Not long ago, in partnership with the Pittsburgh JCC, I helped convene a conversation that many people assumed could no longer happen: Bret Stephens and Jeremy Ben-Ami on the same stage talking seriously about Israel, American Jews, and the future of the US-Israel relationship.<\/p>\n
I wanted to test whether civil discourse and reaching across the aisle still mattered. I hoped to show what I already believed: despite sharp differences, they shared substantial common ground.<\/p>\n
Early on, Jeremy conceded that his side too often minimizes Israel\u2019s legitimate security concerns and needs to correct that. Moments later, as he warned about the perilous erosion of Israeli democracy and the threat posed by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, Bret echoed his alarm \u2013 and added that the lawlessness in the West Bank is profoundly troubling.<\/p>\n
That experience matters because a nervous refrain has been growing louder among Israeli and American Jews: support for Israel in the United States is not merely ebbing; it is undergoing a historic realignment, and no one should assume it will reverse on its own. The evidence is no longer anecdotal. Recent Senate votes seeking to block specific arms sales to Israel, Pew findings showing increasingly negative views of Israel\u2019s government, and Gallup data showing Americans\u2019 plummeting favorable views of Israel and rising sympathy for Palestinians, especially among young Americans, all point to a tectonic shift. The old bipartisan cushion around Israel is thinning.<\/p>\n
The shift is changing what it means to be pro-Israel in America. It is also making it far harder to inhabit the space between the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and J Street. For decades, those two organizations have served as shorthand for two instincts that many American Jews once held together: a deep commitment to Israel\u2019s security and a conviction that Israel\u2019s long-term security depends on democracy, diplomacy, and a credible political horizon for Palestinians. For many people, that was not a contradiction. It was the essence of responsible Zionism.<\/p>\n
That middle ground still exists intellectually. Politically, it is becoming much harder to occupy.<\/p>\n
Part of the reason is simple: American public sentiment has changed, and political organizations respond to incentives. When a large and growing share of the electorate distrusts Israel\u2019s conduct, lawmakers and advocacy groups sharpen their messages. Donors treat contributions as signals. Activists demand clarity. Politicians hear that mixed positions are not thoughtful but evasive. In that environment, institutional brands harden. AIPAC\u2019s security-first message becomes more emphatic. J Street\u2019s insistence on accountability becomes more urgent. The space between them becomes more perilous.<\/p>\n
A deeper reason is that the US-Israel alliance is no longer judged solely by what happens in joint command centers, intelligence briefings, or on battlefields. Tactical cooperation, however real and important, does not immunize Israel from scrutiny when its domestic politics and wartime conduct are seen as raising moral or strategic questions. Judicial reforms pursued without broad consensus, extremist settler violence in the West Bank, inflammatory rhetoric from senior Israeli officials, and a failure to articulate a post-war plan for Gaza have not gone unnoticed by many Americans. When those issues accumulate, sympathy erodes, and nuance evaporates.<\/p>\n
Support for Israel is being reshaped<\/strong><\/p>\n The problem is exacerbated by a political culture that prizes binary narratives. Presidents are cast as either \u201cloyal friends\u201d or \u201cbetrayers\u201d based on episodic policy choices. An ally who once received unconditional praise can be labeled hostile in the quick wake of a disagreement. Social media accelerates this polarization, rewarding clear, uncompromising takes and punishing complexity.<\/p>\n Israel is either an apartheid genocidal state, or it can do no wrong. The result is that the political currency of being a bridge-builder has depreciated. Attempting to straddle both AIPAC\u2019s concern for Israeli security and J Street\u2019s insistence on democratic accountability invites attacks from both camps and diminishes one\u2019s ability to influence either.<\/p>\n This is not only an American problem. It is also a failure of Israeli strategy. Too often, Israelis ascribe declining US support to external problems \u2013 antisemitism, a generational turn \u2013 rather than as warning signs of how Israeli actions are being read. That\u2019s a dangerous intellectual posture. If you cared about preserving the alliance, you would discipline public messaging, curb extremist violence decisively, muzzle incendiary rhetoric, and articulate a coherent political vision for Gaza and the future. You would recognize that strategic success requires both battlefield competence and diplomatic literacy. Decisions made in Jerusalem play out in American living rooms and congressional corridors.<\/p>\n So can AIPAC and J Street coexist? In communal life, yes. They must. Quiet, behind-the-scenes bridge-building still matters \u2013 working on pressing communal concerns, fighting antisemitism, ensuring Jewish student safety \u2013 but the era in which a visible public figure could reliably represent both camps is ending.<\/p>\n Leaders in Israel and the American Jewish community must reckon with that truth. If the alliance is to survive and thrive, it will require more than military might; it will require a sober rethinking of strategy, messaging, and moral clarity. The middle ground is inherently noble, but nuance is valuable \u2013 as long as it is coupled with discipline and credibility. The question for Israelis and American Jews who care about the future of the alliance is no longer, \u201cCan you be both AIPAC and J Street?\u201d It is: \u201cAre we willing to change our behavior so that ample space for common cause remains?\u201d<\/p>\n If the answer is yes, the work must start now \u2013 in Jerusalem as much as in Washington. We need more conversation between Bret Stephens and Jeremy Ben-Ami.<\/p>\n