SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
josh shapiro
AIPAC: Defending the Indefensible
A lobby that asks for its community to have a voice is making a claim every American can make. A lobby that vows to end any candidacy which crosses its red line on Israel is not asking for a voice—it is enforcing obedience and silence.
Jun 02, 2026
As the American Israel Public Affairs Committee confronts a changing political landscape, one in which support for Israel has become a liability, powerful voices are coming to the defense of AIPAC and its hold on American democracy.
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro is one such voice. He addressed the issue in an interview with Politico. Questioned whether the pro-Israel lobby had become a dividing line in the Democratic Party, Shapiro lamented what he described as the "weaponization" of criticism directed at AIPAC, saying it was being "used cynically by some to try and silence certain voices." Pressed on whether he meant critics were erasing the distinction between opposition to AIPAC and opposition to Jewish donors, he said yes. Shapiro is recasting the lobby's scorched-earth tactics against politicians who do not toe the line on Israel as an attack on Jews and their right to political participation. That framing makes criticism of AIPAC appear suspect before the substance of the criticism is addressed.
He is not alone. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), confronted at a town hall over $4.5 million she had taken from "pro-Israel lobbies," objected that the figure lumped ordinary Jewish donors in with the lobby. This was problematic, she said, "Not just as an elected official," but "as a Jew." In The Washington Post, the columnist Matthew Schmitz gathered statements like these into a thesis: that criticism of Israel has curdled into hostility toward Jews themselves, and that the Democratic Party is turning on a community that has been part of its coalition for a century.
Although a problematic charge, it is deserving of a serious answer. The charge conflates criticizing a political lobby with attacking the Jewish people. This conflation is convenient for the defenders of AIPAC. To see why, start with what AIPAC does.
The existence of antisemitism does not make AIPAC immune from criticism, any more than the existence of anti-Muslim bigotry would make Saudi lobbying immune from scrutiny.
AIPAC does not have to single-handedly decide an election to shape its outcome. Its power lies in changing the conditions under which the election is fought. The organization describes itself as working to "help elect Democrats and Republicans" who support the US-Israel relationship and to "defeat detractors" of that relationship. Its formal PAC gives directly to candidates, while its affiliated super PAC, United Democracy Project, can raise and spend unlimited sums through independent expenditures. In the 2024 cycle, AIPAC and United Democracy Project spent $95.1 million, more than double their 2022 spending. United Democracy Project spent almost $9.9 million to defeat Jamaal Bowman and nearly $4.8 million to install George Latimer in his place, a level of outside money The New York Times called unprecedented for a single House race. It spent more than $5.2 million against Cori Bush and another $3.3 million for Wesley Bell, who beat her.
By 2026 the same machinery had crossed party lines, and this time it left no doubt about what it was for. In May, Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie, a seven-term incumbent, lost his primary after pro-Israel groups spent roughly $9 million to defeat him, part of more than $32 million that made it the most expensive House primary in American history, surpassing the record set against Bowman two years before. AIPAC did not hide its hand. It congratulated the winner for "defeating anti-Israel incumbent Thomas Massie" and declared that "being pro-Israel is good policy and good politics." An organization whose stated mission is to silence dissent over Israel policy took a victory lap after defeating a dissenter. This is not representation but political enforcement.
That is the record the conflation obscures, because it points to a distinction Shapiro and Slotkin would rather we not draw. There is a difference between a lobby that advances an industry or community's interests and a lobby whose signature work is to destroy the people who dissent from it. The first is ordinary democracy; every group does it, and every group should be free to. The second is something else. A lobby that asks for its community to have a voice is making a claim every American can make. A lobby that vows to end any candidacy which crosses its red line on Israel is not asking for a voice—it is enforcing obedience and silence. AIPAC is the second kind, and no amount of talk about Jewish participation changes what its money does.
Here Slotkin's objection deserves a fair hearing, and then a harder look. She is right about one thing, and it matters: The $4.5 million figure she was confronted with came from a group that counts individual Jewish donors as lobby money. That is a crude metric, and her instinct to reject it is correct. Treating every Jewish donor as AIPAC is exactly the conflation worth refusing. However, she used the softness of that one number to wave away the entire subject, and the subject does not depend on that number. United Democracy Project's independent expenditures are not estimates pulled from a donor tally. They are filed with the Federal Election Commission. Nearly $10 million to defeat a single congressman is not a Jewish donor being smeared. It is a documented political operation, and in a democracy, it is fair game.
Slotkin then offered her own analogy, and it is more revealing than she intended. Plenty of groups do the same thing, she said—"a Pakistani-American group, or whatever group." Exactly so. And if a Pakistani-American group spent $95 million in a single cycle to end the careers of politicians who crossed it, that spending would be criticized too, loudly and by name—and no one would call the criticism anti-Pakistani bigotry. That is the tell. The objection to AIPAC was never that Jews organize, donate, or advocate; Americans of every background do, and should. The objection is to what this particular organization spends its money to accomplish. AIPAC is not being challenged because it is Jewish. It is being challenged because it uses organized money to enforce a narrow pro-Israel line in American politics. Strip away the identity framing and you are left with a plain question about political power—which is the question its defenders are working so hard to avoid.
