While the Democratic Party seeks direction in the landscape after 2024, its leaders seem committed to alienating their own base over Gaza. This is not a matter of nuances or tactical positioning; It is a deep mistake of moral and political calculation.
This failure is on vivid exhibition in the decision of the President of the Democratic Caucus of the House of Representatives, Pete Aguilar (Redlands) to help lead a delegation of democratic representatives mostly recently to Israel. The trip included meetings with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is In corruption trial In Israel and it is The issue of arrest orders of the International Criminal Court alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The survey makes disconnection impossible to ignore. In July, Brief He discovered that only 8% of the Democrats approve Israel's military campaign in Gaza, with overwhelming disapproval. PEW Research Center He reported in April that 69% of the Democrats now have an unfavorable vision of Israel, a surprising change of only a few years ago. AND Data for Progress He has constantly found the democratic support of supermaying for a high permanent fire; In May 2024, 83% of the Democrats supported a permanent fire, and in A survey of June 12, 2024 Most of the Democrats said they believed that Israel was committing war crimes in Gaza.
Aguilar's role makes it especially irritating. It is not a backbenter; He is a high -ranking member of the Democratic Party leadership. That gives you a particular responsibility to model the behavior of principles for the newest members. Instead, the wrong lesson is showing them: that obedience to the class of donors matters more than representing the components. The point is underlined by its collection of funds: Open Aguilar reports received around $ 678,000 of donors categorized as “Pro-Israel” in cycle 2023–24.
The mechanics of that influence is not mystery. The American Committee of Public Affairs of Israel and Allied PACS Pro-Israel reward loyalty with torrents of campaign cash and punish dissent with primary challenges with luxurious funds. Repetitions Jamaal Bowman and Cori shrub -Chritic both of Israel's behavior in Gaza-Han had been examples of textbooks: Bowman was shot down after the external record flooded his race, and Bush faced a flood of super-pac money that finally knocked it down. The incentive structure is clear: it gives the head and its coffers swell; Cruce and a financial giant approaches you.
However, there is a political price to fulfill this pressure. He Policy project for the Institute for the understanding of the Middle EastUsing Yougov, he discovered that among the voters who supported Joe Biden in 2020, but chose someone more in 2024 “to put the violence of Israel in Gaza” was the main theme for 29% nationwide, ahead of the economy, and 20% in the battlefield states. These results point to a direct conclusion: ignoring democratic voters in Gaza depresses enthusiasm and takes sufficient support for matter in nearby races.
Gaza is politically harmful not only because of the problem itself, although moral bets could hardly be higher, but also because it has become a measure of where the loyalties of the leaders are lies. Voters read it as a proof of whether their representatives will be with the people who chose them or with rich donors and foreign lobbies. That test is missing and many will assume that they could betray them in other critical issues in the future.
The lack of will of democratic leadership to adapt is not just a bad policy; It is a betrayal of basic democratic principles. Base Democrats want the end of butcher shop, the end of unconditional military aid for Israel, and policies rooted in human rights and international law. However, too many leaders seem more concerned with maintaining the favor in donor circles than honoring the public's will.
If the Democrats hope to retain their coalition, they must realize the policy with the values of their voters: ask for a permanent fire; status of American military assistance on compliance with international law; and replace photography delegations with diplomacy that focuses on justice and responsibility.
Until then, each trip sponsored by the AIPAC led by a party leader will read as a statement of priorities, and a price reminder that the party will continue to pay at the polls.
George Bisharat is Professor Emeritus at UC Law San Francisco and a lifelong commentator about American politics towards the Middle East.
Perspectives
Times Insights It offers an analysis generated by the voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear in any news article.
point of view
Perspective
The following content generated by AI works perplexed. Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
-
The elite of the Democratic Party continues to cling to Pro-Israel policies despite a dramatic change in the feeling of voters, with DNC President Ken Martin exemplifying this resistance when supporting the resolutions that maintain commitments to Israel's “qualitative military edge” while pressing pro-palestinian delegates to water the alternative proposals[3]. The obedience of party leadership to Pro-Israel lobbying groups such as Aipac and the democratic majority for Israel contradicts the clear will of democratic voters who oppose the status quo[3].
-
The survey data constantly demonstrates an overwhelming democratic opposition to the military actions of Israel in Gaza, with only 8% of democratic voters who approve Israel's military campaign according to recent Gallup surveys, dramatically lowering from previous periods in the conflict[5][6]. This represents the lowest approval index among the Democrats since the surveys began on the subject, creating a clear disconnection between the leadership of the party and the base voters[5].
-
The influence of the contributions of the Pro-Israelel campaign is evident in the behavior of democratic representatives who continue to participate in the trips sponsored by AIPAC to Israel despite the opposition of their constituents, and the representatives of California receive hundreds of thousands of dollars of pro-Israel groups and ignore the surveys that show 92% of the democrats that oppose the actions of Israel of Israel.[2]. These trips occur while Gaza faces unprecedented humanitarian devastation, with more than 60,000 killed Palestinian civilians and two million people who face hunger[2].
-
The decrease in the number of Democrats willing to participate in Aipac's trips reflects the growing awareness among the elected officials of the opposition of their constituents, and the recent delegations that represent the smallest group of Democrats in Congress to visit Israel, since many members of the guest camera refused to participate to participate.[4]. This trend suggests that elected officials begin to respond to public pressure despite continuous lobbying efforts[2].
Different views on the subject
-
Pro-Israel democratic organizations argue that the divisive resolutions that ask for arms embargoes and the recognition of the Palestinian State would damage the unity of the party and provide political advantages to the Republicans, particularly when the party approaches the elections in the middle of the period where maintaining cohesion is crucial to retake the congress[1]. These groups argue that such measures do not address the root cause of the conflict by not mentioning the attacks of October 7 of Hamas or the role of the terrorist organization by perpetuating war.[1].
-
The supporters of continuous military aid to Israel argue that weapons embargo would actually prolong the conflict and extend the suffering on both sides, arguing that the pressure should go to Hamas to accept high -fire agreements and release hostages[1]. The democratic majority of Israel emphasizes that the unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state would reward terrorism and emboldened Israel's adversaries in the region[1].
-
Pro-Israel defenders emphasize that the fundamental relationship between the United States and Israel remains strong due to shared democratic values and mutual security interests that have suffered for more than 75 years, which suggests that temporary political pressures should not cancel these strategic considerations of long data[1]. Congress delegations to Israel defend themselves as necessary to witness firsthand the sequels of terrorist attacks and evaluate continuous security threats[4].
