The non-partisan AJC (American Jewish Congress) reported yesterday that their polling shows that “When asked about the upcoming presidential election, answers indicated that a lot has stayed the same for the past four years. While there is not a definitive exit poll to measure how American Jews voted, polls commissioned in 2020 by both Democrats and Republicans found that a vast majority of American Jews [except for the Hasidic and other ultra-Orthodox MAGA-Jews] supported Joe Biden. Similarly, the 2024 AJC survey found that 61% said they would vote for Biden in the upcoming election; 23% said they would vote for Donald Trump. The 2024 AJC survey found that 49% of American Jews believe Biden would be the better choice for preserving the U.S.-Israel relationship, compared to 25% who favor Trump. Likewise, 55% favored a Biden administration when it comes to combating antisemitism versus 20% who think Trump would do a better job.” Proving Jews are smarter about anti-Semitism than Southern Baptists are.
Still, Democratic leaders in Congress are tearing the hair out of their heads that so many Dems are leaning towards boycotting Netanyahu’s joint session speech late next month. But, of course, the primary reason MAGA Mike invited the Trump-like Netanyahu to speak was to encourage that kind of division among Democrats.
Mychael Schnell and Mike Lillis reported that it’s the progressive wing of the party trending away from the speech while conservative Democrats— many of them loaded down with AIPAC bribes— are just fine with it. And we’re not just talking about Squad members either. “‘I won’t attend and turn my back towards him,’ Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) said. ‘So I’m just gonna stay away.’ The bad blood between Netanyahu and liberals on Capitol Hill is hardly new. Progressive Democrats have long denounced Netanyahu’s conservative policies, including his sharp criticisms of the Iran nuclear deal under former President Obama, which led to a boycott of the prime minister’s last speech to Congress almost a decade ago. Those old hostilities are still lingering, even as Democrats have found new reason to revile Netanyahu over his military campaign in Gaza. ‘He imported a little bit of controversy the last time he was here,’ Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) said. ‘I thought it was disrespectful to the president, so I’m inclined not to attend.’ A boycott may not be the only way lawmakers showcase their opposition to Netanyahu when he visits Washington next month. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), a deputy whip for the Congressional Progressive Caucus who has served in the House since 1995, said conversations are underway about the best method for protesting the controversial speech. ‘There’s still some debate about the best way to respond to his coming,’ Doggett told The Hill. ‘I’m not planning on attending, and/or I’ll be participating in whatever events there are to express that we want this war to end and we want both him and Hamas to agree to a cease-fire,’ said Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX), a first-term member.”
It’s funny that when quoting AIPAC shills in Congress about how they’ll be attending the event, Schnell and Lillis never mention anything about the huge amount of money these members take from AIPAC and the rest of the pro-genocide lobby. So… we’ll do it for them.
Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ)- $1,618,017
Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)- $1,498,105
Peter Aguilar (D-CA)- $667,753
MAGA Mike (R-LA)- $491-126
“The role that the prime minister is playing is very negative, and I don’t want to be there,” Schakowsky told The Hill.
“He needs to be staying in Israel and working for the peace that he has been unwilling to support in the past,” Doggett echoed. “Despite the Hamas atrocities and all the wrong that exists there, the indiscriminate bombing that he has encouraged that has led to loss of lives that should never have happened. He has not prioritized the hostages; he ought to be doing that instead of coming here.”
“I’ve spoken to several members in the House and the Senate, actually, who had gone to the last speech, the last time he was here, even though they had a lot of misgivings about it, and have been clear that they’re not planning to go this time,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who noted that she will not attend the address.
…Netanyahu’s address marks the latest flash point in the long-simmering tensions within the Democratic caucus over Israel, with staunchly pro-Israel Democrats finding themselves at odds time and time again with pro-Palestinian progressives outraged at the large and growing number of civilian deaths in the Gaza Strip.
On Sunday, Jessica Piper and Hailey Fuchs reported that AIPAC “has become a fundraising juggernaut in recent years, raising more money for candidates than any similar organization this cycle as part of its mission to back candidates who support Israel. It’s the rare political organization that still garners support from Republican and Democratic donors while supporting candidates from both parties. But its primary focus has been leveraging its weight in competitive Democratic primaries, spending millions to boost [conservatives] over progressives who have been critical of Israel. That has made AIPAC the biggest source of Republican money flowing into competitive Democratic primaries this year, according to a Politico analysis of campaign finance data— and drawn outrage from the left over what it sees as GOP meddling in Democratic contests.” AIPAC bundles millions of dollars for their candidates, collecting donations that it then sends to campaigns. It quickly became the biggest bundler of any lobbying group, sending more than four times as much money as any similar PAC.
Hailey and Fuchs confirmed what many people have suspected: “Nearly half of AIPAC donors to Democratic candidates this year have some recent history of giving to Republican campaigns or committees… [P]rogressives see AIPAC’s form of support for Israel as out of step with Democratic voters, particularly in the liberal districts where the group is directing the most funds. A partisan gap in support for Israel has grown dramatically in recent years, with growing numbers of Democrats questioning what was once a bipartisan position. Democrats are now more likely to say they sympathize with Palestinians than Israelis, driven in part by low levels of support for Israel among young voters. ‘AIPAC can’t actually claim that they represent Democrats and Republicans in the same way. That veneer of bipartisanship is gone,’ said Beth Miller, political director for Jewish Voice for Peace Action, a nonprofit that advocates for Palestinian rights and has been at the forefront of calls for a ceasefire.”
