Unsolicited Advice for My Friends at AIPAC and the Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI)
Why pro-Israel organizations need a different strategy for Democratic primaries—and a new political alternative for 2028
Key Findings
Democratic socialist gains are driven mainly by domestic economic concerns, not Israel.
Heavy spending in Democratic primaries is often an inefficient response.
AIPAC should emphasize education and selective candidate support.
Deep-blue districts need a viable center-left alternative in general elections.
A small third-party bloc could matter greatly in a closely divided Congress.
The Democratic socialist and allied progressive left has scored a series of striking victories in 2026. Most of the Democratic Socialist victories in Democratic primaries occurred in deep-blue districts where the winner of the primary is currently guaranteed to win in the general election.
These races include: CO-1—Melat Kiros, beat longtime incumbent; PA-3—Chris Rabb, won Philadelphia seat; NY-7—Claire Valdez, socialist-backed victory; NY-10—Brad Lander, defeated Dan Goldman; NY-13—Darializa Avila Chevalier, defeated incumbent; NJ-11—Analilia Mejia, won Sherrill seat; NJ-12—Adam Hamawy, Gaza surgeon wins; MI-13—Donavan McKinney, defeated incumbent; and CA-14—Aisha Wahab, faces Melissa Hernandez in both August special and November general elections.
The progressive left has also produced candidates in less overwhelmingly Democratic states and districts including: Abdul El-Sayed MI, Troy Jackson ME, Manny Rutinel CO-8, William Lawrence MI-7, and Sam Forstag MT-1. These races test whether the progressive left can win beyond deep-blue electorates.
I have some comments on the reasons for the debacle and some suggestions on how groups like AIPAC and DMFI should proceed both in the current and future election cycles.
First, there must be a recognition that the world does not revolve around Israel. The rise of the progressive left probably has much more to do with intense frustration over health insurance, economic opportunity, and income and wealth inequality. Democratic socialists have responded with proposals such as Medicare for All and aggressive redistribution that are often impractical but highly appealing to the relatively small share of voters who participate in Democratic primaries—often roughly 20 percent of the eventual general-election electorate.
Republican candidates with the party’s record on cutting SNAP benefits and premium subsidies for health care are not competitive in many districts, regardless of the Democrat’s position towards Israel. In deep-blue districts, however, winning that primary usually means winning the seat, allowing strongly anti-Israel socialists to enter Congress even when their broader views may not represent the district’s general-election electorate. I understand this outcome because many voters even if they disagree with the Democrat’s view on Israel differ from the Republican party on a wide variety of issues including immigration, health care, economic policy, the growing isolationism and most of all concerns about President Trump.
The long-term answer therefore cannot simply be spending more money in Democratic primaries. Deep-blue districts need a pragmatic progressive or center-left alternative in the general election, something neither the Republican nor Democratic party can provide. The long-term solution to the declining political support for Israel is the creation of a viable political party with a pragmatic approach to governing and a reasonable approach to Israel.
The short-term options for AIPAC and DMFI in the 2026 cycle are relatively narrow because the die has largely been set for the fall election. In some cases, AIPAC support has backfired, as in the NJ 11 primary, where their intervention led to the nomination of a more radical Democrat. In Michigan the expenditures for Stevens may have weakened El-Sayed but there were less expensive ways to accomplish this.
AIPAC needs to move away from support of individual candidates and towards a broader education effort about the conflict and the world. In the current cycle, AIPAC should explain why terrorism and the history of the intifadas have made an Israeli Palestinian settlement so difficult, distinguish legitimate criticism of Israeli governments from efforts to delegitimize Israel, and confront Iran’s role in supporting terrorism and destabilizing the region—including the brutal repression of the Iranian people themselves. These educational efforts do not always have to be tied to an individual race.
Some 2026 candidates in both parties do deserve AIPAC support both because of their support for Israel and the views of their opponent. These candidates include Melissa Hernandez (D), CA-14; Janelle Stelson (D), PA-10; Eileen Laubacher (D), CO-4; Paige Cognetti (D), PA-8; Elaine Luria (D), VA-2; Don Davis (D), NC-1; Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D), WA-3; Emilia Sykes (D), OH-13; Bobby Pulido (D), TX-15; Tom Barrett (R), MI-7; Gabe Evans (R), CO-8; Aaron Flint (R), MT-1; and Brent Taylor (R), TN-9.
