Exporting Division: Netanyahu’s War on American Jewish Pluralism

When Yechiel Leiter, Israel’s ambassador to Washington and a prominent leader of the settlement movement, labeled the liberal lobby J Street a “cancer within the American Jewish community,” it was no mere slip of the tongue. It was the export of a political blueprint refined over decades by Benjamin Netanyahu: divide society into loyalists and domestic enemies, frame criticism as treason, and rule over the wreckage. In Israel, this strategy enabled him to survive scandals and win elections by systematically dismantling civic trust. Now, he is turning that same weapon across the ocean toward American Jewry, with the same intent and at the exact same cost.

Netanyahu did not just fracture Israeli society; he also helped push Washington toward a destructive military confrontation with Iran. The result was regional escalation, the empowerment of hardliners in Tehran, and a growing backlash within the United States. Today, the very same playbook is being deployed against American Jews: demand absolute conformity, brand any dissent as betrayal, and thereby deepen the alienation within the American Jewish community, fracturing it from within.

J Street is not a radical organization. It is liberal, pro-Israel, and supportive of a two-state solution. It represents a broad mainstream of American Jewry, one that seeks to support Israel without automatically rubber-stamping every policy of the Netanyahu government. Yet even these moderate stances are now cast as treason by figures aligned with Netanyahu and the settlement movement.

This toxic rhetoric is already translating into action. A striking example is the planned appointment of Caroline Glick, one of the most prominent figures of the populist right and a fierce Netanyahu loyalist, as Israel’s Consul General in New York.

The New York consulate is no routine diplomatic post; it is the most sensitive bridge between the State of Israel and the largest, most influential Jewish community in the diaspora. Choosing Glick for this role signals the weaponization of Israeli diplomacy in the culture war waged by the Netanyahu government. Glick, an outspoken champion of Donald Trump and the American conservative movement, has a long history of attacking Reform and Conservative Judaism. This represents a direct collision with the demographic reality of American Jewry: Pew Research Center data consistently shows that the vast majority of religiously affiliated Jews in the U.S. belong to liberal streams, while the Orthodox sector, to which the Israeli government’s rhetoric appeals, remains a relatively small minority.

Historically, relations between Israel and American Jewry were built, at least ostensibly, on a concept of mutual partnership. But under Netanyahu, a profound shift is underway: American Jewry is no longer viewed as an independent community with its own voice, sensitivities, and interests. Instead, it is being reduced to a pawn in Israeli political power struggles. In place of dialogue, there is an attempt to enforce political discipline from across the sea.

When an official representative of Israel accuses liberal American denominations of anti-Zionist progressivism, they are not merely attacking their views. They are drawing the boundaries of legitimacy within the American Jewish community. The message is unmistakable: American Jews must fall in line with the Netanyahu government’s policies or face political and public excommunication.

This process is accelerating the polarization surrounding Israel within American politics. By aligning Israeli diplomacy entirely with one side of the U.S. political map, the government is eroding Israel’s ability to sustain broad, long-term bipartisan support. It is transforming Israel from a consensus issue into a deeply partisan and polarizing wedge.

The reason American support for Israel remained so robust over the years was never just the power of the pro-Israel lobby in Washington. It was because many Americans viewed Israel as a Western democracy that shared core values and strategic interests with the United States. Even those who opposed the occupation or settlement policies did not necessarily question Israel’s fundamental legitimacy or its strategic alliance with America.

But that reality is shifting. As Israel becomes increasingly identified with destruction, oppression, and unrestrained military might, its moral standing is eroding in the eyes of many Americans. For a growing segment of the American public, Israel is no longer seen as a liberal state defending itself, but as a power acting in direct opposition to the values America claims to champion. This sentiment is only magnified when Israel, or entities aligned with it, brazenly attempt to interfere in American politics and public life.

No organization, including J Street, is immune to criticism. But to brand it a “cancer,” or to dispatch a Consul General who ideologically delegitimizes it, is not an act of moral clarity; it is a deliberate provocation designed to ignite a culture war within American Jewry. What is being attempted here is all too familiar to Israelis: transforming pluralism into a loyalty test and then blaming the excluded for the division. This is the exact political playbook Netanyahu has perfected in Israel for years, bifurcating the world into “loyalists” versus “traitors,” those who belong to the camp and those who must be denounced.

Even David Makovsky, a stalwart pro-Israel establishment analyst from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, recently warned that another Israeli government reliant on extremists like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich could severely undermine relations with American Jewry and shatter bipartisan support. But this is no longer a warning about the future; the process is underway. Netanyahu is not merely dependent on these extremists; he is actively adopting and exporting their politics of forced loyalty and denunciation directly into the public life of American Jewry.

American Jewish institutions cannot afford to remain silent in the face of this rhetoric and political strategy. They must draw a clear red line against the delegitimization of liberal Jews and oppose any attempt to turn support for Israel into a political loyalty test. They must cultivate spaces where people can vigorously debate the occupation, borders, security, and the future of Israel without every disagreement being branded as treason. A younger generation of American Jews will not distance themselves from Israel solely because of a specific policy; they will walk away if they feel they have no moral or political right to speak their minds honestly.

The ambassador’s words and the government’s high-profile appointments are intended to project strength. In reality, they project fear, fear of an open debate regarding the moral and political price of an endless occupation of other people, and fear of the reality that American Jews are no longer willing to automatically fall in line. Calling J Street a “cancer” or sending a Consul General to New York who is overtly hostile to liberal streams will not strengthen the American Jewish community. It will only deepen the fracture within it, replicating the same politics of division that have already inflicted profound damage on Israeli society.

For decades, Israel relied on a pluralistic, liberal, and self-assured American Jewish community. The bitter irony is that the Israeli government is now actively targeting the very political culture that helped build the depth of its support in the United States. If this trend continues, the damage will not just be diplomatic or political. Israel may discover, too late, that it has dismantled one of its most critical strategic and historic assets with its own hands.

 Please check out my recently published book, Op-Ed: Musings on War & Peace in the Middle East and Beyond.