---
author: New York Times Podcasts
date: '2026-07-29'
guest: ''
layout: post.njk
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AYwlSMnwd4
speaker: New York Times Podcasts
tags:
- campaign-finance
- primary-election
- political-lobbying
- foreign-policy
title: 美以公共事务委员会巨额投入美国选举引发的政治分歧与试金石争议
summary: 节目探讨了亲以色列游说团体美以公共事务委员会（AIPAC）在选举中投入巨资介入初选所引发的辩论。随着公众舆论和党派内部动态变化，对以色列的支持正成为民主党内部的关键试金石，该组织也面临重新审视自身立场的十字路口。
insight: ''
draft: true
series: ''
category: politics-society
area: society-thinking
project: []
people:
- 科里·布什
- 贾马尔·鲍曼
- 林赛·格雷厄姆
- 本雅明·内塔尼亚胡
- 唐纳德·特朗普
companies_orgs:
- 美以公共事务委员会
- The New York Times
products_models: []
media_books:
- The Daily
status: evergreen
---
这里是《纽约时报》，我是蕾切尔·亚伯拉罕斯，这是《The Daily》。[音乐]
Original English
From
The
New
York
Times,
I'm
Rachel
Abrams
and
this
is
The
Daily.
[music]
Original English
In
this
year's
[music]
midterm
elections,
AIPAC,
the
pro-Israel
lobbying
group,
has
spent
a
record
amount
of
money
mostly
in
Democratic
[music]
primaries
to
either
oust
candidates
or
support
candidates
based
on
a
changing
definition
of
what
it
means
to
support
Israel.
[music]
Original English
Today,
my
colleague
Jonathan
Mahler
explains
how
this
has
created
a
new
litmus
test
for
the
[music]
left
at
a
time
perhaps
when
America's
relationship
with
Israel
has
never
faced
more
scrutiny.
Original English
>> [music]
Original English
>> It's
Wednesday,
[music]
July
29th.
Original English
>> [music]
Original English
>> Jonathan
Mahler,
thank
you
so
much
for
joining
us.
Original English
>> Thanks
for
having
me.
Original English
>> Jonathan,
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
understand
how
you
are
seeing
and
thinking
about
all
of
this.
Original English
>> 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.
Original English
>> Mhm.
[clears throat]
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
the
relationship,
but
the
Republican
Party
is
still
really
by
and
large
pro-Israel.
Original English
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.
Original English
>> Just
give
us
a
couple
examples
of
what
you
mean
by
that.
Original English
>> 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.
Original English
>> Mhm.
Original English
>> The
effort
failed.
I
mean,
only
one
Republican
supported
it,
and
so
the
aid's
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.
Original English
And
if
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
in
the
US.
And
at
this
point,
AIPAC
has
basically
become
synonymous
with
Israel.
Original English
>> Right,
when
you
see
people
talking
or
debating
AIPAC,
what
they're
essentially
debating
is
US
support
for
Israel.
Original English
>> Exactly.
AIPAC
is
seen
as
a
proxy
for
Israel.
And
on
top
of
that,
it's
also
become
a
stand-in
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.
Original English
>> 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.
Original English
>> 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.
Original English
>> 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.
Original English
>> So,
AIPAC
was
founded
really
just
a
few
years
after
the
founding
of
the
state
of
Israel
back
in
1948.
And
um
it
really
had
a
simple
mission.
The
idea
was
to
defend
and
protect
and
strengthen
the
US-Israel
relationship,
which
was
uh
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.
Original English
>> Meaning
it
was
supposed
to
be
bipartisan.
Original English
>> 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.
Original English
>> And
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?
Original English
>> 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
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
of
Jews
living
in
America,
a
lot
of
American
Jews
who
are
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.
Original English
>> And
in
turn,
what
is
AIPAC
able
to
achieve
for
Israel
through
all
of
this
bipartisan
lobbying?
Original English
>> 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.
Original English
>> 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?
Original English
>> 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
US-Israel
relationship
and
in
turn
for
AIPAC.
And
that
is
Original English
>> Today,
after
2
years
of
negotiations,
the
United
States,
together
with
our
international
partners,
has
achieved
[music]
something
that
decades
of
animosity
has
not.
Original English
>> President
Obama's
nuclear
deal
with
Iran.
