The DNC didn’t ban AIPAC, but warning signs remain
On any given day, Americans of all backgrounds participate in the political process—lobbying for policies and engaging lawmakers on a wide range of issues. Yet one group, those who support Israel and more specifically the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is increasingly singled out and demonized, as if its participation in the political process is somehow improper or un-American. The Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) recent decision to reject a resolution targeting AIPAC does not erase the troubling reality that such a proposal advanced as far as it did.
Who and what is AIPAC? AIPAC is made up of Americans who support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and to defend itself. When these citizens donate to pro-Israel candidates, they act on a conviction that supporting a longstanding U.S. ally is consistent with and advances American values and interests. They reflect the views of the vast majority of American Jews, 76 percent of whom believe Israel’s existence is vital to the future of the Jewish people. They are acting as loyal Americans who want elected officials to recognize that the threats facing the Jewish homeland, and its need to defend itself against enemies bent on its destruction, are real.
AIPAC supporters are not monolithic. They differ on specific Israeli policies but share a belief that the U.S.-Israel relationship is strategically and morally important. Their political engagement is an expression of that belief, and of their role as advocates for what they see as being in America’s best interests.
That’s why the DNC resolution to reject support from AIPAC is so disturbing. The attempt to single out AIPAC ignores the longstanding U.S.-Israel partnership and risks alienating a historically supportive constituency of the Democratic Party. It reverses decades of support for the Democratic Party by Jews and of the Democratic Party’s traditional support for the Jewish state. Furthermore, it raises concerns about the unprecedented act of restricting the political participation of a specific group of Americans and lends credence to harmful antisemitic tropes.
When Democratic presidential candidates compare AIPAC to oil and tobacco companies, they suggest Jewish donors engaged in the political process are somehow evil or immoral. This is divorced from reality. Support for Israel is grounded in American values and mutual strategic interests. Israel is the only democratic nation in the Middle East, and the only ally the United States can count on to consistently vote with us in international bodies. Furthermore, it serves as a bulwark against extremist terrorist organizations and regimes hostile to the United States.
Often lost in the rhetoric is that the United States benefits in numerous ways from the relationship. Israel’s innovations in technology, advances in science and health, and intelligence and military capabilities are significant. At the AIPAC Congressional Summit this February, I heard an American defense official extol the value of the relationship, saying that Israel is America’s R&D division, saving our nation hundreds of millions of dollars because of the intelligence and guidance they provide our military.
Targeting and excluding pro-Israel donors marginalizes certain voices while leaving others untouched. No other group is similarly vilified for supporting candidates aligned with its priorities. Nor would it be tolerated. It leads to dangerous accusations of “dual loyalty” and longstanding stereotypes about Jewish political influence.
Candidates routinely accept contributions from industries and advocacy groups advancing their own interests, often with far less scrutiny. If there is concern about outside influence in politics, it should be applied consistently, including scrutiny of funding tied to oil-rich countries in the Middle East and adversarial regimes. The source of their funding, and the goals and values they promote, are much more likely to undermine America’s interests than the actions of loyal American Jews.
Even when proposals like the DNC resolution fail, the normalization of rhetoric that singles out pro-Israel participation carries consequences. It risks empowering those who reject Israel’s existence and emboldening those who seek to isolate it on the world stage.
Unfortunately, the political pressure to “reject AIPAC” money is unlikely to disappear. For some candidates, it may still seem like an easy stance to take. But doing so does not demonstrate principle, nor does it show backbone. It reflects a willingness to yield to hateful political pressure of the moment and risks reinforcing harmful narratives and excluding constituents from the democratic process.
The DNC deserves credit for rejecting the anti-AIPAC resolution. But the episode should not be dismissed as an aberration.
Candidates for public office must reject measures that single out pro-Israel individuals and groups. Such efforts do not strengthen our democracy—they erode it, especially when they serve to isolate, marginalize and exclude a segment of the American public: American Jews.
Rabbi Stuart Weinblatt is the chairman of the Zionist Rabbinic Coalition, the voice of Zionist rabbis in the United States.
The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.