(RNS) — For what is almost certainly the first time in American political history, a relatively small number of Jewish voters may determine which party wins majorities in both houses of the U.S. Congress. 

But an internal family dispute could play a major role in how they vote. 

In several highly contested U.S. Senate races and a half-dozen House races nationwide, American support for Israel has bitterly divided this tiny electoral cohort, representing 2.4% of the American population. 

“Jews, though small in number, have an outsized impact on American elections,” said Jonathan Sarna, a Brandeis University professor who has written extensively on American Jewish history, owing to their high percentage of voter participation, and political giving. 

“This election sees Jews divided between those who put their Jewish allegiance first and will therefore not vote for anti-Israel or perceived anti-Semitic candidates, and Jews who put their political allegiance first and will vote for the party — usually, for Jews, the Democratic Party,” Sarna said.   

For centuries, rabbis have taught the principle of shalom bayit, “peace in the home.” That is, keep the household whole, even when it means not winning the argument. Nearly three years after Oct. 7, that peace is gone in many American Jewish homes. The war in Gaza and West Bank settler violence have turned holiday tables into acrimonious tribunals, with charges of genocide on one side and accusations of self-hatred on the other, fought with the verbal intimacy of a family brawl — or a knife fight. 

Since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks in which 1,200 Israeli civilians and soldiers were killed and about 250 people were taken hostage, and the subsequent war in Gaza, a growing number of American Jews, including me, but especially younger and progressive ones, have turned against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his war. The central issues are civilian casualties and the subsequent grotesque humanitarian suffering in Gaza. 

A recent Jewish Electorate Institute poll found that while 86% of American Jews support Israel, 63% are critical of  the right-wing Likud Party’s government policies.

As midterms approach, Jewish legacy organizations like AIPAC are losing their grip on Democratic candidates’ policies. They respond not by making their case but by attempting to deflect this opprobrium. Through its PAC, United Democracy Project, AIPAC runs ads that barely mention Israel. The Anti-Defamation League treats criticism of Netanyahu as a form of antisemitism. Their Republican allies, meanwhile, seek to win support of Democratic Jewish voters in races that will decide control of Congress.  

These legacy Jewish organizations want to make military aid to Israel a litmus test for supporting candidates, in effect the tail that wags the Democratic Party dog in both the midterms and the forthcoming presidential campaign.  

But AIPAC’s electoral strategy has encountered significant resistance in Democratic primaries this year, with several candidates benefiting from its support losing high-profile contests. The defeats suggest that the group’s financial backing may no longer guarantee the political influence it once did.  

Tellingly, some AIPAC-backed ads don’t mention Israel.  

Consider AIPAC’s latest political advertisements. In one, in the highly contested Michigan Senatorial primary, the attack ad — with no evidence — asserts that Democrat Abdul El-Sayed does not respect women.    

“These advertisements talk about a host of issues of interest to voters, but they largely avoid any mention of Israel,” Eli Clifton, co-author of the new book “Israel’s Lobby: America in the Grip of a Foreign Power,” said in an interview. 

Why this shift? Experts note younger and grass roots Democrats’ growing opposition to Israeli government actions. Jewish communities in Michigan and Georgia have been divided over Democratic U.S. Senate nominees, with competing open letters, petitions and demonstrations expressing support or opposition.  

After failing to influence key Democratic primary races, single-issue pro-Likud organizations now seem to prefer having a GOP congressional majority or even another Republican president to having a Democratic Party united against further U.S. aid to Netanyahu’s regime (assuming he’s reelected on Oct. 27).  

In this environment, the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) hopes to siphon off some of the 75% of Jews who regularly vote Democratic but may be feeling deeply uncomfortable with Democratic candidates who oppose further aid to Israel, especially offensive military assistance. In July, a majority of congressional Democrats voted to end this aid. 

At their summer Annual Leadership Summit, the RJC supported heavyweights like Vice President JD Vance, who denounced Michigan U.S. Senate candidate El-Sayed as “very, very evil.”

From Alaska and California to New Hampshire, supporting Israel has become a campaign issue in U.S. House and Senate contests. Voters outraged by the Likud and IDF conduct in Gaza seem to shun anything supporting Israel’s government.  

Responding to AIPAC and the RJC’s efforts to peel away Jewish Democratic voters in key November races, J Street, the liberal pro-Israel (but anti-Netanyahu) organization, pledged $3 million to Democratic incumbent Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff, plus four close house races. Victories there could give Democrats Senate and House majorities.  

“We’re focusing all our fire on defeating the MAGA agenda this cycle,” said J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami on Sept. 12, according to the Times of Israel.

AIPAC shot back with a statement on X: “A dark money super PAC spending millions to defeat pro-Israel candidates and lie about AIPAC…Not a word about helping elect pro-Israel candidates further exposes the difference between J Street and actual pro-Israel organizations dwarfs J Street’s $3 million.  

Amid AIPAC’s recent primary election losses, ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt pursues a more successful alternative strategy: hijacking the narrative and thus marginalizing Israel’s critics. He declared all anti-Zionists antisemites, implying they were closet terrorists. Then he claimed anyone supporting any Palestinian rights was antisemitic. 

Why has this intellectually dishonest cancellation strategy gained traction?  

Despite prosperity and social acceptance, many suburban American Jewish immigrant descendants still carry some “shtetl mentality,” a fearful defensiveness born in historic Europe persecution. The ADL’s rhetoric implies the Democratic Socialists of America and their less doctrinaire allies are the modern equivalents of rampaging late-19th-century Russian Cossacks.

This ADL conflation has influenced many older Jews into tribalism, circling the wagons against any criticism of Netanyahu, lest they be labeled self-haters or antisemites.  

At least for the next two years, the Gaza war and the 2028 Democratic Presidential primaries are likely to exacerbate a generational shift in the North American Jewish community. 

This will be a difficult discussion, and it will force critics like me and those who share my views to confront Israel’s moral decline in the face of what many of its citizens see as a threat to the Jewish State’s existence. Still, we need to say: It’s time.  

(Durham, N.C.-based journalist and author Mark I. Pinsky has reported on antisemitism in the Jewish Diaspora for secular and Jewish publications for more than 12 years. He was a civilian volunteer attached to the IDF in El Arish, Sinai, in 1967. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)

An earlier version of this column incorrectly stated that J Street pledged financial support to Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan. J Street did not pledge money to El-Sayed. The column has been corrected.