Israel, AIPAC and Difficult Questions for Democrats

This section discusses how the longstanding bipartisan support for Israel in American politics is shifting, particularly among Democrats. Jonathan Mahler highlights major recent events, such as the 2015 Iran nuclear deal opposition and the rise of progressive lawmakers critical of Israel, such as the squad elected in 2018. These developments reveal a significant paradigm shift, with some politicians beginning to question unconditional US support for Israel, which was once considered political suicide but is now gaining traction. The influence of AIPAC (APAC) has historically helped maintain bipartisan support, but recent actions—such as backing candidates who oppose unconditional aid and supporting candidates who align their policies with Israel’s interests—have started to polarize American politics. The discussion emphasizes how APAC’s increasing involvement through large-scale spending and strategic backing has affected electoral dynamics, pushing candidates certain ways and redefining what it means to be pro-Israel.

This section focuses on AIPAC’s evolution from a bipartisan organization to a highly polarizing political force. Initially founded in 1948 to support Israel, it maintained support across both political parties, advocating that America’s interests and Israel’s security were aligned. Over time, especially post-2015, AIPAC shifted tactics by establishing a super PAC—the United Democracy Project—to inject unlimited funding into races, supporting candidates that align with its pro-Israel stance and opposing those who question Israel’s policies. AIPAC’s involvement has resulted in significant spending, influence over candidates, and the ability to shape election outcomes, including funding campaigns and attacking opponents. Their recent strategy of supporting candidates who endorse controversial positions, such as supporting efforts to overturn the 2020 election, illustrates their push to enshrine a strict pro-Israel litmus test, which has led to increased polarization and controversy.

This section addresses the sensitive topic of criticism directed at AIPAC, which at times crosses into anti-Semitic tropes. The discussion underscores how critiques of AIPAC and its influence frequently echo long-standing anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jewish power and money. Mahler emphasizes that large-scale criticisms, especially in current heated contexts such as the Gaza conflict, sometimes blur the line between legitimate political debate and dangerous anti-Semitism. The rise of anti-Semitic sentiment globally and domestically complicates these discussions, and Mahler advocates for careful navigation to differentiate between valid criticism of policies and prejudiced rhetoric. The influence of dark money and the disproportionate attention on AIPAC’s role further fuel these tensions.

This section explores how recent events, such as the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel and subsequent Israeli military actions, have affected US political support for Israel. Initially, there was a brief resurgence of bipartisan backing, but public opinion shifted as Israeli actions in Gaza sparked controversy and accusations of war crimes. AIPAC responded by intensively supporting candidates who align with its vision, investing heavily in races like Michigan and Illinois and targeting moderate Democrats, including some who support Israel but question unconditional aid. Mahler notes that the organization is at a crossroads, with options including acknowledging a broader spectrum of pro-Israel viewpoints. If AIPAC fails to adapt, it risks losing influence as American political attitudes continue to evolve, especially among younger and more diverse voters who are increasingly critical of Israel’s policies.