Debunking Israel Lobby, Study Shows Growing Alienation of American Jews From Israel

By Allan C. Brownfeld

The idea that pro-Israel lobbying groups such as AIPAC somehow represent the views of the majority of American Jews with regard to the Middle East is increasingly difficult to sustain. All available data indicate that precisely the opposite is true.

Indeed, a new study suggests that American Jews’ connection to Israel drops off sharply with each subsequent generation.

The authors of the study, sociologists Steven M. Cohen and Ari Kelman, found a consistent increase in alienation in each younger generation, with middle-aged Jews less attached to Israel than older Jews, and younger Jews less attached than middle-aged Jews.

“Every measure indicates a decline of attachment to Israel” from one generation to the next, Kelman, a sociologist at the University of California at Davis, declared.

The report, titled “Beyond Distancing: Young Adult American Jews and their Alienation from Israel,” was commissioned by the Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies.

In its Sept. 13, 2007 issue, Washington Jewish Week reported that, “The major findings are that successively younger American Jews feel increasingly distant from Israel, and that this trend has been increasing steadily for decades. For example, less than half (48 percent) of respondents under 35 agreed that ‘Israel’s destruction would be a personal tragedy,’ compared to 78 percent of those 65 and older. And just 54 percent of the younger group are ‘comfortable with the idea of a Jewish state,’ compared to 81 percent of those 65 and older, 74 percent of those 50-64 and 64 percent of the 35-49 age group.”

According to co-author Cohen, a sociologist and research professor at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in New York, the differences are more a function of when people were born than where they are on the life-cycle continuum. That means the American Jewish detachment from Israel will increase as younger Jews age and replace their parents and grandparents’ generation.

“There is growing discomfort with the drawing of hard group boundaries of all sorts,” Cohen said of the so-called “millenials,” those born after 1980. “The idea of a Jewish state reflects hard group boundaries, that there is a distinction between Jews and everybody else. That does not sit well with young Jews.”

Young Jews have a more nuanced attitude toward Israel than their elders.

U.S. News and World Report declared in its Sept. 17 edition that the report reflects what its authors “believe is a key indicator of a change from a more collective, ethnic, or even tribal view of being Jewish toward what they call ‘privatized Judaism.’ The latter, in their view, promotes a ‘more open notion of community, a more fluid conception of Jewish identity, and a more critical approach to peoplehood and belonging’—all of which would presumably accompany diminished attachment to the Jewish homeland.”

Among the factors influencing this trend, reported U.S. News, are “the dimming memory of Israel’s early heroic struggles for independence...[and] intermarriage...The authors found that Jews of all ages in mixed marriages score lower in attachment to Israel than do nonmarried Jews or Jews married within the faith. But young intermarried Jews are significantly more alienated from Israel than older intermarried Jews or younger intramarried and unmarried Jews.”

The report also indicated that the overall slide in attachment to, or interest in, Israel does not mean that young American Jews are “less Jewish.” On the contrary, numerous recent studies and anecdotal evidence demonstrate great cultural and religious vitality and creativity among young Jews. Israel is just not as big a part of the picture.

In Cohen’s opinion, “It’s worrying that young Jews may be creating a latter-day Jewish Bundism, which affirms Jewish belonging but is neutral to the Zionist enterprise. We’re seeing this growing phenomenon of Jews who have no problem saying the ‘Sh’ma’ but won’t sing ‘Hatikvah.’”

According to Rabbi Elie Kaunfer, executive director of Mechon Hadar, which provides networking and support for new start-up minyanim (prayer groups) nationwide, young Jews have a more nuanced attitude toward Israel than their elders. In the independent minyan movement, he said, that means they have not yet figured out how to do Israel programming. “I think that reflects a problem that our generation has not solved; how to engage with Israel without slogan-slinging, but still remain emotionally engaged,” Rabbi Kaunfer said.

Zeev Bielski, chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel, told The Jerusalem Post that, “These results are very upsetting.” He blamed a combination of a “comfortable life” in America and growing materialism for the detachment from Israel. Bielski said the only way to combat this growing trend was to invest more in such programs as “Birthright Israel,” which offers free trips to Israel to young Jews.

The report found that only 60 percent of American Jews under 35 believed caring about Israel was an important part of being Jewish. Among those over the age of 65, 80 percent believed that caring about Israel was a way to express their Jewish identity.

Triple Negatives for Pro-Israel Lobby

Indeed, in an article in the Sept./Oct. 2007 issue of Tikkun, Rabbi Michael Lerner argued that the pro-Israel lobby—that constellation of organizations including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and a host of others—is “Bad for the United States, bad for Israel, and bad for the Jews.”

It is bad for the U.S. he argued, because “The Israel lobby identifies the best interests of the U.S. with those of the Israeli right-wing, and that right wing engages in activities against the Palestinian people in particular and against neighboring states, which have inflamed global public opinion not only against Israel but against the U.S.”

It is bad for Israel, he continued, because “The Israel lobby strengthens the hands of the most right-wing forces in Israel while reinforcing the view that the U.S. is going to back their intransigence and militarism and that, hence, they have a blank check to do whatever crazy and self-defeating scheme they come up with, including the war in Lebanon in the summer of 2006, the dropping of cluster bombs on southern Lebanon, the refusal to give up land of Syria’s conquered in l967, the holding of thousands of Palestinian civilians in Israeli prisoner camps, the use of torture, the violation of the rights of Israeli citizens who happen to be Arabs, and the refusal to acknowledge any responsibility for the Palestinian refugees. Israel will some day face a reckoning from Arab states and from the peoples of the world for the gross arrogance and insensitivity of their government’s policies, and people will some day look back at the Israel lobby in the U.S. and realize that it was destructive to Israel’s long-term survival interests.”

