Israel, AIPAC and Difficult Questions for Democrats

Summary of Israel, AIPAC and Difficult Questions for Democrats

by The New York Times

39m•July 29, 2026
Listen to Episode

Overview of Israel, AIPAC and Difficult Questions for Democrats

This episode of The Daily examines how AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, has become a central force in Democratic primary politics—and a symbol of a much larger fight over U.S. support for Israel, money in politics, and the boundaries of criticism. Jonathan Mahler argues that the group’s shift from bipartisan lobbying to aggressive, high-dollar electoral intervention has helped turn support for Israel into a litmus test on the left at a moment when U.S.-Israel relations are under unprecedented scrutiny.

How AIPAC Went from Bipartisan to Polarizing

Early mission

  • AIPAC was founded shortly after Israel’s creation in 1948.
  • Its original goal was simple: defend and strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship.
  • For decades, it was explicitly bipartisan and worked with both Republicans and Democrats.

Why it worked for so long

  • AIPAC could argue that:
    • Israel shared U.S. democratic values.
    • Israel was a key strategic ally, especially during the Cold War.
    • American Jews and Zionist voters gave the cause political support.
  • In return, Israel received:
    • Massive U.S. military aid.
    • Major political backing in Congress and on the world stage.

The Turning Point: From Alignment to Division

2015: Obama and the Iran nuclear deal

  • The biggest inflection point came when President Obama pushed ahead with the Iran nuclear deal.
  • Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strongly opposed it.
  • Netanyahu’s appearance before Congress, arranged by Republicans, became a public confrontation between the Israeli government and the U.S. president.
  • AIPAC sided with Israel and against Obama, marking a major break from its old ability to stay comfortably bipartisan.

2018 onward: The rise of the Squad

  • The election of progressive Democrats like:
    • Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
    • Rashida Tlaib
    • Ilhan Omar
    • later Jamal Bowman and Cori Bush
  • These lawmakers were openly critical of Israeli policy, supported BDS in some cases, and questioned unconditional U.S. aid.
  • Their rise signaled that criticism of Israel was no longer confined to fringe voices.

How AIPAC Changed Its Strategy

From small donations to super PAC spending

  • AIPAC had traditionally encouraged members to make limited individual donations.
  • In the post-Citizens United era, it created a super PAC called the United Democracy Project.
  • This allowed AIPAC to spend unlimited sums in congressional races.

The new playbook

  • AIPAC began:
    • Pouring tens of millions into primaries.
    • Backing candidates it saw as reliably pro-Israel.
    • Targeting candidates it viewed as insufficiently supportive.
  • In 2022, it spent about $26 million.
  • By the current cycle, spending had surged far higher, including $120 million in the 2024 cycle, according to the episode.

Not just Israel messaging

  • The group also used broader issue ads, sometimes unrelated to Israel, to boost allies or weaken opponents.
  • That fueled criticism that AIPAC had become a major player in “dark money” politics, not just foreign-policy lobbying.

Why Democrats Are Rethinking the Issue

The new litmus test

  • AIPAC’s definition of “pro-Israel” has hardened.
  • Politicians who question unconditional military aid to Israel may be treated as unacceptable, even if they still support Israel’s existence and security.
  • This has widened the number of Democrats AIPAC is willing to challenge, including moderates.

Examples discussed

  • Tom Malinowski:
    • A mainstream Democrat and former congressman.
    • Supported Israel in general but wanted conditions and case-by-case scrutiny on aid.
    • AIPAC spent heavily against him; the effort backfired in part because the race produced a candidate even farther left on Israel.
  • Daniel Biss:
    • A moderate Illinois Democrat with Jewish family history and ties to Israel.
    • He made AIPAC part of his campaign narrative and won his primary.
  • Michigan Senate primary:
    • AIPAC backed Haley Stevens, a moderate Democrat.
    • Her opponent, Abdul El-Sayed, made criticism of Israel and opposition to aid central to his campaign.

October 7 and the Gaza War Changed the Politics Again

  • After Hamas’s October 7 attack, there was an initial surge of bipartisan sympathy for Israel.
  • But as the war in Gaza intensified and civilian casualties mounted, public opinion and political support began shifting again.
  • For AIPAC, this created a new urgency:
    • More criticism of Israel.
    • More skepticism of military aid.
    • More space for anti-AIPAC and anti-Israel messaging.

Antisemitism, Criticism, and the Hard Part to Untangle

The episode makes an important distinction

  • It acknowledges that AIPAC clearly spends real money and exerts real influence.
  • But it also warns that some criticism of AIPAC draws on classic antisemitic tropes:
    • Jews and money
    • Jewish political power
    • accusations of dual loyalty
  • The episode notes that this dynamic appears on both the left and the right.

Important nuance

  • Not every criticism of AIPAC is antisemitic.
  • But the show argues that the current environment has opened the door to rhetoric that crosses into antisemitism, especially as criticism of Israel becomes more normalized.

Main Takeaways

  • AIPAC has transformed from a bipartisan pro-Israel lobby into a highly aggressive super PAC.
  • Support for Israel is now a major fault line inside the Democratic Party, not just between parties.
  • AIPAC’s money and tactics have backfired politically in some cases, helping some opponents turn anti-AIPAC sentiment into a campaign asset.
  • The broader debate now includes three intertwined issues:
    1. U.S.-Israel policy
    2. the role of big money in politics
    3. the risk of antisemitic rhetoric being normalized

Bottom Line

Jonathan Mahler’s central argument is that AIPAC helped create the conditions for its current backlash. By moving from a bipartisan lobbying model to a more combative, high-spending electoral strategy, it pushed Democrats to take sides—and in doing so, it accelerated a broader rethinking of what it means to be “pro-Israel” in American politics.

Note

  • The transcript includes unrelated sponsor reads and later news headlines at the end; the core episode content ends with the AIPAC discussion.