This week, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Yechiel Leiter, denounced J Street as “a cancer within the Jewish community,” igniting a fierce debate over who gets to call themselves pro-Israel.
Former Ambassador Michael Herzog soon joined in, arguing that only unconditional backing for military aid qualifies one as truly pro-Israel.
The comments by Leiter – a one-time member of the Jewish Defense League and follower of Meir Kahane – were ugly; Herzog’s deeply misguided.
J Street received a heartwarming outpouring of support as over 600 American Jewish communal leaders wrote to Leiter demanding an apology, saying that:
“A public representative of the State of Israel to the American Jewish community should not sow division but build relationships across difference.”
Israel today does face real threats: from terrorists and rogue regimes in the region to this government’s intent to live by the sword and deny a path to dignity and freedom for millions of Palestinians.
At a moment when Israel faces growing isolation and rising criticism of its policies around the world, it makes little sense for its defenders to conclude that the central threat is not the policies deepening its isolation, but the Jews warning about it.
Jews have argued passionately for decades about the best path forward for Israel. These debates were never indicators of disloyalty. They were evidence that Israel mattered deeply enough to fight over.
At J Street, we have spent years articulating our vision of what it means to a large swath of Jewish America to be pro-Israel in the 21st century.
Many of my earliest essays on Word on the Street became the basis for a booklet titled What It Means to Be Pro-Israel – an effort to explain why supporting Israel must mean more than defending whatever policies a government pursues at a particular moment.
Israel is today a strong, established regional power. The biggest challenge it faces 78 years into statehood is not about its “right to exist,” but about how it exists – what kind of state it will be.
J Street believes Israel should live up to the vision espoused by its founders. It should be democratic and embody the values enumerated in its founding declaration: equality, justice, freedom and human dignity.
It should be a homeland for the Jewish people and respect the rights, dignity and national aspirations of the Palestinian people who share the land.
Permanent occupation, endless war and the denial of Palestinian self-determination endanger not only Palestinians, but Israel itself. They also undermine the possibility of Israel’s full integration into the region – what we call the 23-state solution.
An Israel that chooses to violate its founding values and pursue permanent control of all the land does not have an automatic right to unconditional support from anyone.
There is no moral obligation on Jewish Americans to enable self-destructive behavior.
Apparently, for some, saying those things places us outside the pro-Israel community – maybe even outside the Jewish community.
What makes this moment so dizzying is that even as we are denounced on the right as traitors, “self-hating Jews” or even “a cancer”, we are condemned by growing voices on the left simply for insisting that Israel should have a future and that Jewish national rights matter no less than Palestinian rights.
But the fact that our position is attacked from both extremes only suggests how badly our strong defense of the middle ground is needed. Our polling – and our experience – tell us that the largest number of Jewish Americans place themselves in that middle, and that is who we represent.
I understand that Israelis feel besieged right now. After October 7, the trauma and fear are real.
That emotional reality deserves empathy.
But meaningful empathy cannot require blindness.
It’s not just J Street but a growing number of Israelis themselves who are warning that the country’s current trajectory threatens both Israel’s Jewish and its democratic nature.
Growing isolation and eroding support – including in Jewish communities around the world – are themselves strategic threats.
A recent report from Israel’s leading security think tank, the Institute for National Security Studies, examined the widening gap between Israel and American Jewry and urged Israeli leaders to engage broadly across the pro-Israel community – specifically including J Street.
Israel needs more allies, not fewer. More dialogue, not ideological purges. More bridge-building, not narrower and narrower definitions of who counts as a “real” supporter.
A country and its leadership that responds to growing concern not by considering the criticism but by shrinking the definition of who counts as a legitimate supporter is a country choosing isolation over introspection.
You cannot rebuild Israel’s standing in the world simply by promoting better public relations or demanding message discipline from supporters abroad. As long as Israel pursues a path that offers Palestinians no credible horizon for freedom, dignity or self-determination while entrenching permanent control, its international standing will continue to erode and its isolation will deepen.
That is precisely why many of us continue to speak out.
Not because we are against Israel.
Because we fear for what Israel is becoming.
If we were not pro-Israel – if we did not care – believe me, it would be far easier to walk away.
If you appreciate the work J Street does, I hope you’ll consider making a grassroots contribution to ensure our voice is heard.
Finally glad someone is addressing this. Being "pro Israel" doesn't mean "blind allegiance to anything Israel does" any more than being "an American patriot" means blind allegiance to the trump admin
Loving a country does not require silence about its dangers. In fact, democracies survive because citizens are willing to confront extremism before it becomes identity.
Israel’s legitimacy ultimately rests not only on military strength, but on whether it remains a society grounded in law, pluralism, and human dignity — even under terrible pressure.
The tragedy of our era is that fear is empowering maximalists on all sides. The hope is that enough people still believe democracy is strengthened by moral courage rather than ideological purity.
And perhaps, in the spirit of tikkun olam, the deeper hope is this: that criticism offered from love and concern can still be distinguished from criticism rooted in hatred. That distinction matters enormously, especially now.