We’ve seen a new Democratic narrative about AIPAC take shape in recent months. It tends to go something like this: the pro-Israel lobbying group sold out its original mission when it launched a Super PAC, backed a bunch of insurrectionist-supporting Republicans, and began spending millions of dollars to tip Democratic races. Now it must be opposed by progressives on these grounds.
A good example of this thinking can be found in a recent piece by the popular liberal commentator, and former U.S. Labor Secretary, Robert Reich. Reich looks at the last week’s Democratic primary in Maryland’s 4th district, where pro-Israel prosecutor Glenn Ivey beat Donna Edwards defeated ex-congresswoman Donna Edwards by 20 points. Pro-Israel organizations had developed a growing animosity toward Edwards because she voted the wrong way on some symbolic bills and occasionally criticized the country’s brutality. Ivey said the right things about Israel and avoided the right things when it came to Palestinian suffering. He had run for the seat a couple times and lost, but this time AIPAC’s Super Pac, the United Democracy Project, spent $6 million to help him finally achieve victory. That race was not an outlier. AIPAC has spent around $20 million on this year’s Democratic primaries.
Reich’s big conclusion about all this is that AIPAC’s true target is finance reform law. It doesn’t make sense for the group to spend against Edwards over her position on Israel because it’s pretty mainstream, he reasons. They were probably willing to drop millions over her stance on health care, he says. Also, if they truly cared about antisemitism then why are they backing a bunch of antisemitic Republicans?
“If AIPAC were simply aiming to promote Israel or deter antisemitism, presumably it would be as active in Republican primaries as it is in Democratic ones,” he writes. “But it has barely spent a dime in Republican primaries — not even against Republican candidates who have been widely criticized for antisemitic comments. And its United Democracy Project super-PAC hasn’t spent a penny.” Reich points out that the group didn’t back any GOP challenger to Marjorie Taylor Greene (who once claimed that Jewish space lasers caused California’s wildfires) and has no problem spending for Scott Perry, who compares Democrats to Nazis.
No part of this argument really adds up. For starters, who cares how mainstream Edwards’ positions are? AIPAC is opposed to them and they rightly saw her seat as vulnerable. It doesn’t make sense for them to waste money on races where they have no chance of winning, even if they oppose a candidate. Secondly, it’s very obvious why the group would be spending big on Democratic primaries but not Republican ones. It’s because virtually every Republican candidate is dutifully devoted to funding an apartheid state while an increasing number of Democratic candidates have expressed some measured doubts.
Reich’s confusion seemingly stems from the fact that he’s openly equating antisemitism with anti-Zionism, even if he doesn’t realize he’s doing it. AIPAC is devoted to pushing pro-Israel policies in Washington. That’s it. There’s no contradiction in them opposing Israel critics and backing lawmakers who are antisemitic, assuming those lawmakers are staunch supporters of Israel. Yes obviously the fact that Super PACs pump millions into our elections is terrible and our political system is a joke, but to treat Israel like some sort of red herring in these races doesn’t make a lot of sense. At the end of the piece Reich calls on readers to donate to the liberal Zionist group J Street, or the progressive Jewish organization IfNotNow, but he never connects his criticism of AIPAC to issues like occupation, forced displacement, the killing of journalists, or the brutal bombing of Gaza.
This isn’t new terrain for Reich. When former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the U.S. congress to rail against the Iran nuclear deal back in 2015, he expressed concern that the Israeli government and AIPAC were joining forces to “poison” the relationship between Israel and the United States. “It is having a polarizing effect here in the United States, pushing many Americans to side against Israel,” said Reich. Oh, the horror!
Last week former NYC mayor Bill de Blasio (who just dropped out of New York’s 10th district race over putrid poll numbers) made a similar argument. He told The Forward that AIPAC has simply “lost its way” and “lost track” of its original mission. “I say this with hope and compassion, I wish they would come home,” he said. “I wish they would go back where they were. Because this model is not going to work.”
