back to top
Friday, February 28, 2025
HomePoliticsIs J Street Complicit in Genocide?

Is J Street Complicit in Genocide?



Politics


/
February 27, 2025

The “pro-Israel, pro-peace” advocacy group has seen its credibility shredded over its floundering response to the war on Gaza.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street, speaking at the 2022 J Street National Conference held at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC.

(Michael Brochstein / Sipa USA via AP Images)

Since its founding in 2008, the advocacy group J Street has had a consistent motto: “pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-democracy.” In practice, this has meant resolute backing for a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine and consistent criticism of the extremist policies of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Along the way, J Street has remained closely allied with the Democratic Party, raising almost $15 million for Democratic candidates during the last election cycle and taking credit as the “largest Jewish organizational fundraiser for Kamala Harris.”

But J Street’s importance goes far beyond the group’s fundraising prowess. Its status as an unabashedly liberal Zionist group—in contrast with the ever-more-hawkish AIPAC—has allowed it to play a unique political role on Capitol Hill. Whether accused of being insufficiently or excessively loyal to Israel, Democratic lawmakers can use their alignment with J Street as a handy shield. Notably, during President Obama’s second term, J Street helped push the Iran nuclear deal through Congress despite intense opposition from AIPAC and other hawks. The White House official in charge of gaining approval for the agreement, Ben Rhodes, later recalled that “J Street was one of the most effective organizations that supported the Iran deal because they had a large grassroots network and growing clout on the Hill.”

But, as with liberal Zionism itself, the flaws in J Street’s approach have become more and more apparent over the years. The group rarely used its aforementioned clout to raise critical questions about recurring Israeli assaults on Gaza. And the relentless brutality of the Israeli assault on Gaza that began in response to the October 7 Hamas attack left J Street floundering for a coherent message.

Routinely, while calling for the release of the Israeli hostages, the organization also expressed concern about the deaths and suffering of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. But none of J Street’s 132 news releases between October 7 and the start of the ceasefire in late January 2025 called for an end to shipments of the US bombs and weapons that were killing those civilians while enforcing Israel’s policy of using starvation as a weapon of war—a glaring omission for a group that declares itself to be “pro-peace.” It was as if J Street thought that vague humanistic pleas could paper over these gaping cracks in its stance.

However, J Street felt comfortable taking a firm line on the question of whether Israel was committing genocide in Gaza. Here, it aligned itself completely with the position of the US and Israeli governments. In mid-January 2024, when oral arguments ended at the International Court of Justice in the case brought by South Africa that charged the Israeli government with violating the Genocide Convention in Gaza, a news release declared that “J Street rejects the allegation of genocide against the State of Israel.” Four months later, on May 24, J Street responded quickly when the ICJ ordered Israel to “immediately halt its military offensive” in Rafah. “J Street continues to reject the allegation of genocide in this case,” a news release said.

That statement from J Street came 10 days after the publication of an article by Aryeh Neier, a founder of Human Rights Watch, who wrote: “I am now persuaded that Israel is engaged in genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.” Many other experts, including Omer Bartov, the Israeli-American professor seen as the world’s leading scholar of genocide, agreed. But this was a bridge too far for J Street.

Current Issue

Cover of March 2025 Issue

In a statement last December, J Street’s founder and president Jeremy Ben-Ami harked back to what he described as Israel’s “promise as a proud, just, peaceful democratic homeland not just for the Jewish people, but for all who live there.” He called for following “the path that allows Israel to remain true to its founding values of pluralism, equality, freedom and justice, and a commitment to liberal democracy.” Such messages are not only conveniently unmoored from history (Palestinians would, to say the least, likely take issue with the idea that Israel was ever conceived as a homeland for them). They are also, crucially, in sync with denial about the present-day realities of Israel, a state that grows more committed to apartheid, occupation, and ethnic cleansing with each passing year.

J Street is not alone in clinging to the fantasy that Israel can both privilege Jews and maintain universal democratic values. It has come to embody the basic contradictions of liberal American Zionism. The Gaza genocide exposed the limits of this worldview like never before, including for J Street. From the outset, the group fell in line with the Biden administration’s approach of publicly urging Israel to use its weapons within the confines of US and international law—while reliably enabling Israel to do the opposite. As the carnage escalated, the enabling was crystal clear. “All of our missiles, the ammunition, the precision-guided bombs, all the airplanes and bombs, it’s all from the US,” retired Israeli Gen. Yitzhak Brick said seven weeks into the war. “The minute they turn off the tap, you can’t keep fighting. You have no capability.… Everyone understands that we can’t fight this war without the United States. Period.”

As General Brick spoke, available polling showed that two-thirds of the US public supported a ceasefire. But J Street did not support a ceasefire. Instead, the organization’s leader Jeremy Ben-Ami called the fateful juncture “a moment when Israel needs as broad as possible a base of support.” At the time, the director-general of the World Health Organization reported that Israel was killing children in Gaza at an average rate of once every 10 minutes.

Five weeks into the Israeli onslaught, the Gaza Health Ministry said that upwards of 11,100 Palestinian people had been killed. The number reached 20,000 in late December. By then, J Street’s messaging template was well established. A typical statement insisted that “long-term Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolution demands removal of Hamas from operational control of Gaza,” and went on to declare: “While our belief in the legitimacy of a military operation remains unchanged, our support for the way in which that operation is conducted is not without limits. As we have supported Israel’s military operation, we have repeatedly said that Israeli forces must do their utmost to minimize civilian casualties, maximize humanitarian aid and clamp down on both settler and military violence against civilians on the West Bank.”

Month after month, J Street news releases echoed pronouncements coming from the White House and State Department, becoming grim parodies of wishful thinking and empty warnings. The headlines of J Street releases were largely contoured around hollow claims from the Biden administration that it was diligently striving to end the death and agony in Gaza:

At the same time, J Street kept telling Congress to approve multibillion-dollar arms shipments to Israel. With the war in its fifth month, the group issued a statement that “J Street welcomes the Senate’s passage” of a measure to send $14 billion in further military aid to Israel and “urges swift passage in the House.” When the House followed suit in April, J Street welcomed the move with a news release that ended with an emblematic feel-good sentence: “J Street will work closely with Congress in the weeks ahead to ensure that every dollar of US security assistance is being used in compliance with our law, our values and our interests.” After six months of stepped-up US aid to the Israeli military, such pledges were literally incredible.

In early May, a news release showcased J Street’s eagerness to have it both ways—calling for massive amounts of weapons and bombs to Israel while declaring that “any further military assistance to Israel must be provided in full accordance with US and international law.” At the same time, J Street pointedly described itself as “a pro-Israel organization that has supported every single appropriation of security aid to Israel.” It was a political dance in step with many members of the president’s party in Congress. A headline over the news release trumpeted that “J Street joins half of congressional Democrats in urging strict enforcement by the Biden administration of arms transfer rules as Rafah invasion looms.” Like before and after, such calls for “strict enforcement” were (perhaps meant to be) ignored.

RELATED ARTICLES

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular

Recent Comments