Wealthy Republicans are using AIPAC to replace progressives with conservative Democrats who are most likely to side with the GOP— and not just on Israel, but across the board. AIPAC’s biggest project this cycle, replacing Jamaal Bowman with George Latimer, would mean getting rid of one of Congress’ foremost advocates for dealing with the Climate Crisis with, effectively, a Climate Change denier.
“Under the William F. Buckley rule of politics, I want to support the most conservative person who can win,” said Eric Levine, a board member of the Republican Jewish Coalition who has donated to Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY). “And Ritchie Torres is the most conservative person who can win in the Bronx, and he is right on the issue of Israel and antisemitism in the United States.” [He is also one of the crypto-criminals’ top advocates among Democrats.]
Another RJC board member, Gabriel Groisman, recently gave to Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL). He said there were just a small number of Democrats “who are standing up for not just the state of Israel but against antisemitism in a strong way here,” including Torres, Moskowitz and Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ).
…There are also Republicans supportive of Israel, some of whom face competitive races, like Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA), or Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas), who recently fought off a primary challenge from Brandon Herrera, a pro-gun YouTuber with a history of antisemitic statements.
And some of the top recipients are moderates challenging progressive incumbents in Democratic primaries. In addition to the Bowman-Latimer race, AIPAC is backing Wesley Bell, who faces Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO) in Missouri’s 1st district in August.
While the [conservative] Democrats who receive money through AIPAC tend to draw some Republican support anyway, the money they get through AIPAC is far more likely to come from donors with a history of giving to Republicans than the donations their campaigns receive directly.
AIPAC has raised more money for Latimer than any other candidate— a bit over $1.6 million through the end of April from nearly 1,800 donors, according to the group’s campaign finance filings. About 40 percent of those donors had previously given to Republicans via AIPAC or WinRed, compared with just 10 percent of Latimer donors who didn’t give through AIPAC.
“AIPAC and its Republican megadonors are targeting me because I stand up for our community’s democratic values— from a ceasefire to abortion rights and gun violence prevention— against Donald Trump’s MAGA extremism,” Bowman said in a statement.
Competitive Democratic primaries are also the biggest target’s for AIPAC’s affiliated super PAC, United Democracy Project, which has already spent $19.8 million in them this year, including $9.3 million in the Bowman-Latimer race. That makes it by far the biggest outside group in Democratic primaries, with more money flowing from UDP than the next 10 biggest spenders combined. (The super PAC has also spent in a handful of GOP primaries, dropping $3 million total.)
That has infuriated progressives, who see AIPAC’s and UDP’s involvement in the Democratic primaries as a form of Republican meddling and have sought to contextualize it as part of a broader war on progressives. Bowman and Bush both represent safe Democratic districts that President Joe Biden won by more than 40 points, are leading progressives as members of the “Squad,” and have been at the forefront of calls for a cease-fire in Gaza.
“AIPAC is using this issue as a way to attract Republican dollars, to then try to oust to a broader progressive agenda as well,” said Miller, of Jewish Voice for Peace Action. “The strongest voices for Palestinian rights in Congress right now are aligned with a broad range of progressive issues.”
Progressives argue pro-Israel Republican donors are particularly wrong to try to influence heavily blue districts amid growing Democratic discontent with Israel’s war in Gaza.
Even many establishment Democrats now say the U.S. should put some conditions on its support for Israel amid rising civilian casualties. A poll commissioned by the Working Families Party, which backs Bowman, found in March that a majority of voters in New York’s 16th Congressional District said they were more likely to support a candidate who favored a cease-fire in Gaza.
“As the Israeli government moves farther and farther to the right, that is the policy that AIPAC is advancing in Congress. And that is just not where Democratic voters are,” said Usamah Andrabi, spokesperson for Justice Democrats, a progressive group backing Bowman and Bush that has frequently squared off with AIPAC. “That’s where the Republican members of Congress are.”
AIPAC has long targeted progressive women of color and many people see them as the most racist group operating in the Democratic electoral space. Yonah Lieberman, co-founder of the Jewish American organization IfNotNow, said that “AIPAC is a GOP front group. Democrats who accept their money or endorsement should be shamed out of the party.” That sure wouldn't leave many Democrats left in Congress! Give AIPAC the finger.
You did a piece with numbers a few days ago. Less than 11% boycotted (or overslept... whatever) last time. I'm sure the party accountants can tolerate up to maybe 15% as a pretense here. But all the "leaders" of the party will be there and will give him a standing-o.
It's too late now, but the way to send a message to your party mandarins isn't to keep voting for them no matter what they do and don't do... It would be to electorally euthanize them for all they do and refuse to do. seems obvious.
For a party that has been making Faustian bargains for decades, the most Faustian bargain of them all has been made with AIPAC. For a party that has ben shooting itself in the foot for decades, Schumer & Jeffries inviting Netanyahoo is shooting itself in both feet (and other appendages).
Who consciously offers a platform to someone who has been trying to do you ill for at least a deacde? Who consciously foments conflict in their own caucus? Who consciously gives a middle finger to younger voters whose support is essential and who are appalled by Uncle Sam financing ethnic cleansing?
No one ever went broke understimating the stupidity of Dem "leadership."