Israel, AIPAC and Difficult Questions for Democrats

What It Covers

NYT journalist Jonathan Mahler traces how AIPAC transformed from a bipartisan pro-Israel lobbying group into a polarizing electoral force, spending $120 million in the 2024 cycle and $30 million in a single Michigan Senate race, reshaping Democratic Party politics around Israel support as a strict litmus test.

Key Questions Answered

• •AIPAC's litmus test shift: AIPAC now defines "pro-Israel" as supporting unconditional US military aid — no conditions, no case-by-case review. Moderate Democrats who support Israel but question blank-check funding, like New Jersey's Tom Malinowski, face millions in attack ads on unrelated issues like stock trading and immigration enforcement.
• •Super PAC strategy and dark money: AIPAC's United Democracy Project Super PAC, created before the 2022 midterms, runs ads with no visible connection to Israel — reproductive rights, immigration, wages — while funding candidates or defeating opponents. Voters cannot identify the pro-Israel source, making the spending difficult to counter without explicit public disclosure campaigns.
• •Backfire risk is measurable: In Daniel Biss's Illinois suburban Chicago race, internal polling showed 51% of district voters viewed AIPAC unfavorably versus only 17% favorably. Biss weaponized AIPAC opposition as a campaign platform, won the Democratic primary, and demonstrated that AIPAC targeting can now actively boost the candidates it opposes.
• •October 7 accelerated, not created, the shift: Democratic skepticism of unconditional Israel support predates October 7, beginning with Obama's 2015 Iran nuclear deal and the 2018 Squad elections. The Gaza war accelerated an existing trajectory — nearly 100 House Democrats voted to end military aid to Israel in one 2024 vote, a previously unthinkable number.
• •Antisemitism and legitimate criticism require separation: AIPAC's spending is comparable to the crypto and AI lobbying Super PACs in dollar terms, yet receives disproportionate scrutiny. Criticism of AIPAC contains both legitimate policy debate and documented antisemitic tropes about Jewish money and foreign influence — observers must distinguish between the two rather than conflating or dismissing either.