Uncategorized
Hating Israel Isn’t New; How the CIA and State Department Undermined the Jewish State
“Teddy Roosevelt’s great-great-great grandson is an anti-Israel protester at Princeton,” blared a New York Post headline on May 4, 2024.
The Post reported that Quentin Colon Roosevelt, an 18-year-old freshman, and descendant of the 25th President, is an anti-Israel activist at the Ivy League university. But far from being hip and new, Quentin’s brand of anti-Zionism is old hat — he is merely continuing a long family tradition of anti-Israel activism.
There is an abundance of literature on Franklin D. Roosevelt’s views on Jews and Zionism, the belief in Jewish self-determination. Both FDR and his wife Eleanor had made antisemitic remarks. In a private conversation in 1938, then-President Roosevelt suggested that by dominating the economy in Poland, Jews were themselves fueling antisemitism. And in a 1941 Cabinet meeting, FDR remarked that there were too many Jewish Federal employees in Oregon. In his final days, FDR promised Saudi leader Abdul Aziz Ibn al Saud that he would oppose the creation of Jewish state in the Jewish people’s ancestral homeland.
FDR is the president who led the United States to victory against Adolf Hitler. He also employed Jews in high-ranking positions in his government. But he is also the president whose administration failed to save more Jews fleeing Nazism, and who refused to bomb the railway tracks leading to Auschwitz and other death camps where millions of Jews met a ghastly end. Accordingly, it makes sense that his beliefs regarding Jews have been the subject of books and belated study.
Less examined, however, is the Oyster Bay branch of the Roosevelt clan, and their beliefs regarding Zionism. In part, this is easily explained by the unique place that FDR holds in American history. He is the only president to serve four terms, and presided over both the Great Depression, World War II, and arguably the beginning of the Cold War. His branch of the family, the Hyde Park Roosevelts, were Democrats and remained active in public life for decades after his 1945 death.
At first glance, the Oyster Bay Roosevelts were more of a turn of the 19th century affair. They were Republicans, and their scion was Teddy Roosevelt, a war hero turned governor of New York state who, thanks to an assassin’s bullet, found himself as the nation’s leader in 1901.
The famously ebullient Roosevelt helped redefine the country’s idea of a president, and served as an inspiration for his cousin Franklin. But Teddy largely presided over an era of peace and tranquility, not war and upheaval.
Teddy was a philosemite. He was the first occupant of the Oval Office to appoint a Jewish American to the Cabinet. He championed the rights of Jews, both at home and abroad, and was harshly critical of the numerous pogroms that unfolded in czarist Russia.
As Seth Rogovoy has noted, Roosevelt’s “special relationship with Jews was forged during his time serving as police commissioner in New York City, a post he assumed in 1904.” When an antisemitic German preacher named Hermann Ahlwardt gave speeches in the city, Roosevelt assigned a contingent of Jewish police officers to guard the man.
Roosevelt was also a Zionist. In 1918, shortly after the Balfour Declaration, he wrote: “It seems to me that it is entirely proper to start a Zionist state around Jerusalem.” He told Lioubomir Michailovitch, the Serbian Minister to the United States, that “there can be no peace worth having … unless the Jews [are] given control of Palestine.” Six months later Roosevelt died in his sleep.
Not all his descendants would share his belief in Jewish self-determination, however.
Two of Teddy Roosevelt’s grandchildren, Kermit and Archie, served their country in the CIA during the early years of the Cold War. Both were keenly interested in Middle East affairs, and were fluent in Arabic. Both were well read and highly educated, authoring books and filing dispatches for newspapers like the Saturday Evening Post, among others.
They were also prominent anti-Zionists.
Kermit Roosevelt, known as “Kim,” played a key role in anti-Zionist efforts in the United States and abroad. He was not, by the standards of his time, an antisemite. But he was ardently opposed to the creation of Israel.
As Hugh Wilford observed in his 2013 book America’s Great Game: The CIA’s Secret Arabists and the Shaping of the Modern Middle East: “the anti-Zionism of the overt Cold War foreign policy establishment is well known” but “less widely appreciated is the opposition to Jewish statehood of the individuals responsible for setting up the United States’ covert apparatus in the Middle East.”
This began with the OSS, the CIA’s precursor. And it included men like Stephen Penrose, a former American University of Beirut instructor, and Kim Roosevelt’s boss during his wartime service in the OSS.
