In 2014, American Jewish leaders might lose control of the
Israel debate
Washington’s failure to clinch two-state deal would shift Palestinian focus to international groups
and college campuses where organized Jewry holds little sway.
By Peter Beinart | Jan. 1, 2014 |
In the spirit of the season, let me hazard a prediction: 2014 will be the year that America’s Israel debate begins
to pass the organized American Jewish community by.
The first reason is the end of the American-dominated peace process. Despite John Kerry’s best efforts,
the most likely scenario is that 2014 will be the year he fails. Even if Kerry manages to convince Israeli
and Palestinian leaders to accept a “framework agreement,” which lays out guidelines for a final deal, it’s
unlikely he can get it implemented. At the end of the day, Benjamin Netanyahu still leads a party
dominated by people opposed to a Palestinian state. Indeed, the man he’s just appointed as his top foreign
policy advisor publicly opposes a Palestinian state. For Netanyahu to embrace a territorially viable
Palestinian state with a capital in East Jerusalem would mean losing his political base, something that
throughout his political career he has adamantly refused to do. In Dennis Ross’ memoir, he recalls
Netanyahu explaining that a leader can never abandon “his tribe” of core supporters.
For almost four years, nothing the Obama administration has done has changed that. And now, with
violence against Israel increasing and Obama having signed an Iran deal that Netanyahu hates, John
Kerry has less leverage and Netanyahu has more excuses. Yet the more Kerry caves to Netanyahu -
for instance, by backing a 10-year Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley even though theClinton
Parameters called for Israel to leave within three - the weaker he makes Mahmoud Abbas, a man who
may be too weak to sign a conflict-ending deal already.
Kerry himself has said that if “we do not succeed now, we may not get another chance.” He’s right. If he
fails, the United States won’t take another shot until it inaugurates a new president in 2017, and maybe
not then. In the meantime, the Israeli-Palestinian struggle will move outside Washington as Palestinians
take their case to international organizations, college campuses, religious and labor groups and European
consumers. And for the organized American Jewish community, that’s a disaster because universities,
international organizations and liberal religious groups are exactly the places the American Jewish
establishment is weak.
It’s sadly ironic. The organized American Jewish community has spent decades building influence in
Washington. But it’s succeeded too well. By making it too politically painful for Obama to push Netanyahu
toward a two-state deal, the American Jewish establishment (along with its Christian right allies) is making
Washington irrelevant. For two decades, the core premise of the American-dominated peace process has
been that since only America enjoys leverage over Israel, the rest of the world should leave the
Israel-Palestinian conflict in America’s hands.
But across the world, fewer and fewer people believe Washington will effectively use its leverage, and if the
Kerry mission fails, Washington will no longer even try. The Palestinians are ready with a Boycott,
Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign that shifts the struggle to arenas where the American Jewish
establishment lacks influence. In the Russell Senate Office Building, Howard Kohr and Malcolm Hoenlein’s
opinions carry weight. In German supermarkets and the Modern Language Association, not so much.
But the decline of the American-led peace process is only one reason 2014 may spell the decline of
organized American Jewish influence. The other is Iran. For two decades, AIPAC and its allies have
successfully pushed a harder and harder American line against Iran’s nuclear program. In Congress,
where a bipartisan group of senators has just introduced new sanctions legislation over White House
objections, that hard-line agenda remains popular. But in the country at large, it risks alienating the
Americans who will dominate politics in the decades to come.
It’s no secret that young Americans are less unwaveringly “pro-Israel” than their elders. According to a
2013 Pew Research Center poll, while a majority of Americans over 65 say they sympathize primarily
with Israel, among Americans under 30 it drops to just over one-in-three, with a plurality of respondents
saying they sympathize with both sides.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn’t a pivotal issue in American politics. But Iran is, and the generational
divide is just as strong. The Iraq War was a far more disillusioning experience for young Americans than
for their elders, and you can see Iraq’s legacy in the polling on Iran, where according to a 2012 Pew poll,
Americans under 30 were thirty points more likely than Americans over 65 to prioritize “avoid[ing]
military conflict” with Tehran over “tak[ing] a firm stand” against its nuclear program. When I asked the
indispensable folks at Pew to break down the age gaps within the parties, they found that young
Republicans were almost as anti-war as old Democrats. Which helps explain why, in the 2012 Iowa Caucus
and New Hampshire Primary, Republicans under 30 favored anti-interventionist Ron Paul over his
nearest challenger by a margin of almost two to one.
These are long-term trends. The American Jewish establishment won’t become irrelevant anytime soon.
But 2014 may be the year when the downward trajectory of its power becomes clear. Wiser American
Jewish leaders, aware of the BDS movement’s efforts to move the Israeli-Palestinian conflict outside of
Washington, might have pushed Netanyahu to embrace the core tenets of a two-state agreement, and thus
given skeptics more reason to believe Washington can still deliver. Wiser American Jewish leaders, aware
of the war-fatigue among America’s young, might have avoided pushing sanctions that, as my colleague
Chemi Shalev has argued, risk convincing many Americans that the American Jewish establishment is
sabotaging a diplomatic deal.
