Israel, AIPAC and Difficult Questions for Democrats

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Daily — "Israel, AIPAC and Difficult Questions for Democrats"

Date: July 29, 2026
Host: Rachel Abrams (NYT)
Guest: Jonathan Mahler (NYT reporter)

---

Overview

This episode explores the dramatic shift in the US-Israel relationship, focusing on the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC and its growing influence—and controversy—in Democratic primaries and American politics at large. Rachel Abrams interviews Jonathan Mahler about the changing political landscape, how AIPAC's strategies have evolved, and the resulting litmus test it has created for Democrats around support for Israel. The conversation also addresses the rise in criticism of Israel post-October 7th, the dangers of anti-Semitic tropes, and the crossroads AIPAC now faces.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Changing Dynamics in the US-Israel Relationship

• The US-Israel alliance, once a bipartisan "third rail," is now divided—especially within the Democratic Party.
• "For the first time you have a lot of politicians... aggressively putting distance between the US and Israel. That was for decades unheard of. That was political suicide... and that is no longer the case." — Jonathan Mahler (01:45)
• 100 House Democrats recently voted to end US military aid to Israel; nearly half of House Democrats—an unprecedented move. (02:39)
• Support for Israel has become a central, controversial issue in Democratic primaries, equating to a new litmus test for candidates.

2. AIPAC’s History: From Bipartisanship to Single-Issue Partisanship

• Founded post-1948, AIPAC aimed to protect the US-Israel relationship and was originally bipartisan.
• "AIPAC was once actually a really unifying force in American politics. ...something that both Republicans and Democrats could agree on." — Mahler (05:11)
• Early rationale: Israel as democracy, strategic ally during the Cold War, and a cause with wide support among American Jews. (06:10)
• Over decades, support meant billions in military aid and political backing on the world stage. (07:11)

3. Inflection Points: When the Relationship Changed

• 2015—The Iran Nuclear Deal:
  • Major break when President Obama finalized the Iran deal, opposed by Israel and Netanyahu.
  • Netanyahu addressed Congress at Republican invitation, explicitly undermining Obama—forcing AIPAC to "choose sides."
  • "They chose Israel. They agreed with Bibi's take on it and they tried to defeat [the deal]." — Mahler (10:21)
• 2018—The Rise of 'The Squad':
  • Progressive Democrats (Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Omar, etc.) openly criticized Israel and US aid, supporting the BDS movement.
  • "No one had ever gone there in this way before. ...you never had a block of them in Congress and especially ones who were young, popular and progressive. This was going to be a problem for AIPAC." — Mahler (11:47)
  • AIPAC faced the prospect of an anti-Israel current becoming mainstream in Congress.

4. AIPAC’s Strategic Shift: The Super PAC Era

• In response to these threats, AIPAC created the United Democracy Project Super PAC in the post–Citizens United landscape.
• This allowed unlimited campaign spending, targeting both opponents of Israel and moderate Democrats not deemed "pro-Israel enough."
• "Small donations are not enough anymore... they set up [a super PAC] and got to work spending money." — Mahler (13:18)
• By 2022, AIPAC spent over $26 million, often funding ads unrelated to Israel to sway primaries.
• "AIPAC... endorsed more than 100 candidates who had supported Trump's effort to overturn the [2020] election." — Mahler (16:06)

5. Increasing Backlash and Criticism of AIPAC

• AIPAC’s endorsement of election deniers was a shock to many Jewish Democrats, suggesting the group prioritized Israeli interests over American democratic norms.
• This aggressive, partisan trajectory led to more direct (and sometimes personal) attacks and made AIPAC a central political villain for the Democratic left.
• "They're assuming a fully partisan, aggressive, money-based posture... they're influencing American politics in a much more direct way." — Mahler (17:35)

6. Post-October 7th: New Urgency, New Critiques

• After the Hamas-led attack on Israel, there was brief bipartisan solidarity, but public opinion and political criticism quickly shifted as Israel’s military campaign in Gaza killed tens of thousands, including civilians.
• "For AIPAC, this is a new kind of threat... a degree of animosity toward Israel in American politics that we hadn't seen before." — Mahler (18:08)
• Fears of an anti-Israel movement, predicted in 2018, now seem realized.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On AIPAC's changing tactics:
  • "They're throwing their weight around, they're throwing money around and they're influencing American politics in a much more direct way." — Mahler (17:35)
• On the dangers of anti-Semitic tropes:
  • "Even talking about AIPAC... has brought up a lot of topics that I think are fodder for well-known anti-Semitic tropes." — Abrams (22:54)
  • "There is also no question that AIPAC's role... has drawn a lot more criticism than other advocacy groups. ...There is clearly a degree of anti-Semitic sentiment behind at least some criticisms of aipac." — Mahler (23:32-24:45)
• On the new litmus test:
  • "AIPAC has created what is essentially a kind of a basic litmus test for what it means to be pro-Israel. ...If you question unconditional American military support for Israel, you are not pro-Israel enough." — Mahler (27:35)

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• 01:14–02:37: The new political climate—Democratic Party’s split over Israel
• 03:31–04:10: AIPAC as a stand-in for larger debates about money in politics
• 07:36–11:16: AIPAC's bipartisan heyday and the first major cracks (2015 Iran deal)
• 12:40–13:56: AIPAC's reaction to the Squad's rise—move to Super PAC funding
• 16:06–17:35: AIPAC’s endorsement of election deniers, shifting from bipartisanship
• 18:08–19:30: The impact of October 7th and Israel’s response in Gaza
• 21:23–22:54: AIPAC’s Record Spending in 2024 and targeting progressive leaders
• 22:54–24:45: Discussion on anti-Semitic tropes and heightened scrutiny
• 26:21–27:27: Comparing AIPAC’s spending to other single-issue Super PACs
• 27:35–31:44: AIPAC attacks moderate Democrats and the rise of a new litmus test
• 32:50–34:33: Race in Illinois—AIPAC backfires, progressive wins
• 34:44–36:21: Michigan Senate primary, AIPAC's spending record
• 36:54–38:23: Where does AIPAC go from here? Future options and crossroads

---

Case Studies from 2026 Primaries

• New Jersey House Race: Tom Malinowski (28:02–30:32)

  • Not a progressive, long-standing supporter of Israel, but questioned unconditional military aid.
  • AIPAC spent $2.3 million to defeat him via ads unrelated to Israel.
  • "This is the first time they've gone after someone who has mainstream views on Israel." — Malinowski (30:05)
  • Progressive candidate further to left on Israel replaced him—AIPAC’s efforts backfired.

