As the November elections in the United States approach, political dynamics related to the Israeli-Palestinian issue continue to influence key developments in the American political scene. Public opinion is no longer as overwhelmingly favorable to Israel as it once was, which worries the Israeli government and its American supporters.
This is most evident in the actions of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the leading pro-Israel lobbying group in the United States. In recent months, it 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 Tuesday to St. Louis District Attorney Wesley Bell. AIPAC had already invested an unprecedented $17 million in a single election to defeat another Palestine supporter, Congressman Jamal Bowman, in the New York Democratic primary.
After Bowman’s defeat, AIPAC declared that the United States’ pro-Israel stance was “both good policy and good politics.”
In response to this claim, left-wing activist Medea Benjamin wrote: “On the contrary, it showed that pro-Israel groups can buy elections and it sent a chilling message to all elected officials: if they criticize Israel, even during a genocide, they could 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 pro-Israel and minimize the impact of progressive members.
This shows how difficult it has become for the Israeli lobby to counter the growing popularity of the Palestinian cause. It appears increasingly desperate as it takes steps that risk backfiring and creating further resentment within the public and the political system.
Such aggressive fundraising campaigns by AIPAC and other pro-Israel forces could soon be seen as another dimension of foreign interference in American elections, which has become a growing national concern since 2016. Americans who want their government to be impartial on the issue of Palestine and Israel could view increased Israeli funding or social media campaigns favoring certain candidates as inappropriate foreign interference in American elections. Israel could soon join Russia, China, Iran, and Cuba among countries perceived to be meddling in American elections.
Another desperate move in Israel’s favor that could backfire is the push to pass legislation that would criminalize advocacy for Palestinians, punish nonprofits that support the Palestinian cause, or deny universities federal funding for allowing pro-Palestinian protests. Such legislation could undermine free speech and First Amendment rights and could further establish pro-Israel lobbying as a regressive and anti-democratic force in the eyes of many Americans.
These steps are being taken because the dominance of Israeli discourse in shaping public opinion in the United States is slowly declining. Indeed, social media, progressive media, and more vibrant Palestinian activism now make it easy for Americans to see and assess Israel’s genocidal actions in Palestine, which are made possible by the support of the U.S. government.
Public opinion has thus shifted in a more balanced direction, with more Americans sympathizing with the Palestinians. According to a Gallup poll conducted in March, that figure stands at 27 percent nationally; it is 43 percent among Democrats and 45 percent among young people.
Views on war are even more critical of Israel. A Data for Progress poll released in May found that 56 percent of Democrats believe Israel is committing genocide. Another poll released in June found that 64 percent of likely voters supported a ceasefire and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza; among Democrats, the figure was 86 percent. A June poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found that 55 percent of Americans rejected sending U.S. troops to defend Israel if it were attacked by its neighbors.
American politicians cannot perpetually ignore these shifts in public attitudes, especially among Democrats. And it seems they are taking notice.
Last month, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered his fourth address to the U.S. Congress, nearly half of its Democratic members were absent.
Alongside the shift in public opinion, other forces are increasingly opening cracks in the pro-Israel consensus in American politics. One of them is the National Uncommitted Movement, which during the Democratic primaries asked registered Democrats to vote “uncommitted” to show their rejection of the Biden administration’s policy on the Gaza genocide.
The campaign has garnered more than 700,000 votes, many of them in key battleground states like Michigan and Wisconsin. If the movement continues through November and the election is close, their votes could be enough to defeat Kamala Harris, President Joe Biden’s successor on the Democratic ticket, who has staunchly supported his pro-Israel policy in Gaza.
Harris’ campaign, like Biden’s before it, is clearly worried. One sign of that is its decision to choose Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as its running mate over Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, whose strong pro-Israel and Zionist positions on pro-Palestinian student protests, the campaign to boycott Israel and the Gaza war, among other issues, have been publicly raised as potentially hampering Harris’ chances of winning.
Harris herself has suggested in her rhetoric that she wants to distance herself from Biden’s staunchly pro-Israel stance. She has spoken more strongly in favor of an immediate ceasefire and expressed concern about the suffering of Palestinian civilians. She also told the Uncommitted campaign leaders she met briefly with in Detroit last week that she would accept their request to meet with them and discuss their demand for an immediate U.S. arms embargo on Israel.
However, pro-Palestinian and non-partisan activists insist that to vote for her, they must see concrete action, such as an arms embargo on Israel and the enforcement of U.S. laws prohibiting the United States 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 she break with Biden’s policies. Her inadequate responses show that she is struggling to meet progressive Democrats’ demands for a more humane Gaza policy.
We won’t know about any substantial changes in her position on Israel and Palestine until after the Democratic National Convention in Chicago this month. Whatever Harris’ campaign decides, it is increasingly clear that, for the first time, American voters who support the Palestinian cause may have enough clout to shape presidential and congressional elections, and thus Washington’s domestic and foreign policy going forward.
This rather sudden transformation of the electoral landscape will give the pro-Israeli lobby new headaches that it will have difficulty resolving.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Tel Aviv Tribune.