NJ 11 voter (and Malinowski supporter) here. I doubt that people outside of our district can possibly fathom how vile the AIPAC-funded tsunami of lies was. There were days when we received four (four!!) flyers with TM's photo imposed over a photo of a violent ICE raid. During that time, we might get one TM flyer with the truth - he supports defunding ICE. On election day, I got a text from the AIPAC sponsored PAC: vote for anyone but Tom Malinowski. What explains this? There is only one conclusion: AIPAC decided to destroy Tom Malinowski's political career. But why? I'm starting to think that it's part of an effort to destroy liberal Zionism generally. Nothing else explains why it could have pressed forward with a campaign that was so obviously opening up a lane to the only antizionist candidate. Which is what happened - a lane opened up and the antizionist candidate drove through to victory. But again, why? Because if the opponent is liberal Zionism, you win if you defeat the liberal Zionist (e.g. Tom Malinowski). And if the winner does not support Israel as a Jewish state, well so be it - tackling that is for another day. Meanwhile, the J Street aligned candidate - who would have re-entered Congress with seniority and lots of respect for his foreign policy chops - is defeated. I'm sad for my district, but the more I think about it, I'm alarmed at what this means for liberal Zionism.
I sincerely believe that one of Hamas's goals on Oct 7th was to destroy the global left, and it appears that various legacy Jewish organizations have walked right into that trap.
Why does a foreign country have a financial influence in our country. I have reached out to my democratic representatives to let them know they will lose my vote in the primary if they are accepting funding from AIPAC.
We were inundated with criminal sins of commission and omission. Dozens of nasty flyers, constant horrible commercials on TV, YouTube, radio, etc. It felt like an invasion. It should not be permitted in a true democracy.
Very well said, as usual, by Jeremy. Netanyahu's policies have caused possibly irreparable damage to American-Israeli relations, and AIPAC is only making things worse, and hurting itself and all of the rest of us in the process. Targeting a pro-Israel candidate using unrelated smears?? Are American Jews really going to continue to support that??
Did you actually expect AIPAC to follow your advice on anything? As for AIPAC's patently stupid interference in the NJ-11 election, an assessment I agree with completely, you left a lot of crucial details out. Malinowski appears to be narrowly defeated Mejia, an anti-Israel loon who has stated that Israel has committed genocide. Isn't that the type of candidate that J-Street supports now? Shouldn't you be applauding her?
Furthermore, why should AIPAC be expected to take a stand on ICE or immigration enforcement? That has nothing to do with Israel, unless you listen to the pro-Hamas types claiming that ICE was trained by the IDF.
I definitely read this! And I emphasize that I don't speak for AIPAC. Never did. (and may not! - support every action they take) Or how they do it. But I would say generally my views haven't changed very much on these matters since I was at AIPAC!
One can discuss/debate certain matters about what AIPAC has done (or how it has done it). I very-much come from the kinder/gentler school - and want everyone to love and support Israel and AIPAC! (If only that were possible.)
But you can criticize a specific action and still support the general thrust of the organization which is to support and strengthen the US-Israel relationship. Whether the Prime Minister of Israel is on the right or left; whether the US Presidency and Congress is controlled by Republicans and Democrats. And in this regard this is something AIPAC has been doing since the days of I.L "Si" Kenen . (I wrote about AIPAC's Six Heads, about a year ago https://michaellewisonline.substack.com/p/aipacs-six-heads)
And that while everyone can have an opinion about what Israel should or should not do; it's ultimately up to the Democratically-elected Government of Israel (yes we all know they have a "screwed up" system there of multi-party coalitions); to make the life and death decisions for Israel. Since they ultimately have to live with those decisions. You or I could say those decisions are "objectively wrong." But it's for them to decide. AIPAC urges Congress to support the Government (and people) of Israel. And doesn't urge specific peace proposals. J Street of course urges Congress and the Administration to take certain positions; to pressure Israel. Because you feel those are positions Israel should take. And of course because you support those positions.