Beyond all of this, Lerner argued, the lobby is bad for the Jews: “The most decisive reason the Israel lobby is bad for the Jews is that it strengthens idolatry in the Jewish world by reinforcing our tendencies to believe in power and domination rather than in love, compassion and open-heartedness...It pains me deeply to see the Israel Lobby so successful in turning many of the Jews who are supposedly religious into worshippers of power; people who believe that the Will of God can be read by the outcome of military struggles like the l967 Six-Day War. This is straightforward idolatry—the worship of power and the betrayal of the God of Israel.”

In addition, according to Lerner, the Israel Lobby “has put a straitjacket on public conversation about Israel. Reporters and even newspapers that report the complicated and two-sided truth of the Israel/Palestinian struggles are quickly labeled anti-Israel or anti-Semitic...This Jewish Political Correctness, like every other form of political correctness, will eventually backfire. The millions of people who have felt constrained and resentful that on this one topic they were not allowed to say what they thought will some day find their voice, and when they do, the legitimate support that Israel does deserve from the Western countries will quickly dissolve and irrational anger will be expressed at all Jews, not just those who supported Israeli policies.”

Rep. Jim Moran’s Tikkun Interview

In an interview with Tikkun, Rep. James Moran (D-VA) described AIPAC as “very well organized...If you cross AIPAC, AIPAC is unforgiving and will destroy you politically...Every member knows it’s the best-organized national lobbying force...Most people that are involved in foreign policy especially look at a broad range of issues and consider a person’s entire voting record. AIPAC considers the voting record only as it applies to Israel.”

Expressing concern about AIPAC’s promotion of the war in Iraq and its current support for action against Iran, Moran made the point that AIPAC is unrepresentative of the constituency—American Jews—in whose name it professes to speak: “Jewish Americans...are overwhelmingly opposed to the war. There is no ethnic group as opposed to the war as Jewish Americans,” Moran noted. “But, AIPAC is the most powerful lobby and has pushed the war from the beginning. I don’t think they represent the mainstream of American Jewish thinking at all. but because they are so well organized...they have been able to exert power.”

Needless to say, Moran came under withering attack for this interview. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD)—who is among the top 10 House recipients of career pro-Israel PAC contributions—declared: “His remarks were factually inaccurate and recall an old canard that is not true, that the Jewish community controls the media and Congress.” Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), the House Republican chief deputy whip—also among the top 10—said that Moran’s statement “is as senseless as it is bigoted.” Cantor went so far as to compare Moran’s remarks to the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Sixteen Jewish House Democrats, led by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), called Moran’s remarks deeply offensive. In a letter to Moran, they said that his comments “fit the anti-Semitic stereotypes some have used historically against Jews.”

Moran spokesman Austin Durrer said that while Moran “may have been unnecessarily harsh,” his comments were directed at a lobbying organization, “not a community of people...Anyone attempting to mischaracterize his words as targeting the broader Jewish community rather than AIPAC’s leadership is being purposely misleading.”

Saying he was not surprised by Moran’s comments, Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington executive director Ron Halber criticized Moran’s attempts “to drive a wedge” between AIPAC and the Jewish Community.

The fact, of course, is that Rep. Moran is not “driving a wedge” between AIPAC and the vast majority of American Jews, but rather is simply describing it.

While critical of the overall tone of Moran’s remarks, and questioning his assertion of AIPAC’s promotion of war with Iraq, columnist Doug Bloomfield, writing in the Sept. 27 Washington Jewish Week, noted that, “He’s closer to the truth when he suggests the lobby is honing in on Iran. AIPAC and other major pro-Israel groups are not explicitly pushing the war option, but their depiction of Iran as the virtual reincarnation of the Nazis hardly bolsters the case for diplomacy. Moran said AIPAC ‘doesn’t represent the mainstream Jewish community,’ and the group has aligned itself with the Bush administration...He’s got a point there.”

In Bloomfield’s view, “Mainstream Jewish organizations defer to AIPAC, even when they disagree, because they fear being labeled soft on Israel. One other reason for its success is that the lobby sells fear; it is easier to rally people around fear of terrorism and Iranian nuclear weapons than around hope for peace. When it comes to raising money, nothing succeeds like tsuris (trouble).”

Defending Moran’s characterization of AIPAC as representing only a small segment of the Jewish community, Rabbi Lerner asserted that many American Jews who might agree with the congressman’s viewpoint have been driven away from activism by Israel supporters who sometimes label them as “self-hating Jews” for their criticisms of Israel. Lerner said he didn’t disagree with anything in Moran’s interview and described him as “the most courageous congressman I know.”

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the particular criticisms of the pro-Israel lobby by Rabbi Lerner, Rep. Moran and those contained in Mearsheimer and Walt’s book The Israel Lobby, one fact is clear: the charge that AIPAC does not genuinely represent the views of the vast majority of American Jews is accurate beyond question.

Allan C. Brownfeld is a syndicated columnist and associate editor of the Lincoln Review, a journal published by the Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, and editor of Issues, the quarterly journal of the American Council for Judaism.