The Daily - Israel, AIPAC and Difficult Questions for Democrats

Episode Date: July 29, 2026

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group known as AIPAC, has spent a record amount of money in this year’s midterm elections to either oust or support candidates based on their support of Israel. Jonathan Mahler, a writer for The New York Times Magazine, discusses the new litmus test for the left at a time when the United States’ relationship with Israel is under scrutiny. Guest: Jonathan Mahler, a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine covering a wide range of topics, including politics, entertainment, education, media, the law and sports. Background reading:  AIPAC wants Democrats to back Israel. Instead, they’re turning on the group. Photo: Cheriss May/Sipa, via Associated Press Images For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.  Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

From the New York Times, I'm Rachel Abrams, and this is the Daily. In this year's midterm elections, APAC, the pro-Israel lobbying group, has spent a record amount of money, mostly in Democratic primaries, to either oust candidates or support candidates, based on a changing definition of what it means to support Israel. Today, my colleague, Jonathan Mahler, explains how this has created a new litmus test for the left, at a time perhaps when America's relationship with Israel has never faced more scrutiny. It's Wednesday, July 29th. Jonathan Mahler, thank you so much for joining us.

Thanks for having me. Jonathan, the relationship between the U.S. and Israel has for years been a huge topic in American politics. But what's felt particularly new and notable to me, at least, is how much that relationship is being both questioned and criticized in this year's midterm election. You have been studying this relationship and how it intersects with our politics for many years and covered it for the New York Times. And so we wanted to turn to you in this moment to understand how you are seeing and thinking about all of this. Well, I have been covering the U.S. Israel relationship kind of in one form or another for decades. I'm almost embarrassed to say. And this looks to me like a very different moment in the U.S.-Israel relationship.

I mean, for the first time, you have a lot of politicians coming out very publicly and, in some cases, like, aggressively, putting distance between the U.S. and Israel. I mean, that was, for decades, unheard of. That was political suicide for a politician. And that is no longer the case, especially on the Democratic side of the aisle. I mean, it's true we've seen some on the right question and challenge their relationship, but the Republican Party is still really, by and large, pro-Israel. And that is not so much the case anymore on the Democratic side. And that is a huge paradigm shift. And it's a shift we're seeing in the halls of Congress, but also out on the campaign trail.

Just give us a couple examples of what you mean by that. Yeah. So a couple of weeks ago in the House, something like 100 Democrats voted to end U.S. military aid to Israel. That's like almost half of all House Democrats. The effort failed. I mean, only one Republican supported it. And so the aid's going to continue. but the vote was really unprecedented.

I mean, we've never seen so many Democrats take a vote like that. And on top of that, we're seeing support for Israel become a major issue in democratic primaries across the country. It's really become a key litmus test in all sorts of races from New York to Illinois to Michigan. And it's really manifested in a debate over APEC or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. It's the main lobbying group working in support of Israel in the U.S.

And at this point, APAC has basically become synonymous with Israel. Right. When you see people talking or debating APEC, what they're essentially debating is U.S. support for Israel. Exactly. APEC is seen as a proxy for Israel. And on top of that, it's also become a stand-in for this larger debate over big money in politics. Because APEC really has become one of the biggest spenders this election cycle. It's poured huge amounts of money into primaries, trying to support candidates, but also to oust them really on the basis of their views toward Israel. So just to bring this all together, what we're seeing how, happening right now is a few different forces colliding at the same time in these midterms via

this debate over APEC. We're seeing both the U.S.-Israel relationship really become front and center and this debate about the role that money should play in our politics. Exactly. It's really a remarkable political moment. And it's one that APEC helped create, probably unintentionally. It's really backed itself into a corner which has forced Democrats to take a side in these big debates. And it's gotten to this point because of a series of key decisions that APEC made since its founding. So I want to talk about the history of APEC and how we've gotten here. Let's go back to the beginning when APEC was formed.

