//politics//
Fall 2019
Fall 2019
Will J Street Fade Before it Truly Peaks?
Joshua Nacht
J Street is clearly experiencing somewhat of a heyday at the moment. Five Democratic presidential candidates spoke at its annual conference this October, including half of the frontrunners Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders, with another five appearing by video conference—including the other two frontrunners Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren. Meanwhile, no Democratic presidential candidates appeared at AIPAC’s 2019 policy conference after the progressive fundraising organization MoveOn called on Democrats to skip it. While it’s possible that a more moderate Democratic nominee could speak to AIPAC in 2020, no candidates have given any indication that they will. J Street has challenged AIPAC as the Israel policy organization most affiliated with the Democratic Party on a national level and, to a somewhat lesser extent, with Jewish Democrats as a voting constituency.
The backlash against both President Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in American Jewish communities has been loud and clear. A strong majority of American Jews support the two-state solution, and most are not Orthodox. It’s due to both of these facts that the rhetoric and policies of Netanyahu’s administration—from his lack of interest in the peace process to his pandering to the ultra-Orthodox right—have disturbed American Jews. Together, these trends have only aided in increasing J Street’s appeal to the mainstream Democratic Jewish establishment.
Interestingly, however, J Street is bleeding members to the left. Newer, younger, and more radical groups are sprouting up and taking root in Jewish communities around the country. IfNotNow (INN), Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP), and Jews For Racial and Economic Justice (JFREJ) have galvanized support among young, leftist, Jews who feel dissatisfied with J Street’s politics. Unlike J Street, whose advocacy methods hinge on communication and cooperation with established political figures, these newer groups generally focus on fostering grassroots support and avoid working within a larger institutional framework.
Interestingly, these smaller groups falls outside the general norms of acceptable opinion for most American Jews; neither INN nor JFREJ take a stance on BDS or the two-state solution, but both oppose the Occupation while JVP is more outspoken in their opposition, actively supporting BDS on campuses across the country. Even as an overwhelming majority of American Jews consider such views to be radical, those views account for an increasing amount of the excitement on the activist Jewish left.
Meanwhile, enthusiasm among J Street conference attendees was noticeably weak at times. While everyone cheered loudly for Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg, the student contingent lacked excitement during the student conference session. It’s also worth noting that J Street’s social media following, which is often a strong indicator of support from younger generations, is significantly behind that of JVP. J Street has approximately 45,000 Facebook followers while JVP has over 568,000. While INN has only 42,000 Facebook followers, their movement has only been around a few years and they already have nearly as many online supporters as J Street has accumulated over the course of a decade. The Instagram numbers are even more telling, as J Street has 1,152 followers and J Street U has 775 followers while INN has approximately 11,800 followers, JFREJ has 4,477 followers, and JVP has a whopping 47,900 Instagram followers. While these numbers are alone proof of nothing other than better social media management by these outspoken leftist movements, they do demonstrate the growing risk to J Street of continued desertion of the organization by left-wing youth. If J Street loses large chunks of its core activist members—young progressive American Jews—to these rising anti-establishment groups, what will that mean for J street’s future?
The answer to that question depends, at least in part, on what the next four years bring to for American Jewish political engagement. Whether J Street can survive these growing pains and continue to hold sway in both public and institutional arenas is unclear. To do so, they will need to reduce their losses to the left, and continue to appeal to moderates to their right. In other words, they will need to establish themselves as the new center. J Street’s core problem is that much of their political gains, both in the mainstream Jewish community and in Washington, depend on the presence of radical groups to the left that scare centrists into working with the seemingly moderate J Street by comparison. Over time these same groups also sap J Street’s supporter base and if J Street doesn’t attain more tangible legislative or activist accomplishments soon, they may not be able to sell themselves as change makers to progressive American Jews. Only time will tell for sure--but this much we do know: J Street is at a peak, but if they cannot capitalize on the circumstances, their careful ascent up the rough terrain of Israel politics may have been all for nought.
The backlash against both President Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in American Jewish communities has been loud and clear. A strong majority of American Jews support the two-state solution, and most are not Orthodox. It’s due to both of these facts that the rhetoric and policies of Netanyahu’s administration—from his lack of interest in the peace process to his pandering to the ultra-Orthodox right—have disturbed American Jews. Together, these trends have only aided in increasing J Street’s appeal to the mainstream Democratic Jewish establishment.
Interestingly, however, J Street is bleeding members to the left. Newer, younger, and more radical groups are sprouting up and taking root in Jewish communities around the country. IfNotNow (INN), Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP), and Jews For Racial and Economic Justice (JFREJ) have galvanized support among young, leftist, Jews who feel dissatisfied with J Street’s politics. Unlike J Street, whose advocacy methods hinge on communication and cooperation with established political figures, these newer groups generally focus on fostering grassroots support and avoid working within a larger institutional framework.
Interestingly, these smaller groups falls outside the general norms of acceptable opinion for most American Jews; neither INN nor JFREJ take a stance on BDS or the two-state solution, but both oppose the Occupation while JVP is more outspoken in their opposition, actively supporting BDS on campuses across the country. Even as an overwhelming majority of American Jews consider such views to be radical, those views account for an increasing amount of the excitement on the activist Jewish left.
Meanwhile, enthusiasm among J Street conference attendees was noticeably weak at times. While everyone cheered loudly for Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg, the student contingent lacked excitement during the student conference session. It’s also worth noting that J Street’s social media following, which is often a strong indicator of support from younger generations, is significantly behind that of JVP. J Street has approximately 45,000 Facebook followers while JVP has over 568,000. While INN has only 42,000 Facebook followers, their movement has only been around a few years and they already have nearly as many online supporters as J Street has accumulated over the course of a decade. The Instagram numbers are even more telling, as J Street has 1,152 followers and J Street U has 775 followers while INN has approximately 11,800 followers, JFREJ has 4,477 followers, and JVP has a whopping 47,900 Instagram followers. While these numbers are alone proof of nothing other than better social media management by these outspoken leftist movements, they do demonstrate the growing risk to J Street of continued desertion of the organization by left-wing youth. If J Street loses large chunks of its core activist members—young progressive American Jews—to these rising anti-establishment groups, what will that mean for J street’s future?
The answer to that question depends, at least in part, on what the next four years bring to for American Jewish political engagement. Whether J Street can survive these growing pains and continue to hold sway in both public and institutional arenas is unclear. To do so, they will need to reduce their losses to the left, and continue to appeal to moderates to their right. In other words, they will need to establish themselves as the new center. J Street’s core problem is that much of their political gains, both in the mainstream Jewish community and in Washington, depend on the presence of radical groups to the left that scare centrists into working with the seemingly moderate J Street by comparison. Over time these same groups also sap J Street’s supporter base and if J Street doesn’t attain more tangible legislative or activist accomplishments soon, they may not be able to sell themselves as change makers to progressive American Jews. Only time will tell for sure--but this much we do know: J Street is at a peak, but if they cannot capitalize on the circumstances, their careful ascent up the rough terrain of Israel politics may have been all for nought.
//JOSH NACHT is a senior at Columbia College. He can be reached at jan2167@columbia.edu.
Photo Courtesy of J Street
Photo Courtesy of J Street