“Documents among Penrose’s personal papers reveal him engaged in a variety of anti-Zionist activities at the same time that he was commencing his official duties with the OSS,” Wilford notes.
Like many of his fellow Arabists, Penrose was the son of American missionaries who, failing to convert the native population to Christianity, sought to foster Arab nationalism instead. Penrose described himself as a “chief cook” who was “brewing” opposition to Zionism. He became one of Kim Roosevelt’s mentors.
In a January 1948 Middle East Journal article entitled, “Partition of Palestine: A Lesson in Pressure Politics,” Kim called the 1947 UN vote in favor of a Jewish state an “instructive and disturbing story.”
Roosevelt believed that the US media was unduly supportive of the creation of Israel, and claimed that almost all Americans “with diplomatic, educational, missionary, or business experience in the Middle East” opposed Zionism.
Kim’s pamphlet was reprinted by the Institute for Arab American Affairs, a New York-based group whose board he sat on. He also began working with the Arab League’s Washington, D.C., office and “turned elsewhere for allies in the anti-Zionist struggle, starting with the Protestant missionaries, educators, and aid workers.”
This nascent group soon received financial support from the American oil industry, which maintained close links to Kim’s OSS/CIA colleague, William Eddy.
As Wilford noted, the Arabian consortium ARAMCO “launched a public relations campaign intended to bring American opinion around to the Arab point of view.”
In addition to missionaries and big oil, Kim gained another important ally in the form of Elmer Berger, a rabbi from Flint, Michigan. Berger served as executive director of the American Council for Judaism, an anti-Zionist group that, among other things, opposed the creation of a Jewish army during World War II at the height of the Holocaust. Berger and Roosevelt became drinking buddies and close collaborators on their joint effort against the Jewish State.
Kim eventually became “organizing secretary” for a group called The Committee for Justice and Peace. The committee’s original chair, Virginia Gildersleeve, was both a longtime friend of the Roosevelts of Oyster Bay and the dean of New York City’s Barnard College, which today is part of Columbia.
Gildersleeve was “also a high-profile anti-Zionist” who “became involved with the Arab cause through her association with the Arabist philanthropist Charles Crane and the historian of Arab nationalism George Antonius.”
Crane, a wealthy and notorious antisemite, had lobbied against the creation of a Jewish state since the beginning of the 20th century, even advising then-President Woodrow Wilson against supporting the Balfour Declaration.
By 1950, the Committee had managed to recruit famed journalist Dorothy Thompson to their cause. Thompson was reportedly the basis for actress Katharine Hepburn’s character in the 1942 movie Woman of the Year. A convert to anti-Zionism, Thompson’s extensive network of reporters and celebrities proved crucial to Kim and Berger’s efforts to rally opposition to the Jewish State. In a 1951 letter to Barnard College’s Gildersleeve, Thompson wrote: “I am seriously concerned about the position of the Jews in the United States.” People, she claimed, “are beginning to ask themselves the question: who is really running America?”
Another ally emerged that year: the Central Intelligence Agency.
The CIA began funding the Committee, as well as its successor, the American Friends of the Middle East (AFME). Beginning in June 1950, Kim’s correspondence with Berger began making veiled references to the ACJ head taking on “official work” in Washington. This, Wilford believes, is a reference to working with the CIA. Indeed, the well-connected Kim and Archie Roosevelt had known top CIA officials like Allan Dulles since childhood.
With support from figures like Eddy, AFME also began encouraging Muslim-Christian alliances — ostensibly to counter Soviet influence, but also to attack the Jewish state. This led to some awkward alliances, including with Amin al-Husseini, the founding father of Palestinian nationalism and an infamous Nazi collaborator.
Husseini had ordered the murders of rival Palestinians, incited violence against Jews since the 1920s, and had led forces, equipped with Nazi-supplied arms, to destroy Israel at its rebirth in 1948. Now, along with the Secretary General of the Arab League, and Saudi King Ibn Saud, he was meeting with Eddy to discuss a “moral alliance” between Christians and Muslims to defeat communism. Kim himself knew Husseini, having interviewed him for the Saturday Evening Post after World War II.
AFME lobbied for the appointment of anti-Zionist diplomats and in favor of Eisenhower administration efforts to withhold aid from Israel. And both Berger and Thompson pushed for favorable coverage of the new Egyptian dictator, Gamal Nassar, who would wage war on the Jewish state for nearly two decades. Initially, they were successful, with TIME magazine writing that Nasser had the “lithe grace of a big, handsome, all-American quarterback.” Of course, there was nothing “all-American” about Nasser, who would become a Soviet stooge.