• Illinois House Race: Daniel Biss (31:47–34:33)

  • Moderate, Jewish, has strong personal ties to Israel, but refused to back unconditional aid.
  • Turned AIPAC’s opposition into a campaign advantage, citing poll showing only 17% local favorability for AIPAC.
  • "It was good politics to publicly distance yourself from AIPAC." — Abrams (34:33)
  • Biss won the Democratic primary.

• Michigan Senate Race: Haley Stevens vs. Abdul El Sayed (34:44–36:21)

  • AIPAC spent close to $30 million to support Stevens (pro-Israel, not Jewish) over El Sayed (left, anti-aid).
  • A flashpoint for defining the future limits of pro-Israel litmus tests.

---

Broader Takeaways

• AIPAC’s Influence Is Now a Liability in Some Races:
  • The group’s aggressive tactics and large spending often become issues themselves; being targeted by AIPAC can win support with some voters.
• Criticism of Israel and AIPAC Is Now Mainstream Among Democrats:
  • What began as progressive, fringe criticism has spread to moderates.
• Anti-Semitic Tropes and Dangers:
  • Increased focus on AIPAC’s money and influence can echo and amplify anti-Semitic narratives, even as legitimate criticism of its politics grows.
• AIPAC’s Narrow Litmus Test Risks Backfiring:
  • By demanding unconditional support, AIPAC may push moderates away and fail to achieve intended results—sometimes helping to elect stronger critics.

---

Looking Forward: AIPAC at a Crossroads

• AIPAC may need to broaden its definition of "pro-Israel" to stay relevant, accepting criticism of Israel and conditional aid as within bounds, or risk losing influence as political tides turn.
• "It is not hard to imagine... there could be a race with two candidates who are both critics of Israel. ...AIPAC... will have to reconsider what it means to be pro Israel." — Mahler (38:23)

---

Conclusion

This episode paints a nuanced, evolving picture of AIPAC and the US-Israel relationship amidst a Democratic Party rapidly rethinking its alliance with Israel. The podcast details the unintended consequences of AIPAC’s strategies and the risks—political and social—of a hardline approach, while also warning of the dangers when criticism of Israel becomes entangled with anti-Semitic rhetoric.

---

Host: Rachel Abrams
Guest: Jonathan Mahler
Produced by: The Daily (The New York Times)

---

Listen to the full episode for more context and discussion on the shifting sands beneath one of America’s most historically consistent foreign policy relationships.

Transcript

[Podcast Host (Sponsor Announcer)]

This podcast is supported by Starbucks. Full and part time Starbucks baristas can build careers while getting industry leading benefits like comprehensive health coverage and up to

[Rachel Abrams]

18 weeks of paid parental leave.

[Podcast Host (Sponsor Announcer)]

Learn more at Starbucks.com partners

[Rachel Abrams]

from the new York Times, I'm Rachel Abrams and this is the Daily. In this year's midterm elections, aipac, the pro Israel lobbying group, has spent a record amount of money, mostly in Democratic primaries, to either oust candidates or support candidates based on a changing definition of what it means to support Israel. Today, my colleague Jonathan Mahler explains how this has created a new litmus test for the left at a time perhaps when America's relationship with Israel has has never faced more scrutiny. It's Wednesday, july 29th. Jonathan Mahler, thank you so much for joining us.

[Jonathan Mahler]

Thanks for having me, Jonathan.

[Rachel Abrams]

The relationship between the US And Israel has for years been a huge topic in American politics. But what's felt particularly new and notable to me at least, is how much that relationship is being both questioned and criticized in this year's midterm elections. You have been studying this relationship and how it intersects with our politics for many years and covered it for the New York Times. And so we wanted to turn to you in this moment to understand how you are seeing and thinking about all of this.

[Jonathan Mahler]

Well, I have been covering the US Israel relationship kind of in one form or another for decades, I'm almost embarrassed to say. And this looks to me like a very different moment in the US Israel relationship. I mean, for the first time you have a lot of politicians coming out very publicly and in some cases like aggressively putting distance between the US And Israel. I mean, that was for decades unheard of. That was political suicide for a politician. And that is no longer the case, especially on the Democratic side of the aisle. I mean, it's true we've seen some on the right question and challenge their relationship, but the Republican Party is still really by and large pro Israel and that is not so much the case anymore on the Democratic side. And that is a huge paradigm shift. And it's a shift we're seeing in the halls of Congress but also out on the campaign trail.

[Rachel Abrams]

Just give us a couple examples of what you mean by that.

[Jonathan Mahler]

Yeah, so a couple of weeks ago in the house something like 100 Democrats voted to end US military aid to Israel. That's like almost half of all House Democrats. The effort failed. I mean only one Republican supported it. And so the aid going to continue. But the vote was really unprecedented. I mean, we've never seen so many Democrats Take a vote like that. And on top of that, we're seeing support for Israel become a major issue in Democratic primaries across the country. It's really become a key litmus test in all sorts of races from New York to Illinois to Michigan. And it's really manifested in a debate over AIPAC or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. It's the main lobbying group working in support of Israel and the us and at this point, AIPAC has been basically become synonymous with Israel.