Lest anyone think the rabidly pro-Israel de Blasio is going soft or developing a sympathy for Palestinians, he also makes it clear that his new problem with AIPAC is (like Reich’s) simply about the money and not connected to the things they actually advocate for. He cautions against dialoguing with BDS supporters and declares that no one who supports that movement is fit to join congress.
Earlier this year the Progressive Caucus of the North Carolina Democratic Party took back its endorsement of House candidate Valerie Foushee because she had accepted money from AIPAC. In their statement announcing the move, they made it clear that the lobbying group should be shunned for endorsing Republicans who refused to certify the presidential election. Does the group care what Israel does to Palestinians? No, quite the contrary. “The damage done by the January 6 insurrectionists cannot be ‘overcome’ by AIPAC’s support of Israel,” they wrote. The implication here is that unfettered support for Israel is good.
Why was AIPAC originally formed? To run interference for Israeli atrocities. Author and professor Doug Rossinow broke down the history for a 2018 piece in the Washington Post:
On Oct. 15, 1953, all hell broke loose. News spread that a special Israeli army unit had struck into the Jordanian-occupied West Bank and committed a massacre in the Palestinian village of Qibya, killing more than 60 civilians indiscriminately in retaliation for the murder of a Jewish woman and her two children in Israel on the night of Oct. 12.
The strike reflected Israeli policy. Ever since the end of the 1948 war, Palestinians had frequently crossed the so-called “Green Line” into Israel. Most had been driven or had fled from their homes in what was now Israel and simply wished to return. But some committed violence against Israelis. Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion had fixed on a policy of reprisals — military assaults, intentionally disproportionate, on local Arab populations — as a response to any such attacks. After the Oct. 12 killings, Ben-Gurion and top colleagues chose nearby Qibya to suffer retribution.
The outcry was sharp and wide.
Time magazine carried a shocking account of deliberate, even casual mass murder by Israeli soldiers at Qibya — “slouching . . . smoking and joking.” The New York Times ran extensive excerpts from a U.N. commission that refuted Israeli lies about the incident.
The attacks weren’t just a PR nightmare, they also created some diplomatic obstacles. The Eisenhower administration temporarily suspended aid and the U.S. even supported a censure of Israel at the UN. Action needed to be taken so the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs was created in 1954. It would later be renamed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Nearly 70 years later, what’s changed? The group is still dedicated to spinning positive PR out of pain and suffering. Their enemies are anyone who dares to question the United States relationship with Israel. The creation of Super PACs has armed them with a new set of tools, but it’s misleading to imply that their goals have shifted in any big way or that Israel is some sort of red herring. It’s going to take a much deeper critique to diminish AIPAC’s influence on our elections.
Biden Trip
Some more analysis of Biden’s Middle East trip. This comes from Joy Batteh-Freiha, co-chair of the communications committee at the American Federation of Ramallah, Palestine:
Palestinian Americans are pleased that President Biden traveled to the Middle East and Occupied Palestine, however, we are disappointed in him and his administration for continually dismissing Israel’s egregious and criminal policies against the Palestinians. Also, we were hopeful that he would have the moral authority to call-out the ongoing demolition of Palestinian homes, the building of new settlements on Occupied Palestinian land, and the subsequent displacement of indigenous Palestinians from their land.
Furthermore, we are disappointed that President Biden didn’t heed the request to meet with the family of the assassinated Palestinian American journalist, Shireen Abu Akleh, or give them the courtesy and respect he would have given to the family of any other slain American. The state department’s comment that a “definitive conclusion” could not be reached due to the condition of the bullet and that the killing of Abu Akleh was believed to not be intentional, is unacceptable to Palestinians.
