rescue efforts. No military actions were taken to bomb Auschwitz or rail lines (despite feasibility studies), and immigration quotas remained underfilled. Post-war, the US admitted only about 250,000 displaced persons (including Jews) under the 1948 Displaced Persons Act, with restrictions. By 1943, the world knew about the Holocaust. Jews were being herded into gas chambers and burned alive. Four hundred rabbis, many recent refugees from Eastern Europe, dressed in traditional garb and speaking broken English, marched to Washington. They begged President Roosevelt to act. What did he do? He snuck out the back door of the White House to avoid them. They went home devastated, their pleas unheard. A Jewish journalist who witnessed it never forgot. That silence seared into the consciousness of a generation. AIPAC’s founders vowed: Never again would Jews stay quiet while their people faced annihilation. This is not about power grabs. It is about survival. It is about ensuring that when threats arise, whether from Nazis or modern jihadists, American Jews have a voice.
1945–1948: Ambivalence on Jewish Statehood
While President Truman supported partition (UN Resolution 181 in 1947), the State Department were opposed to UN Partition (Resolution 181, 1947) because they feared Arab backlash. But let’s be clear, Truman's recognition was driven, not by the “Jewish Lobby” but by liberal New Dealers like Eleanor Roosevelt, and even Soviet backing under Stalin. Events in the Middle East were more central to American politics than at any other time in our history, underscoring how domestic identity debates propelled the shift despite official non-support.
Post-1948: Instances of US Non-Support for Israel
US-Israel relations strengthened over time, but there were periods of tension, including arms suspensions, diplomatic rebukes, and pressure during conflicts. The US has vetoed over 50 UN resolutions critical of Israel since 1970, but has also abstained or voted against Israel at times.
1948–1950s: Arms Embargo Continuation
The US maintained a neutral arms embargo post-1948, limiting Israel's access to weapons while favoring Arab states in some policies (e.g., Tripartite Declaration of 1950 with UK and France to prevent arms races). Neutrality limited Israel's arms while Arab states accessed them via the 1950 Tripartite Declaration. This demonstrates realpolitik overriding affinities.
1956 Suez Crisis
US opposed Israel's invasion of Egypt (with UK and France). President Eisenhower threatened economic sanctions and UN action, forcing Israeli withdrawal from Sinai. This was a major rebuke, driven by anti-colonialism and Soviet fears, but emblematic of how even experts go badly wrong in grasping cultural undercurrents.
1967 Six-Day War
US remained neutral initially, urging restraint on Israel. Post-war, the US supported UN Resolution 242 for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories.
1973 Yom Kippur War
Initial US delay in resupplying Israel (to avoid escalation with USSR); pressure on Israel to accept cease-fire. Post-war, US pushed for disengagement talks.
1975: Ford Administration "Reassessment”
President Ford suspended arms deals and aid negotiations to pressure Israel on Sinai withdrawals.
1981: Osirak Reactor Bombing
US condemned Israel's airstrike on Iraq's nuclear reactor; Reagan suspended F-16 deliveries.
1982 Lebanon War
US criticized Israel's siege of Beirut; suspended cluster munitions shipments and considered sanctions. Reagan reminded Israel arms were for defense only.
1991 Gulf War
US pressured Israel not to retaliate against Iraqi Scud missiles to maintain Arab coalition unity.
2000s–2010s: UN Abstentions and Criticisms
US abstained on UNSC Resolution 2334 (2016) condemning Israeli settlements. Occasional arms holds or delays under Obama.
2023–Present: Gaza Conflict Pressures
Biden administration paused some arms shipments (e.g., bombs in May 2024) over Rafah concerns; expressed concerns about humanitarian crisis and urged cease-fires, though overall support continued.
The historical record of U.S. policy toward Jews and Israel since 1920 starkly debunks the antisemitic blood libel trope that AIPAC or a so-called "Jewish lobby" coercively directs American foreign policy, revealing instead a resilient, values-driven "arc of a covenant" as illuminated by Walter Russell Mead in his book The Arc of a Covenant. From the restrictive immigration quotas of the 1920s that stranded millions of Jews fleeing pogroms, to the rejection of the MS St. Louis refugees in 1939 and the failure to bomb Auschwitz amid Holocaust awareness, through post-1948 rebukes like the 1956 Suez Crisis sanctions, the 1975 Ford reassessment halting aid, and recent 2024 arms pauses under Biden, the U.S. has repeatedly acted against Jewish and Israeli interests when realpolitik, isolationism, or broader alliances demanded it—demonstrating no undue influence or control. American support emerges organically from deep cultural and religious affinities, particularly among evangelicals who view Jewish restoration as biblically redemptive, rather than lobby pressure.