[Rachel Abrams]

Right. When you see people talking or debating aipac, what they're essentially debating is US Support for Israel.

[Jonathan Mahler]

Exactly. AIPAC is seen as a proxy for Israel. And on top of that, it's also become a standin for this larger debate over big money in politics, because AIPAC really has become one of the biggest spenders this election cycle. It's poured huge amounts of money into primaries trying to support candidates, but also to oust them really on the basis of their views toward Israel.

[Rachel Abrams]

So just to bring this all together, what we're seeing happening right now is a few different forces colliding at the same time. In these midterms via this debate over aipac, we're seeing both the US Israel relationship really become front and center and this debate about the role that money should play in our politics.

[Jonathan Mahler]

Exactly. It's really a remarkable political moment, and it's one that AIPAC helped create, probably unintentionally. It's really backed itself into a corner which has forced Democrats to take a side in these big debates. And it's gotten to this point because of a series of key decisions that AIPAC made since its founding.

[Rachel Abrams]

So I want to talk about the history of AIPAC and how we've gotten here. Let's go back to the beginning when AIPAC was formed. Sort of tell us about that origin story.

[Jonathan Mahler]

So AIPAC was founded really just a few years after the founding of the State of Israel back in 1948. And it really had a simple mission. The idea was to defend and protect and strengthen the US Israel relationship, which was a fairly simple thing to do back then because we were in the aftermath of the Holocaust. You know, the State of Israel was created with the blessing of the United Nations. America was very much on Israel's side. And so AIPAC was born to kind of defend and protect that relationship on both sides of the political aisle.

[Rachel Abrams]

Meaning it was supposed to be bipartisan.

[Jonathan Mahler]

Yes, it was supposed to be a bipartisan organization, and it very much was. But it is kind of interesting to note, in its earliest incarnation, AIPAC reflected The politics of the State of Israel, which we have to remember was a socialist country. I mean, it was a Labor Zionist country. So Israel was very far left and so was aipac. You know, having said that, they very deliberately courted support on both sides of the political aisle. Both Republican and Democratic politicians would go on AIPAC supported trips to Israel. They both received campaign contributions from aipac. So aipac, you know, now we think of them as this incredibly polarizing force in American politics. It's important to remember that they were once actually a really unifying force in American politics. AIPAC was something that both Republicans and Democrats could agree on. It was truly a bipartisan group.

[Rachel Abrams]

Just tell us at a very high level what was the pitch that AIPAC was making to the us? Like, what was the rationale for the bipartisan support they were trying to curry at the time?

[Jonathan Mahler]

I mean, it was honestly a pretty easy pitch. AIPAC could say and did say that America's interests and Israel's interests are perfectly aligned. Israel is the one real democracy in the Middle east, so Israel shares your democratic values. And AIPAC could also say that Israel is a vital strategic ally, particularly during, during the Cold War when a number of the Arab nations were aligned with the Soviet Union and Israel was aligned with the United States. And it had a very powerful military and intelligence operation that was really useful to the United States. So AIPAC could sort of lean on all of that to make its case to both Democrats and Republicans. And to say nothing of the fact that there are a lot of Jews living in America, a lot of American Jews who were Zionists, who felt strongly about the existence and protection of the State of Israel. And American Jews, you know, of course, had some degree of influence in American politics.

[Rachel Abrams]

And in turn, what is AIPAC able to achieve for Israel through all of this bipartisan lobbying?

[Jonathan Mahler]

Yeah, I mean, over time, it's meant billions of dollars in military aid. In fact, Israel has long been the largest recipient of US foreign aid, period. It's allowed them to buy fighter jets, their Iron Dome defense system. So much of the Israeli military apparatus is in part a product of that US aid, but it's also been political support on the world stage, with the US really firmly backing Israel for decades and decades.

[Rachel Abrams]

So it's very interesting to note that AIPAC started as a bipartisan organization. Obviously, that is not the case anymore. When did we start seeing that shift? Like, what was the first big inflection point?

[Jonathan Mahler]

You know, of course, no relationship is perfect. So over the years there would be minor dust ups between Israel and the United States and AIPAC would have to manage those moments. They were always a bit tricky when there was a little bit of tension between the two countries, but nothing really major, nothing enduring until 2015. In 2015, something really kind of seismic happened for the U S Israel relationship and in turn for aipac, and that is today. After two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not. President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. Today, President Obama announced an agreement that he says will keep an atomic bomb out of Iranian hands for more than a decade.

[Various Political Figures (e.g., Benjamin Netanyahu, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib)]

Critics say it will do the opposite,

[Jonathan Mahler]

which Israel was furious about. Prime Minister Netanyahu really did not want to happen, but Obama was going ahead with it anyway. And so in this moment, the Republicans

[Rachel Abrams]

in Congress, the speaker has invited the Israeli Prime Minister to address a joint

[Jonathan Mahler]

session of Congress, invite Bibi to come speak before Congress.

[Rachel Abrams]

The general protocol for this kind of thing is for Congress to consult with the White House. Our understanding is that that was not done on purpose. A real poke in the eye to Obama.

[Jonathan Mahler]

A real poke in the eye to Obama who said that he did not want this to happen. But Beebe accepts the invitation. Members of Congress, I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the Prime Minister of Israel, His Excellency Benjamin Netanyahu. He comes to Congress.

[Various Political Figures (e.g., Benjamin Netanyahu, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib)]

My friends, for over a year we've been told that no deal is better than a bad deal.

[Jonathan Mahler]

He uses that moment to inveigh against

[Various Political Figures (e.g., Benjamin Netanyahu, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib)]

this nuclear deal, that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That's just not true. The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal.

