On Tuesday night, Representative Cori Bush lost in a Democratic primary election to challenger Wesley Bell, whose election campaign was overwhelmingly financed by pro-Israel groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac). According the New York Times, the spending by pro-Israel groups “transformed the race into one of the most expensive House primaries in history”. While Bush, an outspoken opponent of Israel’s crimes against Palestinians, is on her way out of Congress because of Aipac’s big spending, the victory for Israel donors is the latest sign of their cause’s decline in the United States and especially in the Democratic party.
How could it be that such a powerful flex by pro-Israel donors is a reflection of a weakening cause? It’s simple: it is because such power flexes were never needed before. Now, it has become routine. Recently, Aipac and company spent huge sums to defeat Jamal Bowman in a primary as well. They made similar efforts against Representative Summer Lee, though she was able to survive the onslaught.
In the immediate short term, it seems like a reflection of power, but anyone who has been following the politics around this issue in the United States for years knows this is anything but. Pro-Israel interest groups never had to overtly and heavily interject themselves into electoral politics in such a way previously precisely because their cause enjoy a great degree of cultural hegemony. In the US, politicians kissed babies, petted dogs, loved baseball and unequivocally supported Israel. That last part isn’t quite what it used to be. The consensus around supporting Israel, especially in the Democratic party, has collapsed.
AIPAC is done.
The campaigns against Bowman and Bush were desperation moves, and unless Israel pretty much instantly rights course and earns back some respect (which is certainly not going to happen at least as long as Netanyahu remains in office, or out of prison, for that matter), Israel’s reputation is entirely deservedly going to continue to collapse, and more and more voters, and thus more and more politicians, are going to oppose them.
That would imply that AIPAC would have to work even harder and spend even more money, but I don’t think that will work no matter what. Their crusades against Bowman and Bush have already left a bad taste in people’s mouths, and rightly so, and it’s near certain that in the not very distant future, it’s going to flip, and the knowledge that AIPAC is funding opposition to a candidate will actually benefit that candidate - people will actually be more likely to vote for them because AIPAC opposes them. And that’ll be the end of AIPAC.
And good riddance to bad rubbish.