[[link removed]]

AIPAC DEMANDS DEMOCRATS ‘STAND WITH ISRAEL’  
[[link removed]]


 

David Dayen, Ryan Grim, Nicolae Butler, Pablo Manriquez
June 18, 2025
The American Prospect
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The pro-Israel lobbying group has sent a flurry of communications
to members of Congress, citing specific language for them to parrot in
support of Israel’s strikes on Iran. _

Israeli flags are carried during a rally near the U.S. Capitol on
July 19, 2023, to welcome Israeli President Isaac Herzog to
Washington., Bryan Olin Dozier/NurPhoto // The American Prospect

 

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has been
furiously urging House Democrats to release messages of steadfast
support for Israel in its war with Iran, the _Prospect _and Drop
Site News have learned, even as bipartisan lawmakers come together on
a War Powers Act resolution to prevent U.S. troops or funds being used
in yet another Middle East conflagration.

One member relayed that a colleague had received literally 100 phone
calls from members of AIPAC and its allied pressure groups. AIPAC
wants House Democratic members to state explicitly that they “stand
with Israel” in its actions against Iran aimed at destroying the
Islamic Republic’s nuclear capability, and add that Iran “must
never have a nuclear weapon.”

In addition, AIPAC has taken particular pains to denigrate the
moderate pro-Israel group J Street, both in private conversations with
members of Congress and in public, picking a fight aimed at blocking
any Democrats from using J Street as cover to deviate from AIPAC’s
maximalist position. “They’re worried their members in Congress
may start to shift toward J Street and they’re trying to head that
off,” said an aide to one Democrat.

“I did see that AIPAC took issue with my statement
[[link removed]],” said Rep.
Pramila Jayapal of Washington state. “They were taking on J Street
for endorsing me, which was ridiculous.” To get a sense of how
extreme AIPAC’s demands are, note that J Street’s own statement
[[link removed]] merely
calls for diplomacy while still supporting Israel. “We urge the
Trump Administration to meaningfully pursue a diplomatic resolution to
this conflict as quickly as possible while making clear the US will do
what is necessary to defend Israel and US troops from retaliation,”
the statement read. 

AIPAC’s urgency may be due to a somewhat surprising amount of
dissent among some congressional Democrats against Israel’s
coordinated attacks on Iran.

AIPAC issued the same tweet
[[link removed]] in response to any
statement that fell short of its expectations, such as one by Rep.
Greg Casar of Texas
[[link removed]], which called for
a diplomatic resolution: “Consistent pattern: J Street endorsees
issue anti-Israel statements. @jstreetdotorg is many things, but
it’s not pro-Israel.”

The messages reflect one way special interests shape policies in
Washington, where a conforming statement is a metric lobbyists can
cite to show their dominance. While not everyone received this
bombardment of communications from AIPAC officials—particularly
progressives who have made their views known about Israel’s
actions—judging by a substantial portion of House Democrats, the
effort appears to be having an effect.

According to a review of member statements at their congressional
websites and on social media, 28 House Democrats have issued messages
saying explicitly that they “stand with Israel,” or some close
variation thereof. Another 35 express unequivocal support for Israel
without using the magic words “stand with Israel” precisely, but
they leave no doubt as to the member’s support. And 16 others
express “soft” support for Israel, without quite the same
inflammatory language.

Three statements have been held up by AIPAC in particular, according
to sources familiar with the situation, as models for others to
follow. Those are from Reps. Greg Landsman
[[link removed]] (D-OH), Mike
Levin [[link removed]] (D-CA),
and George Whitesides
[[link removed]] (D-CA). All
are “frontline” members who had relatively close elections in
2024.

“Israel is justifiably defending itself and its people,” Landsman
said in his statement
[[link removed]].
“Iran’s nuclear program isn’t just an existential threat to
Israel and the Middle East, it’s a threat to the world … I stand
with Israel and the rest of the West as we confront this threat
together.” Levin similarly states
[[link removed]] that
“the Iranian regime … must never obtain a nuclear weapon … No
nation can be expected to stand by while another openly threatens its
existence.” Whitesides, a freshman from northern Los Angeles
County, followed suit
[[link removed]]: “The
government of Iran, which has sown death and destruction across the
Middle East for decades, cannot be allowed to develop an operational
nuclear weapon, and we must stand with our ally Israel.”