Sort of tell us about that origin story. So APEC was founded really just a few years after the founding of the state of Israel back in 1948. And it really had a simple mission. The idea was to defend and protect and strengthen the U.S. Israel relationship, which was a fairly simple thing to do back then because we were in the aftermath. of the Holocaust. You know, the state of Israel was created with the blessing of the United Nations. America was very much on Israel's side. And so APEC was born to kind of defend and protect that

relationship on both sides of the political aisle. Meaning it was supposed to be bipartisan. Yes, it was supposed to be a bipartisan organization, and it very much was. But it is kind of interesting to note in its earliest incarnation, AAC reflected the politics of the state of Israel, which we have to remember, was a socialist country. I mean, it was a labor Zionist country. So Israel was very far left, and so was APAC. You know, having said that, they very deliberately courted support on both sides of the political aisle. Both Republican and Democratic politicians would go on APAC supported trips to Israel. They both received campaign contributions from APAC. So APAC, you know, now we think of them as this incredibly polarizing force in American politics. It's important to remember

that they were once actually a really unifying force in American politics. APEC was something that both Republicans and Democrats could agree on. It was truly a bipartisan group. And just tell us at a very high level, what was the pitch that APEC was making to the U.S.? Like, what was the rationale for the bipartisan support they were trying to curry at the time? I mean, it was honestly a pretty easy pitch. APEC could say and did say that America's interests and Israel's interests are perfectly aligned.

Israel is the one real democracy in the Middle East. So Israel shares your democratic values. And APAC could also say that Israel is a vital strategic ally, particularly during the Cold War, when a number of the Arab nations were aligned with the Soviet Union and Israel was aligned with the United States. And it had a very powerful military and intelligence operation that was really useful to the United States. So APAC could sort of lean on all of that to make its case to both Democrats and Republicans. And to say nothing of the fact that there are a lot of Jews living in America, a lot of American Jews who were Zionists, who felt strongly about the existence and protection of the state of Israel. And American Jews, you know, of course, had some degree of influence in American politics. And in turn, what is APEC able to achieve for Israel through all of this bipartisan lobbying? Yeah, I mean, over time, it's meant billions of dollars in military aid. In fact, Israel has long been the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid, period. It's allowed them to buy fighter jets, their Iron Dome defense system.

So much of the Israeli military apparatus is in part a product of that U.S. aid. But it's also been political support on the world stage, with the U.S. really firmly backing Israel for decades and decades. So it's very interesting to note that APEC started as a bipartisan organization. Obviously, that is not the case anymore. When did we start seeing that shift? Like, what was the first big inflection point? You know, of course, no relationship is perfect. So over the years, there would be minor dustups between Israel and the United States,

and APAC would have to manage those moments. They were always a bit tricky when there was a little bit of tension between the two countries. But nothing really major, nothing enduring until 2015. In 2015, something really kind of seismic happened for the U.S.-Israel relationship, and in turn, for APAC. And that is... Today, after two years of negotiations, the United States, together were our international partners has achieved something that decades of animosity has not.

President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. Today, President Obama announced an agreement that he says will keep an atomic bomb out of Iranian hands for more than a decade. Critics say it will do the opposite. Which Israel was furious about. Prime Minister Netanyahu really did not want to happen, but Obama was going ahead with it anyway. And so in this moment, the Republicans in Congress...

The speaker has invited the Israeli Prime Minister to address a joint session of Congress. Invite Beebe to come speak before Congress. The general protocol for this kind of thing is for Congress to consult with the White House. Our understanding is that that was not done on purpose. A real poke in the eye to Obama. A real poke in the eye to Obama who said that he did not want this to happen. But Beebe accepts the invitation. Members of Congress, I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you

the Prime Minister of Israel, His Excellency, Benjamin Nanyahu. He comes to Congress. My friends, for over a year, we've been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. He uses that moment to invade against this nuclear deal. That the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That's just not true. The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal. And that moment put APEC in a really difficult situation,

because now they're faced with the prime minister of Israel, the leader of the country that they're here to defend, is really going after the president of the United States, really undermining him, and they have to make a choice. I mean, are we going to side with Israel, or are we going to side with the president? And they chose Israel. They agreed with Beebe's take on it, and they tried to defeat it.

