Is AIPAC Okay?
After every election in recent memory, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has spent a day or two congratulating its endorsed candidates on their wins. The massive pro-Israel lobby group spent over $80 million on this election cycle, so you might assume this year would be no different. But since 2:28 PM on election […]
Following the recent election, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has conspicuously remained quiet, a stark contrast to its previous habit of endorsing candidates with public declarations of support. This year, AIPAC devoted over $80 million to influence the election, yet its official channels fell silent after the polls closed, marking a notable departure from its usual pattern.
The group's silence persists despite its continued financial backing of candidates through affiliated entities like the United Democracy Project (UDP).
Historically, AIPAC has been a vocal supporter of pro-Israel policies, often aligning with candidates who echoed its stance on key issues. However, the 2024 cycle saw a shift in candidates' responses to AIPAC's influence. Michigan's Abdul El-Sayed, for instance, effectively challenged AIPAC by criticizing its policies and campaign contributions, ultimately winning his midterm election. In response, AIPAC redirected its spending through UDP, focusing on defeating candidates who opposed its Iran war stance.
A significant portion of AIPAC's expenditure targeted opponents of the Iran war, resulting in campaigns that were largely unsuccessful, as evidenced by Daniel Biss' 75% victory in Illinois' 9th Congressional district. Despite the financial outlay, these efforts did not yield the desired outcomes. AIPAC's resistance appears to have backfired, with defeated candidates openly criticizing the group's tactics and financial contributions.
El-Sayed, for example, thanked AIPAC for providing him the chance to defeat them twice, highlighting the group's diminishing relevance in the political landscape.
Written by urgent.news from Mother Jones's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
