The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, long regarded as one of Washington’s most powerful pro-Israel lobbying organisations, is facing an erosion of its traditional influence as unconditional support for Israel becomes increasingly difficult to sustain within the Democratic Party.
Its steadfast alignment with Israel, growing closeness to Republicans and the political fallout from Israel’s war on Gaza have transformed an organisation once seen as nearly untouchable in Washington into a potential liability for some Democratic politicians.
Writing in The New York Times, Eric Alterman, a professor at Brooklyn College and longtime observer of Israel and American Jewish politics, argues that the era of AIPAC’s commanding influence is ending.
He contends that the organisation has become a burden for Democratic politicians and a source of growing tension among American Jews, while refusing AIPAC funding is increasingly becoming a position shared by sections of the Democratic Party.
From Political Asset to Liability
For decades, largely unconditional support for Israel was close to a consensus position in Congress, reinforced by AIPAC’s lobbying operation and its ability to cultivate relationships across party lines.
According to Alterman, Israel’s war on Gaza following the attacks of October 7, 2023 fundamentally altered that political environment.
Public attitudes towards Israel have deteriorated substantially. A 2026 NBC poll cited in the article found that only 32 per cent of American voters viewed Israel positively, falling to just 13 per cent among Democrats.
The shift among Democratic voters has been particularly pronounced. The same polling found positive views of Israel among Democrats falling sharply, reflecting a broader erosion of support within the party’s electorate.
The change has also reached American Jewish communities.
A 2025 Washington Post survey found that 61 per cent of American Jews believed Israel had committed war crimes in Gaza, while 39 per cent said it had committed genocide against Palestinians.
These figures point to a widening divide between the unconditional pro-Israel position traditionally promoted by organisations such as AIPAC and the increasingly critical views held by significant sections of American Jewish society.
How AIPAC Built Its Power
AIPAC emerged in 1953 with the objective of defending Israel’s interests and securing American financial, military and diplomatic support.
By the 1960s, Alterman notes, one US senator described it as the most powerful foreign-policy lobbying organisation in American politics.
Its strength rested heavily on bipartisanship. Support for Israel was treated as an issue capable of crossing Democratic and Republican divisions, allowing AIPAC to maintain influence regardless of which party controlled Congress or the White House.
But according to Alterman, that model gradually began to unravel.
One major turning point came after the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 and the subsequent collapse of the peace process, as AIPAC increasingly shifted towards the political right.
That shift became considerably more visible in 2015.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed Congress that year to attack the Obama administration’s nuclear agreement with Iran, openly placing himself at odds with a Democratic White House.
AIPAC and allied organisations subsequently spent close to $30 million in an unsuccessful effort to defeat the nuclear agreement. Contemporary reporting documented a major AIPAC-backed campaign aimed at persuading Congress to block the agreement.
The confrontation deepened perceptions that AIPAC’s political priorities were becoming increasingly aligned with Netanyahu and the Republican Party rather than maintaining its traditional bipartisan position.
Growing Alignment With Republicans
AIPAC moved further towards the Republican camp in subsequent years.
In 2021, it established a political action committee that went on to support more than 100 Republican candidates, including lawmakers who had opposed certification of the 2020 presidential election results.
A list published by J Street documented dozens of AIPAC-endorsed Republican candidates who had voted against certifying the election results.
For Democrats already uncomfortable with Netanyahu’s policies, this represented a deeper political rupture.
The use of conservative donor money to defeat liberal and progressive candidates in Democratic primaries further angered the party’s left wing and contributed to a growing perception among younger American Jews that AIPAC no longer represented their political outlook.
When AIPAC’s Money Becomes a Liability
Alterman points to electoral contests in which AIPAC’s intervention has begun producing diminishing returns.
The organisation and its affiliated political groups have spent millions of dollars attempting to defeat Democratic candidates critical of unconditional US support for Israel.
Yet some of those efforts have failed, with AIPAC-backed campaigns unable to prevent more progressive candidates from winning.
The broader political environment has also changed.
Some Democratic politicians who previously accepted support linked to AIPAC have publicly distanced themselves from the organisation or pledged to reject its money, reflecting concern that association with the lobby could become an electoral disadvantage rather than an asset. Reporting since 2025 has documented a growing number of Democrats refusing future AIPAC contributions.
This marks a significant reversal for an organisation whose support was once widely considered politically valuable.
A Growing Divide Among American Jews
The challenge facing AIPAC extends beyond electoral politics.
Alterman argues that the organisation’s increasingly partisan trajectory has placed it at odds with large sections of American Jewish society.
AIPAC’s close identification with an “Israel first” political approach and its alliances with Republican politicians sit uneasily, he argues, alongside the political views of many American Jews on immigration, race, economic policy and democratic institutions.
The Gaza war has intensified those divisions.
The Washington Post survey showing that 61 per cent of American Jews believe Israel committed war crimes in Gaza, and 39 per cent believe it committed genocide, illustrates a level of criticism that would once have been far more marginal within mainstream American Jewish politics.
Younger Jewish Americans have also shown increasing scepticism towards unconditional support for Israel, deepening the generational challenge confronting established pro-Israel organisations.
Has AIPAC’s Era of Dominance Ended?
Alterman’s argument is not that AIPAC has suddenly become politically irrelevant. The organisation continues to command enormous financial resources and remains active in congressional elections.
Its affiliated political operations continue to spend heavily in Democratic and Republican races, demonstrating that it retains significant capacity to influence electoral contests.
The deeper change is political.
The bipartisan consensus that allowed support for Israel to function for decades as an almost unquestioned feature of Washington politics has weakened, particularly among Democrats.
AIPAC’s decision to remain closely aligned with Israeli government policy while moving closer to Republicans has, in Alterman’s assessment, accelerated that decline.
The organisation that once benefited from standing above America’s partisan divide is increasingly being pulled into it.
And as opposition to Israel’s war in Gaza grows among Democratic voters, progressive politicians and sections of the American Jewish community, AIPAC now faces a problem that money alone may not easily solve: association with the organisation itself is becoming politically controversial.
Alterman concludes that its insistence on placing support for Israel above other political considerations has already damaged its standing within the Democratic Party and could eventually weaken its influence among Republicans as well.
