I really didn’t want to write about Chuck Hagel since I don’t think there is much to say that hasn’t already been said (although for the record, I have no problem with him as defense secretary based on what he has said about Israel, and in over an hour with him last September at the Atlantic Council he didn’t say one thing about Israel that raised a red flag), but reading James Besser’s op-ed in today’s New York Times compels me to weigh in. Besser’s thesis is that mainstream American Jewish groups such as the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee are either silent on Hagel or complicit in trying to torpedo his nomination because they are afraid of extremist voices on the pro-Israel right such as the Emergency Committee for Israel, and that this radical fringe is setting the pro-Israel agenda and pushing more mainstream voices to adopt extreme positions. He says American Jewish leaders “increasingly tremble in the face of a small minority of zealots, whose vision of Israel’s future diverges from that of the majority of American Jews and clashes with core American values of freedom and democracy,” and he compares them to the leaders of the Republican Party in warning that a movement driven by extremists is bound to fail since it will run afoul of public opinion. Besser is basically arguing that the institutional pro-Israel movement is headed toward irrelevance because it is adopting positions that do not line up with the bulk of American Jewry, and he uses the Hagel nomination as his hook to make that argument.
I agree with Besser that more extremist voices such as the ECI are driving the conversation on Hagel, and that this is not a good trend, although I am not as confident as he is that American Jewish leaders don’t themselves hold the same convictions and are rather being prodded along into taking positions with which they don’t agree. That aside though, there are two major problems with his argument, one specific to the Hagel issue and one general one. First, Besser is assuming that opposition to Hagel is going to provoke some sort of popular backlash because the anti-Hagel position is so extreme, but this seems to me to be a stretch. To begin with, while there is lots of support for Hagel within the foreign policy community, opposition to Hagel is emanating from too many quarters to make the anti-Hagel position the equivalent of denying evolution. I also don’t think this fight is really registering much among the general public, as Hagel’s name recognition is pretty low and this is the kind of Beltway fight to which most people pay little or no attention. As far as I can tell from a quick search, Hagel’s name recognition is actually so low that nobody has even bothered to do any polling on his potential nomination. The idea that opposing Hagel is so extreme and will provoke such outrage that it will cause the pro-Israel community to go into a death spiral is pretty far-fetched at best.
The bigger issue though is with Besser’s argument that it is the views of American Jews that empower pro-Israel groups and will ultimately determine their success or failure. This betrays a lack of understanding of what makes AIPAC and other similar groups successful, which is not that Jews support them, but that the majority of the overall population supports them. Aaron David Miller pointed this out earlier this week and Walter Russell Mead does it all the time as well, but when the former Washington correspondent for The Jewish Week still doesn’t get how things work, it bears some repeating. American public opinion has been favorable toward Israel since its founding, and support for Israel is relatively constant within a set range. This works to create pressure on politicians to espouse a pro-Israel view. In the years spanning the George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush administrations, Israel’s favorability ratings as measured by Gallup ranged from 45 percent to 71 percent, and in only in four out of twenty-one instances did less than 50 percent of the public indicate holding a very favorable or mostly favorable view of Israel. When asked to rate countries as close allies, Israel consistently ranks behind only the Anglosphere countries of Great Britain, Canada, and Australia, with those describing Israel as a close ally ranging from 26 percent to 47 percent from 1982 through 2008.
Furthermore, when looking at the preferences of the issue public – citizens who have strong feelings on the issue of the U.S. relationship with Israel and Israeli behavior generally – people in this category are even more supportive of Israel and Israeli policies than the general public by more than twice as much. A pluralist model of politics predicts a correlation between the views of citizens who have a strongly held view on an issue and public policy, since ignoring strong or intense preferences will erode democratic legitimacy over time, so it makes sense that politicians respond to the pro-Israel wishes of the most vocal subset of citizens. Support for Israel among the U.S. populace is both broad and deep, which means that the pro-Israel sympathies of the general public are reinforced by the more intense feelings of support expressed by a vocal minority of both Jewish and non-Jewish voters. When taking into account the importance that Jewish and Christian voters assign to Israel, combined with the public’s affinity and support for Israel in general, the pluralist model that equates strong public opinion with corresponding policy explains why AIPAC and other groups are successful.
