The American Israel Public Affairs Committee has been a blight on Democratic politics and U.S. foreign policy for at least 40 years. As the propaganda and financial arm of the Zionist lobby, AIPAC lobbies and directs campaign contributions aimed at ensuring that no matter how disgraceful Israel’s behavior, U.S. presidents don’t dare to cross Israel’s government, and Democratic senators and members of the House think twice before breathing a word of criticism lest they face retribution and ouster.

When I first wrote about AIPAC in 1986, in a cover piece for The New Republic titled "Unholy Alliance," AIPAC had come up with the idea of raising money from conservatives to back pro-Israel Republican senators against liberal Democrats. Though TNR at the time was owned by Martin Peretz, very much a Zionist, even Peretz was disgusted by the ploy.

In those years, despite the "PAC" in its initials, AIPAC did not have a political action committee. Rather, it coordinated political spending among several Israel-right-or-wrong PACs.

AIPAC was always a menace because it reinforced the ancient blood libel that Jews have dual loyalty. In this trope, Jews may seem like patriotic Americans, but when push comes to shove they are more loyal to their tribe. This was already a problem before Israel existed, and even more of a problem as Israel’s behavior became more and more inhumane. Despite AIPAC, polls show that most American Jews are critical of Netanyahu’s actions in Gaza.

Lately, AIPAC’s own tactics have become even more of a menace to the Democratic Party, to the ability of Democratic presidents to have an effective Mideast policy, and to the incubation of antisemitism. If a modern Shakespeare wanted to place Shylock in the 21st century, he could hardly do better than to invent AIPAC and Netanyahu. Shylock was actually a far more attractive and complex character.

In the past few election cycles, AIPAC created its own PAC. So far in 2024, AIPAC has spent just over $100 million. Worse, AIPAC hit on the tactic of targeting incumbent Democratic progressives and other Democratic House candidates who are less than 100 percent faithful to the AIPAC line.

AIPAC recruits candidates, lavishly funds them, spends a fortune on ads, and the ads never mention Israel but find other reasons to attack their targets. This year, AIPAC’s super PAC, United Democracy Project, spent $14.6 million to knock off progressive Jamaal Bowman in NY-16. AIPAC spending also helped defeat Cori Bush in Missouri’s First District.

In an even more deplorable contest, AIPAC managed to find an obscure candidate in the safe Democratic Oregon House seat being vacated by the retirement of progressive Earl Blumenauer. A last-minute spending blitz allowed Maxine Dexter, virtually unknown in Oregon Democratic politics, to beat Susheela Jayapal, the popular Multnomah (Portland) County Commissioner, who had been far ahead in the polls.

These tactics not only serve as a warning to other Democratic House members. They add to the constraints on the likes of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris when they consider more than the most tepid criticism of Netanyahu.

This year’s Democratic National Convention was a lovefest for Kamala Harris. That unified enthusiasm was genuine, because of the immense relief following Biden’s decision to step aside and the improved prospects of beating Trump. But, taking no chances, the party’s top leader vetted every speech and warned speakers not to depart from the teleprompter.

After more than a week of negotiations and vetting, party leaders vetoed the idea of a Muslim American speaking, despite draft speeches that were entirely supportive of Harris. The proposed short speech that Ruwa Romman, the first Palestinian American elected to the state legislature in Georgia, was not permitted to give spoke about the pain of watching the slaughter in Gaza but ended on this note:

Let’s commit to each other, to electing Vice President Harris and defeating Donald Trump who uses my identity as a Palestinian as a slur. Let’s fight for the policies long overdue—from restoring access to abortions to ensuring a living wage, to demanding an end to reckless war and a ceasefire in Gaza. To those who doubt us, to the cynics and the naysayers, I say, yes we can—yes we can be a Democratic Party that prioritizes funding our schools and hospitals, not for endless wars. That fights for an America that belongs to all of us—Black, brown, and white, Jews and Palestinians, all of us, like my grandfather taught me, together.

Does anyone, other than AIPAC, doubt that allowing this speech would have been good for Democratic unity, and good for Harris’s prospects generally and notably in Michigan?

What, then, to do about the AIPAC scourge?

The Democratic Party leadership, especially the leadership of state parties, needs to find some way to make receipt of AIPAC funds radioactive for candidates. National party committees need to support incumbents against AIPAC-backed challengers.

Larry Cohen, who heads the Bernie Sanders–inspired group Our Revolution and who is the smartest party parliamentary expert, reminded me, "Dark and dirty money in Democratic Party primaries is currently unregulated by the 57 state and territorial parties. The Citizens United decision does not apply to parties, and the record sums that AIPAC spent defeating Bush, Bowman, and Susheela Jayapal should be a wake-up call for state parties to consider their options."

This will not be easy. Money talks. The slander that to be critical of Netanyahu is to be an antisemite talks even louder. What a shameful chapter in the long history of Judaism as a force for moral good.