The American front of 7 October: the collapse of AIPAC

In our last article, on the occasion of the third anniversary of October 7, looking at the balance sheet that emerged after three years, we said that despite the terrible price it made Gaza pay, Israel has not come out of this war a winner. On the contrary, while destroying Gaza after October 7, Israel also destroyed the world-picture built upon itself. From its military deterrence to its moral legitimacy, from the image of "the Middle East's only democracy" to its immunity in the world, it has largely exhausted the capital it had accumulated, in three years.

Right on the eve of the third anniversary of October 7, a piece published in the New York Times under Eric Alterman's byline shows where this loss has arrived on perhaps its most strategic front: AIPAC, the Israel lobby in America, is no longer the old AIPAC. Even the title of Alterman's piece is striking enough: "How AIPAC Failed, and How It Can Recover."

What is at issue here is not an ordinary lobby. For decades AIPAC has been one of the most important mechanisms of Israel's political immunity in America. We are talking about a structure that even J. William Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, described in 1963 as "the most powerful and effective foreign policy lobby in American politics." About a vast network of influence capable of mobilizing members of Congress, presidential candidates, the media, even religious discourse in Israel's favor.

Now this mechanism is cracking.

The figures Alterman cites point, from whatever angle you look, to a historic transformation. For example, in 1991 about 80 percent of Americans viewed Israel favorably. In 2026 this figure has fallen to 32 percent. More striking still, among Democratic voters the share viewing Israel favorably is only 13 percent.

Moreover, the loss is not only in general American public opinion. A great rupture is also taking place among American Jews, whom Israel has for years counted as natural and unconditional supporters. As we assessed earlier in this column, according to a 2025 Washington Post survey, 61 percent of American Jews believe Israel committed war crimes in Gaza; about 40 percent characterize what has been done as genocide. Nearly half of Jews under 35 now favor not even a two-state solution but a single, binational state in which Israelis and Palestinians would live together. An idea that until recently was considered marginal because it was advocated by a few names such as Edward Said is becoming almost mainstream among young American Jews.

It is perhaps right here that Israel's real balance sheet of October 7 should be sought.

For Israel was able to kill tens of thousands of people in Gaza, to destroy cities, to displace millions. But in doing all this it was unable to eliminate the Palestinian question. On the contrary, it carried Palestine to the conscience of the world, to its universities, its squares, and now to the very center of American politics.

Only a few years ago, receiving AIPAC's support was a sign of strength for an American politician. Now Democratic politicians ask for votes by declaring that they do not accept AIPAC money. Indeed, candidates whom AIPAC tried to defeat by spending millions of dollars are turning opposition to AIPAC into a badge of honor in their election campaigns.

The Michigan case is now recorded as one of the most striking and important examples of this transformation. AIPAC and affiliated groups spent about 30 million dollars to support Haley Stevens in the Democratic Senate primary. Her rival, Abdul El-Sayed, proudly used in his campaign the fact that AIPAC had declared him "the most dangerous candidate in the race."

The winner was El-Sayed.

In Illinois too, AIPAC-affiliated groups spent more than 5 million dollars to block Daniel Biss. Biss advocated limiting arms sales to Israel and recognizing a Palestinian state. He also won.

So a very interesting threshold has been crossed in American politics: whereas once being opposed by AIPAC meant political death for a candidate, today AIPAC's attack can win a candidate votes.

This is not only AIPAC's failure. It is the failure of the Israeli narrative.

The vast propaganda order that for years told the world that the Palestinian was a terrorist and Israel the victim, that occupation was security and resistance was barbarism, has collapsed in the face of the images from Gaza. People now evaluate Israel not as it was told to them but as they see it with their own eyes.

What happens next?

AIPAC will of course not disappear tomorrow. It still has enormous money, organizing capacity and strong relations in Washington. It will try to consolidate support for Israel through the Republicans and especially the Evangelical base. But even this brings with it another loss for Israel: Israel is increasingly ceasing to be America's shared concern and turning into the concern of a particular political camp.

The long-term consequence of this may be far greater. For Israel's real strategic power did not come only from its F-35s, its nuclear weapons or American aid. Its real power came from its moral and political immunity, which prevented all of this from being questioned.

That this immunity has by itself been lifted after October 7 is in itself a great gain for the Palestinian cause.

Perhaps one of the greatest consequences that the terrible price paid by Gaza will leave to world history will be this: the Palestinians have not yet attained their own freedom, but they have already broken the order of mental occupation by which Israel forced the world to think about Palestine as it wished.

Indeed, just as occupation begins in minds, the end of an order of occupation always begins first in minds.