None of this means that this situation is static. Support for Israel is driven by a sense of shared values, and so if that perception erodes, Israel is going to be in trouble. One of the reasons I pound away at Israel’s myopia in hanging on to the West Bank – aside from the fact that I find it morally questionable, to say the least – is because I am pretty sure that it is going to spell doom for Israel long term as it relates to U.S. support. However, focusing on the opinion of just American Jews is going to tell you very little about whether mainstream American Jewish organizations are going to remain strong or not. American Jews are probably the most liberal group of Americans that exist, so if the rest of the country ever catches up to them, then the ADL and the AJC are going to have something to worry about. Putting up a fight over Chuck Hagel though is just not going to be the issue that relegates mainstream Jewish organizations to obsolescence.
Ottomans and Zionists 
I agree with you that major Jewish organizations like AIPAC/AJC/ADL are driven by the overall mood of the country, rather than American Jewish opinion. However, I think that there’s a flaw in assuming that the relative liberalism of the American Jewish community in regards to social issues somehow expands to Israel policy, as well. In polls that have been taken over the last few years, it seems that pretty solid majorities of American Jews, while supportive of a 2-state solution, are also very skeptical of the Palestinian leadership and as such, oppose U.S. pressure on Israel (in addition to supporting Israeli military actions and a united Jerusalem). While those positions seem consistent with liberalism to me, personally, they’re not really aligned with what is currently the dominant “liberal” narrative about Israel.
That’s a fair point, but I also think it is true that the leadership and the grassroots are not perfectly aligned in this instance.
Do you think that’s a result of an actual policy disagreement or the fact that organized, established groups are by definition more invested in matters like a potential Hagel nomination? Those are not mutually exclusive, obviously – I can see how being less invested in day-to-day policy issues can lead people to have a “pick our battles” attitude and thus feel uncomfortable by the comparatively hard line of organized groups.
Well, in instances such as the Hagel (non)nomination, I think certainly organized groups are a lot more invested. As I wrote today, most people are just not paying attention to the Hagel fight.
Right, of course. I was referring to your statement about the leadership and the grassroots of Jewish orgs not being completely aligned. It just seems that the lack of alignment results from organized groups being more invested.
Perhaps. I’m not sure that necessarily affects overall preferences though, just how far they are willing to go to fight for them.
What do you see as the differences in overall preferences b/w the leadership and the grassroots, then?
My sense is that the grassroots is more willing to tolerate some mild dissent from the official party line when it comes to settlements and Palestinian intransigence.
I see a related trend, though I don’t completely agree with your conclusion. While a decent percentage of the leadership in organized groups actually support the settlement movement for this or that reason, I feel (and much of this admittedly results from anecdata) that a lot of the grassroots would be more willing to accept some criticism of the settlements if it were not for Palestinian intransigence and already-existing, lopsided criticism of Israel. In other words, if there was a feeling that the Palestinians were really partners for peace (giving up the “right of return”, ending incitement, defeating Hamas, etc.) and that the “world” didn’t have it in for Israel, then there would be more openness to pointing out Israel’s flaws. In contrast, much of the leadership would continue to support the settler movement even in that hypothetical situation.
there is no doubt Israel enjoys broad support in the US. I am uncertain though about its origins. if its so organic why is there a very large and powerful lobbying organ that comes in different sizes and shapes? additionally, if you study the comment sections of various publications such as the NYT and the post, you will see a much more balanced approach to Israel. I knw that’s not scientific but I consider this issue similar to Apartheid SA. They enjoyed solid political cover here until they were outed. I see support crumbling quickly if Israel does not take a corrective course. the Hagel nomination, is another shrink in the armor.
Many ‘organic’ causes still have lobbying groups: PETA, the NRA, the AARP, etc. It seems you are feeding off an echo chamber – the sentiments of the general population are hardly properly represented in the self-selecting sample of the NYT comments section. Please look into the approval ratings of South Africa in the USA – that support was based purely on cold war calculations, hence the readiness with which the regime was dispensed when there was no longer a meaningful threat in creating a power vacuum there.