Talk:AIPAC

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Edit request 1 March 2026

Description of suggested change:

In the info box, please change Chief Executive Officer from Howard Kohr to Elliot Brandt as per here: https://www.aipac.org/resources/elliot-brandt-ceo

Diff: Warning Unnamed parameter |1= set to default value. Please change it. Failure to use {{Text diff}} to specify your requested text changes, if not adequately described above, may lead to your request being denied.
Jlherman324 (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done The source already indicated Brandt in the infobox, and it was previously updated in the article also (under AIPAC#Prominent_officers_and_supporters, so it was a minor task to change the infobox name. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2026

Under the Iran Policy section, I request the following addition:

AIPAC was a leading opponent of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 powers. The organization mounted a major lobbying campaign against the agreement, creating a subsidiary group called Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran and reportedly spending between $20 million and $40 million on advertising, congressional meetings, and grassroots pressure. The campaign included television spots in nearly two dozen states, full-page newspaper ads, fly-ins of AIPAC members to Washington, and demonstrations at congressional offices.[2][3] Despite this effort, described as one of the most intense lobbying periods in AIPAC's history, the Obama administration secured enough Senate support to sustain a veto of a resolution of disapproval, and the deal went into effect.[4] AIPAC subsequently supported the Trump administration's withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018 and backed the reimposition of sanctions on Iran.[5] MadESpec (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done I have fulfilled the requested addition. Done minor copyedits for clarity and replaced one source with a more reliable ref. The content appears to be verifiable and relevant, so it has been added.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2026

Remove the sentence "AIPAC has been accused of being strongly allied with Israel's Likud party and the U.S. Republican Party.". It's not supported by the body, moreover the sources provided for this claim in the lead do not support the statement either. The first source merely says "There are people in AIPAC who believe that it should be an arm of the Likud, an arm of the Republican Party", which is not even close to being the same with the aforementioned sentence. The next two sources don't support the claim either. Gjivhj (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

To assist editors trying to figure this out, here is the text in question and references.

AIPAC has been accused of being strongly allied with Israel's Likud party and the U.S. Republican Party. An AIPAC spokesman has called this a "malicious mischaracterization".

-- M.boli (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: This change is potentially controversial and will require a consensus before it can be implemented. The requesting editor has mischaracterized the sources, which in fact support the text in question. Day Creature (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

you don't need to obtain consensus to delete information, not supported by the source it is attributed to. And no, I didn't mischaracterize the sources, I advise you to assume good faith. The third sources does state that AIPAC supports Likud, but none of the 3 sources support the claim, that AIPAC "is strongly allied with the Republican Party" Gjivhj (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I see you've now read the third source and realized that your initial claim was overbroad, so you're backpedaling. Let me know when you get around to reading the second one. Day Creature (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Guess what, I did read the article 3 times, and it merely states J street has become popular among democrats, while AIPAC has strong backing from Republican Jews, which is not the same as "AIPAC being strongly allied with the Republican Party" Gjivhj (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

So, despite the fact that all 3 sources mention AIPAC's close ties to the Republican Party, you're disputing this on the grounds that they don't use exactly the same wording as the article. Got it. Let me know when you have an argument that doesn't amount to semantic hair-splitting. Day Creature (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

the onus is on those who make a claim, to support their viewpoint. How do you want me to prove that a statement isn't supported by sources it's attributed to? It's getting ridiculous. And, yes, the exact wording matters, otherwise it's original research. Gjivhj (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

and the statement itself is controversial too, it doesn't seem like consensus has been obtained to write it in the article. There are many sources that explicitly point out to AIPAC's bipartisan nature, I will try to find some later Gjivhj (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

It's the stable version, so you need a consensus to change it. I recommend finding something better to do with your time. Day Creature (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

It's obvious, that you aren't engaging in good faith. I'll make another edit request Gjivhj (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

References

Edit request 29 May 2026

Remove the sentence "AIPAC has been accused of being strongly allied with Israel's Likud party and the U.S. Republican Party.". It's not supported by the sources its attributed to. Moreover the Hindu article directly contradicts it: "Lastly, AIPAC has always adopted a bipartisan approach to its pro-Israel agenda, taking care to ensure funding to both parties."

Gjivhj (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: This has been objected to above, and so is not uncontroversial. Wikipedia:Edit requests specifies that edit requests to extended confirmed restricted topics by editors who are not yet extended confirmed are expected to be uncontroversial without requiring further discussion. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 08:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2026

Change “network to reach every member of congress” to “network to reach every member of Congress.” Jamesmanvsmassifiovongino (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done This paragraph, and part of the next, were garbled remnants of material from the 2014 New Yorker article. I degarbled and reorganized it a little to match the original reporting. -- M.boli (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2026 (2)

Change “ American Jews, the "vital core" of AIPAC membership” to “ American Jews are the "vital core" of AIPAC membership”. ~2026-36815-65 (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I removed this sentence fragment. The "vital core" quote was from the New Yorker article, but about entirely different topic than this section. -- M.boli (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)