As Walter Meade argues the driving forces behind Americans’ fascination with Israel... originate outside the American Jewish community and are among the most powerful forces in American life. This "speck on the map" occupies a vast "continent in the American mind" through shared optimism and identity, not coercion, exposing claims of Jewish manipulation as a dangerous revival of ancient libels that scapegoat Jews for geopolitical complexities while ignoring the mutual strategic benefits and historical tensions that define the alliance.
Debunking the “Blind Support” Lie
One of the most persistent myths is that AIPAC blindly supports every Israeli government position. That is simply not true. AIPAC reflects the views of its diverse membership, which often disagrees sharply on Israeli politics. Remember when Netanyahu brought Itamar Ben-Gvir, a known racist, into his coalition? AIPAC came out swinging with a blunt, fierce statement condemning it. Why? Because the vast majority of its members were horrified. AIPAC could speak out because it answers to Americans, not to any foreign agenda.
This membership-driven approach sets AIPAC apart. It pushes policies that align with what its supporters believe, not what any single leader in Israel dictates. Critics who claim otherwise are either misinformed or deliberately misleading. And let us be clear. When AIPAC has gone head-to-head with U.S. presidents, it has lost every time. Three major showdowns, three defeats. That hardly screams “all-powerful lobby.” Instead, it shows an organization fighting within the system, often against the odds.
The Mutual Benefits of U.S. Israel Aid
Now, let us talk money, because that is where the hypocrisy peaks. The $3.8 billion in annual U.S. aid to Israel under Obama’s deal? One hundred percent of it must be spent in the United States. Every dollar goes back into American defense contractors, creating jobs and boosting our economy. Who pushed for that “buy American” clause to be strengthened? AIPAC. This is not charity. It is a smart investment.
Take Iron Dome as a prime example. AIPAC lobbied hard for America to support its development. In return, the U.S. co-owns the technology. Israel built something revolutionary, a missile defense system that no American firm had cracked. By partnering, we bypassed our own bloated defense bureaucracy and got cutting-edge tech that protects our troops too. The Pentagon loves this arrangement because it delivers results. AIPAC always ensures American interests come first, because it is run by Americans who care about both countries.
Addressing the Counterarguments
Of course, no discussion is complete without tackling the pushback. Critics say AIPAC wields too much power, stifling debate on Israel. But look at the facts. Foreign lobbies like Qatar’s spend far more and face far less scrutiny. Why? Because attacking AIPAC taps into age-old tropes about Jewish money and control. Another argument: AIPAC ignores progressive voices in its ranks. Not so. Its criticism of Ben-Gvir proves it listens to its base, which includes a wide spectrum of views.
Some claim the aid is one-sided. Rebuttal: The tech exchange and economic benefits flow both ways. Israel shares intelligence and innovations that save American lives. Without this partnership, our defense edge dulls. And on the “foreign agent” smear? AIPAC is not registered as one because it does not need to be. It is domestic through and through. If we applied the same standards to Arab or Muslim PACs supporting U.S. ties to those regions, the hypocrisy would be glaring.
The Historical Shame That Birthed AIPAC
To understand AIPAC’s fire, you have to go back to its roots. It was born from a moment of profound American Jewish shame during World War II, as detailed earlier in this chronology. That moment of silence in the face of genocide is what fueled its creation, ensuring Jewish voices would never be ignored again.
Why AIPAC Endures, and Why It Must
The people demonizing AIPAC today are often the same ones fueling antisemitism. They drive more Jews to support it, just as attacks on Israel birthed Zionism. AIPAC is not going anywhere because it represents a fundamental truth. Peace comes through strength. As I have written before in pieces like “Trump and the Battle for Jewish Unity,” we need moral clarity to counter these threats. Dividing us with blood libels only empowers our enemies.
In May 2025, The Free Press published “How Qatar Bought America,” in it they state:
Qatar has spent almost $100 billion to establish its legitimacy in Congress, American colleges and universities, U.S. newsrooms, think tanks, and corporations… The influence built by Qatar in the U.S. has no modern parallel.
The myth of “Jewish control” in American politics is one of the oldest and most dangerous antisemitic tropes. Today, it’s rebranded through hashtags and headlines: “AIPAC runs Congress,” “the Zionist lobby silences dissent,” “Israel controls the media.” But none of this holds up when you follow the money.
The $100 Billion Elephant in the Room
Let’s start with the facts. While critics obsess over the “Jewish lobby,” Qatar alone has outspent Israel by at least 5 to 1— and that’s just what we know publicly.
Qatar has spent nearly $100 billion buying political influence, media credibility, academic partnerships, and soft power across the U.S.
$225 million on lobbying and PR since 2017
$6.3 billion into American universities — the most of any foreign country
Millions more to think tanks, K–12 school grants, and even conservative news outlets like Newsmax.