So I understand that Netanyahu was invited by Republicans. It was an insult in some way to the president of the time, Barack Obama. But what are we seeing coming out of this? Yeah, what we're seeing is that there had never been a moment like this. When the United States went forward with a major policy shift that was going to have a major impact on Israel, that Israel was opposed to. So for APAC, which had always been able to support both Israel and the United States, because Israel and the United States interests always seemed to be perfectly

cleanly aligned. Suddenly, America and Israel's interests seem to diverge. They split. And APEC had to line up with one side or the other, and they lined up with Israel. So that was the first big inflection point in

2015. The next one came in 2018. When we saw the election of the squad. Sure. So this was AOC? What people are starting to see, at least in the occupation of Palestine, is an increasing crisis of humanitarian condition. This was Rashida Talib. Will you vote against U.S. military aid for Israel? Absolutely. For me, U.S. aid should be leveraged. This was Ilan Omar. We think of Israel as the only democracy in the Middle East. And as such, we have to make sure

we're holding it to that standard. This was a group of progressive lawmakers who were willing to say things about Israel, critical things about Israel. They'd support the movement known as BDS, which calls for a boycott of Israel until property is returned to Palestinians. And to sort of begin to try to redefine

the American Israel relationship. I mean, no one had ever gone there in this way before. You'd had isolated critics of Israel elected to Congress before, but you definitely never had a block of them in Congress, and especially ones who were young, popular, and progressive. This was going to be a problem for APEC. And so the question becomes, what is APEC going to do about the arrival in Congress of this block of outspoken critics of Israel? And what if this is just the beginning? So what does APEC decide to do? Because at this point in the story. It sounds like APAC has basically identified both a near-term problem with these new lawmakers,

but also it's identified maybe a longer-term issue that the squad might be foreshadowing, just this general shift of opinions on Israel. So how do they respond after these folks are elected to Congress? Yeah. So up until this point, APAC had been steadfast in its approach to U.S. elections, which was basically to encourage its members to make individual donations to candidates who supported Israel on both sides of the aisle. And those donations were limited by law to roughly a few thousand dollars per cycle. So relatively small amounts.

Yeah. I mean, they can add up, but we're still talking about limited amounts of money. But then, as I said, the squad is elected in 2018. And then a couple more members are elected in 2020, Jamal Bowman and Corey Bush,

who join in the criticism of Israel. And so APEC sees this new threat and it decides that the gloves have to come off. Like, small donations are not enough anymore. So what happens is a few years later, before the 2022 midterms, APEC makes a huge, really important decision. And that is that they decide they are going to create their own super PAC, which they call the United Democracy Project.

Not clearly pro-Israel, just to say in that name. Right. The name does not communicate that it is a pro-Israel PAC. And this is significant because this will allow them to steer really unlimited amounts of money into local races, into congressional races. And the political context here is really important because we are now in the post Citizens United decision era, when suddenly it has become possible through these super PACs to give unlimited sums to political campaigns. And APAC, if it wants to continue to be a powerful force in American politics, as it has always been, and if it wants to deal with what it sees as this coming

threat of a real anti-Israel current in Congress, they need to get into this game. They need to get into the big money game. And so they set up this pack for the 2022 midterms, and they got to work spending money. So tell us what that means, Jonathan. Like, how do we see that playing out in elections? Yeah. So in 2022, they sort of dip their toes in. They spend $26 million to support pro-Israel candidates and to oppose anti-Israel ones. But there's also the dark money side of it. which is you can give this money and you can pay for ads that actually don't have anything to do

with the issue your group is interested in. So, you know, in the case of APAC, what we have seen is that they can target an anti-Israel candidate or target a pro-Israel candidate they want to support, and they can dump money into advertising that has absolutely nothing to do with Israel.

They're taking away our rights. Kevin Mullen is fighting back. You would see in 2020, an ad that endorsed a Democratic candidate, or credited a Democratic candidate, for instance, with supporting reproductive rights. Kevin Mullen will work to guarantee all women have the right to make their own medical decisions.

A pro-choice ad, and you would have no idea that it was paid for by Apex Super PAC. To guarantee the right to choose, to vote, to earn a livable wage, fighting for our democratic values. Adam Olié for Congress. UDP is responsible for the content of this ad. importantly, they did something else in the 2022 midterms that really kind of helped fuel our

perception of APAC as a polarizing force in politics. And what they did is they endorsed more than 100 candidates who had supported Trump's effort to overturn the election in 2020. So this was really a slap in the face to a lot of Democratic American Jews, people who had always felt aligned with Israel and therefore with APEC suddenly felt like, whoa, you are choosing what you perceive to be Israel's interests over American democracy. That was a kind of a shocking, single issue position that APEC took that really earned them a lot of critics and future enemies. And how did APEC justify this at the time? Well, you know, to APEC, their whole raison d'etre, the whole reason why they exist is to defend the American

