Source: AUN News
Despite persistent rhetoric to the contrary, the advantages of democracy have never been equitably distributed in the United States. African Americans, women, some immigrant groups, ex-offenders, and other oppressed groups have all been denied equal citizenship at various points in history.
However, for the majority of Jews, the US’s liberal democracy, which was created to both safeguard weaker groups and give ordinary people a voice in shaping their government, has consistently been beneficial to us. Democracy is good for us, and authoritarian governments are terrible for us.
Although American Jews don’t always agree, we are overwhelmingly in agreement on this issue. The US democratic system of government is one that we need to desire to defend and strengthen.
Therefore, it has been outrageous to see some of the most politically active American Jews, including AIPAC and its allies, engage in actions that essentially weaken our democracy by supporting candidates who are opposed to democratic laws and norms, spending an unlimited amount of money to overwhelm unaligned candidates, and attempting to restrict free speech if it is critical of Israel.
Starting with the issue of limitless spending
The question of Jewish political donations is contentious. On the one hand, it is one of the most significant ways Jews in the United States influence public policy and election results. Political campaign donations and other forms of civic engagement are beneficial. However, claims that Jews have financial influence over important institutions in domestic and international affairs are a potent anti-Semitic stereotype that has historically resulted in violent scapegoating. Too many individuals think Jews are in charge behind the scenes and cite significant political donations as proof of unjustified influence.
Similar Articles
The Supreme Court allowed nearly unlimited election spending when it decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010. Anyone with great pockets has the ability to establish a super PAC and contribute millions of dollars to any campaign, regardless of how unimportant or prominent it may be. The ensuing deluge of mailers, advertisements on television, radio, and social media has the power to quickly change public opinion.
Spending without restriction is harmful to democracy. The potential to inundate voters in a particular district with information for or against a certain candidate corrupts the process in a world where most people learn about politicians from sponsored media.
This brings us full circle to AIPAC. After claiming for years that it was a bipartisan group with a concentration on lobbying Congress and the White House and no interest in interfering in elections, AIPAC decided to do so. It’s reasonable that AIPAC would breach a barrier that once seemed inviolable, given the shift in public sentiment and political opposition to the group’s backing of Israel’s policies.
Present problem
First, it established the AIPAC PAC to raise funds for candidates. Then, it launched a super PAC with the misleading moniker United Democracy Project (UDP), a prime example of doublespeak. Major Republican donors are among those who have donated at least $1 million to UDP.
The UDP has been spending money in Democratic primary elections, backing candidates affiliated with AIPAC against Democrats who have been more critical of Israeli policies, despite receiving substantial donations from Republicans. Representative Andy Levin of Michigan, a self-described Zionist and former synagogue leader with a solid track record of supporting workers and tackling global human rights atrocities, including the Israeli occupation, is one of the main targets of the UDP. Because of the massive infusion of funding from AIPAC, Levin lost his primary on August 2. It was hailed as a triumph for AIPAC’s “pro-Israel” cause.
National Association
AIPAC criticized Levin in news releases and tweets for his positions on Israel and Palestine. It made no mention of the problem in its marketing. AIPAC neglected Israel and Palestine since they knew their issues weren’t necessary for most of his constituency. To put it more precisely, a national organization with access to enormous amounts of money, a large portion of it coming from Republicans, is attempting to influence the outcome of Democratic primary elections by disregarding the problem that the organization works on.
This is not the way a democracy ought to operate. Summer Lee, a working-class US House candidate from Pennsylvania who prevailed despite AIPAC spending millions of dollars to defeat her, described it in a recent tweet. I’m expected to find a way to raise millions to repel attacks costing millions of dollars. Using public corporate and dark money in elections is inherently harmful and detrimental to the development of a democracy that is genuinely reflective.
Assailants who want to rig elections are also detrimental to democracy.
Administration section
They most likely came to your attention when they invaded the Capitol building to obstruct the certification of the 2020 election and clear the way for a second Trump administration. You may also recall how 147 Republican members of Congress voted against certifying the election later that same evening, demonstrating their contempt for the rule of law and our democratic process. And many of the current crop of incumbents and candidates at the federal and state levels have been observed to maintain their claims that the last election was rigged and that the attack on January 6 displayed extreme patriotism.
One hundred nine of these insurrectionists have received the support of AIPAC, including Pennsylvania Representative Scott Perry. You might recall that Perry used a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing to advance the white nationalist myth that immigrants are flooding the country, supported by Jews, to “replace” native-born Americans. Additionally, Perry voted against certifying Biden’s victory.
You’d think a super PAC with the word “democracy” in its name, established to protect what it refers to as the “sole democracy in the Middle East,” on behalf of a group of people who have prospered in liberal democracies, would be concerned if its candidates are anti-democracy. You would be mistaken.
Attacks against a political speech by Israel-critical individuals have been a third attempt to undermine liberal democracy in the United States. Jewish community leaders have opposed the boycott, divestment, and sanction (BDS) campaign against Israel. Examining candidates’ positions on BDS has become the dominant topic of conversation around elections at every level of government, in addition to supporting anti-BDS laws that punish political expression.
Telegraphic Service
AIPAC and many other groups and voters have the right to know a candidate’s position on BDS. However, if you read the Jewish news, you would believe that this is the Jewish community’s top priority when covering a candidate discussion at Congregation Beth Elohim in Brooklyn in New York City, where we reside, a Jewish Telegraphic Agency article dedicated 14 paragraphs to one question on BDS and only nine sections to the other five. Questions combined..
We are on a dangerous path because the Jewish community’s fear of BDS has suppressed free speech and shifted communal priorities. Candidates with tough stances are warned to conform or else. At the same time, it conveys the idea that the Jewish community is primarily concerned with just one issue.
According to the umbrella organization for Jewish federations in North America, it assists in securing “$10 billion in public monies that flow to Jewish communities. Numerous organizations, including hospitals, nursing homes, community centers, family and children’s service providers, and programs for vocational training are supported by these grants. Many other concerns are supported by various Jewish organizations, including access to abortion, human and civil rights, international aid, criminal justice reform, and many others. But BDS has largely replaced any discussion on the social safety net on which many community members rely with candidates and elected officials.
Lastly, BDS proponents and those who stand up for them are frequently labeled as anti-Semites or, if they are Jewish, as fake Jews. Policy disputes are reframed as hate speech by this poisonous discourse, which has the support of significant communal leaders. It transforms inquiry forums into inquisitional discussions, where guilt is assumed, and ex-communication is the penalty.
Democratic framework
AIPAC desires success. And that makes sense. We all have objectives, improvements we want to see, and principles we want to uphold as advocates for various causes. Stakes are frequently very high. Maintaining a fair system where those who differ can compete for power repeatedly on a somewhat level playing field is more crucial than winning every battle. We must strengthen a democratic structure that safeguards dissent as long as it remains fundamentally essential. Jewish principle, as it has been for millennia.
A turning moment has occurred in our nation. Too many Americans appear ready to abandon the liberal democratic traditions and institutions that are essential to the success and safety of our community. These traditions and institutions offer a measure of stability. Before we destroy a democracy that cannot be readily repaired, let’s not join them.
Analysis by: Advocacy Unified Network
