In last week's Democratic primary elections in New York City, three insurgent critics of Israeli policies defeated candidates endorsed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), pointing to the potential end of an era for the pro-Israel lobby. AIPAC has long held sway in elections, threatening and intimidating any opposition. When a critic of Israel was defeated, they boasted of the victory as a lesson for others.
AIPAC's Strategic Approach
AIPAC's approach to politics and elections was smart. Formed by the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organisations, they were connected from the outset to an impressive national network of American Jewish leaders, activists, and donors, which they used to effectively influence members of Congress to embrace pro-Israel positions. They would visit elected officials in Washington seeking endorsements of legislation and enlist local leaders in a congressperson's district to make the pitch. They would have local representatives offer to help write new candidates' Middle East policy positions. Implicit were the promise of support if the official or candidate did what was asked—and the threat of opposition if they didn't.
Financial Influence and PACs
AIPAC also spawned a network of PACs—political action committees—to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to distribute for or against candidates depending on their positions on Israel. Strategic in their operations, not everyone benefited from AIPAC's largesse. Chairs of important congressional committees and very supportive congressmembers facing tough re-elections received bundled contributions. When elected officials repeatedly stepped out of line, their opponents would benefit from PAC monies and bundled contributions from individual pro-Israel donors. Overall, the amounts were not overwhelming but sufficient to send a message. When an election went their way, the lobby would crow about the victory, whether or not their support had been a factor. Their goal was communication: “Fear us, or you too can be defeated.”
Super-PACs and Declining Support
With the end of federal oversight of independent election expenditures, AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups created “super-PACs” to raise and spend tens of millions of dollars each cycle. In 2022 and 2024, they effectively targeted a few candidates critical of Israel and spent millions to defeat them. After Israel's genocidal war on Gaza, we have witnessed a dramatic collapse of public support for Israel—especially among Democrats. AIPAC can no longer make examples of just a few candidates, with well over 100 elected officials now critical of Israel. Add to this that AIPAC has become so toxic that they have been forced to create new entities or rely on alternatives to distribute funds to candidates.
New York Primaries as a Turning Point
Meanwhile, Israel's behavior alienates more voters. The more money AIPAC spends, the more toxic its brand becomes—even when they win, their heavy-handed tactics lead to declining support. This brings us to last week's New York primaries, a turning point in US politics, when two prominent pro-Israel members of Congress were defeated by challengers critical of Israeli policies and supporters of Palestinian justice, and a former leader of pro-Palestinian campus protests won an open race. Not only did AIPAC and its allies spend millions and fail, but these elections were also upfront about Israeli policies and Palestinian rights.
Shifting Debate
A hallmark of pro-Israel groups' past campaign involvement was the lengths they would go to avoid making support for Israel a public issue. They would raise money from their supporters based on Israel, but their expenditures would pay for adverts criticizing a candidate's age or “radical agenda”, never mentioning the candidate's position on Israel. In these New York contests, many issues mattered to voters, especially frustration with the Democratic establishment's failed policies—but they were also about Israel, and voters knew it. In predictable reactions from the pro-Israel side, some accused the targeting of AIPAC's money and influence as unfair or even antisemitic—ignoring decades of AIPAC boasting about its money and influence as the source of its power. Others claimed that, with the election's results, “Jews no longer feel safe in New York”, ignoring that the most prominent contest's victor is Jewish—a self-proclaimed progressive Zionist who strongly opposed Israel's genocide against Palestinians. Finally, some desperately attempted to dismiss the entire election as just about New York, with no larger significance, ignoring the changed national political landscape as similar contests emerge everywhere.
The bottom line is that, after a half-century, AIPAC's hold over politics has been weakened. It won't go away anytime soon, but a real debate over US Middle East policy can now take place. Thank you, New York voters.
Dr. James J. Zogby is the President of Arab American Institute.
