|
March 29, 2026
Key Developments and What We're Discussing Today:
- Last week's newsletter about Daniel Biss's win and AIPAC's role in the primary sparked some questions; hence one more newsletter about AIPAC. Then it's back to kittens and puppies.
- I don't think AIPAC intends to undermine democracy, and I am certain that its Democratic donors do not have that intent (its MAGA donors might be another story). But if it defines its one issue, support for Israel, as requiring that it support Republicans who refuse to stand up to Trump, then it is helping to elect those who are undermining our democracy.
- AIPAC spent millions of dollars in the Illinois 9th congressional district primary to support a candidate who could not win, to oppose a pro-Israel Jewish candidate who did not pass AIPAC's purity test and won, and came close to repeating its debacle in New Jersey by electing a candidate who was not pro-Israel.
- AIPAC is not being singled out or being held to a double standard. AIPAC spent far more in Illinois than other groups. Unlike other groups that did not run ads on their single issue, AIPAC went to great lengths to hide its involvement by using shell PACs and timing the launch of those PACs so that their donors would not be disclosed until after the election.
- Criticism of AIPAC crosses the line when it devolves into personal attacks against donors and when it veers into antisemitism. Opposition to AIPAC grounded in antisemitism must be called out. False accusations of antisemitism against AIPAC's critics must also be called out. AIPAC's definition of pro-Israel is not the only or best definition.
If you can and if you want to, support my work by chipping in via credit card or PayPal, Venmo @Steven-Sheffey (last four digits, 9479), or check. Thank you.
Greetings!
A systems glitch prevented some links in last week's newsletter from working. Thank you to everyone who let me know. All the links are working now, including the three most requested: Rep. Dan Goldman's (D-NY) bringing to light graphic evidence against Trump in the Epstein Files, Meirav Cohen's powerful speech in the Knesset on settler terrorism in the West Bank, and Adam Carlson's translation of AIPAC's statement into plain English.
Speaking of AIPAC, before we lose the Illinois primary in the rearview mirror, let's address some lingering concerns.
By way of background, I was a rank-and-file member of AIPAC for more than 25 years. I served on the Board of CityPAC, a single-issue bipartisan pro-Israel PAC, for seven years in the late 80s and early 90s, three as its Communications Director, two as its Vice President for Appropriations, and two as its President.
CityPAC did not coordinate with AIPAC, but nearly all of us supported AIPAC. Our criteria for what it meant for a candidate to be pro-Israel lined up with AIPAC's criteria.
I stopped supporting AIPAC after it waged a costly, divisive battle against President Obama's Iran Deal that was wrong on the merits and that AIPAC should have known on day one was unwinnable.
In the 2022 election cycle, AIPAC rolled out its Super PAC. It endorsed over 100 Republicans who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Since then, despite the Republican Party's descent into authoritarianism, it has continued to support Republicans, including MAGA Republicans and including insurrectionists.
AIPAC's single issue is Israel. The theory behind endorsing regardless of other issues is that if you have a relationship with a member of Congress or candidate based on your single issue, and that's all you talk about when you lobby or interview candidates, you will lose all credibility if, when that candidate needs you most--to get elected or reelected--you say, "well, thanks for agreeing with us and voting our way, but another candidate is better on an issue we never discussed with you, so we'll go with that candidate instead." It's fine for anyone to support other causes on their own, but the organization has one issue, and if we don't focus on Israel, who will?
I used to support that philosophy. When I was president of CityPAC, I gave that speech dozens of times, including at an event the New York Times covered on its front page. Unfortunately, all they reported about what I said was an off-the-cuff joke. Lesson learned (it did get laughs and applause--read at least the first two and last four paragraphs).
But today, if your one issue does not include defending American democracy, if your one issue requires you to support those who would take away our right to vote and erode our democratic institutions, if your one issue requires you to support members of a party who have abdicated their responsibility to serve as a check on a corrupt, incompetent president, then you need to redefine your single issue if you want my support.