Israel relationship, to protect America's relationship with Israel. And their view of the matter was it didn't matter how these politicians treated the election. What mattered is, what would they do in Congress when a vote came up that was relevant to Israel? Would they vote in Israel's interests or not? And they determined that they would vote in Israel's interests, and therefore they were going to support them regardless. Even if that means supporting election deniers. Exactly. I just want to point out, that feels like a very different strategy than APEC had used before. Yeah, they're assuming a fully partisan, aggressive, money-based posture. I mean, they're throwing their weight around, they're throwing money around, and they're

influencing American politics in a much more direct way. And they're having a lot of success getting pro-Israel candidates elected. And then, of course, something world-changing happens. And that is October 7, 2003. Right. And I think a lot of people remember that after October 7th, when Hamas led an attack on Israel that killed more than a thousand people, there was a brief moment of bipartisement. partisan support for Israel in Congress.

Yes, there was. And for a little while, it was almost like we were back where we once were. We were kind of back in time when there was widespread support and sympathy for Israel. Israel was, again, the victim, I guess you might say, because the narrative in preceding years had started a shift. And that's because Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, especially in the West Bank, had been attracting a growing chorus of criticism. So in the eyes of some Americans, they started to become the perpetrator rather than the victim.

And after October 7th, they were the victims again. But we all know what happens next. Israel goes into Gaza. They cause a lot of destruction. They kill tens of thousands of people, including civilians. And popular opinion starts to turn against Israel. And so for APEC, this is a new kind of threat. And not only a new threat, I mean, a really kind of urgent one,

because there really was a degree of animosity toward Israel in America, in American politics, that we really hadn't seen before. And it is in many ways the manifestation of what they had feared back in 2018 when the squad first arrived in Congress. They had feared that there was going to be a kind of a building anti-Israel movement in Washington. Well, now we seem to be getting

all of the signs that that was indeed coming. We'll be right back. So, Jonathan, once it becomes clear that the tide is turning against Israel, how does APEC decide to respond? Yeah. So AAC goes into complete overdrive. Jamal Bowman voted against condemning Hamas' brutal attack.

He supported a resolution calling the founding of Israel a catastrophe. They spend $120 million in the 2024 election cycle, a staggering amount of money. When Biden really needs her, Cory Bush just isn't there. The facts. Corey Bush has her own agenda. And it's hurting St. Louis. UDP is responsible for the content of this ad. And they rack up two big wins.

They defeat Cory Bush and Jamal Bowman, both members of the squad. And, you know, to AAC, the squad really is kind of ground zero for anti-Israel sentiment in Washington. And of course, that doesn't go unnoticed by the candidates who are unseeded by APEC. We should be outraged when a super pack of dark money can spend $20 million to brainwashed people in the belief.

They're feeling something that isn't true. We should be outraged about that. They're furious, and they call out APEC very explicitly in their concession speeches. And I think it's at this moment where you really begin to see some Democrats on the left try and paint APEC as this boogeyman in American politics. I think I want to pause for a second because I think it is important that we address an elephant in the room, or perhaps several elephants in the room, which is. that even talking about APAC and its support for pro-Israel candidates has brought up in the course

of this conversation, a lot of topics that I think are fodder for well-known anti-Semitic tropes. Like we are talking about Jewish people and money. We're talking about Jewish people, exerting political power. We're talking about an idea that there's a group of Jewish people who prioritize foreign interests over the interests of the United States. So I'm wondering how all of that has played out as APAC has really tried to show its muscle in these different election cycles. Yeah, you're right to bring it up, and it's a really complicated and sensitive issue. I think there's no question that APEC is wielding a lot of influence in American politics, like full stop. It's measurable. It's measurable with the money they're spending. It is indeed measurable with dollar signs. At the same time, there is also no question that APEC's role in American politics has drawn a lot more criticism than the role of place. plenty of other advocacy groups. It is also clear to me, anyway, that there is a degree of

anti-Semitism behind at least some of the criticism of APEC, that there are certain obvious tropes here of Jews and money and political influence that go to the core of the sort of anti-Semitic ideology going back centuries. And you see this unfolding on the left. You also see it unfolding on the right with Tucker Carlson and other APEC critics, you know, who talk about foreign influence in American politics, which often feels like a dog whistle for Jewish influence in American politics. And so this is really difficult stuff to kind of untangle, but it's really important and it's particularly important because this is all happening at a moment when anti-Semitism is unequivocally rising all around the world in really like dangerous and scary ways. So when the