And while J Street and AIPAC may obviously differ on "some' matters; what AIPAC has focused on since become involved in political giving is supporting Congressional candidates purely on the basis on whom they deem are most pro-Israel. Despite their views on other issues which we don't need to elaborate. And of course there was a reason why AIPAC began to get involved in political giving. To some degree; the cart came after the horse. And to at least some degree; J Street might be viewed as responsible for the change - by "Giving cover" not just to "Friends" expressing disagreements; but to people really not very friendly to Israel. They may have been "great" on social issues you support; but on Israel? Often not.
With all due respect Michael, this piece isn't about AIPAC and its position on what Israel should or should not do. Your response is a fine one when I write that I believe AIPAC's definition of "pro-Israel" to be too narrow and misguided. We can disagree on that.
But this week I've written that what AIPAC is doing in US politics over recent years is a deeply misguided and counterproductive approach to advancing even the goals you would like it to advance. To enter the political arena in the way it has, to target Tom Malinowski in the way it did and to create such a well of ill will for not just the organization but more - and in the end to possibly help elect a candidate even LESS aligned - all makes ZERO sense.
Unless the organization has become a partisan political actor interested only in damaging the Democratic Party, the strategy it's executing does nothing to help Israel, deepen the US-Israel relationship or assist the pro-Israel community in deepening alliances and building coalitions.
Your response is that all AIPAC does is support the government that the people of Israel select. That's a fine response when I say that that's not the only (or best) way to be pro-Israel. But that response makes no sense when the issue is that AIPAC's decision to play in the American political arena in the way that it is now is really doing damage to far more than the US-Israel relationship.
It seems from your essays that AIPAC has become a partisan political actor interested only in damaging the Democratic Party. Its interference in Democratic primaries is mainly funded by wealthy Republicans, who presumably, like wealthy Republicans generally, want their tax cuts and deregulation. It's possible that Israel policy is not even a primary consideration.
Right. This is why they have supported “stop the steal” candidates and consistently support far left Democrats (like me!) in the hopes that they will be easier to defeat.
Fair point Jeremy except that I’d say you’re using this latest to attack AIPAC with a "more In sorrow than anger" approach!
Now I’m not here, going to “rate or endorse” - or critique - AIPAC’s political approach or actions. If you read my posts carefully; I imagine people can get a good idea of where I’m coming from. And I’m obviously not getting into private conversations while at AIPAC. But as I’ve said earlier; my views really haven’t changed about this. And as I said ”One can discuss/debate certain matters about what AIPAC has done (or how it has done it). I very-much come from the kinder/gentler school - and want everyone to love and support Israel and AIPAC! (If only that were possible.)”
I doubt there are very many American Jews not deeply-concerned by what’s going on in American Politics and society in general. And at the same time; a very-sizable number of American Jews deeply-concerned by what’s going on in the Democratic party vis-a-vis Israel.
Now I’m not blind to consequences either of efforts undertaken. I have to assume that AIPAC’s senior people carefully calculated the pros and cons of what they were doing both in this latest primary and in various primaries in general. Just as they considered pros and cons when decided to enter directly the world of AIPAC campaign giving. And AIPAC (finally) having a PAC. And why they felt that decision was necessary. And of course ultimately if AIPAC’s leadership - professional and Board of Directors decided they were unhappy with how things were; they could change approaches. Of course in reality, the stable door really can’t be closed; or the omelette unscrambled.) And ironically as I just noted today; "On This Day" in 2020: AIPAC apologized for one of its ads https://x.com/WashingtonViews/status/2020462866680119657
At least some of those efforts were totally-logical if you believe in opposing candidates who are truly antithetical to Israel. Don’t have to name names. But some clearly were. And I have to believe that all campaign efforts undertaken by AIPAC are done with what they believe is the best interests of the US-Israel relationship; regardless of who some of the big donors may be (or other motives donors seek)
What does it mean that you come from the kinder/gentler school? Are you ok with what the right wing messianic government is doing in the West Bank? Jstreet is a Zionist organization that believes strongly in a democratic Israel - one that treats all citizens with dignity and respect. We can't continue to give Israel a blank check simply because we believe in Zionism. We need to demand more from the Israeli leaders just as we demand more from our leaders. It is important to study what is happening in Israel instead of blindly going along with all of their policies. And it is sad that a very strong pro Israel pro peace candidate will probably lose largely because of these attack ads by AIPAC.
