BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Politically Left Leaning Bias, and Framing Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 40% saturation with 460 hits. Analysis detected 2,039 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,149 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 68.9% and a BS Rank of 76% (4,589 of 19,153 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 76.00% of the article peer group.
US Consensus on Israel Dead
Dr.
James J.
Zogby ©
President
Arab American Institute
Evidence keeps piling up that the long-claimed bipartisan consensus on US support for Israel is dead.
Almost daily there are signs that Israeli behavior and the heavy-handed tactics used by the pro-Israel lobby to browbeat elected officials into unquestioning support for Israel are being rejected not only by Democratic voters but increasingly by elected Democrats as well.
Events this past week make this clear.
When the Democratic nominee for Senate in Maine was forced to withdraw because of allegations of sexual assault, pro-Israel groups were initially relieved because he had been a harsh critic of Israeli policies and had called for eliminating their military aid.
The relief was short-lived, however, since all of the leading candidates vying to assume the Democratic slot on the ballot have now adopted the same views—charging Israel with genocide, calling for an end to military aid to Israel, and rejecting support from the pro-Israel lobby.
These aren’t positions most of these candidates had taken before, but they know that if they want to win the Democratic nomination and the November election these are positions they must now embrace.
Even Democrats vying for the presidency are demonstrating their willingness to establish independence from what had been the pro-Israel consensus.
Gone are the days when a candidate would make the obligatory pilgrimage to Israel to meet the prime minister, hug victims of Arab violence, and visit the Wailing Wall.
Now they compete to show just how critical they can be.
Rahm Emanuel, a long-time fixture in US politics and supporter of Israel, traveled to Tel Aviv to deliver a highly publicized speech sharply critical of Israeli policy.
His speech was overshadowed by Congressman Ro Khanna who visited the West Bank, where he was detained and harassed by menacing armed Israeli settlers.
Khanna received more press coverage than Emanuel’s speech.
This will, no doubt, continue as Khanna makes the media circuit, relating his eyewitness account of the repressive circumstances that define Palestinian daily life under occupation.
Because Emanuel and Khanna are potential presidential contenders, the fact that they chose to make these visits and criticism of Israeli policies a key part of their opening volleys spoke volumes about where Democrats are on this issue.
Just a few days later, back in Washington, two votes in Congress added further weight to the case that there is change.
In the Senate, Democrats presented a united front to block a Republican effort, supported by Israel, that would have merged US and Israeli military and intelligence cooperation.
It would have replaced aid to Israel with guaranteed cooperation and co-production of military equipment, thereby eliminating the ability of future US administrations to limit unacceptable use of US military supplies.
At the same time, the House of Representatives voted on an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have cut the annual $3.3 billion US aid package to Israel.
This measure was supported by a slight majority of Democratic members of Congress.
It wasn’t just the vote that was important.
More revealing was how Democrats got to this vote and how they addressed it.
The amendment to eliminate the annual aid to Israel had been initially introduced by a Republican member who recently lost his primary contest owing to a $12 million outlay from pro-Israel sources.
That the Republican Speaker of the House allowed the amendment to come to a vote made some Democrats wary that it was a trap, intended to hurt Democrats with pro-Israel donors and Jewish voters in November.
In such situations, when controversial votes are to be taken, the party’s congressional leadership takes charge to mobilize their members to vote a certain way.
Because the Democratic leader in the House had just received a rather substantial contribution from pro-Israel sources to support electing Democrats in November, it was assumed he would urge his members to vote against the amendment.
Instead, recognizing the deep divide that existed in the party, he announced that while he would vote against the aid cut, other Democratic lawmakers were free to vote their conscience.
Equally telling was the fact that the Democrats’ number two in the House and the former Democratic leader both voted for the amendment to cut aid.
In their speeches explaining their votes against aid to Israel, most expressed their outrage at Israel’s behaviors, saying that the US should not be complicit in funding what Israel was doing in Gaza.
Others cited their disgust with the Israeli Prime Minister.
And a large group of the members who voted for the amendment noted that the money going to Israel to kill Palestinians could better be spent at home to support schools, heath care, and other domestic priorities.
None of these arguments could have been made even a few years ago.
While public opinion, especially among Democrats, has long been critical of Israeli policies, only a handful of elected officials would speak out.
They may have been upset with what Israel was doing, but they did not dare voice their concerns in public or vote contrary to the wishes of the pro-Israel lobby.
A few factors account for this change.
First, the mass killings of Palestinians and the devastation of Gaza have been viewed by voters in real time.
Social media platforms brought this reality directly to the public, unfiltered by establishment media pundits or political propagandists.
Equally important is the fact that voters are in a rebellious frame of mind.
Both Republicans and Democrats are rejecting their establishments.
That’s why Trump was able to win over a majority of Republicans.
And it explains why Democrats are turning their backs on party elites and the big money interests who have dominated their politics for decades.
Rejecting AIPAC, “dark money,” and the taboo against criticizing Israel are part of this shift.
In the face of these developments I can’t help but think back four decades ago when I was warned that if I said the “P word” (meaning the Palestinians) at the 1988 Democratic convention I would be responsible for destroying the party.
When I did say it in my speech to the convention, I was asked to withdraw from the party for fear of the backlash that would follow.
Change came slowly, but not before too many careers were destroyed and too many innocents lost their lives.
We’re in a different place today and it’s important we recognize it.
***
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Arab American Institute.
The Arab American Institute is a non-profit, nonpartisan national leadership organization that does not endorse candidates.
Note: To discuss this column with me.
Please register here for my next ‘Coffee And A Column’ event on Wednesday via Zoom.
This column can not be republished without permission.
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.