As we approach the November elections in the United States, political dynamics related to Israel-Palestine continue to influence important developments in the American political arena. Public opinion is no longer as overwhelmingly favorable to Israel as it used to be, which worries the Israeli government and its American supporters.
This is most evident in the actions of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the main pro-Israel lobbying group in the US. In recent months, she has invested $8.5 million in a campaign to defeat progressive Democratic congresswoman Cori Bush in the Missouri Democratic primary. Bush, who championed Palestinian justice issues in Congress, lost to St. Louis prosecutor Wesley Bell on Tuesday. This followed AIPAC providing an unprecedented $17 million to defeat another Palestine supporter, Congressman Jamal Bowman, in the New York Democratic primary.
After Bowman’s defeat, AIPAC declared the pro-Israel stance in the US as “good politics and good policy.”
Responding to this statement, left-wing activist Medea Benjamin he wrote: “On the contrary, it showed that pro-Israel groups can buy elections and sent a frightening message to all elected officials that if they criticize Israel, even during a genocide, they could very well pay with their careers.”
She stressed that while AIPAC’s funding of the Bush and Bowman defeats demonstrates the power and resources of the pro-Israel lobby, it also shows that it must now provide ever-increasing sums of money to keep Congress friendly to Israel and minimize the impact of progressive members.
This reveals how difficult it has become for the Israeli lobby to combat the growing popularity of the Palestinian cause. This makes him appear increasingly desperate as he takes steps that are likely to backfire, generating greater resentment among the public and within the political system.
These aggressive funding campaigns by AIPAC and other pro-Israel forces may soon be perceived as another dimension of foreign interference in the US elections, which has become a national concern since 2016. Americans who want their government to be impartial in the relationship Palestine-Israel could see increased Israeli funding or media campaigns to favor certain candidates as inappropriate foreign meddling in US elections. Israel could soon join Russia, China, Iran and Cuba as countries considered to be interfering in US elections.
Another desperate pro-Israel measure that could backfire is pushing for legislation that criminalizes pro-Palestinian advocacy, punishes nonprofits that support the Palestinian cause, or deprives universities of federal funds for allowing pro-Palestinian protests. Such legislation could infringe on free speech and First Amendment rights and would further tarnish the pro-Israel lobby as a regressive and antidemocratic force in the eyes of many Americans.
Such measures are being adopted because the dominance of the Israeli narrative in shaping public opinion in the US is slowly diminishing. This is because social media, progressive media, and more dynamic Palestinian activism allow Americans today to easily see and evaluate Israeli genocidal actions in Palestine that are made possible by US government support.
This moved public opinion in a more balanced direction, with more Americans sympathizing with the Palestinians. According to a March Gallup Pollnationwide this number is 27%; among Democrats it is 43 percent and among young people – 45 percent.
Views on the war are even more critical of Israel. ONE Research Data for Progress released in May revealed that 56% of Democrats believe that Israel is committing genocide. Another one of your searches released in June showed that 64 percent of likely voters support a ceasefire and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza; among Democrats, the number was 86%. A June survey from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs showed 55 percent of Americans reject sending American troops to defend Israel if it is attacked by its neighbors.
US politicians cannot perpetually ignore these shifts in public attitudes – especially among Democrats. And it looks like they are taking this into consideration.
Last month, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave his fourth speech to the US Congress, almost half of its Democratic members were absent.
Along with shifting public opinion, other forces are steadily opening fissures in the pro-Israel consensus in US politics. One of them is the National Uncommitted Movement, which during the Democratic primaries called on registered Democrats to vote “uncommitted” to show their rejection of the Biden administration’s policies on Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
The campaign garnered more than 700,000 votes, many of which came from battleground states like Michigan and Wisconsin. If the movement remains united until November and the elections are close, their votes could be enough to sink Kamala Harris, President Joe Biden’s successor on the Democratic ticket, who faithfully supported his pro-Israel policy in Gaza.
Harris’s campaign – like Biden’s before it – is clearly concerned. One sign is his decision to choose Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as his running mate over Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, whose strong pro-Israel and Zionist stances on the pro-Palestine student protests, campaign to boycott Israel and the Gaza war, among other issues. , were discussed in public as possibly hurting Harris’ chances of winning.
Harris herself has also hinted in her rhetoric that she wants to put some distance between herself and Biden’s staunchly pro-Israel stance. She spoke more strongly about an immediate ceasefire and expressed her concern about the suffering of Palestinian civilians. She also told leaders of the Uncommited campaign, with whom she met briefly in Detroit last week, that she would accept their request to meet and discuss their demand for an immediate U.S. arms embargo on Israel.
However, pro-Palestine and Uncommitted activists insist that to vote for her they must see tangible actions, such as an arms embargo on Israel and the enforcement of US laws that prohibit the US from providing military aid to foreign security forces that violate human rights.
In recent days, Harris has been interrupted during two speeches at rallies by activists demanding that she break with Biden’s policies. Her inadequate responses showed that she is struggling to respond to progressive Democrats’ demands for a more humane Gaza policy.
We will only become aware of any substantial changes in his position on Israel-Palestine after the Democratic National Convention in Chicago this month. Regardless of what the Harris campaign decides to do, it is increasingly clear that, for the first time, American voters who support the Palestinian cause could have enough influence to impact the presidential and congressional elections, and thus foreign and political policies. internal Washington in the future.
This rather sudden transformation of the electoral landscape will give the pro-Israel lobby new headaches that it will have difficulty resolving.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.
This story originally appeared on Aljazeera.com read the full story