conversation in America begins to tip into like all the Jewish influence in American politics, there is real reason for concern. And APAC, you know, which of course is the first to say that criticizing APAC is anti-Semitic is not always wrong. I mean, there is clearly a kind of a degree of anti-Semitic sentiment behind at least some criticisms of APAC. It sounds like a few things can kind of be true at once here. Like, APAC is having a significant impact on American elections with big donations. And it is also perhaps under more scrutiny than other influential. donors and single interest groups. And the war in Gaza, the changing political tides,

has opened the door to criticism of Israel that perhaps was a non-starter before and also open the door to a lot of anti-Semitic rhetoric that has become normalized. I think that's exactly right. I mean, Apex actions and right or wrong, their actions, have provided an opening, honestly, for bad actors, but in particular, in a sort of worrying sense, for people who are not just criticizing Israel, but who are criticizing Jews and Jewish influence. You know, I think Jonathan, it would be helpful just to understand whether that argument has any merit to it to compare the spending and influence of APEC to perhaps other single-issue super PAC. So, in other words, does A-PAC actually give more money than other single-issue super-packs?

Yeah, that's a really important point. I mean, A-PAC is definitely up there, but it actually gives comparable amounts to the crypto lobby and the AI lobby. And we're seeing some backlash against those packs in some recent election cycles. But APAC definitely gets the majority of the heat. So I think that brings us to this year and the 2026 midterms. Talk to us, Jonathan, about the role that we've seen APAC play so far and what the response to their role has been. Yeah. So what's happened in 2026 has really been kind of fascinating because APAC has again gone out and decided to spend big in various races. But what has happened is that APAC has had to shift its strategy. And what they've had to do in 2026 is because so many moderate Democrats are now starting to question

America's unconditional support for Israel. APAC has had to, or has at least decided to target moderate Democrats, moderate Democrats who in many cases consider themselves to be supporters of Israel, consider themselves to be pro-Israel. And that has, has made APEC even more polarizing. But why alienate people who have expressed a lot of support for Israel, especially at a time when that support is waning? Like, what is the thinking behind that strategy? Yeah. I mean, APEC has created what is essentially a kind of a basic litmus test for what it means to be pro-Israel. And that litmus test is if you question unconditional American military

support for Israel, you are not pro-Israel enough. So in creating this very strict litmus test, it sounds like APEC has actually expanded the pool of lawmakers that it's spending against. So where have we seen that dynamic play out so far in these midterms? Yeah. The first race that APEC really got involved in in this cycle was the Democratic primary for a house seat in New Jersey. And they targeted a representative there named Tom Malinowski. And Tom Malinowski is like by no means a squad member. He is by no means a progressive.

I believe in Israel's right to. exist and defend itself as a Jewish and democratic state, particularly after the atrocity of October 7th. He also is a believer in defending America's commitment to defend Israel's security. I had a perfect pro-Israel voting record in Congress. In fact, he had angered some people by refusing to call Israel's war in Gaza genocide. He would not use the G-word. But he also has been very critical of Israel's response to October 7th. And he thinks that the U.S. should be making kind of case by case decisions on military aid to Israel. So no longer unconditional.

That sounds very key here. Exactly. He wants to place conditions. He wants to consider every allocation that the United States makes to Israel's military. Tom Malinowski says members of Congress shouldn't be allowed to trade stocks. But in Congress, he cashed in on COVID-related stocks. So APEC SuperPack spent over $2 million, I think over $2.3 million to defeat him. ISIS deportation force is out of control.

Tom Malinowski voted with Trump to increase funding. And they did so by running ads that were not explicitly about Israel, but by attacking Malinowski on other issues that they thought would be disqualifying in the eyes of Democratic primary voters. We just can't trust Tom Malinowski. UDP is responsible for the content of this ad. Malinowski was completely outraged by this, especially the ICE ad, which landed right at the time that two American citizens were shot and killed by federal agents in Minnesota.

