Controlled Opposition: How “Progressive” Zionism Protects Jewish Influence

California gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer launched a direct assault on the most powerful pro-Israel lobby in American politics, declaring that “AIPAC is a dark money organization that should have no place in our politics.” In a subsequent press conference, he added that “AIPAC is cheering on Trump and Netanyahu’s war” and argued that “we do not have the same interest as this dark money organization.”

The Jewish billionaire’s comments arrived alongside another striking rebuke of the lobby’s influence. Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss, who won the March 2026 Democratic primary for Illinois’s 9th Congressional District, declared after his victory: “Yes, Israel was a safe haven for my Holocaust survivor grandparents and their 2-year-old daughter, my mother, in 1948. And at the same time, the oppression of the Palestinian people is an unacceptable stain on the world and on the Jewish people as well.”

Biss continued with a direct challenge to the lobby that spent more than $5 million against his campaign. “AIPAC found out the hard way. The Ninth District is not for sale.” These confrontations reflect a broader shift within the Democratic Party as criticism of AIPAC spreads from the progressive fringe toward the mainstream.

Three House Democrats formally swore off AIPAC contributions in 2025 after accepting them in prior cycles, driven by constituent pressure over the Gaza conflict. Rep. Morgan McGarvey (D-KY) cut ties despite AIPAC being a top contributor in prior cycles. Rep. Deborah Ross (D-NC) did the same — the two had received a combined $104,000 from AIPAC in 2024. Rep. Valerie Foushee (D-NC) rejected further support despite receiving $2 million from AIPAC’s affiliated super PAC for her 2022 race.

Rep. La Shawn Ford (D-IL) took the confrontation further, stating that he refused to meet AIPAC’s requirement of supporting unconditional military aid to Israel. He went on to defeat AIPAC’s preferred candidate in the 2026 Illinois 7th District primary.

A wave of prominent Democrats eyeing 2028 presidential bids have rejected any AIPAC association. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) is rejecting all PAC money this cycle. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) compared Israel to an “apartheid state” — though he later walked back that specific term — and has said he will never take AIPAC money. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY), former Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), and Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) have all distanced themselves from the lobby. Shapiro says he has never taken or solicited AIPAC support.

In a major symbolic move signaling the party’s shift, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries accepted J Street’s endorsement for the first time — a notable break after years in which the House’s top Democrat had kept the progressive pro-Israel group at arm’s length.

J Street PAC is backing 133 House and Senate incumbents plus challengers running against Republican incumbents. The J Street Action Fund super PAC raised $3 million, its largest independent expenditure effort, in partnership with Senate Majority PAC and House Majority PAC. Key endorsed candidates include Representative Dan Goldman of New York and Daniel Biss. J Street has also “primary approved” Brad Lander — a separate designation that allows J Street donors to contribute to his campaign through the PAC portal, short of a full endorsement.

The scale gap between the two organizations remains enormous. AIPAC’s super PAC, United Democracy Project, has raised $78 million for the 2026 cycle and already spent over $7.3 million, but AIPAC also spent $22 million in Illinois races while obscuring the source of the funds. J Street’s $3 million super PAC fund is dwarfed by comparison but is being deployed strategically in targeted races.

Yet observers should temper their optimism about this shift. Liberal Zionist organizations that have emerged as alternatives to AIPAC, particularly J Street, function as gatekeepers that prevent a legitimate, principled anti-Zionist movement from taking root in American politics.

The Electronic Intifada has consistently framed J Street as a more palatable arm of the same lobby. Co-founder Ali Abunimah wrote that “if J Street does not have the courage to support the ICC investigation, opposes the nonviolent BDS movement, opposes cutting US aid to Israel, and, needless to say, condemns any form of Palestinian armed struggle, then, in effect, it does support total impunity for Israel.” The outlet has documented J Street’s rejection of BDS, its unconditional support for US military aid, and its use of “demographic threat” framing as evidence that J Street serves Israeli rather than Palestinian interests. Abunimah concluded that “J Street remains an enemy of Palestinian rights whose mission is to put a softer, ‘progressive’ face on apartheid.”

Mondoweiss published a May 2024 piece critiquing J Street for supporting Israeli military aid, Palestinian demilitarization, and rejection of the right of return, arguing that its two-state framework presupposes Palestinians must “settle for areas designated by the Israeli colonizers.”

Al Shabaka, the Palestinian Policy Network, published an influential June 2023 policy brief calling liberal Zionism “a pillar of Israel’s settler colonial project” and using J Street as its central American case study, urging activists and institutions to refuse the normalization of Israeli settler colonization and to shift public discourse toward Palestinian decolonial frameworks.

The critiques of J Street from Palestinian solidarity organizations center on several key issues. J Street opposes BDS, the central tool of Palestinian civil society resistance, and actively lobbies against it in Congress, on campuses, and in churches. The organization historically supported every appropriation of US security assistance to Israel, undermining the leverage needed to end the occupation — although in November 2024, it backed Bernie Sanders’ resolutions to block some arms transfers, and in April 2026 it called for phasing out all US military aid to Israel by 2028. J Street backed the US position opposing Palestinian recognition at the UN in 2011 and rejects the right of return, which critics see as fundamentally anti-Palestinian.

The organization’s “demographic threat” talking point reveals that liberal Zionism’s concern is preserving a Jewish demographic majority rather than Palestinian rights. During the post-October 7 war, J Street issued no call to halt U.S. weapons shipments despite expressing concern about civilian casualties — a pattern documented across its 132 press releases between October 7, 2023 and the January 2025 ceasefire, as analyzed by The Nation. By occupying a “pro-Israel, pro-peace” position, J Street provides Democratic lawmakers a shield against demands for more substantive measures to rein in Israel.

The political terrain on which these battles are fought has transformed dramatically. On April 7, 2026, Pew Research Center published a major survey based on 3,507 U.S. adults interviewed March 23 through 29, roughly a month into the joint U.S.-Israeli military operations in Iran. The headline finding showed that 60 percent of Americans now view Israel unfavorably, up from 53 percent last year and 42 percent in 2022. The share holding a “very unfavorable” view at 28 percent has nearly tripled since 2022, when it stood at just 10 percent.

The partisan breakdown reveals the depth of the shift. Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, 80 percent hold an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 69 percent last year and 53 percent in 2022. Among Democrats under 50, fully 47 percent hold a “very unfavorable” view.

Even among Republicans, cracks are appearing. While 58 percent of Republicans and Republican leaners still view Israel favorably overall, 57 percent of Republicans under 50 now view Israel unfavorably, up from 50 percent last year. Only older Republicans aged 50 and above remain solidly pro-Israel.

The shift in public sentiment against AIPAC proves that the establishment is losing its grip, but it also highlights a dangerous new phase of controlled opposition. Organizations and activists who seek to pivot from AIPAC to J Street are simply trading one layer of Jewish influence for another. We must call this what it is: the colonization of our political system by organized Jewry.

There is no legitimate political solution as long as we refuse to address the fact that our national interests are being systematically sacrificed to serve Jewish communal objectives. The path to defeat is paved with these “kosher” critiques that protect the core centers of power.