Now that Tom Malinowski has conceded the N.J. Democratic congressional primary to the progressive Analilia Mejia, AIPAC is once again under fire for its role in that race. The establishment pro-Israel group’s political action committee ran ads against Malinowski because he has expressed openness to restricting weapons sales to Israel. Mejia, who is strongly anti-Israel, eked out a victory by less than a thousand votes.

To many observers, then, AIPAC’s participation in the campaign was an unalloyed failure: The worst candidate on Israel won, and without AIPAC’s involvement a more moderate candidate who had some pre-established relationships with pro-Israel activists might have won. AIPAC’s preferred candidate, meanwhile, ended up in third place.

There is one more relevant detail here: AIPAC’s ad campaign hit Malinowski on progressive heterodoxy, such as support for immigration enforcement. AIPAC ran ads hoping to hurt Malinowski by tying him to President Trump’s policies.

AIPAC’s defenders might therefore be tempted to downplay its losses: Israel wasn’t on the ballot, so it wasn’t AIPAC’s support for the Jewish state that lost votes. Plus, AIPAC’s involvement now looks effective, perhaps making its participation more valuable to other candidates. Additionally, this primary was for the unfinished part of Gov. Mikie Sherrill’s seat; there will be another primary in June to decide who will run as the Democratic candidate for the full following term, which begins in January. Therefore, AIPAC will get a do-over anyway.

AIPAC itself seems to be making no such “12 dimensional chess” argument. Its perspective is clear: The organization is trying to exact a cost from politicians who support conditioning aid to Israel. “We are going to have a focus on stopping candidates who are detractors of Israel or who want to put conditions on aid,” Patrick Dorton, a spokesperson for the United Democracy Project, AIPAC’s affiliated PAC, told JTA.

The group has certainly made an enemy of Malinowski, who congratulated Mejia and then said that although his opponent ran a positive campaign, “the outcome of this race cannot be understood without also taking into account the massive flood of dark money that AIPAC spent on dishonest ads during the last three weeks.”

He unloaded on AIPAC, calling it “a pro-Trump-billionaire-funded organization that demands absolute fealty” and “smears those who don’t fall into line.” If any future candidate has AIPAC’s backing, he added, “I will oppose that candidate and urge my supporters to do so as well.”

So let’s sort this all out.

Did AIPAC’s strategy backfire in this race, helping to bring about the worst-possible result from the perspective of the organization’s core interests? The answer is yes. The winner was a candidate backed by the virulently anti-Zionist progressive arm of the party led by Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Extremist anti-Israel rhetoric will once again be seen as no obstacle to elected office.

Additionally, the group has burned bridges with a politician who otherwise would have picked up the phone when AIPAC called to at least listen to what the group had to say. Then there is the fact that AIPAC has in some circles become a bogeyman representing the wider pro-Israel advocacy world, and therefore its mistakes have a wider blast radius than they might otherwise.

But the criticism of AIPAC should be balanced with an understanding of what it is trying to do in the post-October 7 world of American Jewish advocacy, and that is a more nuanced picture.

AIPAC’s failure in New Jersey comes during a reignited debate about anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, and to what extent the Jews of America can overcome the challenges that lie ahead. In that discussion, there is a virtual consensus that the American Jewish establishment must adapt and evolve. The old models are dead and buried and should be left that way.

AIPAC, therefore, is not a dinosaur blithely awaiting its extinction. It is trying to adapt to the new environment. That, at least, should be encouraged conceptually. The old environment was one that AIPAC had learned to navigate masterfully. Such organizations almost never admit that their glory days are irrelevant and that if they want to survive they’ll have to learn to play a whole new game.

Which is to say, AIPAC is, at the very least, not resting on its laurels as the asteroid hits. It may fail, but it’s trying. It has shed its fear of taking on Democrats, and its participation in campaigns is still relatively new. The real question now is: Can AIPAC admit when it loses a round and make the right adjustments? The stakes for the American Jewish community are too high to let pride rule the day.