[Jonathan Mahler]

And that moment put AIPAC in a really difficult situation because now they're faced with the Prime Minister of Israel, the leader of a country that they're here to defend, is really going after the President of the United States, really undermining him. And they have to make a choice. I mean, are we going to side with Israel or are we going to side with the President? And they chose Israel. They agreed with Bibi's take on it and they tried to defeat it.

[Rachel Abrams]

So I understand that Netanyahu was invited by Republicans. It was an insult in some way to the president at the time, Barack Obama. But what are we seeing coming out of this?

[Jonathan Mahler]

Yeah, what we're seeing is that there had never been a moment like this when the United States went forward with a major policy shift that was going to have a major impact on Israel, that Israel was opposed to. So for aipac, which had always been able to support both Israel and the United States because Israel and the United States interests always seemed to be perfectly cleanly aligned. Suddenly, America and Israel's interests seemed to diverge. They split, and AIPAC had to line up with one side or the other and they lined up with Israel. So that was the first big inflection point in 2015. The next one came in 2018 when we saw the election of the squad.

[Rachel Abrams]

Sure.

[Jonathan Mahler]

So this was aoc.

[Rachel Abrams]

What people are starting to see, at least in the occupation of Palestine, is an increasing crisis of humanitarian condition.

[Jonathan Mahler]

This was Rashida Tlaib. Will you vote against US military aid for Israel?

[Podcast Host (Sponsor Announcer)]

Absolutely.

[Rachel Abrams]

For me, US aid should be leveraged.

[Jonathan Mahler]

This was Ilhan Omar.

[Political Candidates / Advertisers]

We think of Israel as the only democracy in the Middle east, and as

[Rachel Abrams]

such we have to make sure we're holding it to that standard.

[Jonathan Mahler]

This was a group of progressive lawmakers who were willing to say things, Israel, critical things about Israel.

[Rachel Abrams]

They'd support the movement known as bds, which calls for a boycott of Israel until property is returned to Palestinians and

[Jonathan Mahler]

to sort of begin to try to redefine the American Israel relationship. I mean, no one had ever gone there in this way before. You'd had isolated critics of Israel elected to Congress before, but you definitely never had a block of them in Congress and especially ones who were young, popular and progressive. This was going to be a problem for aipac. And so the question becomes, what is AIPAC going to do about the arrival in Congress of this bloc of outspoken critics of Israel? And what if this is just the beginning?

[Rachel Abrams]

So what does AIPAC decide to do? Because at this point in the story, it sounds like AIPAC has basically identified both a near term problem with these new lawmakers, but also it's identified maybe a longer term issue that the squad might be foreshadowing. Just this general shift of opinions on Israel. So how do they respond after these folks are elected to Congress?

[Jonathan Mahler]

Yeah. So up until this point, AIPAC had been steadfast in its approach to US elections, which was basically to encourage its members to make individual donations to candidates who supported Israel on both sides of the aisle. And those donations were limited by law to roughly a few thousand dollars per cycle.

[Rachel Abrams]

So relatively small amounts.

[Jonathan Mahler]

Yeah, I mean, they can add up, but we're still talking about limited amounts of money. But then, as I said, the squad is elected in 2018, and then a couple more members are elected in 2020, Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush, who join in the criticism of Israel. And so AIPAC sees this New threat. And it decides that the gloves have to come off. Like small donations are not enough anymore. So what happens is a few years later, before the 2022 midterms, AIPAC makes a huge, really important decision. And that is that they decide they are create their own super pac, which they call the United Democracy Project, not

[Rachel Abrams]

clearly pro Israel, just to say in that name.

[Jonathan Mahler]

Right. The name does not communicate that it is a pro Israel pac. And this is significant because this will allow them to steer really unlimited amounts of money into local races, into congressional races. And the political context here is really important because we are now in the post Citizens United decision era when suddenly it has become possible through these super pac, to give unlimited sums to political campaigns. And aipac, if it wants to continue to be a powerful force in American politics as it has always been, and if it wants to deal with what it sees as this coming threat of a real anti Israel current in Congress, they need to get into this game. They need to get into the big money game. And so they set up this pack before the 2022 midterms and they got to work spending money.

[Rachel Abrams]

So tell us what that means, Jonathan. Like how do we see that playing out in elections?

[Jonathan Mahler]

Yeah, so in 2022, they sort of dip their toes in. They spend $26 million to support Pro Israel candidates and to oppose anti Israel ones. But there's also the dark money side of it, which is you can give this money and you can pay for ads that actually don't have anything to do with the issue your group is interested in. So, you know, in the case of aipac, what we have seen is that they can target an anti Israel candidate or target a pro Israel candidate they want to support, and they can dump money into advertising that has absolutely nothing to do with Israel.

[Podcast Host (Sponsor Announcer)]

They're taking away our rights. Kevin Mullen is fighting back.

[Jonathan Mahler]

You would see in 2022 an ad that endorsed a Democratic candidate or credited a Democratic candidate, for instance, with supporting reproductive rights.

[Podcast Host (Sponsor Announcer)]

Kevin Mullen will work to guarantee all women have the right to make their own medical decisions.

[Jonathan Mahler]

A pro choice ad. And you would have no idea that it was paid for by AIPAC's Super

[Political Candidates / Advertisers]

PAC to guarantee the right to choose to vote, to earn a livable wage fighting for our Democratic values. Adam Ollier for Congress UDP is responsible for the content of this ad.

[Jonathan Mahler]

Importantly, they did something else in the 2022 midterms that really kind of helped fuel our perception of AIPAC as a polarizing force in politics. And what they did is they endorsed More than a hundred candidates who had supported Trump's effort to overturn the election in 2020. So this was really a slap in the face to a lot of democratic American Jews, people who had always felt aligned with Israel and therefore with aipac, suddenly felt like, whoa, you are choosing what you perceive to be Israel's interests over American. That was a kind of a shocking single issue position that AIPAC took that really earned them a lot of critics and future enemies.

