AIPAC’s agenda advocates for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship, and it has been successful because it is obviously in America’s national security interest to be pro-Israel. Still, it should be remembered that Israel had no allies in its War of Independence in 1948, despite it being less than four years after the Holocaust. In fact, the United States banned weapon sales to Israel during the War of Independence.
When Israel fought the Six-Day War in June 1967, faced again with Arab countries determined to destroy Israel, it had no allies. It was only after the 1967 war that then-President Lyndon B. Johnson first agreed to sell airplanes to Israel.
When people think that Israel is so isolated today, they don’t realize that Israel actually has much stronger relationships today with many countries then they have ever had before. Those countries include the United States, Argentina, India, Colombia, Chile, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco. That list will include Brazil if Flávio Bolsonaro gets elected in October.
One of the main reasons why Israel has these relationships now is because other countries see the strength of Israel, militarily and economically, and recognize the benefits of having good ties with Jerusalem.
The anti-AIPAC movement within the Democratic Party is a way for politicians to say they are anti-Israel. Those who oppose supporting the Jewish state claim that it is a better use of taxpayer money not to provide military aid. Yet these same people advocate giving U.S. taxpayer money to the Palestinian Authority, which provides no economic or military benefit to America.
More than that, the Palestinian Authority has a “pay for slay” policy that provides financial incentives to those who maim or murder Americans. How is it in America’s interest to give taxpayer money to such an entity? It is not.
The same people who talk about providing indigenous people with a homeland make an exception when it comes to the most indigenous people in history: the Jews. They have no explanation for this exception. Their bigotry stands for itself.
Before the 2016 adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, which gives an example that opposing the existence of the State of Israel is antisemitic, no members of the U.S. House or Senate would likely have qualified as such. It was with the election of Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) in 2018, two self-declared anti-Israel and anti-Zionist members of the U.S. House, that related rhetoric and actions qualified under the definition.
This number is only growing in the Democratic Party, while antisemites who just ran in Republican primaries—Thomas Massie in Kentucky, and James Fishback and Dan Bilzerian in Florida—all lost. It likely could be said that come January, the Republicans will have no members in the House or Senate who qualify as being antisemitic under IHRA definition, and will thus be the most pro-Israel group of Republican representatives in Israel’s history.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the Democratic Party.
AIPAC has rightfully adjusted. The pro-Israel lobby was correct to spend big in primary elections in blue districts, such as backing Rep. Wesley Bell in St. Louis against former Rep. Cori Bush, who lost her bid. It was also right to spend heavily to defeat Massie in a red district in Kentucky.
Still, it should make some adjustments on spending in other races, even ones involving virulently anti-Israel candidates. For example, it should not spend heavily in a primary where the general election would be hotly contested.
An example is the Michigan Senate race. Democratic Rep. Haley Stevens is a friend, and it was right to support her against challenger Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, but not with tens of millions of dollars. That money could have been saved for a general election. If Michigan was a strong enough blue state, then AIPAC’s strong support for Stevens would have been a good decision; since it’s a toss-up, it proved a mistake. AIPAC will now need to spend heavily for Republican Mike Rogers to defeat El-Sayed.
AIPAC should have taken some of the support it used on Stevens for Rep. Shri Thanedar in Michigan, who ended up losing to antisemitic socialist Donavan McKinney by 4% of the vote in a heavily blue district. AIPAC should also have taken a shot to defeat military veteran Dr. Adam Hamawy in New Jersey, who won his primary by 14% over Brad Cohen, the mayor of East Brunswick, N.J., in a field of 12 candidates. AIPAC may not have succeeded, but came close in supporting Melissa Hernandez against Aisha Wahab in the California congressional race.
Getting involved in races is a calculated risk, but when a leading candidate is anti-Israel and anti-Jewish, then it’s one generally worth taking. AIPAC should stay out of any race in which the candidates have similar positions on pro-Israel issues. It should only support candidates in which there is a clear gap between the positions of the candidates on the issues.
The vehement opposition to AIPAC from many Democratic candidates has antisemitic roots, as they seem to have no problem with taking money from anti-Israel PACS. The opposition to AIPAC is a way to silence pro-Israel voices in America and to further clear the field for the antisemitic voices on the left, like streamer Hassan Piker. It’s impressive that AIPAC hasn’t been deterred by these attacks.
The lobby group should continue its political involvement, but make some changes going forward to better use the funds it has raised and help maximize its results. Fighting for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship and for those advocating those policies remains in America’s national security interest.