According to the Free Press:
The influence built by Qatar in the U.S. has no modern parallel, The Free Press found, whether compared with large American companies seeking to influence antitrust policy, energy firms trying to win new drilling rights, or other foreign governments aiming to shape U.S. policy—or shield themselves from it. For comparison, Qatar spent three times more in the U.S. than Israel did on lobbyists, public-relations advisers, and other foreign agents in 2021—and nearly two-thirds as much as China did, according to the government’s latest reports.
Qatar spent three times more in the U.S. than Israel did on lobbyists, public-relations advisers, and other foreign agents in 2021—and nearly two-thirds as much as China did.
In contrast:
AIPAC spent $45 million in the record-setting 2024 election cycle — less than 0.2% of the estimated $20 billion spent across all campaigns that year.
AIPAC’s largest single expenditure — $20 million — was used to unseat two far-left anti-Israel Democrats (Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman) this concentration of effort evidences a diminished influence not a broad and pervasive one.
AIPAC is a registered American lobbying group and is not a foreign agent. Its activities are publicly reported and fully legal under U.S. election law.
Qatar’s Lobbying Isn’t Just Bigger — It’s Dirtier
Qatar’s influence isn’t just about cash. It’s about infiltration, manipulation, and intimidation:
Hosting Hamas’ billionaire leadership in luxury in Doha, even after the October 7 massacre.
Broadcasting Islamist propaganda through Al Jazeera, whose journalists have been linked to terror groups.
Funding journalism schools in the U.S. while banning blasphemy, censoring speech, and glorifying terrorists.
Paying off former U.S. officials and lawmakers to promote Qatari interests.
A War on Truth, Not Just Israel
This isn’t about “criticism of Israel.” It’s about a global effort to reshape American policy and suppress criticism of Islamist regimes — and blaming Jews to deflect from it.
When Qatar, China, Russia, and Iran flood the U.S. with billions in covert propaganda, educational funding, and dark money lobbying, and the only “foreign influence” you criticize is Israel — that’s not activism. That’s bigotry.
What Qatar hopes to achieve… is nothing short of a remaking of the global order that secures America’s fidelity to Doha… while neutering the U.S.’s ability to respond to Islamist threats.
Saudi Arabia
Between the early 2000s and 2015, Saudi Arabia paid approximately $100 million to American firms like Qorvis, Patton Boggs, Hill & Knowlton, and others to lobby U.S. policymakers.
After the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, Saudi spending spiked—from $10 M in 2016 to about $27 M in 2017.
Even beyond direct lobbying, Saudi funds have supported U.S. think tanks, universities, and public affairs groups with grants from hundreds of millions over time.
United Arab Emirates (UAE)
Since 2016, the UAE has spent more than $154 million on lobbying under FARA, plus hundreds of millionsmore via undisclosed donations to universities and think tanks.
In 2020–2021, Emirati clients paid nearly $64.5 million to FARA-registered firms, with many contributions going to top lawmakers like Sen. Chuck Schumer and House Leader Steny Hoyer.
Between 2014 and 2018, the UAE donated at least $4 million to the Atlantic Council, $20 million to the Middle East Institute, and also supported Brookings and Aspen Institute programs.
While less documented than Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have often led the Arab lobby in America, with Iraq, Egypt, Morocco also engaged in multi-million dollar campaigns.
Why It’s Not Just About Money—It’s About Leverage
UAE’s Washington footprint: Emirati lobbyists contacted nearly every congressional office, especially targeting the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations Committees—with thousands of outreach attempts to legislators, media (NYT, WSJ), and think tanks.
Saudi Arabia’s PR machine, notably through firms like Qorvis, helped shape U.S. narratives following the 9/11 tragedy and the Khashoggi murder scandal—millions were spent on soft messaging.
In contrast, AIPAC’s influence is transparent, limited, and subject to U.S. election law. The group is an American non-profits network, not a foreign entity, and its congressional relationships reflect shared values, not secret control.
Final Thought
If you want to critique the sway of foreign influence in U.S. policy, it’s Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia—not Israel—that dominate in scale, secrecy, and impact. Singling out Jews when Arab regimes are spending hundreds of millions—and buying universities, think tanks, news outlets—reveals a double standard.
This is not about Zionist power. It’s about deflecting attention from foreign money that actually buys outcomes.
So Ask Yourself:
If Israel “controls Congress,” why is U.S. media overwhelmingly critical of Israel, even in its fight against terror?
If Jews “run the media,” why do Jewish students face harassment on campus while Hamas leaders get praised on TV?
If AIPAC is so powerful, how did Qatar — sponsor of Hamas and safe haven for the Muslim Brotherhood — become a “major non-NATO ally” and architect of U.S. hostage negotiations?
This isn’t about control. It’s about scapegoating. About using centuries-old antisemitism to shield regimes that actually are buying influence — and destroying American sovereignty in the process.
The Free Press sums it up well:
At a moment when so many political leaders, pundits, and ordinary Americans are reaching for explanations of who really pulls the strings… many are ignoring a story in plain sight.