[Rachel Abrams]

And how did AIPAC justify this at the time?

[Jonathan Mahler]

Well, you know, to aipac, their whole raison d', etre, the whole reason why they exist, is to defend the American Israel relationship, to protect America's relationship with Israel. And their view of the matter was it didn't matter how these politicians treated the election. What mattered is what would they do in Congress when a vote came up that was relevant to Israel? Would they vote in Israel's interests or not? And they determined that they would vote in Israel's interests and therefore they were going to support them regardless.

[Rachel Abrams]

Even if that means supporting election deniers.

[Jonathan Mahler]

Exactly.

[Rachel Abrams]

I just want to point out that feels like a very different strategy than AIPAC had used before.

[Jonathan Mahler]

Yeah, they're assuming a fully partisan, aggressive, money based posture. I mean, they're throwing their weight around, they're throwing money around, and they're influencing American politics in a much more direct way. And they're having a lot of success getting pro Israel candidates elected. And then, of course, something world changing happens, and that is October 7, 2023.

[Rachel Abrams]

Right. And I think a lot of people remember that after October 7th, when Hamas led an attack on Israel that killed more than a thousand people, there was a brief moment of bipartisan support for Israel in Congress.

[Jonathan Mahler]

Yes, there was. And for a little while, it was almost like we were back where we once were. We were kind of back in time when there was widespread support and sympathy for isra. Israel was again the victim, I guess you might say, because the narrative in preceding years had started to shift. And that's because Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, especially in the west bank, had been attracting a growing chorus of criticism. So in the eyes of some Americans, they started to become the perpetrator rather than the victim. And after October 7th, they were the victims again. But we all know what happens next. Israel goes into Gaza, they cause a lot of destruction, they kill tens of thousands of people, including civilians, and popular opinion starts to turn against Israel. And so for aipac, this is a new kind of threat. And not only a new threat. I mean, a really kind of urgent one, because there really was a degree of animosity toward Israel in America, in American politics that we really hadn't seen before. And it is in many ways the manifestation of what they had feared back in 2018 when the squad first arrived in Congress. They had feared that there was going to be a kind of a a building anti Israel movement in Washington. Well, now we seem to be getting all of the signs that that was indeed coming.

[Rachel Abrams]

We'll be right back.

[Podcast Host (Sponsor Announcer)]

This podcast is supported by GoodRx. Summer always flies between vacations, summer activities and weekend getaways. Keeping everyone healthy while staying on budget can be a challenge. With GoodRx, you can find big savings at the pharmacy for you and your family pets too. Compare prescription prices at over 70,000 pharmacies and instantly find free coupons. GoodRx is not insurance, but it may beat your co pay price. If you do have insurance save at the pharmacy this summer, go to goodrx.com thedaily this podcast is supported by Nirtek ODT remegipant We know you didn't ask for an interruption, but migraine doesn't wait for the right moment to interrupt either. It just barges in, takes your time and throws everything off. So when migraine takes your time, take Nurtech. It's for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura in a time. Nurtec can provide pain relief in two hours, which can last up to two days. Ask your healthcare provider if Nurtec is right for you because your time is for you, not migraine. Don't take if allergic to Nirtek odt. Allergic reactions can occur even days after use. Get help right away for trouble breathing, rash, swelling of face, mouth, tongue or throat. High blood pressure and Raynaud's syndrome can occur. Get help for high blood pressure, numbness, coolness, pain or color, changes in fingers and touch. Common side effect is nausea. For full prescribing information, call 1-8334-NURTEC or visit nertech.com all right, back to your podcast.

[Rachel Abrams]

So Jonathan, once it becomes clear that the tide is turning against Israel, how does AIPAC decide to respond?

[Jonathan Mahler]

Yeah, so AIPAC goes into complete overdrive. Jamal Bowman voted against condemning Hamas brutal attack. He supported a resolution calling the founding of Israel a catastrophe. They spend $120 million in the 2024 election cycle, a staggering amount of money.

[Political Candidates / Advertisers]

When Biden really needs her, Cori Bush just isn't there. The facts Cori Bush has her own agenda and it's hurting St. Louis. UDP is responsible for the content of this ad.

[Jonathan Mahler]

And they rack up two big wins. They defeat Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman, both members of the squad. And you know, to aipac, the squad really is kind of ground zero for anti Israel sentiment in was. And of course, that doesn't go unnoticed by the candidates who are unseated by aipac.

[Various Political Figures (e.g., Benjamin Netanyahu, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib)]

We should be outraged when a super PAC of dark Money can spend $20 million to brainwash people into believing something that isn't true. We should be outraged about that.

[Jonathan Mahler]

They're furious and they call out AIPAC very explicitly in their concession speeches. Let me say this. Aipac, I'm coming to tear your kingdom down. And I think it's at this moment where you really begin to see some Democrats on the left try and paint AIPAC as this boogeyman in American politics.

[Rachel Abrams]

I think I want to pause for a second because I think it is important that we address an elephant in the room, or perhaps several elephants in the room, which is that even talking about AIPAC and its support for pro Israel candidates has brought up in the course of this conversation a lot of topics that I think are fodder for well known anti Semitic tropes. Like we are talking about Jewish people and money. We're talking about Jewish people exerting political power. We're talking about an idea that there's a group of Jewish people who prioritize foreign interests over the interests of the United States. So I'm wondering how all of that that has played out as AIPAC has really tried to show its muscle in these different election cycles.

