How a New Jersey Primary Became the Face of Future Pro-Israel Advocacy

Jewish Politics & Power is published every other week. Sign up for our newsletter for updates.

---

1. Unpacking Malinowski

Was it a $2-million show of force, or a spectacular failure? A recent 11-candidate Democratic primary race in New Jersey has critics of the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC gloating; no doubt, AIPAC came out of this battle with egg all over its face.

It all starts with the race to replace Mikie Sherrill, the Democratic congresswoman recently elected to serve as New Jersey’s governor. A clear front-runner in the crowded primary was Tom Malinowski, a former congressman and top State Department official. The other notable candidate was progressive activist Analilia Mejia, a tough critic of Israel who describes its actions in Gaza as genocide.

Malinowski seemed on track to win the primary, until AIPAC stepped in. Malinowski has expressed his support for conditioning U.S. military aid to Israel, stating that while he is not calling to sever American assistance, if elected, he’d “make case-by-case judgments given what’s happening on the ground,” as he would with any other country receiving military aid from the United States.

Determined to defeat Malinowski because of his unwillingness to automatically green-light aid to Israel, AIPAC, through its super PAC United Democracy Project (UDP), spent more than $2 million on negative ads attacking Malinowski. The ads made no mention of his views on Israel and instead attacked the former congressman from the left, highlighting his past support for funding ICE.

Mainstream Democrats fumed. “It’s pissing people off,” a top strategist told Politico. And rightly so. AIPAC’s campaign proved to be extremely effective, or as they’d later find out—too effective. Malinowski bled supporters, with progressive voters accusing him of being complacent with Trump’s anti-immigration agenda. “I met several voters in the final days of the campaign who had seen the ads and asked me, sincerely, ‘Are you MAGA? Are you for ICE?’” Malinowski said.

At the end of the day, AIPAC won the battle, but may have lost the war. The vote was close, but after a couple of days, Malinowski conceded. Mejia won the primary and will be the Democratic candidate in the April 16 special election to fill Sherrill’s vacant seat. A battle to defeat a mainstream pro-Israel Democrat who expressed some reservations about Israel’s military actions, ended up with a staunch critic of Israel likely to join Congress.

(For those wondering about AIPAC’s strategy here, the understanding was that pro-Israel groups wanted former Lt. Gov. Tahesha Way to win. She came in third.)

2. Was Malinowski that bad for Israel?

The short answer is no.

With endorsements from former U.S. ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro and from the dovish pro-Israel lobby J Street, Malinowski doesn’t come across as a politician who would cause trouble for Israel in Congress. 

While in the past, the mere idea of questioning military aid to Israel was taboo, the situation has changed drastically in the past two years since Israel launched its war in Gaza following the October 7 attacks. The magnitude of destruction and the huge losses of civilian lives during Israel’s military campaign has made conditioning aid to Israel and double-checking every arms deal sent to Congress by the administration an almost mainstream view among Democrats (and even some Republicans).

Progressive leaders like Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who endorsed Mejia, or Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen have made changing the Democratic consensus on Israel a main goal. They are viewed by hawkish pro-Israel advocates as posing a danger to the future relationship between the United States and Israel and as leading a camp that aims to shift the party to a neutral—or even a pro-Palestinian—approach to the Middle East conflict.

Malinowski and most Democrats aren’t in that camp. A large contingent of middle-of-the-road Dems now believe they should have more oversight over arms being shipped off to Israel and believe that by not doing so, America risks being supportive of questionable actions, or even war crimes. They do not advocate for a boycott of Israel and are not calling for cutting all aid. Even former president Joe Biden, perhaps the strongest Democratic supporter of Israel, reached similar conclusions in the final year of his presidency and moved—though very cautiously—to limit certain types of arms shipments to Israel unless it worked out a plan to avoid killing innocent Gazans during the war.

3. Where’s the money coming from?

Since launching its Super PAC in 2022, AIPAC has used UDP as an effective vehicle to make sure candidates opposing Israel do not get elected. It has poured more than $24 million into races, usually by running negative ads. As a Super PAC, AIPAC’s UDP has no limits on the amounts it can spend, as long as it sticks to “independent expenditure,” meaning that the PAC cannot coordinate with the candidate’s campaign or directly work on their behalf.

Where does the money come from? UDP’s top contributors include, among others, WhatsApp co-founder Jan Koum; the late Bernie Marcus, founder of Home Depot; and fintech entrepreneur David Zalik. All three have been involved in funding Republican presidential candidates in the past decade.

And this is where it becomes contentious.

While there’s no legal limitation on the political affiliation of Super PAC funders, critics of AIPAC within the Democratic Party argue that UDP is essentially using Republican donor money to influence Democratic primaries. Again, there’s nothing illegal here. Pro-Israel Republicans can use their money to ensure that critics of Israel don’t make it through the Democratic primaries, just as environmentally minded Democratic donors can use theirs to fight climate deniers in Republican primaries. But not everything that’s legal is also wise, especially when it comes to the crossroads of Israel, American politics and big money. It’s not about legality, it’s about appearance.

4. An AIPAC overkill or a powerful message?

Progressive Democrats were having a field day celebrating AIPAC’s failure in New Jersey. Centrists looked at the fiasco as a worrying sign that the lobby may have lost its political compass. “Dumb and irresponsible” is how Matt Bennett, head of a centrist Democratic think tank, described AIPAC’s actions. Others, including AIPAC supporters, registered the move as a grave miscalculation.

AIPAC remained defiant.

“We had very serious concerns about Tom Malinowski, who clearly was open to conditioning aid to Israel,” Patrick Dorton, a spokesperson for the UDP, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “He knew that he had moved to what is not a pro-Israel position.” Dorton also said that as the primary season moves ahead, UDP will continue to “focus on stopping candidates who are detractors of Israel or who want to put conditions on aid.”

AIPAC’s response should be read as more than an attempt to brush off criticism. It is a clear signal that regardless of the outcome of this specific New Jersey primary race, the group intends to keep using its super PAC to target and defeat candidates who do not fully comply with the lobby’s pro-Israel line. Sure, this time AIPAC’s massive intervention in the race backfired, resulting in another potential anti-Israel vote in Congress, but that’s no more than collateral damage. The system proved itself to be effective: If a candidate strays into less-supportive territories, they should expect problems.

5. Lessons for Democrats

Democrats should definitely not rush to celebrate AIPAC’s failure. But should they be alarmed by its show of force?

For progressives, the New Jersey episode makes no difference. They’ve been on the receiving end of AIPAC’s negative campaigns for decades, and, in fact, view them as a badge of honor and a way to raise funding and support from the left.

It’s centrist Dems who need to take notice. The Tom Malinowskis of the world—those who support Israel but not all its actions and are far from making Israel a main issue in their campaigns—could be next. There is now less room for nuance and less space for debate. With Israel becoming more of a divisive issue in Democratic circles, those in the middle may soon have to face a tough choice: Either shift left and join the anti-Israel camp, or move to the right and pledge unconditional support.

(Top image credit: Megan Giulianelli (CC BY 4.0))