The most important long-term problem is preventing Democratic socialists in deep-blue districts from becoming permanently entrenched in Congress. These candidates are often nominated in primaries dominated by activists and involving only around 30 percent of the voters who will participate in the general election. Yet once they win the Democratic nomination, the political composition of these districts makes election in November almost automatic. These candidates cannot be beaten in the Democratic primary. The only way to beat the candidates is the construction of a pragmatic and progressive third-party which champions economically efficient and progressive solutions.
The potential universe of deep-blue districts where a pragmatic progressive alternative could compete is considerably larger than the handful in which democratic-socialist candidates were elected this term. A substantial bloc of Democrats in the current Congress supports policies associated with the party’s progressive wing, including Medicare for All, major elements of the Green New Deal, and increasingly critical positions toward Israel. The relevant question is not whether a pragmatic-progressive alternative could win every such race; it plainly would not. The question is whether it could win enough of them to matter.
Even if an independent or third-party candidate had only about a one-in-six chance of prevailing in a competitive three-way race, victories in even a handful of deep-blue districts could upend the existing political calculus. In a House in which control may depend on only a few seats, such candidates could become pivotal to determining the majority and could demonstrate that winning the Democratic primary no longer guarantees election in November.
The problem will be more acute in 2028 and spread to even more Senate and House seats. Schumer is likely to be challenged in New York and Bennet is likely to be challenged in Colorado, actions that will endanger two pro-Israel Democrats.
The most effective way to stop the increase of socialist anti-Israel candidates from entering Congress is not beating them in primaries where most voters are progressive but beating them in the general election by fielding a pragmatic fiscally conservative progressive. The rationale for an organization built around the idea of a Democratic Majority for Israel is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. Pro-Israel Democrats deserve support, but there is no longer a dependable pro-Israel majority within the Democratic Party.
On July 15, 103 House Democrats voted for Thomas Massie’s amendment eliminating $3.3 billion in annual assistance to Israel, compared with 98 Democrats opposed, and 10 voting present. Democratic leadership itself divided, with Hakeem Jeffries opposing the amendment and Katherine Clark supporting it.
The decision of centrist Democrats to oppose Israel is couched in terms of opposing Netanyahu and the current government and support for a two-state solution. But these votes do not reflect the recent history where Palestinians turned their backs on Oslo, started violent Intifadas, and then initiated October 7.
The movement by Democrat centrists away from Israel is an attempt to placate the growing anti-Israel wing of the party. Melat Kiros has described October 7 as an “inevitable consequence” of apartheid and occupation while denying that this justified the attack. Darializa Avila Chevalier defended attending a pro-Palestinian demonstration on October 8, 2023, and supports a one-state solution. Abdul El-Sayed has called Israel’s conduct genocide and apartheid, favors ending U.S. military aid, and has repeatedly resisted directly affirming Israel’s right to exist specifically as a Jewish state.
Centrist Democrats seem increasingly unwilling to draw boundaries around such rhetoric. Buttigieg, Newsom, Whitmer, Slotkin and Stevens have now all endorsed El-Sayed after he won the nomination. There must be some point at which principle overrides party loyalty. As the old saying goes, lie down with dogs and you get fleas.
I cannot simply migrate to the Republican Party. I find much of its immigration policy gratuitously cruel, oppose its large reductions in Medicaid and food assistance, and disagree with combining those cuts with very large tax reductions. CBO estimates that the 2025 reconciliation law will reduce Medicaid spending by about $1.2 trillion and SNAP by $211 billion through 2035 while greatly expanding immigration enforcement.
I would however if I was a resident of Michigan vote for Mike Rogers and if I was a resident of Maine vote for Susan Collins.
On foreign policy, the growing isolationism of Thomas Massie, Rand Paul, Marjorie Taylor Greene and influential voices such as Tucker Carlson creates another reason for concern. Trump remains more supportive of Israel, but his foreign policy is unpredictable and his commitment to supporting the Iranian people has been inconsistent.
An AIPAC backed third party can win by uniting people in the center in both deep blue and deep red districts and in swing districts where voters do not want either Republican or Democratic party rule. This approach will give substantive results as early as 2028 when a relatively small number of successful third-party candidates could control the balance of power in the House of Representatives and maybe also the Senate.
Author’s Note: One place to start would be recruiting candidates with credible answers to the domestic problems that are driving voters toward the socialist left—for example, candidates willing to support the practical health-care reforms outlined in A Durable Path Forward on American Health Care. Amazon Kindle edition. This book is linked to other policy proposals on student debt, retirement income and taxes. I appreciate your support.