AIPAC's Retreat from Endorsements and Election Spending Won't Change the Game.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is pulling back on its aggressive electoral strategy, spending less money in this year's elections compared to previous cycles. This move comes after a massive backlash against AIPAC for its role in promoting unconditional US military support for Israel. However, despite this retreat, AIPAC remains determined not to give up its influence.
AIPAC has been actively pushing its preferred candidates to the forefront of the Democratic party platform on key issues related to Israel, such as unconditional U.S. military aid and settlement expansion. The committee also launched a super PAC in 2021 which enabled it to spend big money in certain races. This year AIPAC has instead opted for quieter strategy that it used previously to build its influence.
The backlash against AIPAC is growing with more candidates running on rejecting AIPAC's endorsement and funding. However, simply rejecting the group's cash won't be enough to establish a new standard for progressive candidates in the future. What matters most will be where candidates stand on issues related to Israel. As long as AIPAC continues to work around its own limitations, it is likely that the lobby's influence will endure.
In this time of political uncertainty, some Democrats are taking a stance against AIPAC's influence by forgoing its endorsement and funding. However, their ability to sustain this standard remains uncertain. Can they keep their distance from the pro-Israel lobby without impacting on other issues in which they may hold differing views?
California Governor Gavin Newsom has taken steps to distance himself from AIPAC by saying he won't take any money from the group. His record on Israel policy raises questions about how far he would go to ally with the Palestinian cause. Despite this stance, Newsom's previous statements suggest that he remains committed to a more hardline pro-Israel agenda.
The Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project has stated that voters are increasingly seeing AIPAC as an electoral liability, particularly among Democratic voters who view the group's influence as a symbol of the party's shift to the right. However, it is unclear whether candidates can sustain this standard by rejecting support from other organizations with similar agendas, including Democratic Majority for Israel.
AIPAC has returned to the way it operated before its recent foray into high-stakes politics. By working quietly in the halls of Congress and around Washington D.C., AIPAC established itself as a key source of information on Middle East issues for members of Congress. However, the group's influence will likely continue even if its aggressive electoral strategy is scaled back.
The Intercept has been at the forefront of exposing AIPAC's efforts to shape US policy towards Israel and undermining democracy. The group's true intentions are still shrouded in mystery, but one thing is clear: it remains a force to be reckoned with in Washington D.C. Whether or not its efforts will ultimately prevail, however, only time will tell.
The Intercept needs your support to continue producing high-quality journalism. Can you help us grow our reporting capacity by becoming a member today?
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is pulling back on its aggressive electoral strategy, spending less money in this year's elections compared to previous cycles. This move comes after a massive backlash against AIPAC for its role in promoting unconditional US military support for Israel. However, despite this retreat, AIPAC remains determined not to give up its influence.
AIPAC has been actively pushing its preferred candidates to the forefront of the Democratic party platform on key issues related to Israel, such as unconditional U.S. military aid and settlement expansion. The committee also launched a super PAC in 2021 which enabled it to spend big money in certain races. This year AIPAC has instead opted for quieter strategy that it used previously to build its influence.
The backlash against AIPAC is growing with more candidates running on rejecting AIPAC's endorsement and funding. However, simply rejecting the group's cash won't be enough to establish a new standard for progressive candidates in the future. What matters most will be where candidates stand on issues related to Israel. As long as AIPAC continues to work around its own limitations, it is likely that the lobby's influence will endure.
In this time of political uncertainty, some Democrats are taking a stance against AIPAC's influence by forgoing its endorsement and funding. However, their ability to sustain this standard remains uncertain. Can they keep their distance from the pro-Israel lobby without impacting on other issues in which they may hold differing views?
California Governor Gavin Newsom has taken steps to distance himself from AIPAC by saying he won't take any money from the group. His record on Israel policy raises questions about how far he would go to ally with the Palestinian cause. Despite this stance, Newsom's previous statements suggest that he remains committed to a more hardline pro-Israel agenda.
The Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project has stated that voters are increasingly seeing AIPAC as an electoral liability, particularly among Democratic voters who view the group's influence as a symbol of the party's shift to the right. However, it is unclear whether candidates can sustain this standard by rejecting support from other organizations with similar agendas, including Democratic Majority for Israel.
AIPAC has returned to the way it operated before its recent foray into high-stakes politics. By working quietly in the halls of Congress and around Washington D.C., AIPAC established itself as a key source of information on Middle East issues for members of Congress. However, the group's influence will likely continue even if its aggressive electoral strategy is scaled back.
The Intercept has been at the forefront of exposing AIPAC's efforts to shape US policy towards Israel and undermining democracy. The group's true intentions are still shrouded in mystery, but one thing is clear: it remains a force to be reckoned with in Washington D.C. Whether or not its efforts will ultimately prevail, however, only time will tell.
The Intercept needs your support to continue producing high-quality journalism. Can you help us grow our reporting capacity by becoming a member today?
they're pulling back but still trying to influence the game, which is kinda what they do best 
i don't think rejecting their cash will change much, they've got too many strings attached 
some politicians like Gavin Newsom are trying to distance themselves, but it's hard to know for sure where they stand on Israel without them saying so out loud 
My granddad used to tell me about the good ol' days when politics was more about people than special interest groups. I wish those days were back 
. The question remains whether other candidates can hold their ground and avoid being co-opted by the pro-Israel lobby. It's a tough nut to crack, especially with all the money at play 
newsom thinks hes making a big move by not taking money from them, but lets be real he still got ties to those pro-Israel groups
, they'll find another way to push their agenda 
. The real question is who's going to hold the line on Israel policy? 
Newsom's stance is interesting, but can he really be trusted? 
And what about all these other groups like DMFI? Are they just proxying AIPAC's influence? 
. Newsom trying to distance himself from AIPAC is cool, but what's his real stance on the Palestinian cause? 
Only time will tell! 
I'm still shocked that AIPAC is pulling back on its spending. It's like they're saying "we've been called out, so we'll just tone it down and hope no one notices". But let's be real, this isn't going to make a difference in the grand scheme of things. They'll find another way to get what they want, and those who are pro-Israel will still keep showing up to support their cause. I'm curious to see how far California Governor Gavin Newsom is willing to go with his stance on Israel policy. Is he really ready to take a stand for the Palestinians? 
. I mean, who wants to rock the boat when there are plenty of other ways to get influence without ruffling feathers? They're still gonna keep pushing their agenda, just quietly behind the scenes 
, but really, it's just gonna keep on influencin' whoever they want to. They've been doin' this for decades, and it's not gonna change just 'cause they're dialing back the aggression 
.
is a bit laughable. I mean, those guys are like the whistleblowers of the right-wing world – always pokin' around and stirrin' up trouble 
.
... The fact that they're scaling back on endorsements and election spending isn't going to diminish their overall impact. They'll just get quieter and sneakier about it: 
. It's all about finding ways to get around these new rules and keep the momentum going. I mean, if progressive candidates start saying no to AIPAC's cash, what's the alternative? Getting in bed with other pro-Israel groups that might not be as transparent? No thanks 
. And honestly, I think that's good news for progressive candidates who don't want to be beholden to a group that pushes a hardline pro-Israel agenda 
. Newsom's stance on Israel policy is sketchy at best - if he really wants to ally with the Palestinians, he needs to do more than just say it publicly