AFME officials like Garland Evans Hopkins would draw rebukes after claiming that Jews were bringing violence against themselves — a staple of antisemitism. Hopkins claimed that Zionists “could produce a wave of antisemitism in this country” if they continued acting against “America’s best interests in the Middle East.”
AFME itself would eventually lose influence, particularly after its boosting of figures like Nasser was revealed as foolhardy. Berger would go on to advise Senator J. William Fulbright (D-AR) in his efforts to get pro-Israel Americans to register as foreign agents.
In 1967, as Arab forces gathered to annihilate Israel, Berger blamed the Jewish State, accusing it of “aggression” and its supporters of “hysteria.” Top ACJ officials resigned in protest. That same year, Ramparts magazine exposed CIA support, financial and otherwise, of AFME.
Kim and Archie Roosevelt, however, would continue their careers as high-ranking CIA officers before eventually starting a consulting business and making use of their extensive Middle East contacts.
For some college protesters, attacking Israel — and American support for Israel — might seem new and trendy. Yet, both the CIA and big oil were precisely doing that, decades ago, forming alliances with anti-American dictators, antisemitic war criminals, the press, Protestant groups, academics, university administrators, and fringe Jewish groups claiming to represent “what’s best” for American Jewry.
As William Faulkner once wrote: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”
The writer is a Senior Research Analyst for CAMERA, the 65,000-member, Boston-based Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis
The post Hating Israel Isn’t New; How the CIA and State Department Undermined the Jewish State first appeared on Algemeiner.comhttps://www.algemeiner.com/.
Uncategorized
Can Trump save Israel from itself?
The Israeli government’s latest steps toward annexing the West Bank prove a dismal point: Catering to right-wing extremists has become the cabinet’s top priority — the rest of the country be damned.
In a blitz before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s White House visit this week, Finance Minister Betzalel Smotrich and Defense Minister Israel Katz announced new decisions that will reverse decades-old real estate laws preventing Jews from buying Palestinian-owned land in the West Bank; expand Israeli authority in vast swaths of that territory; and make it easier for Jewish Israelis to buy land and start new communities in or near Palestinian enclaves there, among other subtle changes.
These changes may seem like bureaucratic rejiggering. But in fact, they mark the alarming development of a deliberate strategy to incrementally expand Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank, thus killing the two-state solution once and for all.
None of this serves Israel’s best interest. New laws pushing annexation forward will jeopardize Israel’s relationship with the U.S., damage its already faltering democracy, and eradicate any moral high ground the Jewish state still retains after its devastating military campaign in Gaza.
Yet while Israel struggles with a weakened international profile, an economy still recovering from the demands of war, impending talks with Iran, internal democratic conflicts and a re-emboldened Hamas within the decimated Gaza strip, proponents of the new decisions are celebrating the disaster they herald.
“We are deepening our roots in all regions of the Land of Israel and burying the idea of a Palestinian state,” Smotrich said in a statement.
The Yesha Council — the municipal representative for all Israeli settlements, which wants to expand Israeli sovereignty over the entire West Bank — declared the government’s move was “establishing Israeli sovereignty in the territory de facto.”
Energy Minister Eli Cohen might have put it most plainly, saying the changes “actually establish a fact on the ground that there will not be a Palestinian state,” in an interview with Israel’s Army Radio.
The only emergency brake on annexation Israelis have at this moment is sitting in the White House.
Although President Donald Trump flirted with Israeli annexation early in his second-term, he has consistently opposed such moves over the last few months. Asked on Tuesday about the Israeli security cabinet’s recent decisions, Trump spoke bluntly: “I am against annexation.”
He has powerful incentives to back up that statement.
Since returning to office last year, Trump has branded himself a peacemaker who will reshape the Middle East. He aims to expand the Abraham Accords, the trademark foreign policy achievement of his first term; curb a nuclear Iran; and create peace between Israel and the Palestinians. He will not tolerate any Israeli behavior that threatens those efforts — and these West Bank moves could upend them.
Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and five other Muslim countries condemned Israel’s new laws as accelerating “illegal annexation and the displacement of the Palestinian people” — a complaint Saudi Arabia previously lodged against Israel as its reason for refusing normalization, something Trump desperately wants.
