How do progressive Jewish organizations, like J Street and IfNotNow, view Zionism and Israeli policies?
Executive summary
Progressive Jewish organizations such as J Street and IfNotNow occupy overlapping but distinct positions: J Street explicitly embraces liberal Zionism and a two‑state framework while criticizing specific Israeli government policies, whereas IfNotNow is younger, more confrontational, reluctant to endorse Zionism as a settled proposition and often refuses a unified stance on BDS or statehood [1] [2] [3]. Both groups have pressured American Jewish institutions and politicians but have been criticized from the right as anti‑Israel and from the left as insufficiently radical—an asymmetric squeeze reflected in internal departures and external attacks [4] [5] [6].
1. J Street: liberal Zionism, two states, and conditional criticism
J Street presents itself as “pro‑Israel, pro‑peace, pro‑democracy,” anchoring its views in support for Israel as a Jewish and democratic homeland while arguing that a two‑state solution is the single best path to secure that future [1]. In practice that means robust engagement with U.S. politics to condition or redirect American policy while stopping short of rejecting Zionism itself or endorsing BDS; J Street has repeatedly criticized Netanyahu’s government and urged policy changes, yet it has also been faulted by critics for not consistently calling for restrictions on military aid or for not opposing certain Israeli offensives strongly enough [2] [5]. This balance has invited strident rebuttals from right‑wing outlets that label J Street anti‑Israel and from left‑wing outlets that say its moderation papers over the moral problems of occupation and repeated Gaza assaults [7] [5].
2. IfNotNow: disruption, moral framing, and strategic ambiguity on Zionism
IfNotNow emerged from campus and post‑2014 mobilization as a movement aimed at ending American Jewish institutional support for the occupation and has made disruption of mainstream Jewish settings a hallmark tactic [6] [3]. Unlike J Street, IfNotNow’s public materials and founders have emphasized dignity and freedom for both peoples and have deliberately refrained from adopting a unified stance on BDS, Zionism, or statehood—an intentional neutrality that leaves room for one‑state or two‑state solutions and signals skepticism toward the assumption that Zionism as currently practiced secures Jewish democratic values [3] [8]. That ambiguity has been celebrated by some progressives as principled realism and condemned by others as evasive or even anti‑Jewish, depending on ideological vantage points [3].
3. Overlap, flashpoints, and the politics of tactics
Both organizations criticize the Israeli right and mobilize American Jewish political capital, but they diverge on means and red lines: J Street works inside Washington to influence Democrats and opposes BDS while advocating for diplomatic pressure and, at times, conditional measures; IfNotNow prioritizes civil‑disobedience style activism aimed at changing communal norms and is less wedded to electoral lobbying [1] [2] [6]. These tactical differences produce concrete flashpoints—debates over conditioning U.S. military aid, public calls for ceasefires, and whether to platform officials tied to Netanyahu—that have in recent years led to staff departures at J Street and energized IfNotNow’s growth on campuses [6] [9].
4. How critics and allies read them—and why that matters
Mainstream Jewish institutions, pro‑Israel hardliners and some conservative outlets cast J Street as insufficiently loyal to Israel’s security or even anti‑Israel, while progressive and anti‑occupation activists criticize it for preserving Zionist premises rather than rejecting them outright [4] [7] [10]. IfNotNow is hailed by some as a moral corrective inside the Jewish community and denounced by others for its perceived openness to anti‑Zionist solutions; the two groups’ different reputations shape access to policymaking circles, donor support, campus influence, and media framing [11] [2]. External actors—AIPAC, the American Zionist Movement, conservative media—have both amplified and weaponized these reputations in ways that reflect their own political agendas [10] [11].
5. The larger picture and reporting limits
Taken together, J Street and IfNotNow illustrate a fracturing Jewish American debate in which support for Israel does not map cleanly onto support for current Israeli policy: J Street defends a Zionist framework while pushing reform; IfNotNow foregrounds justice and disruption and declines to make Zionism a settled starting point [1] [3]. Reporting documents internal tensions—resignations, campus splits, and external attacks—but available sources do not provide a complete sociological map of membership views or granular internal deliberations, so assessments should distinguish between stated institutional platforms and the diversity of opinions within their constituencies [6] [9].