Submission statement: campaign finance, interest-group politics, and internal Democratic Party’s division over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are relevant to this sub. Written about a month ago but even more relevant now after an extremely close and bitter primary election where AIPAC took the center stage.
Writing for the moderate Searchlight Institute, Adam Jentleson outlines 3 features that turn a non-profit group into a “Group” in the pejorative sense:
1. Does it demand that elected officials take positions that are wrong on the merits or politically disastrous, or both?
2. Does it use misleading polling and policy analysis to make its case?
3. Does it deploy resources such as donations, endorsements, volunteers, and TV ads as pressure tactics against candidates who refuse to kowtow to its rigid litmus tests?
Jentleson argues that AIPAC has turned into a “Group” in the last 10 years. Its opposition to JCPOA, regardless of one’s opinion about the agreement, was broadly in line with public opinion. The reverse is true now, as AIPAC forces litmus tests of Israeli right-wing positions that are both morally wrong and politically disastrous. It does so by bestowing or withholding substantial financial assistance and other campaign resources. And it plies politicians with skewed polling and policy analysis to support its case.
He concludes that AIPAC deserves many of the criticisms against commonly left-wing “Groups” that also imposed litmus tests on Democratic politicians on issues such as climate change and immigration. It obstructs policy moderation and prevents Democrats from building the broad-based supermajority coalition necessary to defeat Trump and his movement. It has actually enabled extremism within the party, only to the other end of the spectrum. For pro-Israel Democrats, being able to say “no” to this group and its positions is the first step towards rebuilding the support that Netanyahu has squandered.
Otherwise_Young52201 on
Lmao the immediate downvotes on this post are telling.
I wonder if this sub would tolerate a similar group to AIPAC for other people. Like imagine if Chinese Americans made their own version of AIPAC lobbying for thr PRC or Indian Americans doing the same for India.
swaqq_overflow on
It can simultaneously be true that
A) AIPAC has completely lost the plot
B) The massive amount of vitriol this org attracts is absolutely rooted in “Jews secretly run the US government” style antisemitism
Concerned_Collins on
Israel is such an illiberal state right now, I don’t think you can claim supporting them is a liberal position. So you shouldn’t see too much support for AIPAC on a liberal sub, right?
SpareSilver on
AIPAC isn’t a small organization. Haley Stevens received a majority of her money from them. Perfectly valid to critique this organization if it’s putting in that much money.
5 Comments
Submission statement: campaign finance, interest-group politics, and internal Democratic Party’s division over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are relevant to this sub. Written about a month ago but even more relevant now after an extremely close and bitter primary election where AIPAC took the center stage.
Writing for the moderate Searchlight Institute, Adam Jentleson outlines 3 features that turn a non-profit group into a “Group” in the pejorative sense:
1. Does it demand that elected officials take positions that are wrong on the merits or politically disastrous, or both?
2. Does it use misleading polling and policy analysis to make its case?
3. Does it deploy resources such as donations, endorsements, volunteers, and TV ads as pressure tactics against candidates who refuse to kowtow to its rigid litmus tests?
Jentleson argues that AIPAC has turned into a “Group” in the last 10 years. Its opposition to JCPOA, regardless of one’s opinion about the agreement, was broadly in line with public opinion. The reverse is true now, as AIPAC forces litmus tests of Israeli right-wing positions that are both morally wrong and politically disastrous. It does so by bestowing or withholding substantial financial assistance and other campaign resources. And it plies politicians with skewed polling and policy analysis to support its case.
He concludes that AIPAC deserves many of the criticisms against commonly left-wing “Groups” that also imposed litmus tests on Democratic politicians on issues such as climate change and immigration. It obstructs policy moderation and prevents Democrats from building the broad-based supermajority coalition necessary to defeat Trump and his movement. It has actually enabled extremism within the party, only to the other end of the spectrum. For pro-Israel Democrats, being able to say “no” to this group and its positions is the first step towards rebuilding the support that Netanyahu has squandered.
Lmao the immediate downvotes on this post are telling.
I wonder if this sub would tolerate a similar group to AIPAC for other people. Like imagine if Chinese Americans made their own version of AIPAC lobbying for thr PRC or Indian Americans doing the same for India.
It can simultaneously be true that
A) AIPAC has completely lost the plot
B) The massive amount of vitriol this org attracts is absolutely rooted in “Jews secretly run the US government” style antisemitism
Israel is such an illiberal state right now, I don’t think you can claim supporting them is a liberal position. So you shouldn’t see too much support for AIPAC on a liberal sub, right?
AIPAC isn’t a small organization. Haley Stevens received a majority of her money from them. Perfectly valid to critique this organization if it’s putting in that much money.