The conflation cuts both ways, and the second cut is the dangerous one. Slotkin is right that lumping every Jewish donor into "the pro-Israel lobby" is crude and potentially ugly; Jewish donors are not AIPAC by definition. But the reverse move is just as serious, and it is the one AIPAC defenders rely on: treating any criticism of AIPAC's political spending as though it were an attack on Jewish identity itself. The first error mistakes ordinary Jews for the lobby. The second dresses the lobby up as ordinary Jews. That second move gives AIPAC an exemption no other lobby receives—it lets a bare-knuckle political operation spend like a political operation and then, the moment it is criticized, takes cover as a vulnerable civic organization.
The pro-AIPAC defense generally leans on ugly examples—candidates who have made reckless comments, activists who slide from criticism of Israel into something darker, a political culture where antisemitism plainly exists. None of that should be denied, and a thesis about an entire party should not be built on a handful of fringe figures either. But none of it answers the central question. The existence of antisemitism does not make AIPAC immune from criticism, any more than the existence of anti-Muslim bigotry would make Saudi lobbying immune from scrutiny.
Bigotry is real. So is political power. A serious argument must be able to recognize both at once. AIPAC is not merely participating in democracy; it is using concentrated money to discipline the boundaries of acceptable speech on Israel, while its defenders try to collapse that political critique into ethnic or religious hostility.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'AIPAC Lost!' Democratic Socialist Chris Rabb Wins US House Primary in Pennsylvania
"This victory would not have been possible without the work of thousands of working class people across Philadelphia organizing for a better world."
May 20, 2026
"Standing against genocide is good policy and good politics!" proclaimed the grassroots group Track AIPAC after Pennsylvania state Rep. Chris Rabb won the Democratic US House primary in the state's 3rd Congressional District in Philadelphia.
Rabb, a democratic socialist, was outspoken in his criticism of Israel and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and his support of Palestinian rights during the campaign—aligning himself with a growing majority of Democratic voters while the pro-Israel lobby worked to secure a victory for one of his opponents, Dr. Ala Stanford.
314 Action Fund, a super political action committee (PAC) that supported Stanford, covertly received $500,000 from the powerful but increasingly toxic pro-Israel lobbying group, despite the fact that Stanford claimed she did not take money from AIPAC.
Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro, a vehement supporter of Israel who butted heads with Rabb over US Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the state, also reportedly worked behind the scenes to defeat the progressive.
With 92% of votes in early Wednesday morning, Rabb had secured 44.3% of the vote compared to 24.1% for Stanford and 29.5% for a third candidate, Sharif Street.
Chants of "AIPAC lost!" rang out at Rabb's victory party in Philadelphia.
“AIPAC LOST” chants at the Chris Rabb victory party pic.twitter.com/zfZJafLxVo
— James🔻 (@GoodVibePolitik) May 20, 2026
In a victory speech to supporters, Rabb said his campaign—which also centered on his calls for Medicare for All; a Civilian Climate Corps to work toward decarbonizing the US economy; and universal basic guarantees for housing, childcare, and other essentials—had been dismissed by the Democratic establishment
"They told me this wasn't possible. That's what they said," said Rabb. "I don't know who 'they' are, but I know who we are. I'm looking at 'We the People.' And I'm not talking about 'We the People' 250 years ago. That was a much smaller 'we.'"
Rabb was outspoken in his criticism of the Democratic establishment during his campaign, and said in a one interview that a key question facing the party is whether it is "prepared to listen to the base that demands this progressivism because what many people are calling progressive are pretty much standard things in other nations where universal healthcare is the thing, where there's no notion of healthcare insurance, it's just healthcare."
This is how the guy who just won in the bluest Congressional district in the country talked about the Democratic Party and its messaging. pic.twitter.com/DsaVMi76eB
— Jacobin (@jacobin) May 20, 2026
Rabb secured endorsements from influential progressive leaders including US Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and Summer Lee (D-Penn.) as the election drew near.
Should he win the general election in the deep-blue district in November, journalist Prem Thakker noted, he'll be one of at least four democratic socialists in the US Congress, including Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
Others whose primaries are coming up include former Rep. Cori Bush in Missouri and Darializa Avila Chevalier and state Rep. Claire Valdez in New York.
Ryan Grim of Drop Site News credited progressive organizations, including pro-Palestine super PAC American Priorities and the Justice Democrats, with giving crucial support to Rabb's campaign.
"And Rabb himself ran an exceptional race, building on years of relationships he built among progressives and activists in the city," said Grim. "And also AIPAC royally screwed up, got caught trying to spend money through 314 Action to prop up a flawed candidate, and then never recovered when she flopped."
Khanna said that along with Tuesday night's loss in Kentucky of Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, who has joined Democrats in pushing for the release of files related to sex offender and President Donald Trump associate Jeffrey Epstein and for a stop to Trump's military assault on Iran, the primaries sent a clear message to candidates.
