AIPAC Has Proven It Isn’t Loyal to Two Countries – Just Israel

AP Photo/Cliff Owen

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) scored an odious victory on Tuesday night when Rep. Jamaal Bowman lost his Democratic primary after the organization spent more than $14 million trying to unseat him. It was the most expensive House primary in history.

The stunning amount caused a stir on Capitol Hill – even among some pro-Israel Democrats, who suggested that though Bowman has been a harsh critic of Israel, AIPAC’s splurge was heavy-handed. Naturally, the lawmakers did so anonymously, lest they offend the powerful lobbying organization and its super PAC, which this year has been the largest source of Republican donor money in Democratic primaries.

“The number is gross … I don’t like it,” a moderate Democrat told Axios, saying the amount was “overkill.”

Meanwhile, a senior House Democrat told the outlet that such eye-popping amounts of spending could intimidate lawmakers, saying of AIPAC, “They do that a lot.”

Another concerned Democratic member added, “The number is pretty staggering.”

This is all obvious enough. But that didn’t stop bad faith actors from hurling accusations of anti-Semitism at those who dared to point out the aberrant nature of AIPAC’s spending spree. The richest example of this came from Lis Smith, the former Andrew Cuomo flunky who smeared his sexual harassment victims and has for some reason been hired by the Democratic National Committee to help reelect President Joe Biden.

Kate Aronoff, a New Republic reporter who is Jewish, made a fairly banal observation about Bowman’s primary loss.

“Not good that AIPAC can shoot a money cannon at incumbent Democrats on behalf of a foreign government and the party is basically fine with it,” she wrote.

Smith, who is not Jewish, replied by accusing Aronoff of stoking anti-Semitism.

“This is such a vile, pernicious lie that plays into disgusting antisemitic tropes,” Smith replied.

What Aronoff said, of course, is true. Though it consists of U.S. citizens – Jews and gentiles alike – AIPAC works on behalf of Israel. It was founded in the 1950s by a lobbyist for the Israeli government, which was seeking to do damage control after Israeli soldiers massacred Palestinian civilians in Qibya in the West Bank. And while AIPAC dubiously claims the U.S.-Israeli relationship is mutually beneficial, the group demands the U.S. government act as Israel’s benefactor in a variety of ways – even when doing so flies in the face of U.S. policy. The advocacy often takes the form of pushing billions of dollars in unconditional annual aid, urging the U.S. to veto U.N. Security Council resolutions that condemn Israel for violations of international law, and lobbying for the enactment of some measure that Israel’s (often right-wing) government wants imposed. And not that the U.S. needed much additional prodding, but AIPAC lobbied for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Moreover, the group spent nearly $30 million unsuccessfully opposing President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, which President Donald Trump gleefully scuttled in a move AIPAC hailed. As a result, Iran – which was confirmed to have been in compliance with the agreement on nine different occasions – is now closer to enriching weapons-grade uranium than it has ever been, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s long-held dream of U.S. military action against Iran may be nearer than at any time since the hostage crisis. There was also the now-forgotten AIPAC spying scandal of the 2000s when a U.S. Defense Department official was caught giving classified material – some of which pertained to Iran – to AIPAC, which passed the information on to the Israeli government.

Some critics have dared to claim that AIPAC has dual loyalty to Israel and the U.S. However, this overstates the number of the organization’s loyalties. In the run-up to the 2022 midterm elections, AIPAC – which has long boasted bipartisan ties – made waves by endorsing congressional Republicans who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The group was hardly alone in doing so. After all, several organizations that had pledged not to donate to those lawmakers after the Capitol riot ultimately reversed course.

AIPAC’s explanation, however, was telling. It cast Trump’s false claims about a stolen election as a policy disagreement – to say nothing of his unprecedented attempt to overthrow the American republic by trying to stay in power despite losing reelection.

“We have friends who are pro-choice and pro-life, those who are liberal on immigration and those who want to tighten our borders, and yes, those who disagree strongly on issues surrounding the 2020 presidential election,” the organization wrote in a mealy-mouthed letter that nonetheless was about to hint at the profound implications of such election denialism in the U.S. “These disagreements are not minor. They are, in many respects, critical to the future of America. But they do not determine the fate of America’s enduring commitment to the State of Israel.”

As if to hammer home the point, the letter added, “But our organization and our PAC will not make those judgments or do that work. We will pool our energy, resources and support behind candidates on one single issue, regardless of any other priority.”

To be clear, “any other priority” in this context is the continuation of American democracy, which takes a back seat to the interests of Israel, as far as AIPAC is concerned.

Richard Haass, a former State Department official during President George W. Bush’s administration of all people, called AIPAC’s position “morally bankrupt.”

Earlier this month, Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican, offered a stunning glimpse of how AIPAC works behind the scenes, stating that individual members of Congress have “an AIPAC person.”

“It’s like your babysitter,” he explained. “Your AIPAC babysitter who is always talking to you for AIPAC. They’re probably a constituent in your district, but they are, you know, firmly embedded in AIPAC.”

When asked why the public is unaware of this arrangement, Massie was blunt.

“It doesn’t benefit anybody,” he said. “Why would they want to tell their constituents that they’ve basically got a buddy system with somebody who’s representing a foreign country? It doesn’t benefit the congressman for people to know that. So they’re not going to tell you that.”

Obama has also spoken about how AIPAC operates – after leaving office, of course. In his memoir A Promised Land, the ex-president wrote that the organization’s leaders are of the mind that there should be “no daylight” between the U.S. and Israel, even when the latter acts against U.S. policy.

“[A]s Israeli politics had moved to the right, so had AIPAC’s policy positions,” Obama wrote. “Its staff and leaders increasingly argued that there should be ‘no daylight’ between the U.S. and Israeli governments, even when Israel took actions that were contrary to U.S. policy. Those who criticized Israeli policy too loudly risked being tagged as ‘anti-Israel’ (and possibly anti-Semitic) and confronted with a well-funded opponent in the next election.”

Often lost in all of this, of course, is the fact that “Israel” does not make decisions. Rather, its fallible leaders do. The country is presently led by a man who is under indictment for corruption and whose personal freedom may well hinge on him remaining in power. That power is buttressed by a tenuous political coalition whose survival is contingent on appeasing its most extreme far-right members, who have called for the genocide of Palestinians. And so, this appeasement involves the continued siege of Gaza and the attendant killing and immiseration of its inhabitants that not only AIPAC defends, but demands the U.S. subsidize without much fuss from its elected representatives.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.