Democrats Twist AIPAC’s Bipartisan Line In An Attempt To Muzzle Criticism Of Obama’s Anti-Israel Policies

by Matthew Knee

In a closed door meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz asked Netanyahu to demand a pledge from the Republican Jewish Coalition not to make Israel a campaign issue in 2012. He did not.

To the uninitiated, Wasserman Schultz’s bizarre request seems almost too chutzpadik to be believed, as much blogospheric mocking shows. However, Wasserman Schultz was in a sense parroting AIPAC’s bipartisan party line, albeit in an ironically partisan way. AIPAC works to ensure that Israel-related bills in Congress pass with crushing bipartisan majorities, and that American presidents pursue pro-Israel policies. To do this, they must establish that Israel is not a partisan issue, allowing pro-Israel activists and donors of both parties to use their clout to ensure that elected officials – especially otherwise indifferent ones – remain influenced by pro-Israel supporters.

Ideally, Israel should not be a partisan matter, and AIPAC works hard to prevent it from becoming one – they need to win votes no matter who is in power, and they do, by enormous bipartisan margins. Obama’s backpedaling at AIPAC shows that they still are quite good at this. He might have been dissembling, but the fact that he felt the need to do so says a lot about AIPAC’s power and success.

However, the partisan divide on Israel stems directly from many Democrats becoming less pro-Israel. Wasserman Schultz manages to turn the principle that pro-Israel policies should be bipartisan upside down, using it to provide cover for some Democrats to defect to the anti-Israel side of the fence. If one is to “erase the aisle” on Israel issues, as Wasserman Schultz suggests, one must ensure that the parties are equally supportive of Israel – not simply stop talking about the fact that they are not.