Uncategorized
AIPAC defends $2.3M spend against ‘pro-Israel’ politician in NJ-11, where anti-Israel candidate is prevailing
(JTA) — If AIPAC has any regrets about pouring more than $2 million into opposing a candidate who calls himself pro-Israel — and is set to lose to an anti-Israel opponent — it isn’t saying so. In fact, the pro-Israel group’s affiliated super PAC suggests it would do it again.
“We are going to have a focus on stopping candidates who are detractors of Israel or who want to put conditions on aid,” Patrick Dorton, a spokesperson for the United Democracy Project, said in an interview.
The target of the UDP’s recent spending was Tom Malinowski, a former congressman running in a special election in New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District. Malinowski, who calls himself pro-Israel and has been endorsed by the liberal Zionist organization J Street, has said he’d be open to placing conditions on some U.S. aid to Israel.
AIPAC pummeled Malinowski with $2.3 million in negative ads — but not about Israel. Instead, the ads tarred him from a progressive angle — one emphasized his vote on a 2019 bill that included increased funding for ICE, the immigration enforcement agency.
By one measure, AIPAC’s spend could be seen as a success: The candidate it opposed, seen as a favorite, did not score an easy win on Election Day. But in another crucial way, the effort appears to have backfired by throwing open the door for Analilia Mejia, a progressive grassroots organization leader who is far more critical of Israel.
The race is too close to call, but Mejia, who was the national political director for Bernie Sanders’ 2020 presidential campaign, is ahead by nearly 900 votes with 4,800 left to count. Tahesha Way, the former lieutenant governor of New Jersey who is thought to have been AIPAC’s preferred candidate, finished in a distant third.
Critics, including AIPAC supporters, have slammed AIPAC’s strategy in the race.
“They could not have gotten a worse result than what they got,” said Alan Steinberg, a journalist in New Jersey who was an EPA administrator under George Bush. “I’m a very pro-AIPAC person, very supportive of AIPAC, but this is one of the worst strategic errors that they could’ve ever made.”
The UDP got into the race because of Malinowski’s comments on U.S. aid to Israel at a time when a large number of Democrats, and some Republicans, were expressing new openness to attaching conditions to the aid as they sought to press Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to end the war in Gaza and adopt different policies in Israel and the West Bank.
Asked last fall about the possibility of conditioning or suspending aid to Israel, Malinowski told Jewish Insider that he “would make case-by-case judgments given what’s happening on the ground.” He said he would similarly make case-by-case judgments for any U.S. ally receiving aid.
“We had very serious concerns about Tom Malinowski, who clearly was open to conditioning aid to Israel,” Dorton said. “He knew that he had moved to what is not a pro-Israel position.”
Dorton indicated that the UDP would likely go after other candidates who have expressed openness or interest in conditioning aid. “Adding conditions to aid to Israel, and undermining the U.S. relationship, is a top priority for us in assessing candidates,” he said.
In New Jersey, the result could be elevating a politician whose stance on Israel is much harsher. Mejia has accused Israel of committing a genocide in Gaza and pledged not to take any AIPAC-funded trips to the country. She also began calling for a ceasefire in Gaza within weeks of Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel after tweeting on Oct. 10, “Every fiber of my being is horrified beyond words at what is furthering in Gaza. Yet again we see how oppression & dehumanization leads to despair & unthinkable destruction.”
Mejia’s campaign focused on affordability and she drew endorsements from progressives including Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ro Khanna. If she holds her lead, she will become the Democratic nominee for April’s special election to fill the House seat vacated by now-governor of New Jersey, Mikie Sherrill.
Steinberg said he thought that AIPAC “never took seriously the possibility of her winning in this primary,” and that Malinowski would be far more aligned with AIPAC on Israel.
“I don’t think Malinowski is anti-Israel,” said Steinberg. “I know Tom, I disagree with him on Israel, but he is much preferable to Analilia Mejia. Much preferable.”