Original English
>> Today,
President
Obama
announced
an
Original English
agreement that he says will keep an atomic bomb out of Iranian hands for more than a decade. Critics say it will do the opposite.Original English
>> Which Israel was furious about, Prime Minister Netanyahu really did not want to happen, but Obama was going ahead with it anyway. [music] And so in this moment, the Republicans in CongressOriginal English
>> The speaker has invited the Israeli Prime Minister to [music] address a joint session of CongressOriginal English
>> invite Bibi to come speakOriginal English
>> before Congress.Original English
>> The general protocol for this kind of thing is for Congress [music] to consult with the White House. Our understanding is that that was not done on purpose. [music]Original English
>> A real poke in the eye to Obama.Original English
>> A real poke in the eye to Obama who said [music] that he did not want this to happen. But Bibi accepts the invitation.Original English
>> Members of Congress, I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the Prime Minister of Israel, His Excellency Benjamin Netanyahu.Original English
>> He comes to Congress.Original English
>> My friends, for over a year, we've been told that no deal is better than a bad deal.Original English
>> He uses that moment to inveigh against this nuclear deal. [music]Original English
>> 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.Original English
>> [music]Original English
>> And that moment put AIPAC in a really difficult situation because now they're faced with the Prime Minister of Israel, the leader of the country that they're here to defend, is really going [music] 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 [music] the President? And they chose Israel. They agreed with Bibi's [music] take on it, and they tried to defeat it.Original English
>> So, I understand that Netanyahu was invited by Republicans. It was an insult in some way to the President of the time, Barack Obama, but what are we seeing coming out of this?Original English
>> Yeah, what we're seeing is that there'd 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 United States interests always seemed to be perfectly, cleanly aligned. Suddenly, America and Israel's interests seem to diverge, they split, and AIPAC had to line up with one side or the other, and they lined up with Israel.Original English
>> Mhm.Original English
>> So, that was the first big inflection point in 2015. The next one came in 2018Original English
>> [music]Original English
>> when we saw the election of the squad.Original English
>> Sure.Original English
>> So, this was AOC.Original English
>> What people are starting to see, at least in the occupation of Palestine, is increasing crisis of humanitarian condition.Original English
>> This was Rashida Tlaib.Original English
>> Will you vote against US military aid for Israel?Original English
>> Absolutely. For me, US aid should be leveraged.Original English
>> This was Ilhan Omar.Original English
>> We think of Israel as the only democracy in the Middle East, and as such, we have to make sure we're holding it to that standard.Original English
>> This was a group of progressive [music] lawmakers who were willing to say things about Israel, critical things about Israel.Original English
>> They support the movement known as BDS, which calls for a boycott of Israel until property is returned to Palestinians. [music]Original English
>> And to sort of begin to try to redefine the American-Israel relationship. I mean, no one had ever gone there in this way before.Original English
>> Mhm.Original English
>> 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 [music] so the question becomes, what is AIPAC going to do about the arrival in Congress of this block of outspoken critics of Israel? And what if this is just the beginning?Original English
>> [music]Original English
>> 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?Original English
>> Yeah, so up to 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.Original English
>> So, relatively small amounts.Original English
>> 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 going to create their own super PAC, which they call the United Democracy Project.Original English
>> Not clearly pro-Israel, just to say in that name.Original English
>> 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 PACs 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 PAC for the 2022 midterms, and they got to work spending money.Original English
>> So, tell us what that means, Jonathan. Like, how do we see that playing out in elections?Original English
>> Yeah. So, in 2022, they sort of dipped their toes in. They spent $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.Original English
>> They're taking away [music] our rights. Kevin Mullin is fighting back.Original English
>> You would see in 2022 an ad that endorsed a Democratic candidate or credited a Democratic candidate for instance with with supporting reproductive rights.Original English
>> Kevin Mullin will work [music] to guarantee all women have the right to make their own medical decisions.Original English
>> a pro-choice ad and you would have no idea that it was paid for by APAC's super PAC.Original English
>> To guarantee the [music] right to choose, to vote, to earn a livable wage. Fighting for our democratic values, Adam Oliye [music] for Congress. UDP is responsible for the content of this ad.Original English
>> Importantly, they did something else in the 2022 midterms that really kind of helped fuel our perception of APAC as a polarizing force in politics. And what they did is they endorsed more than 100 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 APAC suddenly felt like, "Whoa, you are choosing what you perceive to be Israel's interests over American democracy." That was a kind of a shocking single-issue position that APAC took that really earned them a lot of critics and future enemies.Original English
>> And how did APAC justify this at the time?Original English
>> Well, you know, to APAC their whole raison d'être, 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 theseOriginal English
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.
