What Was AIPAC Thinking When It Went After Tom Malinowski? A Lament.

AIPAC does many things; building broader, lasting support for Israel is no longer one of them.

A few weeks ago, I wrote here that attacking Tom Malinowski is no way to build American – or Democratic – support for Israel.

Not prone to follow my advice, AIPAC went ahead and did it anyway, pouring $2.3 million into a low-visibility February primary through its Super PAC, the United Democracy Project.

The spending saturated the district with ads and mail aimed at defeating an experienced foreign policy leader with a long track record of support for the U.S.–Israel relationship.

Why? Because Tom dared to say American assistance to Israel should not be a blank check and that the weapons we provide must be used in accordance with our laws and values.

To power the effort, they reached back seven years to twist a single vote on Homeland Security funding into a caricature – recasting a lifelong advocate for vulnerable communities and human rights as somehow aligned with this administration’s hardline immigration enforcement.

Whatever one thinks of that vote - or AIPAC’s disingenuous use of it - it’s worth noting that AIPAC itself has not said a word opposing the administration’s immigration agenda or the horrors of its enforcement actions.

---

---

But I write today not to lament that Tom Malinowski may not return to Congress, much as I admire and respect him.

I write to lament what AIPAC has done and what it has become.

For decades, AIPAC occupied a central place in American Jewish life. After Israel’s founding – and especially after 1967 and 1973 – support for Israel’s survival united our community in fear, pride and solidarity.

AIPAC gave organized expression to that consensus. Its mission – strengthening the U.S.–Israel relationship to ensure Israel’s security – resonated widely.

But history did not stop in 1973.

In the decades since, Israeli politics have moved sharply rightward. The collapse of peace efforts, the deepening occupation and now the rise of a messianic, ethnonationalist coalition have opened a painful gap between Israel’s government and the values of most American Jews.

Today, many American politicians – including many strong friends of Israel – support Israel’s people and future while opposing the Netanyahu government’s specific policies, from the conduct of the war in Gaza to accelerating annexation and settler violence in the West Bank.

That is not hostility. It reflects where many voters - Jewish and non - find themselves. Many of us criticize because we want Israel to survive and thrive.

Yet AIPAC now treats even good-faith criticism from friends as a threat to be crushed.

Armed with a war chest of $100 million, it is intervening aggressively in Democratic primaries – not necessarily against Israel’s harshest critics, but tipping the scale against mainstream Democrats like Malinowski or Daniel Biss (the grandchild of a Holocaust survivor running in Illinois’ 9^th District) whose views sit well within the Jewish communal consensus.

And it is doing so in ways that undermine the bipartisanship it claims to prize.

Massive sums are raised from donors better known for backing Republicans and then deployed in Democratic contests, driving a wedge in the party at a moment when its unity is vital to defending American democracy.

Spending is routed through blandly named groups whose roles often become clear only after the election. Candidates keep formal distance and deny coordination, while benefiting from networks closely tied to AIPAC.

Their reactions remind me of Captain Renault in Casablanca, who was “shocked, shocked” to find gambling while collecting his winnings.

Why the dance? Because AIPAC’s brand has become toxic for many Democratic voters.

That should be a deafening alarm bell.

In New Jersey, the group may have scored an epic own-goal, replacing someone they used to support with someone far less aligned with its worldview.

The message Democrats hear when long-time friends like Tom Malinowski are targeted is not “stand with Israel” because we share values and interests.

It is: fall in line or risk your career.

Political relationships rooted in intimidation rarely build durable support. More often, they breed resentment – toward the organization wielding power and, unfairly, toward the cause it claims to champion.

The deeper damage is cumulative. Weakening pro-Israel moderates, inflaming intraparty tensions and creating the impression that vast, opaque sums are policing debate all erode the goodwill on which Israel has long depended.

That is bad for the U.S.–Israel relationship. It is bad for the Democratic Party. And it leaves American Jews in an increasingly fraught place within the pro-democracy coalition where most of us feel at home.

---

AIPAC has a proud history. I knew the family of its founder, Isaiah “Si” Kenen. I will always acknowledge the critical role it played at important moments and the many good people who devoted their lives to its work.

Precisely because that legacy matters, this is a painful moment that should spark serious reflection among its supporters.

An organization founded to strengthen a relationship between democracies should not narrow democratic debate or punish those who raise legitimate concerns about Israel’s direction.

Support coerced through fear is brittle.

If we want enduring support for Israel – across parties and generations – we must root the relationship in the best of our values, face hard truths when those values are violated and remain open to real debate and dissent.

And - in this moment when fascism is rearing its ugly head - it behooves Jewish political leaders and institutions to use our resources to fight the threats to our democracy and not each other.

---

If you appreciate the work J Street does, I hope you’ll consider making a grassroots contribution to ensure our voice is heard.