Additionally, Trump’s peace plan for Gaza hinges on creating stability in the embattled Strip and the West Bank. Most importantly, it involves a commitment to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which these moves in the West Bank may make all but impossible to realize.
All this, as American views of Israel are only growing more antagonistic, with real-world policy changes like conditioning military aid receiving more serious consideration than previously thought possible. Israel also faces domestic consequences over this decision. It has long defended itself against accusations of apartheid by saying that it cannot grant citizenship to the millions of Palestinians in the West Bank because the Jewish state cannot afford to lose its Jewish majority. Until trusted Palestinian partners for peace emerged, the narrative went, Israel would maintain control of the territory.
This is not maintaining control of the territory; this is laying claim to it, an action that demands Israel must treat the Palestinians who live there as full citizens. It is unlikely to do so. Which means Israel’s democracy is closer than ever to crumbling. If it insists on burying the two-state solution and annexing the West Bank without giving citizenship to millions of Palestinians, any defense it had against the argument of apartheid will be gone.
What might the Israeli government hope to gain with these moves, given how extraordinarily costly they could be — and seeing that annexation is widely unpopular in Israeli society, with only about a third of Israelis supporting it?
The answer: Netanyahu is going all-in for his far-right allies. It’s not about what Israel hopes to gain; it’s about what he does.
Smotrich, Katz, and others whose radical messianic conceptions dominate their politics have for years fantasized about expanding Israel’s borders without international or domestic law interfering. Throughout the Israel-Hamas War, far-right leaders routinely spoke enthusiastically about annexing the Gaza Strip.
If Netanyahu were putting Israelis before his own political interests, he would have squashed calls for annexation long before now. But doing so would threaten his political career. Smotrich and other far-right ministers put expanding Israeli control over the West Bank as a dealbreaker when they first entered his coalition; if they leave it, his last hope at retaining power will go with them.
When it comes to choosing between power or his country, Netanyahu has shown he will always choose power. Let’s hope Trump continues to stand in his way.
The post Can Trump save Israel from itself? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Iran Races to Rebuild Missile Arsenal, Israel Tests Upgraded Defenses Amid Fragile US Nuclear Talks
Iranian missiles are displayed in a park in Tehran, Iran, Jan. 31, 2026. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
As the prospect of renewed conflict looms, Iran is scrambling to restore its battered missile capabilities while Israel tests upgraded air defenses and accelerates military preparations for a potential confrontation.
Iran had 25 key sites housing long-range ballistic missile capabilities, 19 of which were struck during last June’s 12-day war, when the US and Israel bombed the regime’s nuclear facilities, according to Israel’s Channel 14.
The outlet’s latest report, drawing on satellite imagery, research by the Alma Institute for Middle Eastern Studies, and confirmations from security officials, reveals that all sites were equipped with underground infrastructure and suffered extensive surface and subterranean damage.
Yet, with the shadow of a new conflict looming, Iran has rushed to restore its shattered defense capabilities, reportedly completing some partial repairs already.
As of last month, the country’s main launch bases — whose surfaces suffered moderate to severe damage — appear to show clear signs of recovery and resumed operational activity.
Israeli officials estimate that the Islamist regime now possesses at least twice the missile arsenal it deployed in past attacks.
However, Iran’s missile launch capacity remains limited by shortages of launchers and rocket fuel, even as it reportedly works to restore these critical components as well.
As Tehran works to rebuild its strategic threat against the Jewish state amid rising regional tensions, Israel has successfully upgraded its missile defense systems and expanded its arsenal of anti-missile batteries, effectively reinforcing its deterrence capabilities.
On Wednesday, the Israeli Ministry of Defense announced a successful test of the “David’s Sling” air-defense system, designed to intercept Iranian ballistic missiles with advanced evasive capabilities.
Built on operational lessons from last year’s war, Israeli officials said the upgraded system can intercept cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, aircraft, and drones at medium and long ranges, reaching altitudes of 50 to 70 kilometers (31 to 43 miles).
From the Arrow system to the Iron Dome, Israel is bolstering its defense capabilities with extensive logistical preparations to maintain operational readiness during prolonged and intense missile attacks, the Ministry of Defense said in a statement.