Original English
>> Even if that means supporting election deniers.
Original English
>> Exactly.
Original English
>> I just want to point out that feels like a very different strategy than AIPAC had used before.
Original English
>> 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.
Original English
>> [snorts]
Original English
>> 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 7th, 2023.
Original English
>> 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.
Original English
>> 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 Israel. 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 building anti-Israel movement in Washington. Well, now we seem to be getting all of the signs that that was indeed coming.
Original English
>> We'll be right back.
Original English
>> [music]
Original English
>> So Jonathan, once it becomes clear that the tide is turning against Israel, how does AIPAC decide to respond?
Original English
>> Yeah. So, AIPAC goes into complete overdrive.
Original English
>> Jamaal Bowman [music] voted against condemning Hamas' brutal attack. He supported a resolution calling the founding [music] of Israel a catastrophe.
Original English
>> They spend $120 million in the 2024 election cycle, a staggering amount of money.
Original English
>> when Biden [music] really needs her, Cori Bush just isn't there. The facts: Cori Bush has her own [music] agenda, and it's hurting St. Louis. UDP is responsible for the content of this ad.
Original English
>> And they rack up two big wins. They defeat Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman, both members of the Squad.
Original English
>> [clears throat]
Original English
>> And you know, to AIPAC, the Squad really is kind of ground zero for anti-Israel sentiment in Washington.
And of course, that doesn't go unnoticed by the candidates who were unseated by AIPAC.
Original English
>> 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.
Original English
>> They're furious, and they call out AIPAC very explicitly [music] in their concession speeches.
Original English
>> Let me say this.
Original English
>> [cheering]
Original English
>> AIPAC, I'M COMING TO tear your kingdom down!
Original English
>> [cheering]
Original English
>> And I think it's at this moment where you really begin to see some Democrats on the left try and paint AIPAC as [music] this boogeyman in American politics.
Original English
>> [music]
Original English
>> I think I want to pause for a second cuz 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 has played out as AIPAC has really tried to show its muscle in these different election cycles.
Original English
>> 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.
Original English
>> It's measurable. It's measurable with the money they're spending.
Original English
>> 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 anti-Semitism 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, you know, 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.
Original English
>> 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 opened the door to a lot of anti-Semitic rhetoric that has become normalized.
Original English
>> 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.
Original English
>> 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 AIPAC to perhaps other single-issue super PACs.
So, in other words, does AIPAC actually give more money than other single-issue super PACs?
Original English
>> Yeah, that's a really important point. I mean, AIPAC 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 PACs in some recent election cycles. But AIPAC definitely gets the majority of the heat.
Original English
>> Mhm. 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.
Original English
>> Yeah, so what's happened in 2026 is is 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 unconditional support for Israel.
Original English
>> [snorts]
Original English
>> AIPAC has had to what 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
Original English
made AIPAC even more polarizing.
Original English
>> But [snorts] why alienate people who have expressed a lot of support of for Israel, especially at a time when that support is waning? Like what is the thinking behind that strategy?
Original English
>> 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.
Original English
>> 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?
Original English
>> 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.
Original English
>> [music]
Original English
>> And Tom Malinowski is like by no means a squad member. He is by no means a progressive.
Original English
>> I believe in Israel's right to exist and defend itself as a Jewish and democratic state, particularly after the atrocity of October 7th.
Original English
>> He also is a believer in defending America's commitment to defend Israel's security.
Original English
>> I had a perfect pro-Israel voting record in Congress.
Original English
>> In fact, he had angered some people by refusing to call Israel's war in Gaza genocide. He would [music] 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.
Original English
>> So, no longer unconditional. That sounds very key here.
Original English
>> Exactly. He wants to place conditions. [music] He wants to consider every allocation that the United States makes to Israel's military.
Original English
>> Tom Malinowski says members of Congress shouldn't be [music] allowed to trade stocks. But, in Congress, he cashed in on COVID-related stocks.
Original English
>> So, AIPAC super PAC spent over $2 million over $2.3 million to defeat him.
Original English
>> ICE deportation force is out of control. Tom Malinowski voted with Trump to increase funding.
Original English
>> 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.
Original English
>> We just can't trust Tom Malinowski. UDP is responsible for the content of these ads.
Original English
>> 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.
Original English
>> I'm here at an anti-ICE rally, where I've 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.
Original English
>> And he let his voters know what was going on.
Original English
>> 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.