I'm here at an anti-ice rally where I just finished giving a speech, and we just found out, believe it or not, that a dark money group has put an ad on television accusing me of supporting ICE. And he let his voters know what was going on. This is the first time they've gone after someone who has mainstream views on Israel. And the ad itself is a despicable and unforgivable life.

But in this instance, Apex's efforts completely backfired. They did succeed in defeating Malinowski, but their candidate, the candidate they were backing, also lost. And instead, the nominee was a progressive candidate who was way to Malinowski's left on Israel. Wow. So they got a candidate that was even more hostile to the cause they were trying to champion in this race. Exactly. Which makes me wonder why APEC would even take the kind of risk to begin with. Like, I understand that Malinowski didn't pass this new litmus test, but it still seems really risky to go after moderate Democrats. Yeah. Well, in many ways, you can see someone like Tom Melanowski as a bigger threat to APEC than a member of the squad, because he's a moderate Democrat who is still, yes, supportive of Israel, but is starting to very openly question America's unconditional support for Israel. So when you have moderates, and he's by no means the only one, who are beginning to look critically at the U.S. Israel relationship, something that was really unheard of, not that many years ago,

That is a sign that things are actually like getting serious for APAC, that they really have to watch out because this is not just a phenomenon on the far left. This is becoming a phenomenon among moderate Democrats. And so it's almost a bigger threat to APAC that moderate Democrats are starting to sound much more critical of Israel than they had in the past. And so they need to do everything they can to keep them out of office. Give us another example, Jonathan, of how you've seen this play out. Yeah, well, another kind of amazing example, which sort of speaks to the role that APEC is trying to play in this election and the ways that it's backfiring is a house race that was in the suburbs of Chicago where APEC targeted a guy named Daniel Biss, who had been the mayor of the city of Evanston. Biss like Malinowski is a sort of more moderate Democrat who has raised some questions about America's unconditional support for Israel, but is still not far left by any means and certainly not anti-Israel, and is in fact the grandson of Holocaust. survivors. This has strong connections to Israel. He has family in Israel. And he got kind of a whiff of the fact that APEC was potentially going to get involved in his race in Illinois. And so, you know, he went to

APEC and said, listen, don't do this. I am willing to speak to you guys anytime. If I'm, if I'm elected, my door is always open to APEC. We can discuss any Israel-related issue. And A-PAC said to him, what we need you to do, if you want us to back out of this race or to not get involved in your race, is to support unrestricted military aid for Israel. And Biss said, I'm not going to do that. And so it became clear to him at that moment that APEC was going to get involved in his race. To try to defeat him.

To try to defeat him. And so what he did at that point is that he polled voters in his district and asked them how they felt about APEC. And the numbers that came back were 51% of those polled said they viewed AAC unfavorably, and only 17% said they viewed AAPA favorably. I'm Daniel Biss, and I'm running for Congress in the 9th District of Illinois.

So armed with that information, Bisk decides to actually campaign on the fact that he's being attacked by APEC, that he was, in other words, like the anti-Apac candidate. They're calling me anti-Israel because I don't think starvation should be used as a weapon of war, because I don't think the U.S. should have been bankrolling the bombs that Bibi was dropping on Palestinian civilians. And he really leans into his Jewish identity as part of this. They want to scare Jewish people like me out of criticizing the Israeli government. they want to silence us.

But listen, I criticize the Israeli government exactly because Israel is so important to me. Israel was a safe haven for my grandparents after they survived the Holocaust. I think it gives him an opportunity to both kind of demonize APAC in a sense, but also speak to voters about his own evolving understanding

of Israel and the American-Israel relationship. Apak and their allies know that it's exactly my connection to Israel that makes me so dangerous to their hard-line right-wing agenda. And so that was successful for BIS. He wins the Democratic primary. So there was kind of a growing recognition that it was good politics to publicly distance yourself from APEC

and even potentially tar your opponent as being supported by APEC. Right. Well, to that point, the next big test of this coming up is next week in Michigan, the Democratic primary for the Senate seat there. So just tell us, what are you paying attention to in that race? Yeah, I mean, we're seeing there in Michigan a race where APAC is spending more money than they have ever spent before in a single race, something approaching $30 million, which they have spent supporting Haley Stevens, who is a moderate blue-collar pro-manufacturing Democrat, a kind of old-school Michigan Democrat, who is running against Abdul El-Said, who is the son of Egyptian immigrants, far to the left, very opposed to U.S. aid to Israel, very vocal about what he describes as a genocide in gun. Gaza has really turned Israel into a kind of a central plank of his campaign there and has also seized not just on the Israel side of this, but the kind of corrupting influence of money and dark money