The wisest leaders foresee change, and adapt to it, while there is still time. For the leaders of Jewish
America, 2014 may be the year it becomes too late.
to pass the organized American Jewish community by.
The first reason is the end of the American-dominated peace process. Despite John Kerry’s best efforts,
the most likely scenario is that 2014 will be the year he fails. Even if Kerry manages to convince Israeli
and Palestinian leaders to accept a “framework agreement,” which lays out guidelines for a final deal, it’s
unlikely he can get it implemented. At the end of the day, Benjamin Netanyahu still leads a party
dominated by people opposed to a Palestinian state. Indeed, the man he’s just appointed as his top foreign
policy advisor publicly opposes a Palestinian state. For Netanyahu to embrace a territorially viable
Palestinian state with a capital in East Jerusalem would mean losing his political base, something that
throughout his political career he has adamantly refused to do. In Dennis Ross’ memoir, he recalls
Netanyahu explaining that a leader can never abandon “his tribe” of core supporters.
For almost four years, nothing the Obama administration has done has changed that. And now, with
violence against Israel increasing and Obama having signed an Iran deal that Netanyahu hates, John
Kerry has less leverage and Netanyahu has more excuses. Yet the more Kerry caves to Netanyahu -
for instance, by backing a 10-year Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley even though theClinton
Parameters called for Israel to leave within three - the weaker he makes Mahmoud Abbas, a man who
may be too weak to sign a conflict-ending deal already.
Kerry himself has said that if “we do not succeed now, we may not get another chance.” He’s right. If he
fails, the United States won’t take another shot until it inaugurates a new president in 2017, and maybe
not then. In the meantime, the Israeli-Palestinian struggle will move outside Washington as Palestinians
take their case to international organizations, college campuses, religious and labor groups and European
consumers. And for the organized American Jewish community, that’s a disaster because universities,
international organizations and liberal religious groups are exactly the places the American Jewish
establishment is weak.
It’s sadly ironic. The organized American Jewish community has spent decades building influence in
Washington. But it’s succeeded too well. By making it too politically painful for Obama to push Netanyahu
toward a two-state deal, the American Jewish establishment (along with its Christian right allies) is making
Washington irrelevant. For two decades, the core premise of the American-dominated peace process has
been that since only America enjoys leverage over Israel, the rest of the world should leave the
Israel-Palestinian conflict in America’s hands.
But across the world, fewer and fewer people believe Washington will effectively use its leverage, and if the
Kerry mission fails, Washington will no longer even try. The Palestinians are ready with a Boycott,
Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign that shifts the struggle to arenas where the American Jewish
establishment lacks influence. In the Russell Senate Office Building, Howard Kohr and Malcolm Hoenlein’s
opinions carry weight. In German supermarkets and the Modern Language Association, not so much.
But the decline of the American-led peace process is only one reason 2014 may spell the decline of
organized American Jewish influence. The other is Iran. For two decades, AIPAC and its allies have
successfully pushed a harder and harder American line against Iran’s nuclear program. In Congress,
where a bipartisan group of senators has just introduced new sanctions legislation over White House
objections, that hard-line agenda remains popular. But in the country at large, it risks alienating the
Americans who will dominate politics in the decades to come.
It’s no secret that young Americans are less unwaveringly “pro-Israel” than their elders. According to a
2013 Pew Research Center poll, while a majority of Americans over 65 say they sympathize primarily
with Israel, among Americans under 30 it drops to just over one-in-three, with a plurality of respondents
saying they sympathize with both sides.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn’t a pivotal issue in American politics. But Iran is, and the generational
divide is just as strong. The Iraq War was a far more disillusioning experience for young Americans than
for their elders, and you can see Iraq’s legacy in the polling on Iran, where according to a 2012 Pew poll,
Americans under 30 were thirty points more likely than Americans over 65 to prioritize “avoid[ing]
military conflict” with Tehran over “tak[ing] a firm stand” against its nuclear program. When I asked the
indispensable folks at Pew to break down the age gaps within the parties, they found that young
Republicans were almost as anti-war as old Democrats. Which helps explain why, in the 2012 Iowa Caucus
and New Hampshire Primary, Republicans under 30 favored anti-interventionist Ron Paul over his
nearest challenger by a margin of almost two to one.
These are long-term trends. The American Jewish establishment won’t become irrelevant anytime soon.
But 2014 may be the year when the downward trajectory of its power becomes clear. Wiser American
Jewish leaders, aware of the BDS movement’s efforts to move the Israeli-Palestinian conflict outside of
Washington, might have pushed Netanyahu to embrace the core tenets of a two-state agreement, and thus
given skeptics more reason to believe Washington can still deliver. Wiser American Jewish leaders, aware
of the war-fatigue among America’s young, might have avoided pushing sanctions that, as my colleague
Chemi Shalev has argued, risk convincing many Americans that the American Jewish establishment is
sabotaging a diplomatic deal.
The wisest leaders foresee change, and adapt to it, while there is still time. For the leaders of Jewish
America, 2014 may be the year it becomes too late.