Original English
>> But, in this instance, AIPAC's efforts completely [music] backfired. They did succeed in defeating Malinowski, but their candidate, the candidate they were backing, also lost. And instead, the nominee was a progressive candidate who was way to Malinowski's left on Israel.
Original English
>> Wow, so they got a candidate that was even more hostile to the cause they were trying to champion in this race.
Original English
>> Exactly.
Original English
>> 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.
Original English
>> 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.
Original English
>> Mhm.
Original English
>> And so, they need to do everything they can to keep them out of office.
Original English
>> Give us another example, Jonathan, of how you've seen this play out.
Original English
>> 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 anti-Israel, and is, in fact, the grandson of Holocaust [clears throat] survivors.
Original English
Biss has strong connections to Israel, 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 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 Biss said, "I'm not going to do that." And so, it became clear to him at that moment that AIPAC was going to get involved in his race
Original English
>> to try to defeat him.
Original English
>> to try to defeat him. And so, what he did at that point is that he pulled voters in his 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 unfavorably, and only 17% said they viewed AIPAC favorably.
Original English
>> I'm Daniel Biss, and I'm running for Congress in the 9th District of Illinois.
Original English
>> So, armed with that information, Biss 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.
Original English
>> 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.
Original English
>> And he really leans into his Jewish identity as part of this.
Original English
>> 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.
Original English
>> I think it gives him an opportunity to both [snorts] kind of demonize AIPAC in a sense, but also speak to voters about his own evolving understanding of Israel and the American-Israel relationship.
Original English
>> AIPAC and their allies know that it's exactly my connection to Israel that makes me so dangerous to their hardline, right-wing agenda.
Original English
>> And so, that was successful for Biss. 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.
Original English
>> 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?
Original English
>> 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, kind of old-school Michigan Democrat, who is running against Abdul El-Sayed, who is the son of 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
Original English
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 of the kind of corrupting influence of money in politics.
Original English
>> 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?
Original English
>> 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 a proud supporter of Israel, though she's not Jewish.
Original English
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.
Original English
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 US Democratic senator calling for the end of US aid to Israel, which is definitely not something we've ever seen before.
Original English
>> 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 US-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, it doesn't seem like these dynamics are going away anytime soon. So, what are the options for it going forward?
Original English
>> So, AIPAC is really at a crossroads right now. What it could do, and um you know, what it might do, is begin to recognize that there isn't necessarily a single litmus test for being pro-Israel.
Original English
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.
Original English
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.
Original English
It is not hard to imagine that in the future there could be [music] 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 [music] what it means to be pro-Israel.
Original English
>> [music]
Original English
>> Jonathan Miller, thank you so much.
Original English
>> Thank you for having me.
Original English
>> This week, [music] President Trump appeared to lose his patience with Israel and its leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, who met with the [music] 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.
Original English
"If I didn't get involved," [music] Trump claimed, "Israel would have been terminated."
Original English
We'll be right back.
Original English
>> [music]
Original English
>> Here's what else you need to know today.
Original English
>> He was a man who gave America the full measure of his good and mighty heart until that heart itself just gave out.
Original English
>> President Trump eulogized South Carolina Senator [music] 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."
Original English
>> 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.
Original English
>> The two men didn't always agree on policy,
Original English
>> [music]
Original English
>> which the president referenced in his remarks, particularly when it came to foreign affairs.
Original English
>> He was extremely hawkish. I will tell you, he never saw a war that he didn't like.
Original English
>> The Fox News host, Sean Hannity, also spoke, [music] saying that Graham was often unfairly characterized as a warmonger.
Original English
>> Lindsey desperately wanted and talked to the president about a lasting peace in the Middle East.
Original English
>> 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 Zelenskyy of Ukraine. [music]
Original English
And emergency workers raced to find survivors of a powerful 6.8 magnitude earthquake in southwestern Japan on Tuesday.
Original English
The quake, [music] which hit around 4:30 p.m. local time, ignited fires and damaged buildings.
Original English
At least one person has been confirmed dead and dozens more are injured or [music] missing.
Original English
Today's episode was produced by Ricky Nvetsky and Chris Benderav [music] with help from Olivia Nat. It was edited by Rachel Quester with help from Patricia Willens and contains music by Marion Lozano, Dan Powell, Rowan Nemiasto, and Alicia Baeyiu. Our theme music is by Wonderly. This episode was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. [music]
Original English
>> [music]
Original English
>> That's it for the Daily. I'm Rachel Abrams. See you tomorrow.