[Jonathan Mahler]

Yeah, you're right to bring it up. And it's a really complicated and sensitive issue. I think there's no question that AIPAC is wielding a lot of influence in American politics. Like full stop.

[Rachel Abrams]

It's measurable. It's measurable with the money they're spending.

[Jonathan Mahler]

It is indeed measurable with dollar signs. At the same time, there is also no question that AIPAC's role in American politics has drawn a lot more criticism than the role of plenty of other advocacy groups. It is also clear to me anyway that there is a degree of antisemitism behind at least some of the criticism of aipac. That there are certain obvious tropes here of Jews and money and political influence that go to the core of the sort of anti Semitic ideology going back centuries. And you see this unfolding on the left, you also see it unfolding on the right with Tucker Carlson and other AIPAC critics, you know, who talk about foreign influence in American politics, which often feels like A dog whistle for Jewish influence in American politics. And so this is really difficult stuff to kind of untangle, but it's really important. And it's particularly important because this is all happening at a moment when anti Semitism is unequivocally rising all around the world in really like dangerous and scary ways. So when the conversation in America begins to tip into like all the Jewish influence in American politics, there is real reason for concern. And aipac, which of course is the first to say that criticizing AIPAC is anti Semitic is not always wrong. I mean, there is clearly a kind of a degree of anti Semitic sentiment behind at least some criticisms of aipac.

[Rachel Abrams]

It sounds like a few things can kind of be true at once here. Like AIPAC is having a significant impact on American elections with big donations and it is also perhaps under more scrutiny than other influential donors and single interest groups. And the war in Gaza, the changing political tides has opened the door to criticism of Israel that perhaps was a non starter before and also open the door to a lot of anti Semitic rhetoric that has become normalized.

[Jonathan Mahler]

I think that's exactly right. I mean, AIPAC's actions and right or wrong, their actions have provided an opening honestly for bad actors, but in particular in a sort of worrying sense for people who are not just criticizing Israel, but who are criticizing Jews and Jewish influence.

[Rachel Abrams]

You know, I think, Jonathan, it would be helpful just to understand whether that argument has any merit to it to compare the spending and influence of APAC to perhaps other single issue super PACs. So in other words, does APAC actually give more money than other single issue super PACs?

[Jonathan Mahler]

Yeah, that's a really important point. I mean, APAC is definitely up there, but it actually gives comparable amounts to the crypto lobby and the AI lobby. And we're seeing some backlash against those packs in some recent election cycles. But APAC definitely gets the majority of the heat.

[Rachel Abrams]

So I think that brings us to this year and the 2026 midterms. Talk to us, Jonathan, about the role that we've seen AIPAC play so far and what the response to their role has been.

[Jonathan Mahler]

Yeah, so what's happened in 2026 has really been kind of fascinating because AIPAC has again gone out and decided to spend big in various races. But what has happened is that AIPAC has had to shift its strategy and what they've had to do in 2026 is because so many moderate Democrats are now starting to question America's UNCON support for Israel. AIPAC has had to or has at least decided to Target moderate Democrats. Moderate Democrats, who in many cases consider themselves to be supporters of Israel, consider themselves to be pro Israel. And that has made AIPAC even more polarizing.

[Rachel Abrams]

But why alienate people who have expressed a lot of support for Israel, especially at a time when that support is waning? Like, what is the thinking behind that strategy?

[Jonathan Mahler]

Yeah, I mean, AIPAC has created what is essentially a kind of a basic litmus test for what it means to be pro Israel. And that litmus test is if you question unconditional American military support for Israel, you are not pro Israel enough.

[Rachel Abrams]

So in creating this very strict litmus test, it sounds like AIPAC has actually expanded the pool of lawmakers that it's spending against. So where have we seen that dynamic play out so far in these midterms?

[Jonathan Mahler]

Yeah, the first race that AIPAC really got involved in in this cycle was the Democratic primary for a House seat in New Jersey. And they targeted a representative there named Tom Malinowski. And Tom Malinowski is like, by no means a squad member. He is by no means a progressive.

[Tom Malinowski]

I believe in Israel's right to exist and defend itself as a Jewish and Democratic state, particularly after the atrocity of October 7.

[Jonathan Mahler]

He also is a believer in defending America's commitment to defend Israel's security.

[Tom Malinowski]

I had a perfect pro Israel voting record in Congress.

[Jonathan Mahler]

In fact, he had angered some people by refusing to call Israel's war in Gaza a genocide. He would not use the G word. But he also has been very critical of Israel's response to October 7th. And he thinks that the US should be making kind of case by case decisions on military aid to Israel, so no longer unconditional.

[Rachel Abrams]

That sounds very key here.

[Jonathan Mahler]

Exactly. He wants to place conditions. He wants to consider every allocation that the United States makes to Israel's military.

[Podcast Host (Sponsor Announcer)]

Tom Malinowski says members of Congress shouldn't be allowed to trade stocks. But in Congress, he cashed in on Covid related stocks.

[Jonathan Mahler]

So AIPAC SuperPAC spent over $2 million, I think over $2.3 million to defeat him.

[Podcast Host (Sponsor Announcer)]

ISIS deportation force is out of control. Tom Malinowski voted with Trump to increase funding.

[Jonathan Mahler]

And they did so by running ads that were not explicitly about Israel, but by attacking Malinowski on other issues that they thought would be disqualifying in the eyes of Democratic primary voters.

[Rachel Abrams]

We just can't trust Tom Malinowski.

[Podcast Host (Sponsor Announcer)]

UDP is responsible for the content of this ad.

[Jonathan Mahler]

Malinowski was completely outraged by this, especially the ICE ad, which landed right at the time that two American citizens were shot and killed. By federal agents in Minnesota.

[Tom Malinowski]

I'm here at an anti ICE rally where I just finished giving a speech and we just found out, believe it or not, that a dark money group has put an ad on television accusing me of supporting ice.

