J Street’s Credibility Problem

Nicholas Kristof’s recent op-ed was riddled with disputed claims, unsupported assertions and inflammatory rhetoric. Yet the column served an unintended purpose: It exposed the widening divide between those who insist on evidence and those willing to embrace accusations against Israel with little scrutiny.

J Street and its leader, Jeremy Ben-Ami, have chosen equivocation over principle.

In his response to the op ed, Ben-Ami acknowledged that “some details and allegations remain disputed.”  But he called on his followers to demand an investigation and refrain from criticizing journalists like Kristof.  Indeed, he asked for signatures on a petition to investigate Kristof’s claims.

This is exactly the wrong response.

Kristof’s claims have been exposed for what they are: unverified and antisemitic.  To suggest that the appropriate response is to give them enough credibility to warrant an investigation is to allow Kristof an undeserved victory.

The only rational and morally responsible reaction is to condemn Kristof for writing his lies and to excoriate the New York Times for publishing them.

Haviv Rettig Gur published an eloquent response in the Free Press.  His piece was appropriately and accurately critical of Kristof.  But it also acknowledged that the Israeli prison system is imperfect, and for that he too was criticized.  But the difference between Gur and Ben-Ami is that the former recognized Kristof’s journalistic failures; the latter did not.

I have previously written that J Street is neither pro-Israel nor pro-peace, and this episode provides further proof of those assertions.  A day after Kristof’s op ed appeared, a 300-page report was published by Israel’s Civil Commission documenting the sexual crimes committed by Hamas on and after October 7.  The scope and brutality of those crimes dwarf Kristof’s unfounded allegations, and the report contains incontrovertible proof that they occurred.

Yet there was no response to that report from Ben-Ami or J Street.

This is antisemitism.

To hold Israel to a higher standard – by giving credibility to Kristof’s allegations yet failing to acknowledge Hamas’ far worse and proven crimes – meets every definition of antisemitism.

There have been countless times commentators have criticized those who imply a moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas.  But for Ben-Ami, equivalence is the wrong paradigm.  In his view, only Israel deserves scrutiny and criticism.

In her article that introduced the Civil Commission report, Dr. Cochav Elkayam-Levy wrote that her work “exposed the profound dissonance between public perception and reality.”  She hopes that her report will serve “as a moment of brief clarity, a time in which the facts are known and no longer in doubt.”

Public debate, especially on matters as consequential as war and human rights, depends on a consistent standard of evidence and moral judgment. By treating disputed allegations against Israel as inherently credible while giving comparatively little attention to documented atrocities committed by Hamas, J Street deepens the very dissonance Dr. Elkayam-Levy described.