Just two or three years ago, it looked like pro-Israel forces would be able to steer the direction of Democratic Party politics for a very long time.

The October 7 attacks had engendered global sympathy for Israel, and the select number of leftists and pro-Palestine activists who didn’t immediately condemn the horrors that day found themselves on the defensive. A few pundits even predicted that anti-Zionist organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America would soon self-destruct. In 2024, the Democratic Majority for Israel PAC, a powerful and very wealthy political action committee that intervenes in Democratic primaries against candidates it believes are insufficiently supportive of Israel, helped to defeat progressives in Congress like Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush. It also helped crush Nina Turner, a top Bernie Sanders ally, in an Ohio House race, and successfully drove progressive Zionist Andy Levin out of Congress. Then there was AIPAC, the seemingly invincible lobbying behemoth that for decades had financially sustained pro-Israel Democrats and Republicans alike. There didn’t seem to be much of a political consequence for Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries sharing donors with Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham.

That era might now be ending. Israel hawks still live in the Democratic Party, but there are fewer of them in 2026. The modern Democrat looks more like New Jersey senator Andy Kim or Maryland senator Chris Van Hollen — supportive of a two-state solution but deeply and openly critical of the Netanyahu government. Conditioning military aid to Israel, once taboo, is increasingly becoming a mainstream Democratic position. The war in Gaza, which has resulted in 60,000 dead and the total immiseration of the Palestinian people, has turned much of the left against Israel and caused a generational cleavage that is probably here to stay. By the 2030s, there will be fewer and fewer Democrats who speak about Israel like John Fetterman might.

AIPAC is under particular scrutiny from both progressive and centrist Democrats after it spent $2 million against Tom Malinowski, a former congressman from New Jersey running in a special election. In damaging him, AIPAC inadvertently tipped the crowded primary to Analilia Mejia, a leftist organizer who has said Israel committed genocide in Gaza. Malinowski, meanwhile, was a staunch Israel supporter who had merely supported putting some conditions on aid to Israel. “They are now demanding 100 percent fealty,” Malinowski told Politico of AIPAC. “On some level, they may have preferred to elect an anti-Israel progressive versus a mainstream Democrat, who departs from their hard line in a small way.”

Progressives exulted in Mejia’s victory; they revile AIPAC already and were glad to see the group’s spending backfire. But centrists also fumed at the approach AIPAC took. Malinowski wasn’t the enemy, they insisted. Surely some disagreement with the Israel government had to be permissible.

It’s hard to say whether this is a watershed moment — plenty of Israel-friendly Democrats still exist — but a shift is probably underway. The younger Democrats who run for office now understand that fealty to the Netanyahu government or any other that replaces it (none will be especially left-wing) makes little political sense. These shifts are driven as much by a banal political calculus as they are any moral imperative. If you are a Democratic voter who takes left-of-center views on social and economic issues, you have little common cause with the theocratic governance of Israel. In 2028, the leading Democratic candidates will likely be the least pro-Israel in many decades. This means, simply, that they won’t advocate indulging in every last violent whim of the Israeli government. AIPAC and the Democratic Majority for Israel PAC will have fewer allies to choose from.

These groups should also worry about the Republican Party. The youth wing of MAGA is far less supportive of Israel than prior generations of conservatives. The America Firsters don’t quite understand how unconditional support of the Israeli government fits into their formulation. If both right-wing Republicans and progressive Democrats turn against Israel, traditional pro-Israel lobbyists will find themselves increasingly bereft of allies. They still have enough veteran Republicans to default to, as well as the Schumer generation of Democrats. But, at some point, they’ll fade away. If AIPAC slips, historians might point to the moment when it targeted a putative ally from New Jersey who dared to offer mild criticism of the Israeli government. Even if his progressive opponent doesn’t hold the seat — the New Jersey district, once held by Mikie Sherrill, is purple and could fall to a Republican — the damage has been done. Centrists now understand that AIPAC will never, truly, be in their corner. And they know how to read polls: The under-40 voter who is against Israel may soon be the under-50 or under-60 voter who is against Israel. Nothing in politics is forever. AIPAC might learn that the hard way.