By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The article explores the growing divide between the Democratic establishment and its voters regarding US support for Israel, highlighting a significant shift in public opinion, particularly among Democrats, towards greater sympathy for Palestinians. This change contrasts with the Democratic party’s slow response, attributed to the influence of the Israel lobby, particularly groups like AIPAC, which actively works to maintain unwavering US support for Israel. Furthermore, the article acknowledges how groups like the Anti-Defamation League conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Ultimately, the piece posits that despite the changing political landscape, many establishment Democrats are hesitant to fully embrace the evolving views of their voters.
Read the original article here
Democratic voters have turned against Israel. Why won’t their leaders? The short answer, and the one that keeps resurfacing, is money. It’s a blunt explanation, but the persistent theme of campaign donations and lobbying efforts paints a clear picture. Pro-Israel organizations, most notably AIPAC, pour significant funds into the campaigns of politicians who support their agenda. The data, readily available through organizations that track campaign finance, shows substantial contributions to both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. These donations, in the hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars, create a strong incentive for politicians to align their voting records with the interests of these donors.
Follow the money, as the saying goes. The financial influence isn’t just about direct contributions. It’s about the fear of losing financial support, and the potential for AIPAC to fund an opponent. Politicians are keenly aware that taking a stance critical of Israel can result in a flood of money directed towards their challengers. This threat of being “primaried” out of office, combined with the allure of substantial campaign resources, creates a powerful disincentive for politicians to deviate from the pro-Israel stance. It’s a cynical calculation, but it’s a reality for many in Washington.
But the explanation goes beyond mere financial transactions. The long-standing U.S. foreign policy, particularly during the Cold War, created an environment where support for Israel was seen as strategically beneficial. Israel was an ally against the Soviet Union and, later, against other perceived enemies in the region. This alignment, coupled with the strong lobbying efforts of pro-Israel groups, entrenched a bipartisan consensus in support of Israel. Many older leaders, shaped by this era, find it difficult to completely shift their stance, even as the political landscape evolves.
There’s a sense that establishment Democrats have become disconnected from their progressive base, who are increasingly critical of the Israeli government’s actions. Many see the situation in Palestine as a human rights issue, with a growing awareness of the plight of Palestinians. The narrative of Israel as a victim is being challenged, and the actions of the Israeli government, particularly the treatment of civilians, are coming under intense scrutiny. This shift in public opinion, especially among younger voters, creates a tension within the Democratic Party.
However, changing deeply rooted political positions is never easy. There is also the fear of being labeled antisemitic, a fear that has a chilling effect on many politicians. Criticizing Israel’s actions, no matter how justified, can be quickly and easily framed as antisemitism. This accusation, whether accurate or not, can be career-ending, and most politicians are unwilling to risk it. The “antisemitism” label serves as a powerful tool to silence criticism and maintain the status quo. This further complicates the situation for Democratic leaders who may find themselves caught between the concerns of their voters and the pressure from donors and political allies.
Beyond the financial and political considerations, there are also strategic and geopolitical ones. Israel is a critical ally in the region, providing intelligence, military technology, and a reliable partner in a volatile part of the world. The U.S. relies on Israel for a variety of strategic objectives, and these factors play a significant role in shaping U.S. foreign policy. Politicians must balance the concerns of their constituents with the broader interests of national security.
The debate is further complicated by the different viewpoints within the Democratic Party itself. While some voters are highly critical of Israel, many others are supportive of the country, and are wary of criticizing a key ally. The party needs to play a complex game of managing the expectations of both factions.
So, the answer to why Democratic leaders aren’t aligning themselves more fully with the changing sentiment on Israel is multifaceted. It is a combination of financial incentives, strategic considerations, fears of being unfairly labeled, and the complexity of dealing with a long-standing ally. The money is a significant driver, but it is the interplay of all these factors that explains the continued divergence between voters and their leaders on the issue of Israel.