If Foreign Influence Is the Problem, Why Is the Outrage So Selective?

There is a question that deserves an honest answer from the Democratic Party and the progressive activists who have made foreign influence a central political issue.

Why is so much outrage directed at AIPAC and pro-Israel political activity, while far less attention is paid to the influence of countries such as Qatar and Turkey—governments with deeply troubling records on human rights, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, minority rights and political freedom?

AIPAC is an American organization. Its political activity is conducted within the American political system and under U.S. law. Americans can disagree with AIPAC’s policies, its political spending or its support for particular candidates. Those are legitimate political debates.

But there is a difference between an American organization participating in American politics and an actual foreign government using its wealth, diplomatic relationships, lobbying operations, universities and political consultants to influence American institutions.

And yet, in many progressive political circles, AIPAC is treated as if it represents the ultimate form of foreign influence, while actual foreign governments often receive far less scrutiny.

Why?

Qatar: A Foreign Government With Enormous Influence

Qatar is an authoritarian monarchy with no national political parties and severely limited political participation.

Women in Qatar face discrimination under aspects of the country’s legal system, including laws involving marriage, divorce, child custody and guardianship. The guardianship system has been criticized for limiting women’s ability to make important decisions independently.

Qatar also criminalizes consensual same-sex sexual activity between men. LGBTQ people face legal and social discrimination, and there are no comprehensive protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Qatar’s treatment of migrant workers has also drawn extensive international criticism. Many of the workers who built Qatar’s massive infrastructure projects came from South Asia and Africa. Migrant workers have faced allegations involving wage theft, recruitment abuses, unsafe working conditions and exploitation under the country’s former kafala labor system.

The 2022 World Cup brought international attention to the conditions faced by migrant workers who built stadiums, hotels and infrastructure for the tournament.

Qatar has also become a major financial force in American higher education. The country has provided billions of dollars in reported gifts and contracts to American universities. The question is not whether every donation automatically buys influence. The question is whether Americans are asking enough questions about how foreign money can shape institutions that influence American culture, education and public opinion.

And then there is Qatar’s relationship with Hamas.

Qatar has hosted the political office of Hamas and has served as a major intermediary in negotiations involving Hamas and Israel. The United States has also relied on Qatar as a diplomatic intermediary.

But Hamas is a U.S.-designated terrorist organization responsible for terrorism and the October 7 attack on Israel, in which civilians were murdered, women were sexually assaulted and hostages were taken.

That creates an obvious question:

How can Qatar simultaneously be treated as a trusted diplomatic partner, a major funder of American institutions and a government with relationships to the political leadership of a terrorist organization—without Americans demanding intense scrutiny and transparency?

Turkey: An Ally That Should Not Be Above Criticism

Turkey is a NATO member and an important U.S. ally. But being an ally does not make a government immune from criticism.

Under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey has experienced a significant erosion of democratic institutions. Political opponents, journalists, academics and civil-society activists have faced arrests, prosecutions, dismissals and government pressure.

Turkey has also faced serious criticism over its treatment of women. The country withdrew from the Istanbul Convention, an international treaty designed to combat violence against women and domestic violence. The decision was condemned by critics who argued that it weakened protections for women.

Turkey has also become increasingly hostile toward LGBTQ people. LGBTQ organizations and Pride events have faced bans, restrictions and police crackdowns. Government rhetoric has increasingly targeted LGBTQ people, while discrimination and harassment remain serious concerns.

Turkey has also faced extensive criticism over its treatment of ethnic and religious minorities, particularly Kurds. Kurdish politicians, journalists, activists and political parties have faced government pressure, arrests and legal action. Turkey’s military operations and policies toward Kurdish populations in Turkey and neighboring countries have also generated international criticism.

Other minority communities—including Christians, Jews, Armenians and other religious and ethnic groups—have also faced concerns involving discrimination, nationalist rhetoric and restrictions on minority rights.

Turkey’s government has also been accused of using political influence, lobbying and diaspora organizations to shape public opinion and political debates outside the country.

And yet, the level of outrage directed at Turkey is often nowhere near the level of outrage directed at Israel.

That double standard deserves examination.

Where Is the Same Outrage?

Imagine if a country barred a ship from docking because of the sexual orientation of its passengers.

