![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/44468313d22640da9b41bb543e8475f8f3-arms-jaq-2.rsquare.w400.jpg\")
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
\n Photo-Illustration: Intelligencer; Photo: Getty Images\n <\/p>\n
Military support for Israel has long been a default position among mainstream Democrats and Republicans. The war in Gaza, which began with Hamas\u2019s horrific October 2023 attack, changed all that. Israel\u2019s killing of over 75,000 Palestinians, as well as its role in the Iran War,<\/a> has led to a steep drop in popularity among Democratic voters, \u2014 and increasingly among lawmakers as well. And the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, once seen as an untouchable force, has swiftly become anathema to much of the party<\/a>, with major figures like Gavin Newsom swearing off donations<\/a>.<\/p>\n This has presented an opening for J Street, a liberal Zionist lobbying group founded in 2008. For years, J Street operated as a lonely voice in the shadow of AIPAC. But it has gained influence as its core ideas increasingly align with the center of the Democratic Party, and is now poised to play a major role in shaping the party\u2019s future posture toward Israel. I spoke with the organization\u2019s founder and president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, about where AIPAC went wrong, why he doesn\u2019t promote a two-state solution anymore, and how he\u2019s thinking about 2028.<\/p>\n Last week, 40 Democratic senators voted against<\/a> selling arms to Israel. That marks a huge uptick in opposition among the party since a similar vote in 2024. Do you view this as a major turning point? J Street recently reversed its position on arms sales to Israel, which you wrote about in a long post on Substack<\/a>. Why now, after two and a half years of war and chaos? And the reason that now is a moment to start thinking about this is that we are coming to the end of a 10-year agreement between the United States and Israel concerning the provision of nearly $4 billion a year in taxpayer subsidies to the government of Israel. During the course of this war, one of the issues that has made the critiques of what Israel is doing resonate so deeply in the U.S. is that the U.S. paid for a lot of the arms that Israel is using. That needs to stop, and we\u2019re coming to the point of thinking about what the relationship is going to be after the memorandum of understanding ends. And we believe it\u2019s time to rapidly and responsibly phase out financial taxpayer subsidies.<\/p>\n I know it\u2019s hard to measure your own influence, but do you think Democrats have been paying attention to J Street\u2019s views on this issue? Have you as an organization ever felt this much alignment with mainstream American Jewish opinion on Israel? Or has that happened mostly as a result of the war? But there\u2019s no denying that public opinion has also shifted<\/a> in the last few years, especially among young people.\u00a0 The year after J Street came into existence, Benjamin Netanyahu began serving his second stint as prime minister, and he\u2019s barely been out of power since. The notion of a two-state solution seems more distant now than ever. So it\u2019s like the thing you\u2019re advocating for is receding into the distance, and yet your position is also more popular than it\u2019s ever been. How do you reconcile those two realities? But all of that is contingent on one thing, which has been the centerpiece of J Street\u2019s mantra since day one. There has to be an independent state for the Palestinian people if Israel is going to be Jewish and democratic and accepted by its neighbors. The region is probably closer to accepting Israel today than ever before. Last summer, at the end of the Gaza War, you had President Macron of France and MBS from Saudi Arabia putting forward a program in New York<\/a> that was supported by the whole Arab League. That is an offer that sits on the table today for the state of Israel to fully end the Arab-Israeli conflict and to establish relations with all of its neighbors and be accepted around the world. But there\u2019s one condition: Israel has to commit that there\u2019s going to be a Palestinian state, and that they\u2019re going to help it be viable, secure and successful, working with their neighbors and the rest of the world to make that happen.<\/p>\n But at the level of Israeli domestic politics, that seems like a total pipe dream right now. Netanyahu has built his whole career on denying it from happening, and even if he\u2019s in trouble ahead of elections<\/a> this year \u2014\u00a0though I\u2019d never count him out \u2014 it\u2019s not like any of his successors would be eager for a Palestinian state. So realistically, what do you want to see happen in Israel to further this idea? But the offer that a new government can make to the Israeli people is that greater security will come when we have resolved this conflict and we are working with all our neighbors. You will no longer have a problem traveling to other countries because of your Israeli passport. You will no longer have issues getting research grants in Israel from American companies. You are going to find a path toward security and acceptance around the world. And all we have to do is start working with our neighbors to create a successful Palestinian state next to us. That\u2019s an offer that hasn\u2019t been put forward before the Israeli public.<\/p>\n And it\u2019s not a two-state solution. It\u2019s not simply saying, \u201cWe\u2019re going to give land to the Palestinians and they\u2019re going to have a state next to us and it\u2019s going to put us at risk.\u201d This is an offer of full regional integration of Israel, and a security pact and intelligence sharing and economic relations. That\u2019s a completely different offer, and one where that if you do polling on it in Israel as opposed to a two-state solution, the comprehensive regional approach gets you back to 60 percent support. That\u2019s the future. If there ever is to be an agreement, that\u2019s the one that\u2019s going to be made. It\u2019s going to be made between Israel and its Arab neighbors, not between just Israel and the Palestinians.