At the top of the country’s operational defense pyramid is the Arrow system, a strategic, exo-atmospheric shield designed to intercept long-range ballistic missiles while they are still outside the atmosphere, neutralizing threats at a distance and preventing environmental damage or the impact of unconventional warheads
Serving as the middle layer of Israel’s missile defense, the newly upgraded David’s Sling system works alongside the Iron Dome, which protects the home front and civilian settlements.
The country is also introducing the laser system Iron Beam, or “Magen Or,” capable of intercepting missiles quickly, accurately, and more efficiently than conventional systems
These latest developments come as regional tensions escalate over Iran’s nuclear program and fragile negotiations with the United States, raising concerns about a renewed conflict in the region.
Washington and Tehran resumed negotiations last Friday in Oman, marking the first direct engagement between US and Iranian officials since nuclear talks collapsed after the 12-day war in June.
With the chances of a deal still uncertain, US President Donald Trump has simultaneously launched a massive military buildup in the Gulf, pressuring the Iranian regime to return to the negotiating table if it wants to prevent a potential conflict.
On Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Trump to discuss the prospects of a potential nuclear agreement with Tehran and the next steps in the talks. Israeli officials have said they want any agreement with Iran to include zero enrichment of uranium, limits on ballistic missiles, and a pullback of the regime’s support for terrorist groups across the Middle East.
“There was nothing definitive reached other than I insisted that negotiations with Iran continue to see whether or not a Deal can be consummated. If it cannot, we will just have to see what the outcome will be,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social after their meeting.
“Last time Iran decided that they were better off not making a deal, they were hit with Midnight Hammer — that did not work well for them,” he continued, referring to the US operation to bomb Iranian nuclear sites in June. “Hopefully this time they will be more reasonable and responsible.”
Trump also told Axios in a Tuesday interview that he is considering deploying a second aircraft carrier strike group to the Middle East to prepare for military action if negotiations with Iran fail.
“Either we will make a deal or we will have to do something very tough like last time,” Trump said.
According to multiple media reports, Washington has set three conditions for a nuclear agreement with Iran: halting uranium enrichment, restricting the country’s ballistic missile program, and ending the regime’s support for terrorist groups and other proxies throughout the Middle East.
However, Iran has long said all three demands are unacceptable, but two Iranian officials told Reuters its Islamist, authoritarian rulers view the ballistic missile program, not uranium enrichment, as the bigger issue.
In recent days, the US has indicated it is primarily concerned with the nuclear program, leaving some observers concerned that the Trump administration will strike a deal that’s too narrow in scope.
The Iranian government has already publicly rejected any transfer of uranium out of the country and ruled out negotiations over its ballistic missile program or support for proxy forces.
Cautious optimism about diplomacy has also been shaken by reported clashes between US and Iranian forces at sea as tensions rise.
Last week, the US military said it shot down an Iranian drone that had “aggressively” approached the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln in the Arabian Sea. Hours later, forces from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) harassed a US-flagged, US-crewed merchant vessel in the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump initially threatened to intervene in Iran if the regime killed anti-government protesters who took to the streets across the country in late December and early January. However, the Iranian government proceeded to crush the protests with a brutal crackdown, reportedly killing tens of thousands of people.
The US subsequently began its military buildup in the region, and Trump called on the regime to begin negotiations.
Uncategorized
US Congressional Race in Illinois Features Showdown Between AIPAC and New Anti-Israel Group
Aug. 12, 2025, Chicago, Illinois, US: Daniel Biss, mayor of Evanston, Illinois, attends a rally at Federal Plaza in Chicago after the announcement that the Trump administration has unilaterally ended the collective bargaining agreement with federal unions. Photo: Chicago Tribune via ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
The US congressional race for Illinois’ 9th District is shaping up to become a battleground between the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Peace, Accountability, and Leadership PAC (PAL PAC), a newly formed pro-Palestinian political action committee.
The open competition to replace retiring Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky is widely considered to be a showdown in the Democratic primary between far-left newcomer and social media star Kat Abughazaleh, progressive Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss, and moderate state Sen. Laura Fine.
Abughazaleh, a Palestinian-American Tik-Tok personality who has repeatedly accused Israel of so-called “genocide” in Gaza, has earned the endorsement of the far-left Justice Democrats organization. She also has received backing from PAL PAC over her stated support for “Palestinian rights.”
Margaret DeReus, the executive director of PAL PAC, showered praise on the social media star as someone who “represents an exciting new wave of bold and progressive democratic candidates in the 2026 midterms.”