Would there be universal condemnation?

Would politicians demand sanctions?

Would there be endless media coverage?

When LGBTQ travelers have faced restrictions and discrimination in parts of the region, the response has often been far more muted than the outrage directed at Israel over issues that are debated constantly in American politics.

The same is true of women’s rights.

The same is true of political repression.

The same is true of ethnic minorities.

The same is true of antisemitism.

And the same is true of relationships with terrorist organizations.

If human rights are truly the standard, then the standard should apply everywhere.

The Double Standard Exists in Florida Politics, Too

This is not merely a hypothetical concern.

Political consultants and firms connected to Democratic politics in Florida have also had documented professional relationships with foreign governments, including Qatar.

The point is not that representing a foreign government is automatically illegal. Properly disclosed foreign-agent work can be legal.

The point is the obvious double standard.

AIPAC and pro-Israel political activity are routinely portrayed by many Democrats and progressive activists as uniquely sinister foreign influence. Yet political consultants who operate within Democratic political circles in Florida can also have documented professional ties to governments such as Qatar—a government with a deeply troubling record on LGBTQ rights, women’s rights, migrant-worker treatment and relationships with Hamas.

If foreign influence is the problem, why is the outrage so selective?

Why is money connected to Israel treated as uniquely corrupting while relationships with governments such as Qatar and Turkey receive far less scrutiny?

The University Question

American universities have also become a major arena for foreign influence.

Foreign governments have provided billions of dollars to American colleges and universities. Qatar has been one of the largest foreign sources of reported funding.

American universities shape public debate, train future leaders and influence the political culture of the country. When authoritarian governments provide massive sums of money to those institutions, Americans have every right to ask:

What influence comes with that money?

At the same time, Jewish students on American campuses have faced an explosion of antisemitic harassment, intimidation and hostility since October 7, 2023.

Universities have been forced to confront allegations that they failed to protect Jewish students from discrimination and harassment.

Instead, too often, the discussion is reduced to one subject: AIPAC.

So What Is the Real Issue?

The issue is not that Americans cannot criticize AIPAC.

The issue is not that Americans cannot criticize Israel.

The issue is whether the same standard is being applied consistently…..if not that antisemitism.

Why is an American organization that supports Israel routinely treated as uniquely sinister, while governments with authoritarian political systems, severe restrictions on women, discrimination against LGBTQ people, repression of minorities and relationships with terrorist organizations often receive far less scrutiny?

Why are American political consultants connected to Democratic politics allowed to work for foreign governments without generating the same level of outrage directed at pro-Israel organizations?

Why is foreign money flowing into American universities treated as a serious threat when the source is Israel-related, but treated as philanthropy or diplomacy when the source is Qatar?

If foreign influence is the problem, then the concern should not depend on which foreign government is involved.

If money in politics is the problem, then the scrutiny should not depend on whether the money supports Israel.

If human rights are the concern, then the same standard should apply to Qatar, Turkey and every other government….because it is not.

And if terrorism is the concern, Americans should not be silent when a government maintains relationships with terrorist organizations simply because that government is politically convenient.

And if the concern is truly human rights, why are some governments condemned relentlessly while others are excused, defended or ignored?

That is the double standard people have every right to question.

And You Know Why?

And you know why this double standard exists?

Because too often, it is antisemitism—on the left and on the right.

Antisemitism does not belong to one political party. It does not belong to one ideology. It can come from the far right, the far left and anywhere in between.

The problem is that too many people are willing to call out antisemitism when it comes from their political opponents while excusing, minimizing or rationalizing it when it appears in their own political movement.

You cannot claim to oppose antisemitism while ignoring it when it comes from your own side. You cannot demand accountability from one political movement while giving a pass to the same prejudice when it appears within your own.

Call it out on the right. Call it out on the left. Call it out wherever it appears.

Because the fight against antisemitism is not supposed to be a partisan weapon. It is supposed to be a moral principle.

And for the record, don’t send me to join a group Jews for candidate for XYZ”, when the consultant is a lobbyist for Qatar or Turkey too.

The standard should be the same for everyone.

Call out antisemitism wherever it exists. And stop applying one standard to Israel and Jewish Americans while applying another to Qatar, Turkey and other foreign governments. You wonder why there are so many NPA in South Florida.