Which pro-Israel organizations endorsed or opposed AIPAC's 2024 stance on two states?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
AIPAC publicly reiterated longstanding support for a two‑state outcome in past materials, but its 2024 political actions and internal talking points drew criticism for omitting or downplaying that language [1] [2]. Pro‑Israel organizations divided: J Street explicitly backs a two‑state solution and positioned itself as a counterweight to AIPAC [3] [4], while AIPAC and its electoral arm spent heavily defending candidates it deemed pro‑Israel without centering two‑state messaging in leaked talking points [5] [2].
1. AIPAC’s public stance vs. its 2024 messaging — a gap that matters
AIPAC has historically said it supports direct negotiations leading to a two‑state outcome, a formulation reiterated in previous statements [1]. Reporting on AIPAC’s 2024 conference and leaked talking points found “no mention of a two‑state solution,” prompting critics to argue the lobby had aligned closer to Israel’s right wing in its Hill outreach [2]. The contrast between formal policy language and operational materials fueled the dispute over what AIPAC was effectively endorsing in 2024 [2].
2. J Street and other pro‑peace groups as explicit two‑state advocates
J Street is repeatedly identified in the record as the leading U.S. pro‑Israel group that explicitly supports a two‑state solution and formed a PAC to back candidates holding that view; it was founded as a moderate counterweight to AIPAC [3]. J Street also signaled willingness to restrain electoral spending if AIPAC agreed to de‑escalate political intervention — a negotiation that demonstrates the political as well as policy divide [6].
3. Electoral spending sharpened the fault lines in 2024
AIPAC and its affiliated entities dramatically increased electoral spending in 2024 — reporting hundreds of millions through AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project — which shifted the organization from pure lobbying to active candidate intervention [5] [7]. That scale of political activity intensified scrutiny from progressive and pro‑peace groups who argued AIPAC’s investments targeted lawmakers open to conditioning aid, ceasefires, or fuller scrutiny of Israeli policy [8] [2].
4. The “Reject AIPAC” coalition and the pro‑two‑state electoral response
In response to AIPAC’s 2024 spending plans, more than 20 progressive and pro‑Palestinian organizations formed coalitions like Reject AIPAC to defend incumbents critical of Israeli policy and to champion Palestinian rights and statehood; those groups explicitly positioned themselves against AIPAC’s electoral tactics [8] [9]. Groups such as IfNotNow publicly endorsed members of Congress who support Palestinian rights as part of that broader push [10].
5. Competing narratives inside the pro‑Israel ecosystem
Mainstream coverage and watchdogs show competing views: some Jewish organizations and former leaders called for sustained US commitment to two states alongside AIPAC [11], while AIPAC’s own political playbook emphasized electability and strong pro‑Israel credentials more than public two‑state advocacy in 2024 materials [2] [5]. Critics like Raed Jarrar and outlets including The American Prospect framed AIPAC’s silence on two states as aligning with Israeli hardline positions [2].
6. What the sources don’t settle — and why that matters
Available sources outline AIPAC’s long‑term policy language and its heavy 2024 electoral engagement, along with the explicit two‑state advocacy of J Street and pro‑peace coalitions [1] [5] [3]. Sources do not provide a definitive, single list of every pro‑Israel organization that formally “endorsed” or “opposed” AIPAC’s 2024 stance on two states; detailed position statements from many groups are not quoted in the reporting provided here (available sources do not mention a comprehensive endorsement list). That gap leaves room for differing interpretations about where each organization drew its line between defending Israel and pushing for a negotiated Palestinian state.
7. Bottom line for readers
If your question is which pro‑Israel organizations publicly and explicitly endorsed a two‑state outcome in the 2024 debate: J Street and a constellation of Jewish and pro‑peace groups are on record as pro‑two‑state advocates [3]. If your question is which groups aligned with AIPAC’s 2024 political strategy, AIPAC and its affiliated political arms (AIPAC PAC, United Democracy Project) led the electoral push — a move that opponents say deprioritized explicit two‑state messaging even if AIPAC’s broader formal policy has historically included it [5] [2].