#israel + #politics

“Every cycle, AIPAC shows just how broken our democracy is and how corrupt our political finance system is,” said Usamah Andrabi, a spokesperson at Justice Democrats, a progressive group.

“Every cycle, they are at the forefront of exploiting those gaps for their right-wing donors and at the expense of voters.”

While the Chicago Progressive Partnership — the group whose name appeared on the Amiwala advertisement — was widely believed to be linked to AIPAC, it did not have to reveal the source of its funding until after the elections, which took place in March.

Now that the vote is over, Federal Election Commission receipts show that the sole funder of Chicago Progressive Partnership was Elect Chicago Women (ECW), another PAC. It contributed $1m to the partnership.

In turn, ECW had raised more than $4m from United Democracy Project (UDP), the election arm of AIPAC, and another $1m from investor Blair Frank, one of UDP’s largest donors.

AIPAC also contributed $1.3m to a third PAC, Affordable Chicago Now, in what critics call an effort to conceal its spending in Illinois.

Palestinian rights advocates say this use of “shell PACs” is evidence of how the pro-Israel group has become “toxic” among the US electorate. They argue AIPAC has taken a Russian doll approach — hiding its spending by funnelling funds from one PAC to another — to hide its involvement in primary races.

“They are so unpopular amongst the Democratic Party that they have to hide themselves,” Andrabi told Al Jazeera. “We have to keep exposing them and looking under every rock to see whether or not this shell PAC or that shell PAC is funded by AIPAC.”

Just this week, The New York Times and Siena College released a survey showing that 37 percent of US voters now sympathise with Palestinians, while 35 percent sympathise with Israelis.

That number was even higher among Democratic respondents, 57 percent of whom felt greater sympathy for the Palestinians.

The Pew Research Center suggested an even stronger left-wing backlash. Its survey earlier this year found 80 percent of Democratic respondents said they have unfavourable views of Israel.

Despite its well-documented clout, AIPAC’s organisational structure remains murky, as well as its spending.

On Wednesday, DAWN, the rights group, released a report that relied on LinkedIn disclosures to track the group’s current and former staff members and their professional connections.

It found that many people who worked for AIPAC also held jobs with the US and Israeli governments.

“DAWN’s analysis shows that 66 former AIPAC staffers currently work in the US government, from Congress to the White House to various branches of the military; nearly two dozen current AIPAC staffers previously worked in US government bodies,” the report said.

“The personal and professional relationships that result from this type of revolving door form the backbone of political influence in Washington, which is indicated in the hundreds of professional connections between AIPAC staffers and US federal and state employees.”

under new guidance issued by the Trump administration, immigrants can now be denied a green card for expressing political opinions, such as participating in pro-Palestinian campus protests, posting criticism of Israel on social media and desecrating the American flag, according to internal Department of Homeland Security training materials reviewed by The New York Times.

The administration includes criticism of Israel as a potentially disqualifying factor, with the training materials citing as an example of questionable speech a social media post that declares, “Stop Israeli Terror in Palestine” and shows the Israeli flag crossed out.

Hasbara (Hebrew: הַסְבָּרָה) is the public diplomacy of Israel. It includes mass communication, as well as individual interaction with foreign nationals through social and traditional media, and cultural diplomacy. Organizations involved include the IDF Spokesperson's Unit, Prime Minister's Office, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and pro-Israel civil society organizations. Historically, these efforts were openly called "propaganda" by the early Zionists who promoted them, with Theodor Herzl advocating such activities in 1899.[1] The term hasbara was introduced by Nahum Sokolow, literally meaning "explaining".[2] This communicative strategy seeks to justify Israeli state actions and is considered reactive and event-driven.

Israeli officials have emphasized the importance of molding American public opinion to influence U.S. foreign policy favorably toward Israel. For example, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said, "In the last 30 years, I appeared innumerable times in the American media and met thousands of American leaders. I developed a certain ability to influence public opinion." Netanyahu said this in the context of the Israeli government's decade-long effort to pressure for military action against Iran. He added that this "is the most important thing: the ability to sway public opinion in the United States against the regime in Iran."[

According to The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, major American Jewish organizations have played a significant role in advancing an Israeli state narrative to the American public. They quote Rabbi Alexander M. Schindler, former chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, saying: "The Presidents' Conference and its members have been instruments of official governmental Israeli policy. It was seen as our task to receive directions from government circles and to do our best no matter what to affect the Jewish community." Similarly, they quote Hyman Bookbinder, a high-ranking official of the American Jewish Committee, as saying: "Unless something is terribly pressing, really critical or fundamental, you parrot Israel's line in order to retain American support. As American Jews, we don't go around saying Israel is wrong about its policies."

Every US presidential administration since President Nixon has maintained an understanding with Israel under which the US and Israel do not acknowledge Israel’s nuclear weapons program, and the US doesn’t pressure Israel to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The ambiguity has allowed the US presidents to provide military assistance without worrying about the 1976 Symington Amendment, a foreign assistance law that prohibits aid to countries that traffic in or receive nuclear enrichment equipment or technology outside of international safeguards.

Israel’s nuclear arsenal, which is estimated to be somewhere between 70 and 400 nuclear warheads, is almost always missing from the conversation in US media coverage and political discussions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program, which has never been used to develop weapons. Unlike Israel, Iran is a signatory of the NPT, and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Iranian supreme leader killed by an Israeli strike on February 28, had maintained a Fatwa banning the development of nuclear weapons.

It’s results like these that are exactly why we need ranked choice voting. A glass half full verdict of the results are that the candidates deemed not pro-Israel enough got almost 60% of the vote.

One position Mamdani has stood firm on is his criticism of Israel and lifelong support for Palestinian rights. It represents a break from the Democratic party establishment and could be a deciding factor for many voters in a city with the largest Jewish population outside of Israel.