Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton - the two presumptuous if not yet presumptive leaders for their party's presidential nomination - won big on Tuesday. Trump swept all five states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island) by double digits. Clinton won four of five, three convincingly, one (Connecticut) narrowly. The race is not over, but each is far closer to winning the nomination of her and his party.
No, It’s Not Antisemitic to Criticize Pro-Israel Money in US Politics
On every other issue, it is conventional wisdom that campaign contributions influence politicians. It is risible to pretend that only when it comes to Israel is that never the case.
Aug 02, 2023
Earlier this spring, the Biden Administration withdrew its nomination of James Cavallaro—a Yale law instructor—to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights after a tweet emerged in which Cavallaro accused the hawkishly pro-Israel U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a New York Democrat, of being “Bought. Purchased. Controlled” by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC.
According to watchdog group OpenSecrets, Rep. Jeffries’ single largest donor in the last election was Pro-Israel America ($213,450). Three of his top five contributors were pro-Israel groups, the others being NorPAC ($99,150), and AIPAC ($66,990). In aggregate, pro-Israel donations trailed only Wall Street contributions. On every other issue, it is conventional wisdom that campaign contributions influence politicians. It is risible to pretend that only when it comes to Israel is that never the case. Cavallaro was partaking in mundane political barbs when he mocked Jeffries for being a tool of an influential lobby.
To draw a connection between pro-Israel donations and the often slavish support for Israel exhibited by many American politicians is simply recognizing the obvious. AIPAC and the newly formed Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) know that money buys clout in politics. That’s why DMFI and the AIPAC-backed United Democracy Project super PAC were launched to arrest growing support for Palestinian human rights among liberal Democrats. Simply put, would donors part with millions of dollars if congressional policies on Israel were not subject to political pressure?
The fact that AIPAC’s PAC and the DMFI were launched to arrest growing support for Palestinian human rights underscores the importance both assign to pro-Israel campaign contributions.
Alas, nothing is ever so straightforward in American discussions on Israel. When Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) stated that U.S. congressional support for Israel was due to AIPAC’s “Benjamins,” she was roundly accused of antisemitism as if AIPAC’s lobbying clout did not influence Capitol Hill.
And that is where former pro-Palestinian congressional candidate Nina Turner found herself after DMFI spent just under $2 million to defeat Turner and help elect her pro-Israel opponent. (Much of DMFI’s money comes from Republican donors.) In her concession speech, Turner lambasted outside money (i.e. super PACs) as “evil money,” which in turn led the misnamed Anti-Defamation League to accuse Turner of “echo[ing] long-standing antisemitic tropes.” It is standard practice for pro-Israel lobbies to flex their influence but, at the same time, attempt to shield themselves from scrutiny by falsely accusing their detractors of playing on antisemitic tropes about Jews and power.
Political support for Israel is not solely about campaign contributions, as Zionist sentiments are genuinely held, especially among Evangelical Christians who form the backbone of the Republican Party. However, criticism of Israel in Congress declined in the 1980s as groups like AIPAC grew influential. Moreover, the fact that AIPAC’s PAC and the DMFI were launched to arrest growing support for Palestinian human rights underscores the importance both assign to pro-Israel campaign contributions.
And those contributions are significant. In the last midterm election, right-wing pro-Israel donors and super PACs spent tens of millions in campaign contributions to defeat candidates and politicians critical of Israel and prop up those in sync with their views. (Left-wing pro-Israel groups, such as J Street or Americans for Peace Now, make contributions but trail behind their right-wing counterparts.)
Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) has made a name for himself as a vociferous “progressive” champion of Israel. OpenSecrets reports Torres’s biggest donor as AIPAC ($131,008). Torres and Jeffries are hardly unique in building campaign war chests with pro-Israel donations.
Contributions to candidates are only part of the story. Super PACs run their own TV and mailer campaigns. In the last election, United Democracy Project spent nearly $33 million.
Not surprisingly, AIPAC scored notable victories in the midterms, as reported by Open Secrets. United Democracy Project spent $4 million in opposition to five-time incumbent Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.). Edwards lost her primary to challenger Glenn Ivey, who received $1.7 million in support from the super PAC. In a post-election press release, AIPAC called Edwards a “detractor of the U.S.-Israel relationship who was heavily backed by some of the most vocal and persistent critics of the Jewish state.”
The super PAC also spent $4.2 million to help defeat Rep. Andy Levin (D-Mich.), a Jewish-American champion for Palestinian human rights. The United Democracy Project deployed more money in the primary than the combined campaign budgets of the former congressman and his opponent. The super PAC poured $2.4 million into North Carolina’s 4th Congressional District to successfully support Valerie Foushee against pro-Palestinian American Muslim Nida Allam. DMFI spent $6,240,441 in the last election targeting pro-Palestinian Democrats running for office or reelection. And NorPAC spent $1,916,071.
Witnessing an avalanche of pro-Israel money help sink a campaign, including those of incumbents, probably makes many aspiring and serving public officials think twice before criticizing Israel. It is not antisemitic to say so.
Keep ReadingShow Less