The “stand with Israel” caucus includes some usual suspects who
have long backed up Israel’s actions, from Reps. Ted Lieu
[[link removed]] and Brad
Sherman
[[link removed]] in
California, to Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz
[[link removed]] and Lois
Frankel [[link removed]] in
Florida, to Problem Solvers and New Democrats like Josh Gottheimer
[[link removed]] (D-NJ)
and Brad Schneider
[[link removed]] (D-IL).
But freshman and swing-state members are also well
represented—precisely the type of members who survive on large
campaign donations from the likes of AIPAC.

First-term representatives Johnny Olszewski
[[link removed]] (D-MD), April
McClain Delaney
[[link removed]] (D-MD), Herbert
Conaway
[[link removed]] (D-NJ), John
Mannion
[[link removed]] (D-NY),
and Suhas Subramanyam
[[link removed]] (D-VA) were all
in the explicit “stand with Israel” caucus, while freshman
members Luz Rivas
[[link removed]] (D-CA), Sarah
Elfreth
[[link removed]] (D-MD), Maggie
Goodlander
[[link removed]] (D-NH), Laura
Gillen
[[link removed]] (D-NY),
and George Latimer
[[link removed]] (D-NY) agreed
with the sentiment but without the explicit “stand with Israel”
wording. Other members in perennially difficult electoral battles,
like Reps. Jared Golden
[[link removed]] (D-ME)
and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez
[[link removed]] (D-WA), stood with
Israel as well, along with numerous members of the Congressional Black
Caucus.

Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ), who recently won the nomination for
governor of New Jersey, also released a statement
[[link removed]] that reflected
hard support for Israel. Her race in the general election against
Republican Jack Ciattarelli will be prohibitively expensive.

 
(Photo: Vincent Ricci/SOPA Images  //  The American Prospect)
AIPAC’S URGENCY MAY BE DUE to a somewhat surprising amount of
dissent among some congressional Democrats against Israel’s
coordinated attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, military sites, and
residential compounds, killing senior Iranian commanders and six
nuclear scientists along with hundreds of civilians.

For example, Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), ranking member on the Senate Armed
Services Committee, said Israel’s “alarming decision to launch
airstrikes on Iran” was “a reckless escalation that risks igniting
regional violence.” Other military veterans like Reed, such as
Reps. Seth Moulton
[[link removed]] (D-MA)
and Jason Crow
[[link removed]] (D-CO), were
similarly skeptical.

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) echoed the AIPAC-provided language, saying,
“There’s no one here that disagrees that Iran should not have a
nuclear weapon.” Yet he expressed concerns about Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s posture, calling for “secure
briefings” that he says have not yet occurred. Luján also pointed
to surprising Republican voices, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who
have advocated for noninvolvement, signaling a potential shift in GOP
sentiment.

These modest splits from the party line have opened new and critical
questions about presidential war powers, where several members of the
House and Senate are poised to challenge executive authority as the
president considers airstrikes against Iran
[[link removed]].

“The Constitution is very clear that no president can bomb another
country or begin a war with the country without the permission of
Congress,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) insisted. My hope is that there
won’t be any U.S. involvement.” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) echoed
this, arguing, “The president can’t undertake military action
without a vote of Congress. Right now, I don’t see any circumstance
in which direct U.S. military involvement would make us safer.”

Two pieces of legislation aim to quash U.S. involvement. One,
introduced by independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, is titled the
No War With Iran Act and has seven Democratic co-sponsors. Sen. Tim
Kaine’s War Powers Resolution
[[link removed]] seeks
to reassert congressional authority over military engagements. In the
House, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) announced
[[link removed]] on Monday
that he would issue a War Powers Resolution, which quickly got
support
[[link removed]] from
15 Democratic members.

But several other U.S. senators seemed to abandon the constitutional
role they have in authorizing military action, stating their general
opposition to entering the Middle East but—in the words of Indiana
Republican Sen. Jim Banks—their absolute “trust” in Trump.

