In Chicago, the emphasis of the local Democratic congressional races is not what you would think. Candidate forums don’t seem to focus on which candidates most support schools, abortion or the environment.
Instead, they are centered on and are obsessed with what seems to be a sole “issue”: which candidates receive money from AIPAC. Candidates literally confront one another and report on each other about who has taken money, as if doing so is a dirty sin.
This begs a simple question: Why, especially for Democrats, is AIPAC the most important issue? Seriously, what’s wrong with such money?
As is well known and hardly hidden, AIPAC’s mission is singular: supporting a strong USA-Israel partnership. Considering that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and America’s long-term ally, as well as the only place in the region where all religions are welcomed to worship freely, what’s wrong with that?
The clear suggestion is that AIPAC is somehow bad or akin to taking money from tobacco companies or worse.
If the thinking goes that when a politician accepts AIPAC support, he or she will then support Israel in Congress, again, what’s wrong with that? It’s not as if backing the Jewish state comes at the exclusion of causes like education, housing or job programs. Supporting Israel is, or should be, entirely compatible with supporting other Democratic values.
The only reason voters should care so much about AIPAC money—and thus, view it as a negative—is if their No. 1 interest is opposing Israel. Otherwise, shouldn’t they care more about a candidate’s views on crime, education, jobs, taxes, poverty, health care and other issues?
Apparently, taking money from the National Rifle Association, pro-life groups or the far-right Koch brothers is of little concern, but lo and behold, Jewish money supporting Israel is somehow evil.
If so, why? The “merits” should easily favor such backing.
After all, if you’re pro-democracy, women’s rights, gay rights, technology or environment, then Israel should be easy to stand with. Likewise, if you’re pro-indigenous people, as the Jews are the original indigenous people of the Middle East. They populate but one tiny country, while Muslims enjoy 57 Muslim-majority countries.
Viewed in this light, the sad thing is that AIPAC is even necessary. That somehow standing behind Israel is a political or partisan issue. But, of course, it is; it always has been.
In that sense, the spotlight on AIPAC money is but another form of antisemitism, as it unfairly suggests that Jewish money is somehow bad, corrupt or evil—or that Israel is all these things. I would think and hope that Democrats would be troubled if union-busting capitalists, tobacco companies or local polluters were funding a candidate, not whether someone supporting Israel helps fund a candidate.
The discussion and analysis are backwards. The relevant issue should not be who is accepting AIPAC money, but who thinks that doing so is somehow bad or a negative litmus test?
And as is often the case, the response by AIPAC, candidates and the Jewish community to this spotlight is also wrong. They shouldn’t have to tiptoe around Israel. They shouldn’t hide or masquerade their support. And they definitely shouldn’t apologize.
Candidates who accept AIPAC money should own it, walk tall and simply say: “Yes, I proudly accept AIPAC money. AIPAC supports Israel—our democratic ally—and so do I. Supporting Israel is entirely consistent with my values and those of this district. What I won’t accept is pro-Hamas money.”
And if candidates won’t say that, then why does AIPAC bother donating to them? Why does AIPAC give money to those ashamed to take it? Why do Jews vote for candidates who openly show disdain for them?