[Jonathan Mahler]

And he let his voters know what was going on.

[Tom Malinowski]

This is the first time they've gone after someone who has mainstream views on Israel. And the ad itself is a despicable and unforgivable lie.

[Jonathan Mahler]

But in this instance, AIPAC's efforts completely backfired. They did succeed in defeating Malinowski, but their candidates, you know, the candidate they were backing also lost. And instead the nominee was a progressive candidate who was way to Malinowski's left on Israel.

[Rachel Abrams]

Wow. So they got a candidate that was even more hostile to the cause they were trying to champion in this race.

[Jonathan Mahler]

Exactly.

[Rachel Abrams]

Which makes me wonder why AIPAC would even take that kind of risk to begin with. Like, I understand that Malinowski didn't pass this new litmus test, but it still seems really risky to go after moderate Democrats.

[Jonathan Mahler]

Yeah, well, in many ways, you can see someone like Tom Malinowski as a bigger threat to AIPAC than a member of the squad because he's a moderate Democrat who is still, yes, supportive of Israel, but is starting to very openly question America's unconditional support for Israel. So when you have moderates and he's by no means the only one who are beginning to look critically at the US Israel relationship, something that was really unheard of not that many years ago, that is a sign that things are actually, like, getting serious for aipac, that they really have to watch out. Because this is not just a phenomenon on the far left. This is becoming a phenomenon among moderate Democrats. And so it's almost a bigger threat to AIPAC that moderate Democrats are starting to sound much more critical of Israel than they had in the past. And so they need to do everything they can to keep them out of office.

[Rachel Abrams]

Give us another example, Jonathan, of how you've seen this play out.

[Jonathan Mahler]

Yeah, well, another kind of amazing example which sort of speaks to the role that AIPAC is trying to play in this election and the ways that it's backfiring is a House race that was in the suburbs of Chicago where AIPAC targeted a guy named Daniel Biss, who had been the mayor of the city of Evanston. Biss, like Malinowski, is a sort of more moderate Democrat who has raised some questions about America's unconditional support for Israel, but is still, you know, not far left by any means, and certainly not, not anti Israel, and is in fact the grandson of Holocaust survivors. This has strong connections to Israel, he has family in Israel. And he got kind of a whiff of the fact that AIPAC was potentially going to get involved in his race in Illinois. And so, you know, he went to AIPAC and said, listen, don't do this. I am willing to speak to you guys anytime if I'm elected. My door is always open to aipac. We can discuss any Israel related issue. And AIPAC said to him, what we need you to do if you want us to back out of this race or to not get involved in your race is to support unrestricted military aid for Israel. And Bis said, I'm not gonna do that. And so it became clear to him at that moment that AIPAC was gonna get involved in his race to try to defeat him. To try to defeat him. And so what he did at that point is that he polled voters in his district and asked them how they felt about AIPAC. And the numbers that came back were 51% of those polled said they viewed AIPAC UNFAV, and only 17% said they viewed AIPAC favorably.

[Daniel Biss]

I'm Daniel Biss and I'm running for Congress in the 9th district of Illinois.

[Jonathan Mahler]

So armed with that information, Bist decides to actually campaign on the fact that he's being attacked by aipac, that he was, in other words, like the anti AIPAC candidate.

[Daniel Biss]

They're calling me anti Israel because I don't think starvation should be used as a weapon of war because I don't think the US should have been bankrolling the bombs that Bibi was dropping on Palestinian civilians.

[Jonathan Mahler]

And he really leans into his Jewish identity as part of, of this.

[Daniel Biss]

They want to scare Jewish people like me out of criticizing the Israeli government. They want to silence us. But listen, I criticize the Israeli government exactly because Israel is so important to me. Israel was a safe haven for my grandparents after they survived the Holocaust.

[Jonathan Mahler]

I think it gives him an opportunity to both kind of demonize AIPAC in a sense, but also speak to voters about his own evolving understanding of Israel and the American Israel relationship.

[Daniel Biss]

AIPAC and their allies know that it's exactly my connection to Israel that makes me so dangerous to their hard line right wing agenda.

[Jonathan Mahler]

And so that was successful for Bis. He wins the Democratic primary. So there was a kind of a growing recognition that it was good politics to publicly distance yourself from AIPAC and even potentially tar your opponent as being supported by aipac.

[Rachel Abrams]

Right. Well, to that point, the next big test of this coming up is next week in Michigan, the Democratic primary for the Senate seat there. So just tell us what are you paying attention to in that race?

[Jonathan Mahler]

Yeah, I mean we're seeing there in Michigan a race where AIPAC is spending more money than they have ever spent before in a single race, something approaching $30 million which they have spent supporting Haley Stevens who is a moderate blue collar pro manufacturing Democrat, a kind of old school Michigan Democrat who is running against Abdul El Sayed who is the son of a Egyptian immigrants, far to the left, very opposed to US Aid to Israel, very vocal about what he describes as a genocide in Gaza, has really turned Israel into a kind of a central plank of his campaign there and has also seized not just on the Israel side of this, but the kind of corrupting influence of money and dark money in American politics and sort of turning AIPAC into a symbol of the kind of corrupting influence of money and politics.

[Rachel Abrams]

And how is Haley Stevens approaching the fact that she is getting so much support from aipac? Like is she trying to run against that given the other examples that you've laid out?

[Jonathan Mahler]

Yeah, no, she's, she's taken a different approach toward AIPAC and really even toward Israel. I mean she has criticized Netanyahu in the past, but she has embraced aipac. She considers herself and speaks of herself as being a proud supporter of Israel, though she's not Jewish. But I think in general you can sort of see her as more of an exception to the rule that's come to define many of these Democratic primaries. And if El Sayed wins the primary, I mean he has a chance of winning the seat in the general election in November for sure. And if he does, he'll BE A sitting U.S. democratic senator calling for the end of U.S. aid to Israel, which is definitely not something we've ever seen before.