It means that I'm not a fan what might be called Political "Hardball school" - even though that might be necessary to win. And I certainly haven't delved deeply into the views of some of the candidates. But I certainly believe as a general premise that one supports a candidate who is pro-Israel. And the strong predisposition has to be to support that candidate regardless of their views on other issues. And yes I appreciate the difficulties and all else
Am I right with what the "rampages" of some settlers in the West Bank - and that they're not being either stopped or punished? Absolutely not.
Do I want a Democratic Israel which treats all citizens with dignity and respect? Of course.
I also want Israel to continue to survive and flourish. And I certainly don't believe that I KNOW what's best for Israel's security and survival. Ultimately I would say supporters of Israel should pay heed to what Israelis feel - especially when the Zionist left also share that view - such as re Iran; or the threat from the Palestinians.
The big question is always of course what exactly J Street is. And what it's priorities
I hear a lot in what you’re saying that actually overlaps with J Street.
I don’t pretend to have superior insight into Israel’s security realities from afar. Respecting Israeli voices—especially across the Zionist left and center—is essential. At the same time, being a supporter of Israel doesn’t mean suspending moral judgment or democratic values.
Where I differ is on the idea that acknowledging serious problems—like unchecked settler violence in the West Bank—is somehow incompatible with supporting Israel’s survival. Naming those things, and the failure to stop or punish them, isn’t anti-Israel; it’s pro-democracy and pro–rule of law. Many Israelis, including security experts and former officials, say the same thing. Follow Yoni Shishoni.
For me, J Street’s core priority is holding two truths at once: Israel’s right to exist, thrive, and defend itself and Israel’s future as a democratic state that treats all people with dignity. Ignoring occupation, unequal treatment, or the erosion of democratic norms ultimately weakens Israel.
I see JStreet as insisting that long-term security and flourishing come from diplomacy, accountability, and a genuine pursuit of peace—alongside a clear-eyed understanding of real threats, whether from Iran or Palestinian militant groups.
NJ 11 voter (and Malinowski supporter) here. I doubt that people outside of our district can possibly fathom how vile the AIPAC-funded tsunami of lies was. There were days when we received four (four!!) flyers with TM's photo imposed over a photo of a violent ICE raid. During that time, we might get one TM flyer with the truth - he supports defunding ICE. On election day, I got a text from the AIPAC sponsored PAC: vote for anyone but Tom Malinowski. What explains this? There is only one conclusion: AIPAC decided to destroy Tom Malinowski's political career. But why? I'm starting to think that it's part of an effort to destroy liberal Zionism generally. Nothing else explains why it could have pressed forward with a campaign that was so obviously opening up a lane to the only antizionist candidate. Which is what happened - a lane opened up and the antizionist candidate drove through to victory. But again, why? Because if the opponent is liberal Zionism, you win if you defeat the liberal Zionist (e.g. Tom Malinowski). And if the winner does not support Israel as a Jewish state, well so be it - tackling that is for another day. Meanwhile, the J Street aligned candidate - who would have re-entered Congress with seniority and lots of respect for his foreign policy chops - is defeated. I'm sad for my district, but the more I think about it, I'm alarmed at what this means for liberal Zionism.
I sincerely believe that one of Hamas's goals on Oct 7th was to destroy the global left, and it appears that various legacy Jewish organizations have walked right into that trap.
AIPAC is part of the moral rot. It's about power, not human rights.
Why does a foreign country have a financial influence in our country. I have reached out to my democratic representatives to let them know they will lose my vote in the primary if they are accepting funding from AIPAC.
They Swift Boated him.
We were inundated with criminal sins of commission and omission. Dozens of nasty flyers, constant horrible commercials on TV, YouTube, radio, etc. It felt like an invasion. It should not be permitted in a true democracy.
Yasher koach!
What you’re talking about is the “cause less hatred” that destroyed the Second Temple .
It needs to be named. Thanks for doing that!
Very well said, as usual, by Jeremy. Netanyahu's policies have caused possibly irreparable damage to American-Israeli relations, and AIPAC is only making things worse, and hurting itself and all of the rest of us in the process. Targeting a pro-Israel candidate using unrelated smears?? Are American Jews really going to continue to support that??
