Rep. Seth Moulton’s social media post on Oct. 16 announcing he would return donations from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and decline future contributions marks a significant moment for a centrist Democrat. It comes just days after launching his 2026 Senate campaign against progressive incumbent Sen. Ed Markey in Massachusetts. This decision has many strategic implications in a state with a consistent liberal voting base.
As someone who shares Moulton’s commitment to a strong U.S.-Israel relationship, I find his reasoning compelling. AIPAC’s alignment with Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has distorted its mission. It is now a de facto defender of a single administration rather than a broad advocate for a state that needs America’s help. If a moderate like Moulton views this association as politically toxic, it signals a turning point for the Democratic Party’s approach to Israel.
For those who think people do not really care about this issue and it is just a loud and fringe minority, I have a bridge to sell you. The issue has become so politically toxic for Democratic voters that if you type into any search engine “Hakeem Jeffries,” one of the suggestions is “AIPAC.”
AIPAC’s original mission when it was founded in the 1950s was to strengthen U.S.-Israel ties through bipartisan support for Israel’s security.
However, over the past decade, AIPAC has increasingly tied itself to Netanyahu’s Likud government, which has pursued policies that jeopardize Israel’s claim to be the only democracy in the Middle East. AIPAC has supported expanding settlements in the West Bank, undermining judicial independence, and resisting two-state negotiations. All of these have stained Israel’s credentials to Americans and the international community.
Moulton’s statement that “AIPAC’s mission today is to back [Netanyahu’s] government” showcases this shift. AIPAC’s SuperPAC, United Democracy Project, spent over $100 million in just one race to defeat Jamaal Bowman, a progressive Democrat from New York who was one of the first members of Congress to call for a ceasefire.
Their credibility also took a downturn when they endorsed over 100 Republicans who backed efforts to overturn the 2020 election, a move that stunned many pro-Israel Democrats. For me, aligning with an organization that funds election deniers while attacking Democrats for even mild criticisms of Netanyahu means AIPAC has shifted too far to the right. This is especially true in a party that made democracy one of its main issues in the 2024 election.
If you consider Jamaal Bowman antisemitic, let me tell you about Andy Levin. He was a clear example of a pro-Israel congressman. He checked off all the boxes many people would want from a pro-Israel Democrat: opposing Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS), supporting Iron Dome funding, saying anti-Zionism was anti-semitism, and endorsing the Abraham Accords. However, he still faced criticism from AIPAC for daring to criticize Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and care about Palestinians.
AIPAC, which gave $4 million against Levin’s candidacy, opposed the former synagogue leader, who was well-known for his criticism of far-right Israeli policy. Levin told MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan in 2022, AIPAC can’t stand the idea that I am the clearest, strongest Jewish voice in Congress standing for a simple proposition: that there is no way to have a secure, democratic homeland for the Jewish people unless we achieve the political and human rights of the Palestinian people.” This sentiment, one I agree with wholeheartedly, seemed to be too much for AIPAC because he was not behind the dangerous policies of Likud, despite being pro-Israel.
Like Moulton, I consider myself a friend of Israel and cherish its role as an American ally and its right to self-defense. The Hamas attack on Oct. 7, 2023, which killed 1,200 Israelis and was a horrific act of terrorism that any reasonable person understands, demanded a response. Yet Israel’s response over the course of two years escalated far beyond what anyone can consider a ‘hunt for Hamas.’ Entire neighborhoods have been leveled, and civilian infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, and water systems have been decimated, which are clear violations of international law.
This disproportionate response has made support for Israel politically toxic, particularly among Democrats. A poll conducted by Gallup in July of this year showed that only 8% of Democratic voters approve of Israel’s military action in Gaza.
A Gallup poll showing very low support among Democratic voters conducted in July this year.
Young voters, a key constituency of the Democrats, are even more critical, with a New York Times and Siena College survey indicating 68% of those aged 18-29 opposed providing additional economic and military support to Israel. For Moulton, running in a state where progressive voters dominate primaries, association with AIPAC risks alienating this base.
NYT/Siena College Poll survey about military and economic aid to Israel.
Moulton’s decision is reflective of future calculations Democrats have to make: Are the campaign contributions from AIPAC more important than alienating your voter base? How can Democrats balance their traditional commitment to Zionism with their voters’ wavering support for the state? This dilemma poses a fundamental question for Jewish voters that I believe may come to a tipping point in the coming elections.