[Rachel Abrams]

What is so interesting about this Jonathan, is that we are arriving in this moment not just because of October 7th, not just because of our hyper partisan time, but also because of a series of decisions that AIPAC has made over the years that has helped to lead us to where we are today. This organization that started as a bipartisan organization to support U S Israel relations, it has now become one of the causes for that relationship deteriorating. And so I wonder, where do you think that leaves aipac? Like doesn't seem like these dynamics are going away anytime soon. So what are the options for it going forward?

[Jonathan Mahler]

So AIPAC is really at a crossroads right now. What it could do, and you know what it might do, is begin to recognize that there isn't necessarily a single litmus test for being pro Israel that there should be room in the kind of pro Israel tent for politicians on both sides of the aisle. Republicans and Democrats who are willing to criticize Israel have real questions about this Israeli government, about the actions of the Israeli government, and want to scrutinize the military and financial support we give the state of Israel, but still support Israel. In other words, AIPAC could come to a place where they begin to recognize that they can't stop this. They cannot prevent the shifting of the tides that's happening right now. They have to acknowledge it, you know, and the reality is that the way things are moving right now in American politics, if they want to remain relevant, AIPAC may not really have a choice, because this same shift that we've been talking about on the left is also happening, albeit a lot more slowly and with very different dynamics on the right. It is not hard to imagine that in the future there could be a race with two candidates who are both critics of Israel. And AIPAC is going to have to, if it wants to remain relevant, is going to have to reconsider what it means to be pro Israel.

[Rachel Abrams]

Jonathan Mahler, thank you so much.

[Jonathan Mahler]

Thank you for having me.

[Rachel Abrams]

This week, President Trump appeared to lose his patience with Israel and its leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, who met with the president at the White House on Tuesday. Ahead of that meeting, Trump told reporters that without his support for the war against Iran, Israel would not have survived. If I didn't get involved, Trump claimed, Israel would have been terminated. We'll be right back.

[Podcast Host (Sponsor Announcer)]

This podcast is supported by On Investing, an original podcast from Charles Schwab. Each week, hosts Liz Ann Saunders, Schwab's chief investment strategist, and Colin Martin, head of fixed income research and strategy for the Schwab center for Financial Research, along with our guests, analyze economic developments and bring context to conversations around stocks, fixed income, the economy, and more. Download the latest episode and [e-mail] oninvesting or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Political Candidates / Advertisers]

These days, it seems like AI agents are just about everywhere. You turn every field and every function. But without identity, you can't trust they'll serve your business instead of jeopardizing it. Fortunately, Okta helps you get identity right by securing your AI agents identities, giving you a single layer of control, a single standard of trust. So whether an AI agent supports a single user or your entire enterprise, with Okta you'll turn risk into opportunity. Secure every agent, secure any agent. Okta secures AI gun Injuries are the leading cause of death for children and teens in the United States States. Some people avoid talking about gun violence because they don't think they can make a difference. But every conversation matters. When it comes to gun violence, we agree on more than we think, and having productive conversations about gun violence can help protect children and teens. Learn how to have the conversation@ agreeto agree.org brought to you by the ad council

[Rachel Abrams]

here's what else you need to know today.

[Various Political Figures (e.g., Benjamin Netanyahu, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib)]

He was a man who gave America the full measure of of his good and mighty heart. Until that heart itself just gave out.

[Rachel Abrams]

President Trump eulogized South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham in a memorial service at the National Cathedral on Tuesday, hailing Graham, who died this month at the age of 71, as, quote, one of the great figures in Senate history.

[Various Political Figures (e.g., Benjamin Netanyahu, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib)]

He went out at the peak of his career, the top of his game as a legend that everyone of us, many of us here today, blessed to know him and a friend that none of us will ever forget.

[Rachel Abrams]

The two men didn't always agree on policy, which the president referenced in his remarks, particularly when it came to foreign affairs.

[Various Political Figures (e.g., Benjamin Netanyahu, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib)]

He was extremely hawkish, I will tell you. He never saw war that he didn't like.

[Rachel Abrams]

The Fox News host Sean Hannity also spoke, saying that Graham was often unfairly characterized as a witness warmonger.

[Various Political Figures (e.g., Benjamin Netanyahu, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib)]

Lindsey desperately wanted and talked to the president about a lasting peace in the Middle East.

[Rachel Abrams]

Some of the foreign dignitaries whose causes Graham championed as a senator were in attendance, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. And emergency workers raced to find survivors of a powerful 6.8 magnitude earthquake in southwestern Japan on Tuesday. The quake, which hit around 4:30pm local time, ignited fires and damaged buildings. At least one person has been confirmed dead and dozens more are injured or missing. Today's episode was produced by Ricky Novetsky and Chris Benderev with help from Olivia Natt. It was edited by Rachel Quester with help from Patricia Willinson, and contains music by Marian Lozano, Dan Powell, Rowan Niemisto and Alicia Beitu. Our theme music is by Wonderly. This episode was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. That's it for the Daily. I'm Rachel Abrams. See you tomorrow.

[Political Candidates / Advertisers]

This podcast is supported by bank of America Private Bank.

[Bank of America Announcer]

Your ambition leaves an impression. What you do next can leave a legacy. At bank of America Private bank, our wealth and business strategies can help take your ambition to the next level. Whatever your passion, unlock more powerful possibilities@private bank.bankofamerica.com what would you like the power to do? Bank of America Official bank of the FIFA World Cup 2026 bank of America private bank is a division of bank of America, NA member, FDIC and a wholly owned subsidiary of bank of America Corporation.