Jeremy Ben-Ami, the president of J Street, which endorsed Malinowski, wrote in a Substack column that AIPAC was responding to criticism of the Israeli government’s policies as if it were hostility toward the country itself.
“AIPAC now treats even good-faith criticism from friends as a threat to be crushed,” he wrote.
Dorton downplayed the impact of a Mejia primary victory because the upcoming special election decides only which candidate fills the seat until the end of 2026. A second primary, held in June 2026, will decide the Democratic nominee for the regular November election.
But others are viewing her potential win as a larger victory for progressives, and specifically the pro-Palestinian movement.
“Analilia Mejia for New Jersey just set a new precedent in NJ and beyond,” wrote pro-Palestinian activist Linda Sarsour in a Facebook post on Monday featuring a photo of Mejia raising her hand as the lone candidate indicating that she believed Israel committed genocide, at a forum hosted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “She’s teaching us that it’s okay to stand alone so as [sic] long as you are on the right side of history.”
The UDP has spent millions on congressional races to mixed results since AIPAC began directly funding candidates in 2021; it had previously worked only to cultivate support for Israel among politicians. In 2024, it spent at least $14.5 million against the incumbent “Squad” member Jamaal Bowman in New York, and more than $8 million to take down Cori Bush in Missouri; both incumbents lost their primaries. But the $4.5 million it spent was not enough to beat Dave Min for Katie Porter’s House seat in California.
Now, the upcoming midterms will likely serve as a test of AIPAC’s strength as lawmakers and voters on both sides of the aisle distance themselves from Israel and its advocates. They will also answer the question of what dividends AIPAC — whose PAC opened the year with a nearly $100 million war chest — will draw if it focuses on punishing candidates who show insufficient support for Israel.
Dorton said he is not concerned. The UDP is looking ahead to the June midterm primaries and will “continue to run ads that move the needle” in primary races about issues that mostly don’t involve Israel, he said. He added that the group is assessing polling data and “candidate viability” for dozens of races around the country — including in NJ-11.
“There is a strong bipartisan pro-Israel majority in Congress,” Dorton said. “And we intend to keep it that way.”
The post AIPAC defends $2.3M spend against ‘pro-Israel’ politician in NJ-11, where anti-Israel candidate is prevailing appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
A Super Bowl Ad Against Antisemitism with No Consequence Misses the Mark
Robert Kraft. Photo: New England Patriots/Wikimedia Commons
I greatly respect Patriots owner Robert Kraft and his efforts to warn about the dangers of antisemitism. The Jewish community has largely failed in fighting this disease, for which there is no cure.
Some will also say that no ad will stop antisemitism, and argue that it’s a waste of money to run advertisements at all. But I strongly disagree.
There are a range of people in America, including some who have hatred in their hearts but have not yet acted on it, or some who don’t even know Jews personally. In a world where millions are listening to Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and laughing at Kanye West’s “Heil Hitler,” it would be useful to have some persuasive media strategy against antisemitism.
I’m not sure how many Americans watch Douglas Murray, Ben Shapiro, or follow Hillel Fuld online, but more than 100 million watch the Super Bowl annually.
It is a fantastic decision to spend money on an ad against antisemitism if it can get people’s attention, be emotionally impactful, show consequences for a perpetrator of hate, and make people think for a second.
Many tools must be used in the fight against antisemitism, and there is no reason why ads can’t be one of them. While they won’t likely change the mind of people planning to assault Jews, they might change the minds of others. I have a friend whose son was called a dirty Jew in school. The student likely called him that because he figured there would be no consequence.
This year’s ad — which follows ads in 2024 and 2025 — featured a Jewish boy who is pushed. We see a post-it calling him a “Dirty Jew.” An African-American student puts a blue square on it, and notes that Black people have experienced similar hatred.
The ad is a failure because it doesn’t grab your attention, shows no perpetrator, and more importantly — shows no consequences.
