Israeli Ambassador to the United States Yechiel Leiter’s recent description of J Street as “a cancer in the Jewish community” was widely criticized as undiplomatic and inappropriate. In reality, it was a precise diagnosis of a painful problem that many prefer not to confront.
Leiter was not attacking political disagreement. He was identifying a phenomenon that has become increasingly destructive since Oct. 7, 2023: the role played by segments of the Jewish left in legitimizing the campaign to delegitimize Israel.
His point goes far beyond J Street itself. The far-left Jewish advocacy group has become a prominent voice in Washington pressing for greater pressure on Israel, including restrictions on U.S. military aid and diplomatic support.
It touches on a broader reality in which influential Jewish voices portray Israel as racist, colonialist, fascist or even genocidal. Whether it is J Street, historian Anna Foa, Israeli historian and political scientist Ilan Pappé, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders or others, the underlying message is often the same: Israel has betrayed the true meaning of Zionism and Judaism, while they represent its authentic form.
This accusation carries particular weight because it comes from Jews.
For decades, anti-Israel campaigns have benefited from a powerful defense against charges of antisemitism: “Even Jews are saying it.”
That argument has become one of the most effective weapons in the international effort to criminalize Israel. Through books, media appearances, petitions, demonstrations and political campaigns, Jewish critics provide a moral shield for accusations that would otherwise be recognized as blatant distortions.
Leiter’s remarks came alongside the publication of a carefully documented pamphlet exposing many of the falsehoods spread about Israel since Oct. 7, 2023. The allegations are familiar: genocide, deliberate starvation, indiscriminate killing and other modern blood libels designed to transform Israel from victim into perpetrator.
These accusations have been amplified by an enormous international machinery of disinformation. Yet their effectiveness depends in part on the participation of Jewish voices willing to validate them.
The result is a false moral equivalence that has become one of the defining features of contemporary anti-Israel discourse.
Israel is portrayed as morally indistinguishable from Hamas. Israeli soldiers become war criminals. Israeli self-defense becomes aggression. The Jewish state is judged not by the standards applied to other democracies, but by standards no nation could meet.
The deeper issue is not political disagreement. It is an attack on Jewish identity itself.
What makes the phenomenon so dangerous is that it comes from within the Jewish world. The argument is not merely that Israel has made mistakes or that particular governments have adopted flawed policies. Rather, it is that today’s Israel is no longer authentically Jewish or authentically Zionist. According to this worldview, the Jewish state has become a distortion of Judaism, a caricature of Zionism—a moral monstrosity that has betrayed its founding ideals.
J Street’s accusation strikes at the very heart of Jewish collective existence. It tells Israelis that their democracy is illegitimate, that their leaders are unworthy, that their soldiers are criminals, and that the national movement that restored Jewish sovereignty after 2,000 years of exile has somehow become its opposite.
The practical consequences are profound. Once Israel is portrayed not as a flawed democracy but as a fundamentally immoral enterprise, its weakening becomes not only acceptable but desirable. Pressure campaigns, diplomatic isolation, restrictions on military aid and the erosion of international support are transformed into acts of virtue. The line between criticizing Israel and undermining its very existence becomes increasingly blurred.
The damage extends far beyond Israel’s borders. Jews in the Diaspora are left confused, intimidated and morally disarmed. They are told that defending Israel is incompatible with Jewish values, that solidarity with the Jewish state is somehow suspect, and that the highest expression of Jewish ethics is public condemnation of their own people. The result is a cloud of doubt and shame that weakens Jewish communities precisely when antisemitism is surging around the world.
This is why the debate matters so much. It is not only about Israel’s security or even its international standing. It is about whether Jews will be permitted to define their own identity, their own history and their own national aspirations—or whether those things will be redefined for them by those who claim that the Jewish state itself has become the enemy of Jewish values.
This worldview is rooted in a particular ideological vision. According to this perspective, authentic Judaism means restraint, universalism and endless self-criticism. Jewish national self-defense is viewed with suspicion. Zionism itself becomes a problem.
The concept of tikkun olam (“repairing the world”) is detached from its Jewish foundations and transformed into a political doctrine in which Israel is permanently assigned the role of oppressor while its enemies are granted the status of victims, no matter what they’ve said or done.
Under this framework, Hamas, Iran and other forces dedicated to Israel’s destruction are often treated with greater understanding than the Jewish state.
The practical consequences are profound.
Calls to restrict military aid to Israel, pressure campaigns against the Israeli government and efforts to isolate Israel diplomatically are presented as acts of moral courage. Yet they serve the objectives of those seeking to weaken Israel at a time when it is fighting for its survival. The irony is that these campaigns are often justified as attempts to save Israel from itself.
But what they actually offer is a vision of an Israel stripped of its ability to defend itself, pressured into dangerous concessions and condemned for refusing to surrender to enemies that openly seek its destruction.
The Jewish left frequently presents itself as the guardian of ethics. Yet it increasingly embraces narratives that deny the legitimacy of Jewish self-determination and undermine the confidence of Jews in their own national identity.
That is why Leiter’s comments struck such a nerve.
The debate is not merely political. It concerns who gets to define Judaism, Zionism and the future of the Jewish people.
The most damaging attacks on Israel today are not always launched by its enemies. Sometimes they come from those who claim to speak in the name of the Jewish people while helping to erode the foundations of the Jewish state.
Leiter’s choice of words was blunt. But the challenge he identified is real, and it deserves serious discussion rather than reflexive condemnation.