Moreover, by treating democracy, the essence of our country, as just another issue and backing Republicans, AIPAC normalizes a Republican Party that is authoritarian and subservient to Donald Trump, not the Constitution. That is unacceptable.
AIPAC opposed Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss in the Illinois March 17 9th congressional district primary. Biss is Jewish. He is the grandson of Holocaust survivors. His mother is Israeli. He spent his summers in Israel. He is a Zionist. His sin? He won't give the most right-wing government in Israel's history a blank check.
Biss supports a two-state solution. He would limit the transfer of certain offensive weapons used in Gaza, but he supports Iron Dome and other vital defensive weapons, unlike Kat Abughazaleh, the candidate who almost won thanks to AIPAC's ineptitude.
Yet AIPAC spent millions of dollars trying to defeat Biss, lumping him in with Abughazaleh and calling both "dangerous detractors." That's the problem with purity tests--you can't distinguish friends with whom you disagree from those whose fundamental values differ from yours.
We should not let AIPAC conflate pro-AIPAC with pro-Israel. Some people who criticize AIPAC might be anti-Israel. Many, including me, including Daniel Biss, including JB Pritzker, are pro-Israel but don't support AIPAC because of what AIPAC has become and we disagree with some of its positions and priorities.
Why is this PAC different from all other PACs? AIPAC is complaining that other groups spent lots of money in the Illinois primaries and claims that AIPAC is being unfairly singled out. This is not true.
These threads from journalists Matthew Eadie and Jake Sheridan prove that AIPAC spent much, much more in Illinois than the artificial intelligence and crypto groups spent, and unlike those groups, AIPAC hid where its money was coming from.
Moreover, the other groups did not use shell PACs. It's true that other groups ran ads not related to their single issue. But we knew who was behind those ads. AIPAC did not admit it was behind the shell PACs until after the election, and we learned who contributed to those shell PACs only after the election.
AIPAC and its supporters are upset that Daniel Biss and others attacked AIPAC. What did they expect from the candidates they spent millions of dollars trying to defeat? That's every bully's complaint: "He hit me back."
If AIPAC wants to be treated like everyone else, it has to accept that actions have consequences. If they attack candidates, those candidates will respond in kind.
"Politics," said the great turn of the century Chicago satirist Finley Peter Dunne, "ain't beanbag."
Watch Daniel Biss explain what happened, how he defeated AIPAC, and the playbook that Democrats can use to prevent AIPAC from defeating them.
When does criticism of AIPAC cross the line? Criticism of AIPAC crosses the line when it drifts into criticism of, or personal attacks against, those individuals who support AIPAC. One can support AIPAC with the best of intentions. One person making what another person thinks is an unwise policy or political choice does not make that person a bad person. The issue is AIPAC, not those who support it.
The difference between intent and impact is critical. I doubt that any Democrat who supports AIPAC wants to undermine American democracy. They intend to support Israel. I doubt that AIPAC itself is motivated by a desire to undermine our democracy, although it doesn't seem to be bothered about it either. Its Republican donors might see that result as a feature, not a bug.
But the impact of AIPAC's support for Republicans is the undermining of American democracy. The impact of AIPAC's cheerleading for Trump's Iran War and support for or silence about the actions of the current Israeli government is dangerous for Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship. We are right to be worried about the safety of Israel and Israelis, especially in the aftermath of October 7. Plenty of other organizations can address our concerns better than AIPAC.
Criticism of AIPAC also crosses the line when it includes antisemitic tropes. This should be obvious. Mere criticism of AIPAC's spending and influence is not antisemitic; AIPAC itself brags about its power and influence. That's fine. What is not fine, what is deplorable, is using antisemitic tropes when criticizing AIPAC or insinuating that AIPAC speaks for all Jewish Americans or all pro-Israel Americans.