Did you actually expect AIPAC to follow your advice on anything? As for AIPAC's patently stupid interference in the NJ-11 election, an assessment I agree with completely, you left a lot of crucial details out. Malinowski appears to be narrowly defeated Mejia, an anti-Israel loon who has stated that Israel has committed genocide. Isn't that the type of candidate that J-Street supports now? Shouldn't you be applauding her?
Furthermore, why should AIPAC be expected to take a stand on ICE or immigration enforcement? That has nothing to do with Israel, unless you listen to the pro-Hamas types claiming that ICE was trained by the IDF.
I supported AIPAC —until they fired tom dine.
Tom Dine was my first AIPAC head who I worked for.
Again off the cuff response.
I definitely read this! And I emphasize that I don't speak for AIPAC. Never did. (and may not! - support every action they take) Or how they do it. But I would say generally my views haven't changed very much on these matters since I was at AIPAC!
One can discuss/debate certain matters about what AIPAC has done (or how it has done it). I very-much come from the kinder/gentler school - and want everyone to love and support Israel and AIPAC! (If only that were possible.)
But you can criticize a specific action and still support the general thrust of the organization which is to support and strengthen the US-Israel relationship. Whether the Prime Minister of Israel is on the right or left; whether the US Presidency and Congress is controlled by Republicans and Democrats. And in this regard this is something AIPAC has been doing since the days of I.L "Si" Kenen . (I wrote about AIPAC's Six Heads, about a year ago https://michaellewisonline.substack.com/p/aipacs-six-heads)
And that while everyone can have an opinion about what Israel should or should not do; it's ultimately up to the Democratically-elected Government of Israel (yes we all know they have a "screwed up" system there of multi-party coalitions); to make the life and death decisions for Israel. Since they ultimately have to live with those decisions. You or I could say those decisions are "objectively wrong." But it's for them to decide. AIPAC urges Congress to support the Government (and people) of Israel. And doesn't urge specific peace proposals. J Street of course urges Congress and the Administration to take certain positions; to pressure Israel. Because you feel those are positions Israel should take. And of course because you support those positions.
And while J Street and AIPAC may obviously differ on "some' matters; what AIPAC has focused on since become involved in political giving is supporting Congressional candidates purely on the basis on whom they deem are most pro-Israel. Despite their views on other issues which we don't need to elaborate. And of course there was a reason why AIPAC began to get involved in political giving. To some degree; the cart came after the horse. And to at least some degree; J Street might be viewed as responsible for the change - by "Giving cover" not just to "Friends" expressing disagreements; but to people really not very friendly to Israel. They may have been "great" on social issues you support; but on Israel? Often not.
More perhaps another time
With all due respect Michael, this piece isn't about AIPAC and its position on what Israel should or should not do. Your response is a fine one when I write that I believe AIPAC's definition of "pro-Israel" to be too narrow and misguided. We can disagree on that.
But this week I've written that what AIPAC is doing in US politics over recent years is a deeply misguided and counterproductive approach to advancing even the goals you would like it to advance. To enter the political arena in the way it has, to target Tom Malinowski in the way it did and to create such a well of ill will for not just the organization but more - and in the end to possibly help elect a candidate even LESS aligned - all makes ZERO sense.
Unless the organization has become a partisan political actor interested only in damaging the Democratic Party, the strategy it's executing does nothing to help Israel, deepen the US-Israel relationship or assist the pro-Israel community in deepening alliances and building coalitions.
Your response is that all AIPAC does is support the government that the people of Israel select. That's a fine response when I say that that's not the only (or best) way to be pro-Israel. But that response makes no sense when the issue is that AIPAC's decision to play in the American political arena in the way that it is now is really doing damage to far more than the US-Israel relationship.
It seems from your essays that AIPAC has become a partisan political actor interested only in damaging the Democratic Party. Its interference in Democratic primaries is mainly funded by wealthy Republicans, who presumably, like wealthy Republicans generally, want their tax cuts and deregulation. It's possible that Israel policy is not even a primary consideration.
Right. This is why they have supported “stop the steal” candidates and consistently support far left Democrats (like me!) in the hopes that they will be easier to defeat.
Fair point Jeremy except that I’d say you’re using this latest to attack AIPAC with a "more In sorrow than anger" approach!
