In one of the scariest moments in modern history, we're doing our best at ScheerPost to pierce the fog of lies that conceal it but we need some help to pay our writers and staff. Please consider a tax-deductible donation.
Joshua Scheer
The shift comes amid growing criticism of the pro-Israel lobby. Senator Chris Van Hollen recently telling a Jewish audience at a J Street conference that the actions of American Israel Public Affairs Committee were “un-American.”
A growing divide over the war with Iran is emerging inside Democratic politics and within AIPAC itself, and nowhere is it more visible than in Illinois.
According to reporting by Jewish Currents, several Democratic congressional candidates in Illinois who are backed by the powerful pro-Israel lobby American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) have publicly criticized the U.S. attack on Iran—despite the lobby’s strong support for the military action.
The break highlights a political dilemma for AIPAC as it pours millions of dollars into Democratic primary races across the country in an effort to maintain strong congressional backing for Israel.
AIPAC praised Donald Trump’s decision to strike Iran, describing the move as “decisive.” But the Democratic candidates the group has supported in Illinois have largely taken the opposite position, condemning the U.S. attack while carefully avoiding direct criticism of Israel’s role in the conflict.
Among them is Illinois State Senator Laura Fine, who warned that Trump’s decision could send the Middle East into further chaos and suggested the president’s actions were grounds for impeachment. Other AIPAC-backed candidates—including former congresswoman Melissa Bean, Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller, and Chicago City Treasurer Melissa Conyears‑Ervin—also criticized the strikes, describing them as unconstitutional, dangerous, or an immoral “war of choice.”
Yet none of the candidates have openly challenged Israel’s involvement in the conflict, reflecting the delicate balancing act facing Democrats who rely on AIPAC support while campaigning in districts where Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the war.
Political analysts say that tension is not accidental. Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and a former adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders, noted that Democratic voters are strongly against the war.
A recent poll by The Washington Post found that roughly 87 percent of Democrats oppose the conflict with Iran. As a result, many candidates are directing their criticism at Trump rather than confronting AIPAC or Israel directly.
“They have to be careful if they want to keep AIPAC support,” Duss explained.
The same political dynamic is playing out in several other races. In New York, Representative Dan Goldman, who has received backing from AIPAC, criticized Trump for defying the Constitution in launching the attack but did not mention Israel. Goldman is currently facing a progressive challenge from former New York City comptroller Brad Lander.
Meanwhile, in North Carolina, Representative Valerie Foushee narrowly defeated progressive challenger Nida Allam in a Democratic primary where the Iran war emerged as a late campaign issue. Allam ran television ads highlighting her opposition to the war and criticizing Foushee for accepting donations from defense contractors. Foushee also opposed the war and attempted to distance herself from AIPAC during the race.
Progressive candidates have seen stronger results in other states. In Texas, Reverend Frederick Haynes won the Democratic primary in the heavily Democratic 30th Congressional District. Haynes has been outspoken in criticizing Israeli policies in Gaza and has also opposed the war with Iran.
Advocates on the left say the results reflect a broader shift within Democratic politics. Beth Miller, political director of Jewish Voice for Peace Action, said recent primaries demonstrate how rapidly the political landscape is changing.
“You could not imagine these folks being serious contenders a few years back,” she said.
Illinois remains a central battleground in that debate. Investigative reporting by WBEZ found that AIPAC donors and affiliated super PACs have spent roughly $13.7 million in the state’s Democratic primaries, largely targeting progressive candidates while boosting more centrist rivals.
Progressive challengers argue that their opponents’ criticism of the war is largely political calculation. Chicago nonprofit founder Junaid Ahmed, who is running against Bean, said candidates understand that AIPAC funding has become politically controversial. Illinois state senator Robert Peters, who is challenging Miller, suggested it was no coincidence that some candidates avoided discussing Israel’s role in the conflict.
In a joint statement, several progressive candidates—including Peters, Ahmed, Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss, and union organizer Anthony Driver—accused Trump of dragging the United States into what they described as an unnecessary war backed by AIPAC, and called on their opponents to reject the lobby’s “pro-war agenda.”
Analysts say the conflict with Iran may intensify the political divide within the Democratic Party. Yousef Munayyer of the Arab Center Washington DC argued that the war is sharpening the contrast between establishment Democrats and insurgent progressive candidates who are increasingly challenging U.S. policy toward Israel.
As Democratic voters grow more skeptical of military intervention and the influence of powerful lobbying groups, the Illinois primaries may offer an early glimpse of how those tensions will shape future congressional races.
This is a clear blow to a group that, to the New York Times, was a bipartisan stalwart. It’s finally colliding with a reality check: people see exactly what this organization represents, and it makes them sick. We’re left asking why Russian, Saudi, and countless other foreign media/lobbying outlets are monitored, restricted, and scrutinized — yet this group is allowed to operate with total impunity.
The Times, of course, used softer language, saying: “AIPAC, the hard-line pro-Israel lobbying organization that once commanded bipartisan fealty, has increasingly become a boogeyman in Democratic circles, with scores of candidates distancing themselves from the group. Last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, a likely 2028 presidential candidate, said he ‘never will’ accept money from AIPAC.”
“Boogeyman” implies an unreal threat and imagined fear. This threat is very real, and the death and destruction that this group represents is the worst kind of “humanity.”
I would end with this from Chicago, with State Senator Mike Simmons saying, “In the Ninth District, AIPAC is toxic.” I would add: it is more than the Ninth District, and more and more are finally able to see it.
Editor’s Note: At a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes, alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and ScheerPost is one of them. Please support our independent journalism by contributing to our online donation platform, Network for Good, or send a check to our new PO Box. We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news.
You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.