New York Times report on AIPAC hides a central truth about Israel’s unpopularity

At first glance, that recent New York Times article on AIPAC, the wealthy pro-Israel lobbying organization, may have looked promising. It ran on the front page of the Sunday print edition, the week’s most prominent location. It jumped inside, where it covered nearly an entire page. It was 53 paragraphs long. The byline indicated that 4 Times reporters had worked on the article.

But, astonishingly, not a single one of those 53 paragraphs explained that AIPAC’s efforts to influence American elections have changed dramatically in recent years. These days, the organization often actually hides its pro-Israel views, even though promoting Israel is the only reason it exists in the first place. Instead, it dumps money into political campaigns and frequently raises issues that have absolutely no connection to Israel and Palestine.

Let’s take, for example, the Democratic primary earlier this year for the House seat in New Jersey’s 13th Congressional district. AIPAC decided to target Tom Malinowski, a former congressman who had the temerity to mildly suggest that military aid to Israel should be “conditioned” on its human rights record. This site’s estimable Michael Arria succinctly explained how AIPAC acted:

“Of course, AIPAC can’t actually run ads telling Democratic voters to reject Malinowski for being sufficiently pro-Israel as the [Democratic] base has completely soured on the country, and lobbying groups supporting that relationship.

“So, the AIPAC-funded [television] ads attack Malinowski for allegedly supporting Trump’s immigration policies. The allegation stems from a 2019 vote, in which that year Congress passed a funding bill that included money for law enforcement at the southern border. Most Democrats, including Malinowski, backed the package.”

(In that race, AIPAC’s strategy backfired. It dumped $2 million into TV ads attacking Malinowski — which apparently damaged him enough so that Analilia Mejia, who is even more progressive on Israel/Palestine, won the Democratic primary, and is presently in Congress.)    

AIPAC’s new stealth strategy was by no means a secret. Both Politico and MS Now covered the New Jersey race, and revealed the Israel lobby’s behind the scenes maneuvering.

AIPAC deployed the same stealth strategy in August, when it helped defeat progressive former Rep. Cori Bush’s effort to win back her seat in Missouri’s Democratic primary. The pro-Israel lobby had already helped her opponent, Wesley Bell, two years before. This time around, AIPAC’s ads sidestepped Israel again, and instead emphasized Bush’s alleged missed votes in Congress and her supposed criticism of the Biden administration. 

So: how did 4 NYTimes reporters, who were handed 53 paragraphs of space, miss this vital Stealth AIPAC angle? How did the echelon of editors who reviewed the report also fail to do anything? The only plausible explanations are institutional bias and conscious whitewashing and self-censorship.

There’s another side to the AIPAC story that the long Times article also “missed.” Once upon a time, AIPAC held gigantic annual conferences in Washington, D.C, at which politicians from both parties came to genuflect. Up to 18,000 people attended. Sometimes even foreign leaders flew in to display their pro-Israel bona fides. 

But then, starting in 2021, AIPAC canceled the annual confabs. Since then, nothing. Surely, any survey of AIPAC today should have included this telling fact. But — in 53 paragraphs — 4 New York Times reporters reported nothing.