Now I’m not here, going to “rate or endorse” - or critique - AIPAC’s political approach or actions. If you read my posts carefully; I imagine people can get a good idea of where I’m coming from. And I’m obviously not getting into private conversations while at AIPAC. But as I’ve said earlier; my views really haven’t changed about this. And as I said ”One can discuss/debate certain matters about what AIPAC has done (or how it has done it). I very-much come from the kinder/gentler school - and want everyone to love and support Israel and AIPAC! (If only that were possible.)”
I doubt there are very many American Jews not deeply-concerned by what’s going on in American Politics and society in general. And at the same time; a very-sizable number of American Jews deeply-concerned by what’s going on in the Democratic party vis-a-vis Israel.
Now I’m not blind to consequences either of efforts undertaken. I have to assume that AIPAC’s senior people carefully calculated the pros and cons of what they were doing both in this latest primary and in various primaries in general. Just as they considered pros and cons when decided to enter directly the world of AIPAC campaign giving. And AIPAC (finally) having a PAC. And why they felt that decision was necessary. And of course ultimately if AIPAC’s leadership - professional and Board of Directors decided they were unhappy with how things were; they could change approaches. Of course in reality, the stable door really can’t be closed; or the omelette unscrambled.) And ironically as I just noted today; "On This Day" in 2020: AIPAC apologized for one of its ads https://x.com/WashingtonViews/status/2020462866680119657
At least some of those efforts were totally-logical if you believe in opposing candidates who are truly antithetical to Israel. Don’t have to name names. But some clearly were. And I have to believe that all campaign efforts undertaken by AIPAC are done with what they believe is the best interests of the US-Israel relationship; regardless of who some of the big donors may be (or other motives donors seek)
What does it mean that you come from the kinder/gentler school? Are you ok with what the right wing messianic government is doing in the West Bank? Jstreet is a Zionist organization that believes strongly in a democratic Israel - one that treats all citizens with dignity and respect. We can't continue to give Israel a blank check simply because we believe in Zionism. We need to demand more from the Israeli leaders just as we demand more from our leaders. It is important to study what is happening in Israel instead of blindly going along with all of their policies. And it is sad that a very strong pro Israel pro peace candidate will probably lose largely because of these attack ads by AIPAC.
It means that I'm not a fan what might be called Political "Hardball school" - even though that might be necessary to win. And I certainly haven't delved deeply into the views of some of the candidates. But I certainly believe as a general premise that one supports a candidate who is pro-Israel. And the strong predisposition has to be to support that candidate regardless of their views on other issues. And yes I appreciate the difficulties and all else
Am I right with what the "rampages" of some settlers in the West Bank - and that they're not being either stopped or punished? Absolutely not.
Do I want a Democratic Israel which treats all citizens with dignity and respect? Of course.
I also want Israel to continue to survive and flourish. And I certainly don't believe that I KNOW what's best for Israel's security and survival. Ultimately I would say supporters of Israel should pay heed to what Israelis feel - especially when the Zionist left also share that view - such as re Iran; or the threat from the Palestinians.
The big question is always of course what exactly J Street is. And what it's priorities
I hear a lot in what you’re saying that actually overlaps with J Street.
I don’t pretend to have superior insight into Israel’s security realities from afar. Respecting Israeli voices—especially across the Zionist left and center—is essential. At the same time, being a supporter of Israel doesn’t mean suspending moral judgment or democratic values.
Where I differ is on the idea that acknowledging serious problems—like unchecked settler violence in the West Bank—is somehow incompatible with supporting Israel’s survival. Naming those things, and the failure to stop or punish them, isn’t anti-Israel; it’s pro-democracy and pro–rule of law. Many Israelis, including security experts and former officials, say the same thing. Follow Yoni Shishoni.
For me, J Street’s core priority is holding two truths at once: Israel’s right to exist, thrive, and defend itself and Israel’s future as a democratic state that treats all people with dignity. Ignoring occupation, unequal treatment, or the erosion of democratic norms ultimately weakens Israel.
I see JStreet as insisting that long-term security and flourishing come from diplomacy, accountability, and a genuine pursuit of peace—alongside a clear-eyed understanding of real threats, whether from Iran or Palestinian militant groups.