“I trust President Trump. He’s the commander in chief. He’ll
decide what role we play,” Banks declared. He framed Trump as a
singular force for peace, asserting, “President Trump is the
greatest peacemaker in my lifetime. If there’s anybody that can
avoid war in the Middle East and bring peace, it’s him. He’s done
it before.” Banks, a veteran of Afghanistan, tied his stance to a
broader rejection of “prolonged ‘forever wars,’” vowing to
dedicate his time in Congress to preventing another Afghanistan-like
quagmire. “That was a mistake, a prolonged forever war. We should
never do that again. But President Trump’s not going to allow that
to happen.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), a co-sponsor of the No War With Iran
Act, lambasted Senate Republicans for their apparent inability to
challenge Trump, quipping, “They’ve all had their spines removed.
None of them seem capable of standing up to Donald Trump, which means
they cannot fulfill their oaths to the Constitution.”

WHEN ASKED ABOUT PRESSURE from constituents, senators reported
varying levels of engagement. Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), who
expressed support for action against Iran, said he’s faced little
pushback, stating, “I believe we need to move on Iran.” Sen. Tommy
Tuberville (R-AL) dismissed constituent concerns, noting,
“Everybody’s living their own life over here. That’s a long ways
away.” He deferred to Trump’s judgment, adding, “Whatever
President Trump decides to do, I’m all for helping them out.”

Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) aligned his constituents’ views with
Trump’s desire to end the “carnage,” saying, “The pressure
that I feel is the same that President Trump has articulated. He wants
this to come to an end.”

Sen. John Boozman (R-AR) acknowledged widespread concern, stating,
“The whole country is very concerned about what’s going on over
there,” but avoided committing to a specific stance.

Conversely, Sen. Murphy noted a lack of appetite for war among his
constituents, saying, “There’s not an appetite in this country for
another war in the Middle East.” Luján highlighted the need for
more transparency, suggesting that public and congressional unease
stems from a lack of information.

That was also the assessment of Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), an early
co-sponsor of the War Powers Resolution in the House, who cast the
debate in political terms. “Donald Trump took the anti-war lane from
us in 2016 and 2024. We have a chance to take it back by clearly
opposing Netanyahu’s strikes and being a bold voice for
diplomacy,” Khanna said. “Democrats underestimate how much
ordinary Americans are tired of war.”

_This is a collaboration with Drop Site News
[[link removed]], an independent news site about
politics and war._

_[DAVID DAYEN is the Prospect’s executive editor. His work has
appeared in The Intercept, The New Republic, HuffPost, The Washington
Post, the Los Angeles Times, and more. His most recent book is
‘Monopolized: Life in the Age of Corporate Power.’_

_RYAN GRIM is the co-founder of Drop Site News, and the author
of ‘We’ve Got People: From Jesse Jackson to AOC, the End of Big
Money and the Rise of a Movement.’_

_NICOLAE BUTLER is a reporter with Migrant Insider, the first and only
immigration news outlet inside the Beltway._

_PABLO MANRIQUEZ is the publisher of Migrant Insider, the first and
only immigration news outlet inside the Beltway.]_

_Read the original article at Prospect.org
[[link removed]]._

_Used with the permission. © The American Prospect
[[link removed]], Prospect.org, 2025 [[link removed]].
All rights reserved.  _

_Support the American Prospect [[link removed]]._

_Click here [[link removed]] to support the Prospect's
brand of independent impact journalism._

* Iran
[[link removed]]
* AIPAC
[[link removed]]
* Israel
[[link removed]]
* Palestine
[[link removed]]
* Israel-Gaza War
[[link removed]]
* Gaza
[[link removed]]
* Congress
[[link removed]]
* Donald Trump
[[link removed]]
* Trump 2.0
[[link removed]]
* Benjamin Netanyahu
[[link removed]]
* Democrats
[[link removed]]
* Middle East
[[link removed]]
* nuclear weapons
[[link removed]]
* lobbyists
[[link removed]]
* Israel Lobby
[[link removed]]
* U.S. foreign policy
[[link removed]]
* war powers
[[link removed]]
* war powers resolution
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]