NEW YORK — As the primary elections approach in New York, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) finds itself at the heart of heated debates, despite not officially participating in several key races. The prominent pro-Israel special interest group, known for its substantial electoral spending, has become a contentious topic among Democratic candidates, especially in the highly competitive race between Rep. Dan Goldman and former city Comptroller Brad Lander.

In various Democratic primaries across New York, AIPAC’s influence has been a polarizing issue. Candidates like Lander have criticized opponents for their perceived ties to the group, using it to galvanize support among the progressive base. Lander, in his campaign, has taken a firm stance against accepting AIPAC money and has labeled the group’s activities as detrimental to both American democracy and Palestinian rights.

Goldman, on the other hand, while attempting to distance himself from AIPAC, acknowledges the potential negative impact of their endorsement. His campaign has focused on returning to core local issues, hoping to shift the narrative away from foreign policy debates that have dominated his and other races. Yet, the AIPAC topic remains a fixture in his electoral battle, reflecting a broader national trend where attitudes towards Israel and its lobbyists are becoming increasingly scrutinized, particularly among younger voters.

The debate reached a fever pitch at a recent solidarity rally for Jews and Muslims in Brooklyn, where Lander reiterated his criticisms of AIPAC, drawing applause from the crowd. Goldman, while critical of some of AIPAC’s methods, maintains a more moderate stance, advocating for balanced discussions with various pro-Israel and peace organizations.

Elsewhere in New York, similar patterns unfold. In the race to replace retiring Rep. Nydia Velázquez, accusations fly over AIPAC’s alleged hidden influence through super PACs. Assemblymember Claire Valdez and Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso, both critical of Israel’s policies, spar over the timing and sincerity of their positions, with Valdez accusing Reynoso of being influenced by AIPAC-backed funds.

This election cycle has seen an uptick in the use of AIPAC as a political tool, whether to mobilize bases or to attack opponents. The implications of this strategy extend beyond immediate electoral outcomes, potentially reshaping Democratic party dynamics and its approach to Middle Eastern policies.

As candidates navigate the tricky waters of international advocacy and local voter priorities, the outcome of these primaries may very well signal a shift in how Democratic politicians engage with pro-Israel entities and address the complex geopolitics of the region. The rising debates suggest a growing expectation for transparency and a reevaluation of traditional alliances, reflecting broader changes in the political and demographic landscape of the party.