<\/p>\n How would this plan envision the West Bank and Gaza?\u00a0 But it\u2019s also gotten harder every year because of the growing number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank<\/a>. Politically, it would be very difficult for the Israeli government to evict all of them. And it\u2019s very sad for me, personally. I am the son of one of the first kids born in Tel Aviv.\u00a0 My grandparents founded the city<\/a>. My great grandparents moved to Palestine in the 19th century, and it would be deeply sad for me to watch Israel turn into a non-democratic ethno-nationalist state. And I think the majority of Jews around the world, and the majority of Israelis don\u2019t want that to happen either. So I do remain a believer that a day will come when we have a leader of Israel who brings, let\u2019s say, MBS to Jerusalem along with the heads of five other major Arab nations, as Sadat came to Jerusalem in 1977<\/a>, and puts an offer on the table that the Israeli people can\u2019t refuse. There was a big war in 1973, the Yom Kippur war, and no one would have thought in 1974 that Egypt and Israel were going to make peace and Israel would give them back the Sinai Peninsula. Yet a few years later, it did<\/a>. And so I think that\u2019s the vision that people in my camp need to have, and I don\u2019t think it\u2019s unrealistic. It just requires actual political leadership in Israel.<\/p>\n To get back to AIPAC \u2014 it has been an incredibly powerful lobbying group with real bipartisan support for decades and decades. Things are changing now. A lot has been made of the fact that some Democratic candidates, like Daniel Biss<\/a> in Illinois, have withstood fierce attacks from AIPAC that may have torpedoed a Democrat in the past. How weakened do you think they really are now, and do you view them as a sheer adversary at this point? But it has worked for a long time, so you can see why they\u2019d stick to that strategy. What about the Anti-Defamation League, which has taken an aggressive approach in defining antisemitism in recent<\/a> years?\u00a0 There are obviously high-stakes midterms coming up, and then a dramatic Democratic primary in 2028, in which Israel will probably be a major issue. What are you doing to try to shape that process, and are there certain positions you would want a Democratic candidate for president to take in 2028, like no taxpayer-funded arms to Israel or embracing the peace plan you mentioned?\u00a0What are you looking for in a candidate? So that\u2019s the space that we want to push candidates toward \u2014 to be committed to Israel\u2019s security, to end the financial subsidy responsibly and rapidly, and to hold Israel accountable to the laws that govern the sales of arms and equipment that we are making to them. There shouldn\u2019t be differential enforcement of the law for Israel compared to all other countries. If Israel violates the Leahy Law<\/a> or the Arms Export Control Act or the Foreign Assistance Act, there has to be a consequence. I think there\u2019s a fairly broad consensus around the points that I just said that can be the basis of where the Democratic candidates are at, in an effort to try to not make this the one issue that tears apart the Democratic Party as it heads into the 2028 election. That\u2019s our goal: to articulate the kind of common-sense middle ground that hopefully can become a bit of a consensus rather than a point of division.<\/p>\n This interview has been edited for length and clarity.<\/p>\n Sign Up for the Intelligencer\u00a0Newsletter<\/p>\n Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.<\/p>\n Vox Media, LLC Terms and Privacy Notice<\/p>\n
\ufeffAbsolutely. It is a very important change for the Democratic Party, and for the U.S. relationship with Israel. It\u2019s extraordinarily important that we\u2019ve reached the end of the era of a blank check to Israel. Israel, more and more, is going to be treated like a normal country and a normal ally, and is going to be held responsible for its behavior, policy choice, and actions. That\u2019s healthy for the U.S.-Israel relationship, and this was a very significant step in that direction.<\/p>\n
\ufeffI want to be clear that we\u2019re not saying to end arms sales to Israel. What we\u2019re saying is that the U.S. sells a great deal of arms \u2014 to one might say far too many countries \u2014 and it should to Israel as it does to other countries. The question is, who pays? The U.S. should sell what it sells to others and Israel should pay. That\u2019s what we are saying.<\/p>\n
\ufeffI definitely think that more and more, J Street is expressing the mainstream view of both the Democratic Party and the American Jewish community. We\u2019ve just recently done some polling that shows that 70 percent of American Jews don\u2019t think there should be unconditional support for Israel in terms of finances and arm sales anymore. The era of that kind of unconditioned blank check support is over. And I think J Street speaks for the majority of Democrats and the majority of American Jews in saying we care about the state and the people of Israel. We object to the policies and actions of this government, and it\u2019s time to put some limits and conditions on the way in which our arms are being used.<\/p>\n
The organization turned 18 this week. The reason we launched it in 2008 was that already back then we felt that organizations that were purporting to speak for the majority of American Jews no longer represented the views of the majority of American Jews. We believed the things we were saying were representative of what I call the 50- yard line of the American Jewish community. It has taken the better part of two decades for that to be recognized within the Democratic party. Organizations like AIPAC have shot themselves in the foot and become toxic in the Democratic party, and in some cases the Republican party, both because of the extreme nature of the positions they\u2019ve staked out and the tactics they\u2019ve used to try to ensure that their position holds. As the politics of this have shifted, our views have remained the same, and I think so have the views of the American Jewish community \u2014 of a nuanced, moderate position. And now I think that is really being fully recognized.<\/p>\n
