Being Pro-Israel: A Tent of Intent

It’s not unusual to be on the receiving end of name-calling at J Street. I’ve heard quite an array over my fifteen years at the pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-democracy advocacy group.

Increasingly there’s been more coming from the far-left: tagging us with the accurate Zionist label but that is meant as a slur, comparisons to Nazis and other genocidal references, and more–some that either borders on or is full-on antisemitism.

But what’s been consistent since J Street’s founding are the attacks from the right. I’ll forgo most of the examples and simply keep with the most recent, which come from Israeli Ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter, who in the last couple weeks has referred to J Street as “a cancer within the Jewish community” and has since only doubled down on his claims that we are not pro-Israel, despite a letter from over 600 Jewish communal leaders calling for an apology. 

It’s been perplexing over the years to understand why J Street evokes such animosity from the right, but I think journalist Joshua Leifer captured it in his recent Haaretz piece:

It is precisely J Street’s normality that makes the Jewish right hate it with such venom. It is because J Street’s supporters cannot be dismissed as communal outsiders, deluded youths or self-hating Jews – and are instead, by and large, mainstream liberals and Jewish communal professionals . . . . J Street’s adversaries would like nothing more than for J Street to be a radical left group and cannot bear the fact that it is not.

While Leifer may have provided a reasonable explanation, those of us who care about Israel cannot be placated by it. If the pro-Israel community in the United States and elsewhere is to endure, then we must insist that the boundaries we set are defined by intent rather than tactics.

To be clear, this is not to say that differences or debate should be set aside. But we should resist the temptation to exile those with whom we disagree for political expediency or convenience.

I offer that to be pro-Israel, beyond simply recognizing Israel’s right to exist, one’s actions should be motivated by what they deem to be in Israel’s best interests.

Now, there is ample space for disagreement within those parameters.

The prevailing vision for Israel from its current government, its most extreme with the inclusion of ministers like Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, is one of diminished democratic checks and liberties with a border encompassing the West Bank and Gaza free of all Palestinians. This is a vision vastly different from the one to which J Street, the majority of American Jews, and many Israelis adhere. Indeed a broad spectrum of Israelis from the wide range who participated in democracy protests to those involved with groups like Parents Circle – Families Forum, B’Tselem or Commanders for Israel’s Security hold competing ideas from their government on what their country’s future should be. We are all still pro-Israel. 

Groups like AIPAC and others on the right prioritize the existence of what they perceive to be a strong US-Israel relationship over the democratic values that are meant to be the foundation of that relationship, as evidenced by their endorsement of election-denying candidates in the US and refusal to criticize policies that endanger Israeli democracy. J Street and the majority of American Jews believe in a secure, Jewish, and democratic Israel and that it is perfectly acceptable to criticize Israeli government policies. We are all still pro-Israel. 

It is even possible to have both vastly different visions and strategies and still be part of the same community. This was on full display at the World Zionist Congress last October in which both I and J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami participated. Present at the Congress were Israelis and Jews from all over the world who have different ideas on what Israel should be. And even among those with similar ideas exists strong disagreement on how to achieve them. Yet there we all were, bought into the same system, seeking common ground where possible and opposing each other—sometimes vehemently—where not. We were far from uniformity, but there was unity. And all of us there were still pro-Israel.

J Street openly criticizes Israeli and American policies that we believe harm both Israel’s long-term interests as a secure, Jewish, and democratic state and the US-Israel relationship. Most recently, we have called for the sunsetting of American subsidies for Israeli purchases of American-made weaponry and the enforcement of policy requiring purchasers of such military equipment to use that materiel in accordance with US law. These positions are informed by our care for Israel and the US-Israel relationship. Others can disagree with us. But we are still pro-Israel.

There are many, largely on the right, with whom I differ regarding vision, tactics, or both related to Israel. Much of my opposition is based on my assessment that their views and actions are not good for Israel, the US-Israel relationship, or the health of our community. I am happy to have that debate with them. It is one that is likely to never end, and we will keep competing in the marketplace of ideas. As it should be.

But past the tension over their views or actions is their intent. And despite the at-times wholehearted opposition that even leads to feelings of disgust for certain actors, I don’t question that they think they are proponents of what they believe to be best for Israel. So as infuriating as it can be at times, as misguided or dangerous as I think some are, I still acknowledge that we are part of at least one same fraternity—the pro-Israel community. 

For the long-term health and viability of that community, I urge others to afford the same courtesy to me and my colleagues.