PAL PAC describes itself as an advocacy group which seeks to reward political candidates and members of Congress who champion “Palestinian freedom and human rights” and oppose Israeli policy toward the Palestinians. Among the group’s initial endorsers are US Democratic Reps. Rashida Tlaib (MI), Ilhan Omar (MN), and Summer Lee (PA), all of whom are among the fiercest anti-Israel voices in Congress.
“A defining priority for PAL PAC is ending Israel’s ongoing human rights abuses against Palestinians and stopping US complicity in and backing of Israel’s apartheid system, illegal theft of Palestinian land, and genocide against Palestinians,” the group’s website reads. “We seek to elect champions of human rights for all, who will demonstrate clear, courageous, and consistent leadership on one of the morally defining political and human rights issues of our time.”
Abughazaleh, a 26-year-old influencer who recently moved to Illinois from Texas, has described her new endorsements from far-left organizations as evidence of her “growing movement of people who are done with a Democratic Party that has cast them aside in favor of profit, greed, and power.”
Biss, who is Jewish, has condemned the extent of Israel’s military operations in Gaza and has vowed to vote against additional military aid to the Jewish state. However, Biss also spent large stretches of his childhood in Israel and has expressed a generally positive sentiment toward the nation and its people.
Nonetheless, the mayor has promised not to accept any funding or support from AIPAC, accusing the prominent lobbying group, which seeks to foster bipartisan support for a strong US-Israel alliance, of having “MAGA-aligned donors,” using the acronym for President Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again movement. Biss has also argued that accepting support from the organization would force him to “compromise” his progressive values.
“Daniel believes the special relationship between the United States and Israel means the US must do all it can to ensure long-term protection and prosperity of the Jewish homeland,” Biss’s campaign said in a statement.
“I do not share AIPAC’s hardline views,” Biss added.
Last month, US Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, penned a letter demanding answers from Biss, accusing him of failing to protect Jewish students during a pro-Hamas, anti-Israel encampment at Northwestern University that, lawmakers say, devolved into widespread antisemitic harassment and violence. Northwestern’s campus is located in Evanston.
In a sharply worded letter dated Jan. 28, Walberg said Biss refused to authorize Evanston police to assist when Northwestern requested help clearing the encampment in April 2024, despite reports of assaults, intimidation, and explicitly antisemitic incidents. Walberg wrote that the decision left the university unable to enforce the law safely, citing committee documents indicating Northwestern lacked sufficient police resources to carry out arrests without city support.
Biss called Walberg’s letter a “dishonest political attack” and defended his decision not to intervene in the campus unrest, saying he and police assessed that sending officers “might further inflame the situation.”
Instead of receiving support from AIPAC, Biss has accepted $8,250 from J Street, a self-proclaimed “pro-peace, pro-Israel” lobbying organization. However, J Street has come under fire for allegedly not doing enough to combat antisemitism or anti-Israel narratives within liberal political circles. The organization’s leader Jeremy Ben-Ami said he would no longer dispute the claim that Israel is committing “genocide” in Gaza and that he has been convinced by activists that international courts will successfully prosecute the Jewish state.
In 2024, J Street called on the US government to withhold offensive weapons from Israel, arguing that the United States needs to hold Israel accountable for alleged human rights “violations.”
In September 2025, AIPAC sent an email to supporters decrying Biss and Abughazaleh as “dangerous detractors” to the group’s mission.
AIPAC has thrown its weight behind Fine, despite her longshot candidacy. A recently formed PAC reportedly backed by AIPAC has started spending six-figure sums on ads supporting Fine’s candidacy. The new ad-buy came after her campaign last year received about $300,000 from over 270 donors linked to AIPAC, according to campaign finance records viewed by local news outlet Evanston Now.
Fine has strategically positioned herself as the most pro-Israel candidate in the race.
“Anybody who is supporting me in my campaign is supporting a woman who yes, believes in the existence of Israel, yes believes in freedom and justice for all,” Fine said. “But also, anybody who’s investing in my campaign is investing in a 13-year record of someone who stood up to the biggest bullies in Springfield.”
In the two years following the breakout of the Israel-Hamas war, the role of AIPAC in American politics has become increasingly scrutinized. Fallacious conspiracy theories surrounding the group’s origins and influence over US politicians have become increasingly mainstreamed, causing many Democrats to either return or preemptively reject support and funding from the group. Moreover, the increasing toxicity of AIPAC within Democratic circles comes as party voters have soured on Israel.