It is a slight improvement over last year’s ad with Tom Brady and Snoop Dogg, as that had zero authenticity. This ad has some authenticity, but by showing no perpetrator, it actually normalizes antisemitism — as if we should expect students to write “Dirty Jew” on the backpacks and lockers of students. We should have seen the student writing it, and seen some repercussions — be it a suspension, students looking at them as losers, or something of that sort.
There should be funds allocated to making meaningful ads about Jew-hatred both on regular TV and online. It is inexplicable that this is not being done, and there are so many Jewish celebrities that could be involved. I just wished Kraft’s ad had done a much better job.
The author is a writer based in New York.
Uncategorized
Beyond the Bunker and the Billboard: A New Approach to Fighting Antisemitism
Tens of thousands joined the National March Against Antisemitism in London, Nov. 26, 2023. Photo: Tayfun Salci/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
Earlier this month, Bret Stephens delivered the “State of World Jewry” address. At the risk of oversimplifying his speech, Stephens’ message was a somber pivot: the millions of dollars spent fighting antisemitism are largely wasted. We cannot “cure” the world of this hatred. Instead, we should spend those resources strengthening Jewish identity — funding Jewish day schools, summer camps, and building a fortress of internal resilience.
On Sunday, Robert Kraft’s Foundation to Combat Antisemitism continued their diametrically opposite approach. During the Super Bowl, they ran an ad featuring a Black student showing allyship to a Jewish student who is being bullied. The message is optimistic: Education, awareness, and cross-cultural empathy can win the day.
One strategy is retreat and fortify; the other is reach out and persuade.
I believe both are destined to fail.
Stephens is right that we cannot logic our way out of hate, but his solution surrenders the public square. Kraft is noble in his pursuit of allyship, but his solution relies on empathy that simply may not exist in large enough quantities.
There is a third path. It does not rely on Jewish introspection, nor does it beg for non-Jewish affection. It relies on universal enforcement.
The Failure of “Particularism”
If you poll Americans on how they feel about “antisemitism” (or its modern fraternal twin, “anti-Zionism,” which is a label that now mostly serves as a cover for Jew-hatred), the results are messy. Resistance to these specific bigotries is not universal; it is partisan, generational, and fraught with “context.”
However, if you poll Americans on the universal moral taboos — overt bigotry, dehumanization, and the endorsement of violence — the consensus is overwhelming. Even in our divided era, I am certain that more than 90% of the country agrees that persecuting a racial or religious group or celebrating violence is socially unacceptable.
This is the strategic flaw in both the Stephens and Kraft approaches: They treat antisemitism as a unique problem requiring a unique solution.
But we don’t need a “Jewish” solution. We need a universal solution, and fortunately one already exists.
The most effective way to protect the Jewish community is to stop asking society to protect Jews specifically, and start demanding society protect civilization generally and all of its people equally.
We must broaden the fight. We recruit the entire country not to defend Jews against Jew-hatred, but to defend the core American value that all overt hatred is an inadmissible taboo.
When we make the standard universal, we strip away the “exceptions.” If society agrees that “dehumanization is a firing offense,” then a person dehumanizing a Zionist must be fired the same as if they dehumanized Black or gay Americans — not because the employer loves Zionists or Black or LGBT people, but because the employer fears tolerating and normalizing these taboos of hate regardless of the group being targeted.
To do this, we must re-acquaint the mainstream with the concept of moral taboos.
As Jonathan Haidt explored in The Righteous Mind, true moral taboos are not intellectual; they are visceral. We don’t debate whether incest is wrong; we recoil from it. We need to restore that same visceral recoil to bigotry and the endorsement of violence, which largely exists, but then we must re-familiarize society with the mechanism for enforcing taboos: social consequences.