Some supporters of AIPAC fuel antisemitism when they claim that an attack against AIPAC is an attack on Jews in general. AIPAC is not "the Jewish lobby" or even the "Israel lobby." It is one organization with one agenda. That's it. Pro-Israel is not the same as pro-AIPAC.
Defenders of AIPAC should not dismiss all criticism of AIPAC, even harsh criticism, as antisemitic or anti-Israel unless they have solid evidence to back up their claims. Otherwise, they risk trivializing real antisemitism and real anti-Israel animus, which does exist.
Finally, for all of AIPAC's faults, what it is doing is not illegal. AIPAC is not a foreign lobby. It is a group of Americans with a certain political viewpoint. AIPAC's Super PAC spending is lawful. Its shell PACs are lawful. Timing formation of its shell PACs to conceal donors to those PACs until after an election is lawful. Until we repeal Citizens United and enact meaningful campaign finance reform, which will never happen if we keep electing Republicans, its actions are lawful.
The way to support Israel is not by supporting AIPAC, whose policies and politics cause more harm than good. Plenty of other groups do a better job. We should not conflate pro-Israel with AIPAC, nor should we act as if AIPAC is the only group that takes Israel's safety and security seriously (even as, in AIPAC's case, some of its policies undermine Israel's safety and security).
Nevertheless, the Democratic Party should be a big tent. Democrats who support AIPAC should be welcome, just as Democrats who support other groups that some may disagree with should be welcome. Candidates who take money from AIPAC should not be excluded. But those candidates might want to consider acknowledging the harm AIPAC--and other groups that support Republicans--are doing to our democracy at this critical moment in American history.
In Case You Missed It:
- The ADL's Never Again Is Now Summit was held March 16-17 in New York City. A reader of this newsletter attended a blatantly partisan session billed as confronting antisemitism on the right that "did not address the topic in any serious way and used their allotted time to openly bash the Democratic Party." Read the letter this person sent to the ADL.
- Contrary to some sloppy reporting, California Governor Gavin Newsom did not say he was a Zionist. He did not walk back the comments he made about apartheid. I was able to figure this out by using a method called reading the interview.
- Please urge your members of Congress to oppose H.R. 5103, which would undermine DC's autonomy, for the reasons articulated by DC Delegate to Congress Eleanor Holmes Norton and my choice for DC's next Delegate to Congress, Kinney Zelesne.
- Is it antisemitic to protest a political (or semi-political) event at a synagogue? When do sharp, legitimate criticisms of Israel and Zionism cross the line into bigotry and bias? Jay Michaelson offers some answers.
- Just in time for Pesach: The Homer Calendar. I've been using it for 26 years, and this year will be no different. Chag Pesach Sameach.
Tweet of the Week. Gianmarco Soresi and Ashi.
Video Clip of the Week. Robin Williams tells the story of Passover in under two minutes.
Vintage Music Clip of the Week. Faces: Stay With Me.
The Fine Print. I read every reply to this newsletter. I reply as often as I can. All I ask is that you read the fine print before you reply or send me anything.
For those new to this newsletter. This is the newsletter even Republicans have to read and the original home of the viral and beloved Top Ten Signs You're At a Republican Seder (yes, I wrote it four years ago).
If someone forwarded this newsletter to you, your luck continues. You can subscribe and get it in your inbox every Sunday for free. Just click here.
Be sure to read my posts on distinguishing anti-Zionism from antisemitism, how to heal the generational rift on Israel and antisemitism, and the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
I hope you enjoyed today's newsletter. It takes time to write and costs money to send. If you'd like to support my work, click here and fill in the amount of your choice. You don't need a PayPal account. If you see something that says "Save your info and create a PayPal account," click the button to the right and it will go away. Or you can Venmo @Steven-Sheffey (last four digits, 9479). Or you can send a check.
Unless stated otherwise, my views do not necessarily reflect the views of any candidates or organizations I support or am associated with.
| 