Malinowski Warns About AIPAC Malinowski-ing Other Malinowskis

A few weeks ago, there was a shock upset in the Democratic special election primary for New Jersey's 11th congressional district. The frontrunner, former U.S. Rep. Tom Malinowski, was long regarded as a pro-Israel moderate. But he faced an avalanche of AIPAC-funded opposition because he signaled willingness to condition aid to Israel.

As is AIPAC's wont, its spending against Malinowski did not generally relate to Israel -- they funded ads attacking him from the left (as allegedly pro-ICE), for instance. But the result of their intervention was perhaps unexpected -- it did not elevate a more orthodox pro-Israel contender to the top of the polls, but rather resulted in a further-left and far more Israel-critical Democrat (Analilia Mejia) surging to victory.

I've written quite a bit about this outcome on Bluesky, of which the basic summary is that AIPAC's conduct will have the effect of (and may be intended to have the effect of) squeezing out moderate pro-Israel Democrats who nonetheless find Bibi-or-bust to no longer be tenable, and the main beneficiaries of that squeeze-out will be more Squad-like progressive critics like Mejia. That AIPAC has defended its spending spree in the NJ-11 notwithstanding this result suggests that they are actually fine with sacrificing mainstream pro-Israel Democrats in favor of more sharp Israel critics. 

Why? My speculation is that someone like Malinowski represents a more immediate threat to AIPAC's monopoly over "pro-Israel" politics. A Jewish individual who is very attached to Israel, but is repulsed by the extremism that typifies the current Israeli government, is more likely to be willing to defect from AIPAC to a Malinowski type than to a Mejia. Way back in my Tablet Mag days I wrote about how Jewish conservatives had an incentive to shrink the pro-Israel tent if it meant solidifying its control over the content of that tent, and this is an example of that. So while I don't think AIPAC believes the NJ-11 outcome is a positive, exactly, it isn't as much of a negative as one might think. More than anything else, AIPAC wants to sabotage the emergence of any political movement that couples care and concern for Israel, its legitimate security needs and democratic prerogatives, with care and concern for Palestinians, their legitimate democratic aspirations and human rights entitlements.

And so my ultimate takeaway was pretty simple: "[I]f you at all think of yourself as in the lane of 'I care about Israel but they, and we, need to change course substantially to align with basic liberal values', AIPAC is your mortal enemy trying to destroy your movement." And while they "will not succeed in stemming the tide of Democrats who no longer are willing to kowtow to any and all Israeli abuses," they "may succeed ... in ensuring that the new Democrats who win elections don’t have any residual affinity for Israel at all."

Anyway, that was my perspective. But I was pleased to see today that Malinowski has published an essay suggesting he basically endorses my view.

Late last year, an AIPAC official told me that the organization was concerned by a statement I had made that the United States should make case-by-case judgements about Israeli requests for military aid, based on what is happening on the ground (a standard I would apply to all U.S. partners, including Ukraine and Taiwan). He added: “Some of our members are also concerned you’ll be influential in Congress” because of my past foreign policy experience.

The implication was that AIPAC considered a small challenge to its hard line of unconditional support for the current Israeli government from someone like me to be scarier than electing a person hostile to the very concept of Zionism, but to whom Democrats might not listen.

But if AIPAC’s definition of “pro-Israel” now demands blind a embrace of and funding for policies that even most Americans with a lifelong commitment to Israeli security cannot in good conscience support—like the violent expulsion of West Bank Palestinians from their homes—and if it requires smearing even the most moderate elected officials who ask questions about those policies, the number of Americans (and the number of members of Congress) who pass its test will be too small to sustain any kind of relationship with the Jewish state.

And he also suggests what I suggest, which is that Democrats need to be explicit in treating AIPAC as what it is -- part of the opposing MAGA coalition. 

But Democrats are not without leverage here, if they have the guts to use it. For one thing, these special interest organizations need to maintain at least the illusion of bipartisanship. AIPAC is a case in point. Its biggest donors are pro-Trump billionaires, but most of its members are Democrats. If Democratic leaders collectively were to refuse its support, instead of letting it pick off candidates one by one, AIPAC would face a crisis of identity and legitimacy. Democrats running for Senate and for president, who will have the resources to match whatever super PACs throw at them, should lead the way in rejecting endorsements and telling these groups they don’t want their help.

On that note, retiring Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) -- another venerable Jewish Democrat occupying the pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, pro-peace lane -- has pulled her endorsement of a fellow Democrat running for a (different) Illinois House seat because she's accepted AIPAC money. It's taken a couple cycles, but AIPAC's brand is increasingly toxic amongst Democrats -- and that's a problem wholly of their own making.

Everywhere and Nowhere

Phoebe Maltz Bovy has an interesting column up on yet another "another anti-Zionist Jewish literary manifesto" that's circulating in Canadian literary spaces. 

The theme of the manifesto is a familiar one: that there is "no room in the Jewish literary establishment for work that sees Palestinians as human, their grievances as legitimate, their oppression horrific, their resistance justified." The writer presents the world as drowning in a particular sort of novel about Jews, one "lamenting the antisemitism on university campuses when that antisemitism is actually just pro-Palestinian sentiment," a superindulgence that is choking off other (better, more important) stories about Palestinian rights.

On this point, Maltz Bovy notes that the manifesto author doesn't actually cite examples of the offending books he has in mind (despite the fact that they are apparently so omnipresent that they deserve an "enough is enough" jeremiad). And then she makes an important observation, one that I want to pick up on:

In thinking ahead to future books coverage, I recently found myself combing all summer 2026 publications available to Canadian readers, in search of Jewish content, preferably but not necessarily Canadian. Search terms came up short, as they will so I went for full, painstaking combing. And there was almost nothing Jewish, along with nothing-nothing Canadian Jewish. (I have since learned I may have missed a children’s picture book that ticks both boxes. My apologies.)

The books that are everywhere are actually nowhere.

This is reflective of a point I've observed before -- a mismatch between a widespread perception (even among many Jews) that Jews are everywhere in our culture, to the point where we are dominating the space and sucking out the oxygen, and a reality that Jews are frequently nowhere -- not represented in the places they supposedly dominate, not especially heard at all. Even if you think about Hollywood, there are of course a ton of Jewish writers and actor ... but a lot fewer Jewish stories than one might think. In my White Jews article, I wrote that

the politics of Jewish invisibility is predicated on a presumption of Jewish omnipresence. Jews are not heard from because everyone assumes they have already heard from Jews—heard enough, perhaps heard too much, perhaps it is time to allow others to talk. Because Jews are thought to be everywhere, the possibility that there is in fact a gap or quietude around Jews becomes almost inconceivable. After all, if there is one thing Jews are not, it's "quiet."

If you're Jewish, everyone is going to think you're centering yourself if you say anything at all. There's no escaping it.