Notably, President Obama will not be speaking at AIPAC this year. AIPAC divisions increasing

For American Jews, soul-searching about both Israel and AIPAC are as dependable as a trip to the movies on Christmas.

That’s become more pronounced as President Barack Obama pushes forward on both an Israeli-Palestinian peace process framework and negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. But now there’s an active effort among more liberal groups to show that the changing politics in the American Jewish community mean that AIPAC’s positions represent fewer and fewer people, and should be getting less and less attention.


Though American Jews strongly supported Obama in both the 2008 and 2012 elections, he’s never fully settled anxieties about not being a close or devoted enough friend of the Jewish State, and he’s rarely seen eye-to-eye with the political group that’s long been the strongest, loudest voice on these issues.

( Also on POLITICO: GOP eyes AIPAC summit for Iran push)

Obama, notably, won’t be addressing the AIPAC annual conference that starts Sunday and runs through the beginning of the week. Neither will Vice President Joe Biden. The administration is sending Secretary of State John Kerry instead — the point man on both these issues. ( )

“This is a time where there are lot of things converging, and there’s a lot of uncertainty, there are a lot of questions,” said Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), the ranking member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, who’ll be attending the AIPAC conference for his 27th straight year and remains a strong supporter. “There’s a bit of angst in the American Jewish community, because these are very important issues and the administration’s right in the thick of it with them.”

Among groups that support the administration’s approaches, the hope is to smash the narrative that by talking about an Israeli-Palestinian compromise and negotiating with Iran, Obama’s working against Israel’s interests. Petitions are circulating. Town halls are being held. More campaign donations are being promised and made to those who support the president. And a coalition of liberal groups has formed that’s been in regular touch with the White House to keep them aware of the support.

( Also on POLITICO: Poll: Obama not respected abroad)

The clearest place that’s begun to manifest itself is the split between AIPAC and J Street, the left-wing alternative founded six years ago. Though they’ve always disagreed ideologically, recent moves in Congress have put them in direct opposition for the first time.

All of this is happening with a clearly shifting backdrop, including the just 17 percent of American Jews who said in a Pew poll last October that they believe expanded West Bank settlements help Israel’s security, and a letter released Thursday by a group of 82 mostly Jewish donors urging Congress again not to pass new sanctions against Iran.

“What we’re saying is that the direction the president and the secretary are pursuing is eminently pro-Israel and this is what friendship for Israel really looks like,” said J Street president and founder Jeremy Ben-Ami. “To promote the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict secures Israel’s future and to achieve the goal of preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon—these are the acts of a friend, this is what pro-Israel should be defined to be.”

An AIPAC spokesman did not return requests for comment about the group’s standing, or its relationship to J Street.

Obama’s approach to the Israel has been notably cautious, and the coolness of his relationship with Netanyahu is the worst kept secret in international affairs. But they’ll meet again Monday at the White House, the day before the prime minister’s own speech to AIPAC. Obama’s made clear that pressing him on the peace process framework will be the top priority in their conversation. Two weeks later, he’ll host Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to pick up the other side of the peace process framework discussions.

To AIPAC doubters, the past year and a half is full of examples of waning influence. The organization never formally opposed the nomination of Chuck Hagel for secretary of defense, but noticeably didn’t offer support as he came under fire for rumored anti-Israel views, and he was confirmed anyway. The AIPAC-supported effort to threaten expulsion for the Palestinian Authority office in Washington in retaliation for their 2012 bid for recognition at the United Nations was pulled in the Senate, and failed to get signatures from two-thirds of House Democrats for a letter of support. Then 131 Republican and Democratic members of the House signed a letter supporting the diplomatic efforts with Iran, and a Senate push to add more sanctions fizzled under pressure from Obama and supporting groups.

Congress rebuffing Obama’s proposed strikes in Syria — nothing like the existential questions about Israel posed by the peace process and the Iranian talks — was also seen as part of the turn away from traditional Middle East hawkishness on the Hill.

AIPAC is also under pressure not to simply become dependable adversaries of the Obama administration, which would risk its bipartisan credentials around the country and jeopardize what’s arguably the best and broadest relationships any political group has with members of Congress. AIPAC’s long supported a two-state solution, but at the moment, the AIPAC legislative agenda has three points: reiterated backing for the Menendez-Kirk Iranian sanctions bill, as well as the much less contentious strengthening of U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation and supporting security assistance for Israel.

J Street has been urging them to add another: bringing the thousands of Jewish activists descending on the Hill for the lobby day that’s part of the conference to speak out in favor of Kerry’s peace process framework.

So far, that hasn’t caught on.

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, who was a lead sponsor of the Menendez-Kirk bill adding new Iran sanctions that AIPAC heavily supported but has since been tabled, said AIPAC’s power hasn’t been diminished.

“There’s always been multiple voices, but the view that I hear from people is that it’s still the preeminent voice,” Menendez said. “They’ve always tried to work with the administration — most of the time, as I understand it, they’ve been in sync with the administration. This is just a difference in a view of tactics at the end of the day. I don’t see it as them being in opposition.”