AIPAC Sells Its Soul

“This is no moment for the pro-Israel movement to become selective about its friends.”

So wrote AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) in a letter to its members.

It was in defense of AIPAC’s policy of endorsing and directly contributing to the campaigns of so many of the leading proponents of full-on Trumpism, including the lie that the 2020 election was stolen. AIPAC’s policy and its defense of it are disturbing and morally unfit.

Some context follows for why AIPAC’s darker turn is relevant to the American Jewish community and to all of America.

AIPAC is a powerful political organization with a singular focus on promoting and protecting the alliance between America and Israel. Historically, AIPAC’s financial involvement in political campaigns had been indirect; AIPAC encouraged and facilitated contributions by their members to candidates who shared AIPAC’s preferred policies toward Israel.

In the 2022 election cycle, however, AIPAC has departed from its usual practices and raised a sizeable war chest of its own to support its favored candidates directly. In so doing, AIPAC has had an outsized financial impact on a number of primary races. The sole criterion for AIPAC’s support or opposition of a candidate is whether they share AIPAC’s view that the proper American policy toward Israel is unconditional support. Those AIPAC-endorsed candidates include people like Jim Jordan and other leaders of the “Stop the Steal” movement that gave comfort and support to the criminals of January 6th.

I am an American Jew who thinks that the security of Israel is important to America and to the Jewish community around the world. When people advocate for Boycotting, Divesting, and Sanctioning Israel and hold Israel to unreasonable standards, I see it as the persistence of the plague of anti-Semitism. If a political candidate voices strong support for Israel, that’s a positive for me, but microscopically irrelevant if at the same time that candidate is working to undermine American democracy.

Back to AIPAC’s declaration that it will not be “selective about its friends.” I’ve always been vaguely uncomfortable with AIPAC’s stridency about Israel. Uncomfortable as well when politicians genuflect in front of the enormous annual AIPAC convention.

I have an atavistic and historically grounded instinct that it is particularly important for Jews to behave as patriots in their home country in ways that pre-empt accusations of dual loyalty. I also have great gratitude for the American ethic of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as well as the separation of church and state. That ethic has allowed the American Jewish community to flourish and to be in a position to advocate effectively for American support of Israel.

So when AIPAC supports many in Congress like Jim Jordan whose behavior is anti-democratic and goes against the ideals of the American ethic, AIPAC is supporting someone who might help destroy the very conditions that have allowed America and the American Jewish community, including AIPAC, to flourish.

It is a bargain with the devil. And the devil will usually have his due. Moreover, because AIPAC is rightfully seen as the most powerful lobby for the American-Israeli alliance, when AIPAC is seen as morally suspect, that will ultimately taint, in devastating ways, AIPAC’s sole policy goal.

As MLK wrote in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, “…it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends.”

And as Elie Wiesel said to President Reagan when he was planning to visit a German cemetery where Nazi SS were buried, “That place is not your place.”

An organization like AIPAC can and should play a valuable role in sustaining the longstanding commitment by America to Israel. That relationship is crucial to Israel and beneficial to America. But when AIPAC aligns itself with “friends” who are immoral, it not only repels much of the American Jewish community but many other Americans as well.

It is an embarrassing blunder.

End Note: I want to distinguish between how I view and react to the political views of (1) politicians and political organizations vs. (2) friends and family. The first category define themselves by what they advocate for. As for friends and family, I will cite as an example someone in my life I love dearly who roots for Trump almost as much as they root for the Yankees.

I won’t define or shun someone for their political views. I will shun an individual, however, for bigotry such as racism, homophobia, or anti-Semitism.