\ufeffWhen we started 18 years ago, we seemed to be the outlier, representing, let\u2019s say, a more extreme left view. But I think over the course of these 18 years, the right wing in Israel and the right wing in this country moved farther right. A really vocal left wing came into being, and is very\u00a0anti-Zionist within the Jewish community and anti-Israel within progressive politics. And suddenly our position really did look like the moderate middle ground.<\/p>\n
If you\u2019ve followed J Street over the years, we have stopped talking about what we\u2019re pushing as being a two-state solution. What I think is more realistic today than ever in Israel\u2019s history is the idea that Israel could normalize its relationships with the entire region. We call it the 23-state solution. The entire Sunni Arab world is ready; we\u2019re witnessing discussions with the government of Lebanon. We saw last year that Syria said it was willing to start talking. And there was of course been talk for years about Saudi normalization<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\ufeffNone of this will happen without the defeat of Netanyahu and this right-wing government. That\u2019s an absolute first step. Odds are the election is heading in the direction of defeat for Netanyahu and the election of a new government, but that new government is not going to be a left wing government. It\u2019s kind of like Hungary: You\u2019re going to replace an Orban-like right wing<\/a> with a center-right government, but a government that is committed to democracy, a government that\u2019s committed to the rule of law and not one that is going to run on a platform of saying \u201cwe want to create a Palestinian state.\u201d<\/p>\n
\ufeffEvery vision of a Palestinian state is that it is in those two areas, and with a road or bridge or tunnel-type of connector, or high-speed rail \u2014 all the logistics about how to make this feasibly work have been solved over the course of the last 30 years. There are plans on the shelf that, if there\u2019s the political will, just have to be taken off the shelf and dusted off and put into practice.<\/p>\n
\ufeffAbsolutely. But it\u2019s also existential. And sometimes if something is important enough, you find the political will to do it. Israel cannot be a democracy, and it can\u2019t be accepted into the community of democratic nations if it doesn\u2019t provide Palestinian people either rights within Israel as citizens of the state or allow them to form their own state where they have democratic rights. And if it chooses the path of Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir and Smotrich and goes down this path over the coming generation, it will become, as Tom Friedman has written about<\/a>, a pariah state.<\/p>\n
I think this is their own doing, by being unwilling to engage in any form of critique of what the Israeli government has done and the policies and actions of Israel over decades now, when 70 to 80 percent of American Jews are critical of what\u2019s happening over there on a variety of fronts. And to say you\u2019re just not allowed to criticize, and then to turn around and form a political action committee and use fear and intimidation rather than good arguments as a way to try to persuade people to agree with you\u00a0 \u2014 it\u2019s not a way to win friends and influence people. This is not wise politically. It\u2019s not good strategy. It\u2019s not good tactics.<\/p>\n
\ufeffBut I think it\u2019s important to note that they did not go into politics directly as an organization until 2021, so this wasn\u2019t the way they operated. They were much more subtle. It\u00a0was a velvet glove approach the way that they did it. They lobbied and they had people make friends with members of Congress and senators, but they didn\u2019t raise money and they didn\u2019t throw it around with a heavy hand, and they didn\u2019t then try to hide who they were<\/a> and put the fear of God into people. It\u2019s a very different road they decided to go down. It\u2019s only been five years since they launched their PAC and their Super PAC, and it just hasn\u2019t worked at all. And there was never a time when it was really an effective approach to try to force people to agree with something they don\u2019t agree with by holding a gun to their head. That\u2019s just not going to be a good strategy in American politics.<\/p>\n
\ufeffVery counterproductive. The approach that AIPAC and ADL and other organizations have taken \u2014 I would just urge them to reconsider what they are doing, because they are playing into the worst of the tropes and stereotypes they are trying to fight. And that is true as well of individuals in the Jewish community with significant resources and influence. They\u2019re throwing around those resources and that influence in a way that plays directly into the very tropes that they are attacking people for using. And this is not good for the Jewish community, it\u2019s not good for Israel, it\u2019s not good for the U.S.-Israel relationship. Criticism of Israel is not antisemitic. Even anti-Zionism is not antisemitism \u2014 it\u2019s a political argument whether or not the Jewish people should or should not have a state in the land of Israel and what that state should look like. And many Jews today, probably 20 to 25 percent of Jewish Americans, are non-Zionist and they\u2019re not antisemites. Again, his hard-edged approach is not the right way to go.<\/p>\n
\ufeffBalance. What I think is really important for the Democrats is to find a balance. It is so important to us as an organization that the candidates running for president still believe that the United States has an interest in helping Israel protect itself and survive. So we hope they have a commitment to Israel\u2019s security. And \u2014 the word \u201cand\u201d being key \u2014 we want to see a candidate who is committed to Palestinian rights and a recognition that the Palestinian people also have a right to self-determination ,and that Israel will never have its security if Palestinians don\u2019t have those rights and Palestinians will never have their rights if Israel doesn\u2019t have security.<\/p>\n