Stephens gives up on the outer world. Kraft tries to persuade it with carrots. The Third Path uses the stick of social ostracism. Social consequences are society’s immune response. When the immune system is working, a “Rejoicer” who cheers for violence is expelled from the body politic — not by law, but by consensus.
The Binary Choice
While restoring these taboos sounds like a generational challenge, the alternative makes the choice obvious.
We are either going to restore these universal guardrails — punishing those who egregiously violate them, just as we did to the KKK — or we will allow hate to be normalized until it spills over into political violence that no amount of Jewish Day Schools or Super Bowl ads can stop.
We don’t need to beg the world for its affection, nor should we retreat into a fortress. We need to remind the world that the taboos which protect us are the same ones that hold civilization together. If we lead the fight to restore those universal standards, we won’t just be securing a future for the Jews — we’ll be saving the country from itself.
Erez Levin is an advertising technologist trying to effect big pro-social changes in that industry and the world at large, currently focused on restoring society’s essential moral taboos against overt hatred. He writes on this topic at elevin11.substack.com.
Uncategorized
How the Palestinian Authority Hides ‘Pay-for-Slay’
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas visiting the West Bank city of Jenin. Photo: Reuters/Mohamad Torokman
On Feb. 10, 2025, under intense pressure from Western countries, Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas announced the cancellation of the PA Commission of Prisoners’ terror rewards program known as “Pay-for-Slay,” saying that the payments to terrorist prisoners and so-called Martyrs’ families would be moved to the Palestinian National Economic Empowerment Institution (PNEEI) and be based on social welfare criteria.
While many Western leaders have praised the PA for promising to stop paying terrorists in prison, the PA has another huge terror rewards program for released terrorist prisoners with more than 10,000 hidden Pay-for-Slay recipients receiving more than $230 million a year. And the PA has no intention of disclosing it or stopping it.
The PA enlarged this already existing program in 2021, when it took nearly 7,500 released prisoners who were receiving payments and moved them from the PA Commission of Prisoners into other frameworks. In addition, there are more than 13,500 families of Martyrs and injured living outside the PA areas who are receiving over $86 million a year.
The PA Prisoners and Released Prisoners Law requires the PA to reward terrorists who were imprisoned for more than five years with lifetime salaries. After Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) exposed in 2020 that there were at least 7,500 released prisoners to whom the PA was paying monthly terror reward salaries, the PA was condemned by the donor countries.
As the PA explained: “Europe, the US, and Israel” did not accept that the PA paid released terrorists merely because “they killed.”
The PA acted quickly. In early 2021, Mahmoud Abbas issued a Presidential Order to “integrate” all the thousands of released terrorists receiving Pay-for-Slay salaries into government and PA Security Forces (PASF) jobs, and he changed PA pension laws to enable thousands of ineligible terrorists to receive PA pensions.
The PA set up a special committee to work continuously, “even on vacation days,” to hide these recipients. By the end of 2021, all 7,500 recipients of terror salaries were erased from the Commission of Prisoners lists and, although unqualified, were granted jobs and pensions to receive their hidden Pay-for-Slay without Western scrutiny.
These recipients are so well hidden that some Western donor countries, to avoid funding Pay-for-Slay, have been designating their support specifically to pay civil servants or PASF salaries and pensions — the very places that the PA has hidden its terrorists.
With this terror reward program below the West’s radar, the PA is not planning to stop these terror payouts to released terrorist prisoners. PMW estimates that with these two programs, at least 23,500 terrorists received hidden Pay-for-Slay payments in 2025, amounting to $315 million in hidden Pay-for-Slay.
Part 3 of our recent report includes transcribed conversations between recipients of Pay-for-Slay in the first months of 2026, confirming that the PA is expanding its Pay-for-Slay by at least 6,000 recipients. The PA is intentionally lying to the US, the EU, France, and other Western countries, while working continuously to find ways to secretly reward Palestinian terrorists.
The author is the Founder and Director of Palestinian Media Watch, where a version of this article first appeared.