Odds & Ends
? Hamzah Khan, a Legal Intern at CAIR’s New Jersey chapter, has an op-ed on the state’s anti-BDS law. “The New Jersey State Legislature should do more to stop actual anti-Semitic hate crimes rather than target a non-violent grassroots political movement aiming to pressure a foreign government to end its human rights abuses,” he writes. “The reality is that these laws prohibit criticisms of Israeli government policies. In an ironic turn of events, New Jerseyans can criticize their own government, but not the Israeli government.”
? In Maryland, a coalition of organizations has expressed concern over a Montgomery County Council resolution set to adopt the controversial IHRA working definition of antisemitism. “While it is unclear what the adoption of this definition means in practice within the county, there are constituents in Montgomery County who will be potentially targeted by this new definition because of their human rights activism or simply because they are Palestinians who are vocal in sharing their personal narrative,” reads a letter they sent to council members. “We are also concerned about additional impacts of such censorship, such as within school curriculums.”
?? Lina Abu Akleh, niece of slain journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, has an Op-Ed in the Washington Post about her family’s fight for justice. Members of the family are in DC this week to meet with Secretary of State Blinken and congressional lawmakers. “We fully understand the U.S. government’s role in fueling the belief of Israeli leaders and soldiers that they enjoy impunity for their actions,” she writes. “Yet this is why it is all the more urgent for my family to impress this message upon the administration: Biden can stop this pattern. He can pledge to pursue meaningful accountability for my aunt, starting with a commitment to conduct an independent U.S. investigation in Shireen’s case.”
?? The Jewish Insider has a piece about how Israel is factoring into Michigan’s 13th district primary. AIPAC’s Super PAC has spent over $3 million backing state Sen. Adam Hollier over state Rep. Shri Thanedar there. “Some support for Hollier is partly driven by concerns about Thanedar’s stance on Israel. In May 2021, amid the conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, Thanedar co-sponsored a resolution in the Michigan House urging Congress to halt aid to Israel,” writes Marc Rod. “The resolution described Israel as an ‘apartheid state’ and accused it of ‘countless human rights violations.'”
? At Jewish Currents Alex Kane speaks with Ben & Jerry’s board member Jeff Furman about how he helped raise the issue of Palestinian human rights within the ice cream company.
? NYC Assembly Member Yuh-Line Niou is running for the Democratic nomination in NY’s 10th district. We’ve covered her in the newsletter because she says she supports BDS, but the details are a little hazy on that front. For instance, here’s what she said at a forum earlier this week: “When it comes to Israel and Palestine, I support the BDS movement’s right to political speech. This includes boycotts and economic pressure. I do not support calls to oppose the BDS movement. At the same time, I do not always agree with every single statement that’s made or all of its demands, nor do I embrace all of its tactics.”
?️ The pro-Israel lobbying group DMFI is endorsing Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock for reelection. In accepting the endorsement, Warnock said his support for Israel is “unwavering.”
? AIPAC had a tweet criticizing J Street for spending $700,000 on the Levin/Stevens race in Michigan. AIPAC has spent over $4.5 million on the race.
? The human rights group DAWN is calling for the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate four lobbyists connected to the Israeli technology firm NSO Group. According to DAWN, the lobbyists misrepresented the relationship between the company and the Israeli government.
? From Politico: “While lawmakers haven’t struck a deal yet on spending for the coming fiscal year, increases backed by the armed services committees point to national defense spending that could approach or exceed $850 billion, versus the $802 billion Biden requested.”
?? Mitchell Plitnick is on the site writing about AIPAC’s targeting of Rep. Andy Levin (D-MI): “The all-out assault on Levin represents AIPAC moving the goalposts in their ongoing effort to define the boundaries of acceptable political stances on Israel. Victor defined the thinking: “Andy sincerely claims to be a lifelong Zionist, proud Jew and defender of Israel. So, when Andy Levin insists he’s pro-Israel, less engaged Democratic colleagues may take him at his word.” Unspoken here is that Levin’s word, in this case, is solid gold. What Victor and AIPAC are worried about is that fellow Democrats would hear even this much truth.”
Stay safe out there,
Michael
