Did the huge spending by the pro Israel lobby Aipac to defeat Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman indicate weakness ?
As the November elections in the United States get near, the political dynamics concerning Israel-Palestine continue to have a significant impact on important developments in the American political sphere. The Israeli government and its American sympathizers are concerned about a decline in public opinion favoring Israel.
This is particularly evident in the activities of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the most prominent pro-Israel lobbying organization in the United States. In recent months, AIPAC contributed $8.5 million to a campaign targeting the progressive Democratic Congresswoman Cori Bush in the Missouri Democratic primaries. Bush, who advocated for justice in relation to Palestine throughout her time in Congress, was defeated by St. Louis prosecutor Wesley Bell. This followed AIPAC contributing an extraordinary sum of $17 million to oppose Congressman Jamal Bowman, a pro-Palestine supporter, during the Democratic primaries in New York.
Following Bowman's defeat, AIPAC proclaimed that the pro-Israel stance in the United States as “both good policy and good politics.”
In response to this assertion, Medea Benjamin, a progressive advocate, stated:
“On the contrary, it showed that pro-Israel groups can buy elections and it sent a frightening message to all elected officials that if they criticize Israel, even during a genocide, they may well pay with their careers.”
She highlighted that AIPAC's financial support for the defeats of Bush and Bowman illustrates the influence and wealth of the pro-Israel lobby. It also indicates that the lobby now has to contribute even larger amounts of money to maintain a Congress that is supportive of Israel and diminish the influence of progressive members.
This demonstrates the increasing difficulty faced by the Israeli lobby in countering the rising support for the Palestinian cause. This action appears increasingly frantic as it implements strategies that are likely to backfire, resulting in greater animosity among the general population and inside the political framework.
Since 2016, the nation has increasingly come to view the robust financial campaigns of AIPAC and other pro-Israel entities as an additional form of foreign intervention in US elections. Americans may view increased Israeli funding or social media campaigns to support specific candidates as unacceptable foreign interference in US elections, especially those who desire a fair and impartial stance from their government regarding the Palestine/Israel issue. The list of countries believed to be interfering in US elections, such as Russia, China, Iran, and Cuba, is about to include Israel.
Another last-ditch attempt to defend Israel that may backfire is the effort to pass laws that would make pro-Palestinian advocacy a criminal offense, penalize nonprofit organizations that support the Palestinian cause, or withhold federal funding from universities that permit pro-Palestinian protests. This legislation has the potential to violate freedom of speech and the rights protected by the First Amendment. Additionally, it could worsen the reputation of pro-Israeli lobbying as a regressive and undemocratic influence among many Americans.
These actions are being taken because the Israeli narrative's influence on public opinion in the US is gradually decreasing. The accessibility of social media, progressive media outlets, and dynamic Palestinian activism has facilitated Americans' ability to observe and evaluate the Israeli genocidal actions in Palestine, which are made possible through the assistance of the US government.
This has shifted public opinion towards a more balanced stance, resulting in more empathy among Americans towards the Palestinians. According to a March Gallup poll, the nationwide percentage stands at 27 percent. However, among Democrats, the percentage is 43 percent, and among young people, it is 45 percent.
Israel is facing even more severe criticism for the war. A May Data for Progress poll revealed that 56 percent of Democrats believe Israel is perpetrating acts of genocide. A June survey revealed that 64 percent of potential voters support a ceasefire and the removal of Israeli troops from Gaza. Among Democrats, this figure rises to 86 percent. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs revealed in a June poll that 55 percent of Americans oppose the deployment of American soldiers to defend Israel in the event of an attack by neighboring countries.
US leaders cannot indefinitely disregard evolving public sentiments, particularly within the Democratic Party. And it appears that they are giving them careful consideration.
During Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's fourth address to the US Congress, a significant portion of Democratic members were not in attendance.
In addition to the changing public perception, many factors are gradually opening cracks in the pro-Israel consensus inside US politics. One such organization is the National Uncommitted Movement, which urged registered Democrats to vote "uncommitted" during the Democratic primaries as a means of expressing their opposition to the Biden administration's policy toward Israel’s Gaza genocide.
The campaign garnered over 700,000 votes, with a significant portion originating from crucial battleground states such as Michigan and Wisconsin. If the movement remains united until November and the election is close, their votes could potentially undermine Kamala Harris, President Joe Biden's successor on the Democratic ticket, who consistently backed his pro-Israel stance in Gaza.
Harris's campaign, like Biden's before that, is clearly facing concerns. One indication is that she has chosen Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her vice presidential candidate instead of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. Shapiro's firm pro-Israel and Zionist stances on the pro-Palestine student protests, the campaign to boycott Israel, and the Gaza war, among other matters, were openly discussed as potential obstacles to Harris's electoral success.
Harris has subtly indicated in her language that she intends to create some separation between herself and Biden's unwaveringly pro-Israel stance. She expressed a stronger stance regarding the need for an immediate ceasefire and has voiced her concern regarding the plight of Palestinian civilians. In addition, she informed the leaders of the Uncommitted campaign, whom she briefly encountered in Detroit, that she is willing to meet with them and engage in a discussion over their call for an immediate cessation of US arms sales to Israel.
Nevertheless, proponents of the Palestinian cause and uncommitted activists stress the necessity of concrete measures before they can support her candidacy. These measures include implementing an embargo on arms sales to Israel and enforcing existing US legislation that prohibits the provision of military assistance to foreign security forces that engage in human rights violations.
Activists interrupted Harris during two rally addresses over the past few weeks, demanding that she depart from the Biden stance. Her insufficient replies indicated her difficulty in meeting the progressive Democrats' requests for a more compassionate Gaza policy.
Regardless of the decisions made by the Harris campaign, it is becoming evident that American voters who support the Palestinian cause may have enough influence for the first time to affect the outcomes of the presidential and legislative elections, shaping Washington's future foreign and domestic policy.
The abrupt shift in the electoral landscape will provide new challenges for the pro-Israeli lobby, which will struggle to effectively address them.