The contours of the battle over the future of the Democrats' policy toward Israel are starting to take shape, and J Street is trying to cement support for the existence of a Jewish ethno-state as the Party's bottom line. J Street is trying to rescue Zionism in the battle over Israel’s future in the Democratic Party – Mondoweiss The traditional pro-Israel wing of the Democratic Party, under the thumb of AIPAC and incapable of anything beyond the shallowest rhetorical empathy for Palestinians — if that — is clearly losing control. Its money and entrenched presence in Washington mean it will continue to be a problem for some time to come, but that wing has lost the support of an overwhelming majority of the Democratic base and cannot sustain its position of power. The question is what comes next, and this week, there was a major development in how liberal pro-Israel forces are going to try to establish new guardrails around Israel policy. Unconditional support for Israel is dead among Democratic voters. Democrats, most Independents, and even a growing number of Republicans no longer want to be associated with Israel’s callous, racist, warmongering behavior, whether or not those people recognize how much that mirrors American activity in the world for much of the past century. But will that extend to a true anti-apartheid policy? Democratic leadership and even most relatively progressive Democrats are not there and are not getting particularly close either. Advocates for full justice, like Rashida Tlaib or the sorely missed figures of Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush, remain outliers in Democratic politics, even as so much has shifted. J Street aims to keep it that way, as they must, especially in the face of several distinctly anti-Zionist voices either assured of a seat in Congress or with a very good chance of getting there in the next term. J Street’s argument — which, unlike some Palestine solidarity activists, I believe is sincere — is that a secure, prosperous Jewish state requires a secure and prosperous Palestinian state next to it. Yet, even if that is a sincere view, it still subordinates Palestinian rights to the maintenance of a Jewish ethno-state, albeit one — in J Street’s vision — with guardrails against the sort of extremism that Benjamin Netanyahu, Bezalel Smotrich, and Itamar Ben-Gvir represent. And here is where J Street must be opposed. Many Palestinians and supporters of Palestinian rights see liberal Zionists as little, if at all, different from hardcore, AIPAC zealots. I have never subscribed to that view, though I understand it. My own take has long been that those who fight for justice for Palestinians, who put the rights of all on an equal level, can find places where it is beneficial to work with liberal Zionists, and oppose them where that is necessary. The moment for opposition is now. One thing J Street and other liberal Zionist groups have in common with AIPAC is that they see their role, in part, as establishing boundaries around acceptable discourse. They simply draw the line in a different place. Where AIPAC, ADL, and similar groups demonize all criticism of Israel and label it antisemitic, J Street and its fellows understand, correctly, that Israel will eventually lose U.S. support if it continues to act as it does. They know that the best way to secure Israel’s future as a Jewish state is to remove it from the role of maintaining a boot on the Palestinian neck. Thus, they engage in criticism of Israel. They’re willing to see the U.S. and Europe exert measurable pressure on Israel, and for that pressure to bring about policy change. But it must always be, first and foremost, for the sake of preserving Israel as what they call a “Jewish state.” Leaving aside that Israel is not and never was a Jewish state but a Zionist one, and that there is a huge difference between the two, that stance ultimately implies that Israeli interests remain paramount over Palestinian rights. That is not going to change for J Street. Indeed, given the kind of people they have just recruited, it is more certain than ever that when Israel’s Jewish nature comes into conflict with any democratic aspirations regarding Palestinian rights, the Jewish nature will prevail. Ze’ev Sternhell highlighted this in his work. It was not, Sternhell argued, that there were no idealists among Zionist ideologues, both before and after the creation of the state of Israel. It was that whenever their ideals of socialism or egalitarianism clashed with their nationalism, nationalism always prevailed. J Street recently reacted to Israel barring two Jewish activists from claiming the Israeli citizenship that, according to Israeli law, is the birthright of any Jew in the world by saying: “A Jewish homeland must be one that welcomes all Jews. Including Jews who care about Palestinian rights and safety.” It’s a noble sentiment. But it raises significant questions about who has the right to emigrate to that homeland on the basis of nationality. J Street defends the z’khut ha’shiva, the right to return for Jews, but opposes that right for Palestinians, and would never do so until there is a separate Palestinian state on a mere 22% of historic Palestine to which return would be limited. J Street does not support a fully sovereign Palestinian state, either. To be sovereign, a state must have the ability to defend itself, and J Street explicitly calls for a “demilitarized Palestinian state” that would forever be helpless against an Israeli neighbor that has committed horrifying atrocities against the Palestinian people. J Street would surely call it absurd to suggest that Palestinians require a demilitarized Israel. So, again, we see that they are not actually calling for equality. J Street, while certainly much closer to many Democratic voters than AIPAC, remains out of step with the forces in the party that have done the most to bring about this change. Those forces resist putting Israel’s interests first and have little sympathy for the state’s ethnocratic structure, whether they go as far as to call it apartheid or not. The faces of Rashida Tlaib, Abdul El-Sayed, Ilhan Omar, Zohran Mamdani, Chris Rabb, Angie Nixon, and Darializa Avila Chevalier are the ones that Palestinians need to become the face of the party. The first step was a huge one, showing the world the true face of Israeli apartheid, and Palestinians took that step. But there is still work to do to get Americans to truly see the Palestinian people. There is a lot of racism — anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, anti-Palestinian, and simple xenophobia — to overcome. And that is the work of Americans, Palestinian and otherwise. Democratic voters need to see Palestinian liberation, rather than mere opposition to Israel’s crimes, as their preferred policy. They’re not there yet. J Street would have the focus on stopping Israeli excesses. That’s important, but it is a step toward full Palestinian liberation, not as a way to protect Israel’s ethnocracy. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#43591): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/43591 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/121556399/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[marxmail] J Street is trying to rescue Zionism in the battle over Israel’s future in the Democratic Party
Charles Keener via groups.io Fri, 02 Oct 2026 16:04:41 -0700