in American politics and sort of turning APEC into a symbol of the kind of corrupting influence of money in politics. And how is Haley-Stevens approaching the fact that she is getting so much support from A-PAC? Like, is she trying to run against that, given the other examples that you've laid out? Yeah, no, she's taking. taken a different approach toward APEC and really even toward Israel. I mean, she has criticized Netanyahu in the past, but she has embraced AAC. She considers herself and speaks of herself as being a proud supporter of Israel, though she's not Jewish. But I think in general, you can sort of see her as more of an

exception to the rule that's come to define many of these democratic primaries. And if El-Said wins the primary, I mean, he has a chance of winning the seat in the general election in November for sure. And if he does, he'll be a sitting U.S. Democratic senator calling for the end of U.S. aid to Israel, which is definitely not something we've ever seen before. What is so interesting about this, Jonathan, is that we are arriving in this moment, not just because of October 7th, not just because of our hyper-partisan time, but also because of a series of decisions that APEC has made over the years. That has helped to lead us to where we are today. This organization that started as a bipartisan organization to support U.S.-Israel

relations. It has now become one of the causes for that relationship deteriorating. And so I wonder where do you think that leaves APAC? It doesn't seem like these dynamics are going away anytime soon. So what are the options for it going forward? So APAC is really at a crossroads right now. What it could do and, you know, what it might do is begin to recognize that there isn't necessarily a single litmus test for being pro-Israel. There should be room in the kind of pro-Israel tent for politicians on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats,

who are willing to criticize Israel, have real questions about this Israeli government, about the actions of this Israeli government, and want to scrutinize the military and financial support we give the state of Israel, but still support Israel. In other words, APAC could come to a place where they begin to recognize

that they can't stop this. they cannot prevent the shifting of the tides that's happening right now. They have to acknowledge it. You know, and the reality is that the way things are moving right now in American politics, if they want to remain relevant, APEC may not really have a choice because this same shift that we've been talking about on the left is also happening, albeit a lot more slowly, and with very different dynamics on the right.

It is not hard to imagine that in the future, there could be a race with two candidates who are both critics of Israel. And APEC is going to have to, if it wants to remain relevant, is going to have to reconsider what it means to be pro-Israel. Jonathan Mueller, thank you so much. Thank you for having me. This week, President Trump appeared to lose his patience with Israel and its leader, Benjamin Netanyahu,

who met with the president at the White House on Tuesday. ahead of that meeting, Trump told reporters that without his support for the war against Iran, Israel would not have survived. If I didn't get involved, Trump claimed Israel would have been terminated. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. He was a man who gave America the full measure of his good and mighty heart until that heart itself just gave out. President Trump eulogized South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham in a memorial service at the National Cathedral on Tuesday. Hailing Graham, who died this month at the age of 71,

as, quote, one of the great figures in Senate history. He went out at the peak of his career, the top of his game, is a legend that every one of us, many of us here today, blessed to know him and a friend that none of us will ever forget. The two men didn't always agree on policy, which the president referenced in his remarks, particularly when it came to foreign affairs. He was extremely hawkish. I will tell you, he never saw a war that he didn't like. The Fox News host, Sean Hannity, also spoke,

saying that Graham was often unfairly characterized as a warmonger. Lindsay desperately wanted and talked to the president about a lasting peace in the Middle East. Some of the foreign dignitaries whose causes Graham championed as a senator were in attendance, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and President Volomir Zelenskyy of Ukraine. And emergency workers race to find survivors of a powerful 6.8 magnitude earthquake in southwestern Japan on Tuesday. The quake, which hit around 4.30 p.m. local time, ignited fires and damaged buildings.

At least one person has been confirmed dead, and dozens more are injured or missing. Today's episode was produced by Ricky Nevetsky and Chris Benderev with help from Olivia Natt. It was edited by Rachel Quester with help from Patricia Willens. contains music by Marion Lazzano, Dan Powell, Rowan Nemisto, and Alicia Baito. Our theme music is by Wonderly. This episode was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. That's it for the Daily. I'm Rachel Abrams. See you tomorrow.