"If you take a stand against war, AIPAC, and the Epstein class, you have no place in the Trump coalition," said Khanna. "But the future of the Democratic Party that is done with the establishment is yours to shape."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Josh Shapiro Trying to Derail Progressive Rabb in Favor of AIPAC Candidate for Pennsylvania House Race
One human rights lawyer said the centrist Pennsylvania governor was trying to stop Rabb because he's "anti-genocide, anti-AIPAC, pro-universal healthcare, and pro-labor."
May 11, 2026
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro is working behind the scenes to derail progressive state representative Chris Rabb in his bid for a seat representing the state's 3rd Congressional District in the US House—reportedly putting his thumb on the scale to drag pediatric surgeon Dr. Ala Stanford, the Israel lobby’s preferred candidate, over the finish line.
Axios reported this weekend that the Democratic governor, who has sought to punish boycotts and other activism against Israel, was seeking to quietly influence the race to defeat Rabb, who has been an outspoken supporter of Palestinian rights on the campaign trail and a critic of Shapiro’s centrist stances.
Rabb has called for an arms embargo against Israel amid the genocide in Gaza and endorsed the right of return for Palestinian refugees. But he's also pressured Shapiro to end what he says is "state collaboration" with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
While still considered an underdog in the three-way primary, which takes place on May 19, Rabb has gained steam in recent weeks with key endorsements from progressive leaders, most notably Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has raised funds and plans to visit Philadelphia to campaign with him on Friday, days before voters head to the polls.
Shapiro has not publicly weighed in on the race and has not endorsed a candidate. But according to Axios, he and his team "privately told allies that he disapproves of Rabb and has taken steps to block his path, according to three people familiar with the discussions."
The report continued:
Shapiro has privately advised Philadelphia's building trades unions to avoid inadvertently helping Rabb, the lone progressive in the race, by attacking one of his center-left opponents, two of our sources told us.
The sources said Shapiro suggested that the building trades, which are backing another candidate, Sharif Street, avoid running negative ads against a third contender, Ala Stanford.
Street and Stanford are seen as traditional Democrats who share similar voters.
Stanford led the race with 28% of the vote, ahead of Rabb’s 23%, in a poll conducted in April by the 314 Action Fund, a super PAC backing Stanford.
However, that very PAC has proven a liability for Stanford in the stretch run of the campaign. Last month, Drop Site News reported that 314 Action Fund had acted as a shell organization for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and had covertly received $500,000 from the lobbying group, which Democratic voters have come to overwhelmingly view as toxic.
The revelation has proven a public relations disaster for Stanford, who had said she “did not accept money from AIPAC” back in March. When confronted by voters about her views on the conflict, she has struggled to answer their questions and has faced heavy criticism for her statements that accusing Israel of "genocide," an opinion held by many leading human rights organizations and UN experts, is "hurtful" to Jewish people in the same way that using a racial slur is hurtful to Black people.
In a statement posted to social media on Tuesday, AIPAC commented on the accusations that it was backing Stanford for the first time, saying it "isn't funding any group's efforts in PA-03."
Erik Polyak, a spokesperson for the 314 Action Fund, said: "Chris Rabb has spent his entire campaign attacking Dr. Ala Stanford and lying about her support in this race. Instead of running on his record, he resorted to a smear campaign and political shapeshifting to take down his opponents and deepen divisions in our communities."
Amid other embarrassments, including her failure to explain her plan to "abolish" ICE and her rollout of what was described as a "comedically amateurish" policy platform on social media, Stanford dropped out of an April 29 debate just hours before it was set to take place, citing unspecified “misogynistic attacks and lies from both of my opponents.”
There have not been any public opinion polls on the race since Stanford's crash. But PoliticsPA.com now gives Street a 61% chance of winning, Rabb a 33% chance, and Stanford a distant 5% chance, citing prediction markets.
Axios suggested that Shapiro's primary goal is to prevent the votes from splitting between the two centrists, thereby allowing Rabb to win. But the piece suggests that Stanford is Shapiro's preferred horse.
Stanford has the backing of PA-03’s outgoing occupant, Rep. Dwight Evans (D), who is described as a close ally of Shapiro. Street is also described as having a “strained relationship” with Shapiro, who backed his rival in a 2022 struggle for leadership of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party.
Shapiro's push to blunt Rabb's momentum casts Philadelphia as yet another battleground in the broader war over the Democratic Party's identity, especially surrounding support for Israel, but also with other issues like immigration and healthcare, where leadership is out of step with voters' demands.
" Josh Shapiro is trying to derail the congressional run of Democratic PA State Rep Chris Rabb because Rabb is anti-genocide, anti-AIPAC, pro-universal healthcare, and pro-labor," said human rights lawyer Qasim Rashid.
Will Bunch, a columnist for The Philadelphia Inquirer, said the governor's effort to defeat Rabb was “one more reminder that Josh Shapiro is who we thought he was.”
Update (May 12, 2026): This story has been updated to include responses from AIPAC and the 314 Action Fund.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular