Today, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Trump to discuss the U.S.’s negotiations with Iran regarding its nuclear program. This meeting comes two weeks after Trump threatened Iran with a “far worse” strike if a deal can not be made.
Jeremy Ben-Ami, President of J-Street, joins Jen from Tel Aviv to discuss what Trump’s posturing against Iran may mean for the future of its nuclear weapons. The two also discuss the role of AIPAC in American elections, with the most recent example being in the New Jersey special primary and how the super-PAC no longer represents the views of the average Jewish-American.
Jeremy Ben-Ami is the President of J Street, a pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-democracy non-profit organizing Americans to promote US policies that embody Jewish and democratic values and that help secure the State of Israel as a democratic homeland for the Jewish people.
The following transcript has been edited for formatting.
Jen Rubin
Hi, this is Jen Rubin, Editor-in-Chief of The Contrarian. We are thrilled to have back with us Jeremy Ben-Ami, who heads J-Street, which I think is the most effective political organization representing the interests of Jewish Americans. Welcome, Jeremy, how are you?
Jeremy Ben-Ami
Thanks so much, Jen. It’s great to be coming to you from Tel Aviv, where I just landed in the last few hours.
Jen Rubin
It is, it is a great pleasure. So, as you are there, the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is flying to America, and there’s a lot of buzz about more Iran strikes, or something having to do with Iran. Where are we after we supposedly obliterated their nuclear program?
Jeremy Ben-Ami
Well, I’ll say the buzz, actually, is that the President might be interested in cutting a deal, and I think that is why, the Prime Minister got on the plane so quickly. flew over to Washington. It wasn’t to escape the fact that I was coming, it was actually to, I think try to ensure that the things that he’s been saying over the course of decades now are not thrown under the bus as the president pursues, you know, he does love a deal, and there is the possibility of one, and so I think that is actually more likely why the Prime Minister flew so quickly over to the U.S.
Jen Rubin
So, is this about reviving the JCPOA, which was the deal that Barack Obama negotiated, and Trump and the right wing was tearing their hair out over for a decade or more?
Jeremy Ben-Ami
Well, my short answer to that is yes, it’s precisely what it’s about. You know, there’s two issues with the JCPOA. One was that it was only a nuclear deal, and didn’t address ballistic missiles, and didn’t address Iran’s other bad actions, whether it’s support for proxies or how it treats its people. The administration has been giving wildly mixed signals for the last few weeks about whether or not it is willing to also settle for just a nuclear deal. And whether you’re talking to Rubio, or to Vance, or hearing from the President. you’ll get a different story, and I think that panics Netanyahu on the first go-around.
The second is whether or not there’s anything more tight that one can do on the nuclear front than what the JCPOA was. I think arms experts, arms control experts, said that that deal was the best nuclear non-proliferation deal that had ever been implemented, and it was being implemented until Trump broke it. So the question is, is there anything that he can do Obviously, it would have ended by now, right? This was the 10-year expiration of parts of it, so… Yes. This would be extending it and making it longer, maybe making some other provisions permanent. There were some permanent aspects, so maybe it could be a little bit tighter on the nuclear front, but the real question is, is it nuclear only, or does it include other things?
Jen Rubin
This is so typically Trump. You know, we had the, NAFTA, the North American Trade Agreement. He didn’t like that. He ripped it up, and he put in something that bore an awful close resemblance to NAFTA. He… was threatening to invade Greenland, and he then settled for some great deal that was actually pretty close to what exactly we have already. Is this another Trumpian maneuver? I mean, maybe he doesn’t understand he’s getting no more, or maybe he does, and he just likes taking credit for other people’s work.
Jeremy Ben-Ami
Yeah, no, this definitely is, you know, typical out of the playbook. Now, I will say that the president went through with a military strike in June. I mean, that was something that was out of his usual playbook, and there is a fairly substantial buildup of American forces not far from where I’m sitting right now, and so I don’t take that lightly. And the president’s use of, essentially, gunship diplomacy here is either the precursor to an actual attack. Or it is the means by which he is hoping to get just a slightly better deal. Time will tell.
He’s clearly someone who really does believe that he is a peacemaker, he does believe that he can cut deals, he has this self-image that no one else has of him except himself, but I’m more than happy to see him try to fulfill that vision by actually striking a good deal to re-contain Iran’s nuclear program.
Jen Rubin
It is remarkable that Netanyahu, who has made the Iran nuclear threat the purpose of his entire premiership can never take yes for an answer, even with his favorite president of all time, who’s given him everything he’s possibly wanting. He just can’t stand having a deal. I think that speaks to kind of how twisted this Israeli government’s position has gotten, that they would rather be in a state of concert warfare than have something that is the best deal possible. Does that strike you, as it strikes me as just… bizarre?
Jeremy Ben-Ami
It’s bizarre, but consistent, and I’d argue that the same exact thing happens on the Palestinian front as well. You know, there is an absolutely amazing opportunity that you and I have discussed before for the State of Israel in the generation ahead, which is an end to the Israeli-Arab conflict, and full normalization for the State of Israel with its Arab neighbors. And the only demand from the Arab neighbors is there has to be a pathway to a Palestinian state over the course of the next generation. And the inability of this Prime Minister and this government to accept yes for an answer, and to take this enormous win, and to choose instead, you know, the deepening of the occupation on the West Bank, just terrible stuff this week was announced by the government.
We’re calling it the Great West Bank robbery, this week. You know, they are taking land control, they are seizing private Palestinian land in ways we’ve never seen before, because they have no interest in there ever being a resolution of this conflict. And so… The fact that he would rather have a war with Iran, he’d rather have a war with Palestinians, he’d rather not have normalization with the rest of the Arab world, it’s all of a piece, a preference for force and conflict and perpetual war, his image of Sparta. You know, he wants to be Sparta, he doesn’t want to be a liberal democracy living within the rules of law and accepted by all the other countries. to be a militarized superstate.
Jen Rubin
That’s the perfect segue to a discussion I want to have with you about AIPAC. AIPAC has, for generations, been an organization that is supposed to promote the Israel-American relationship. It is not supposed to be an advocate for the current regime. And for years, it was truly bipartisan. That’s changed, and what happened in a recent primary, I think, is emblematic of that. It was a multi-person race on the Democratic side. Tom Malinowski, who we all know our contrarian audience knows very well, extremely moderate Democrat. pro-Israel, has been critical of the Netanyahu handling, obviously, of Gaza, of the war crimes there, but has really been a solid, you know, backer of Israel’s right to exist.
They dumped millions, I mean millions, into ads that didn’t take issue directly with his position on Israel, but brought up a whole slew of other things, dark money ads. They wound up sinking him and elevating someone who, objectively, of the people in the race, was the most hostile towards the U.S.-Israel relationship. First question is, who the heck do they think they are representing? And secondly, have they become such a noxious force in democratic politics that they threaten their own viability?
Jeremy Ben-Ami
I mean, who do they represent? They represent the interests and the views of their largest donors, and I just invite your audience to… the great thing about AI, whether one likes it or not, is a phenomenon in society, but you can just ask Google a question, like, who are the 20 largest donors to AIPAC Super PAC, the United Democracy Project, and do they lean Republican or Democrat? Just plug that in, and ask the question of AI. And it will come back and it will tell you that the largest donors that pump millions and millions and millions into AIPAC lean Republican. And so who are they acting on behalf of? Whose interests are they carrying out? They’re carrying out the interests of their donors, which, you know, frankly, J Street reflects the interests of our donors. The interest of our donors is Israel’s long-term security, its democratic and its Jewish nature, and hopefully its peaceful integration into the neighborhood. That’s the interest of our donors, and that’s why J Street exists.
The interests of AIPAC donors at this point are really to defeat any left-of-center voice that is speaking out on behalf of human rights and democracy, and it’s really not just about Israel, right? larger agenda that really does coincide with the Trump agenda and the Bibi agenda, and they don’t represent the average Jewish American any longer. The average Jewish American, as you were indicating earlier, aligns their views with J Street at this point. It supports Israel, still really does want there to be a safe and secure Israel that’s the national home of the Jewish people. They just want that Israel to behave in accordance with the values on which we were raised, right?
You don’t treat other people like that, you don’t steal their land, you don’t blow up an entire strip where 2 million people lived in order to, you know, wage a just war. That is not a just war. You know, we have morals, we have ethics. We want a state that lives up to that, that is a true democracy, that is secure, and that’s the interests of J=Street, and it’s no longer the interests of AIPAC, and I I knew, you know, the family of the man who founded AIPAC. I know a lot of the people who worked there 30, 40 years ago, real supporters of AIPAC for decades. And everybody I know just can’t understand what has happened to this organization and why it has taken the turn that it took, because it is no longer representing the best interests of the Jewish people and of the State of Israel.
Jen Rubin
Absolutely, and at least for now, there are Democrats, obviously no Democrat wants to turn down support. They spend their money independently, so technically they can spend money on whomever they want. But are Democrats that you have spoken to beginning to see them as a liability, beginning to see that their money is really, not helpful, in Democratic primaries, and even in the general election?
Jeremy Ben-Ami
More and more, you are seeing that across the board. You’re not just seeing it from far left, you know. Democrats who might be self-identified, let’s say, in the squad, you’re seeing it from mainstream, middle-of-the-road Democrats, Jewish Democrats, who say, I just don’t want AIPAC money. And again, plug it into AI, you know, plug it into Google, ask about the Democrats. I mean, I can give you a list of the sort of mainstream people, even folks who were elected in prior cycles with APAC support. now no longer want any money or anything to do with AIPAC, and this is a growing trend. You know, it happened to the NRA, where it just, you know, became so toxic in democratic politics that it was actually a good thing when the NRA didn’t like you. Yes. And unfortunately, you know, it is really… it’s painful, right? This is a very painful thing to watch an organization like AI{AC make itself so toxic in the Democratic Party, that is just no longer going to be a viable player to support the kind of bipartisan relationship that we all want Israel to have with the United States.
Jen Rubin
Worse, it is making Israel what we never wanted it to be, which is a very partisan issue. They’re basically saying, unless you’re a right-wing Republican, we don’t want you. And so what they’re doing is making Israel’s support depended upon which party is in power, and their idea of the right party is a MAGA extreme government. That’s extremely dangerous, something Israel has never wanted to do.
Jeremy Ben-Ami
But there, they’ve also made a huge strategic error, because look what’s happening on the right of the Republican Party. The right wing of the Republican Party is now saying they, too, no longer want to provide a blank check to a First World economic superpower that’s going about treating other people this way, right? You know, you listen to the Marjorie Taylor Greens and the Megyn Kellys and, you know, you understand that there is a growing anger even within the MAGA base of the Republican Party, and some of it is isolationist, but some of it is just. tapping into their own values and being disgusted.
Younger evangelicals can’t believe the way the Gaza war was waged. And those are Republican evangelicals, and they don’t want $4 billion a year of their money, taxpayer money, that could be revitalizing their communities, which need housing and childcare and healthcare. Why is $4 billion a year going to pay for the weapons that are conducting, you know, things that are in contradiction to our laws and to our values. So it’s a strategic mistake of epic proportions that they’re making.
Jen Rubin
What can J Street, what can the American Jewish community do to help inoculate Democrats who are in good standing, who are friends of Israel, who have small D democratic values who share our view of human rights, what can they do to insulate and, protect these people who are now the source of dark money anger and billions of dollars flowing into their opponents?
Jeremy Ben-Ami
Well, it’s a political fight, and, you know, all the folks who follow the contrarian understand, you know, we’re in the political fight of our lives for the democracy of this country. And similarly, I would say to the American Jewish community that we’re in the political fight of our lives for what it means to be pro-Israel and whether or not there’s going to be a deep relationship between this country and the state of the Jewish people. And it’s really vital that candidates who stand up for their values, have support from our community. It happens to be the mission of J Street, I’m not making this a, you know, commercial for J Street, that there is an organization that is trying to organize money and political support for those candidates.
So people can do it individually, they can do it through other organizations, they can find ways, but we are in a political battle. AIPAC is on one side of that political battle with Bibi and with MAGA and with Trump, and those of us in the Jewish community who are on the pro-democracy, pro-diplomacy, pro-Israel, pro-peace side, we need to be in the mix. We need to be in the fight, and we need to show that support. So the people in the future, like Tom Malinowski, did not have enough money in order to push back against $2.3 million of ads, but imagine if he’d had $2.3 million. In order to counter this, and to call out what was happening. I think he would have won.
Jen Rubin
Absolutely, absolutely. And folks, this comes back to what we’ve always stood for at the contrarian, which is small d, democracy. If you keep that as your watchword, democracy, self-rule, the rule of law, human decency, then you don’t have to… puzzle through all of these issues. You know exactly where you stand, because those are overarching values and issues, and J Street really shares that, which is why we enjoy talking to you as much as we do. So, friends, you can go on J Street’s website. You can see those candidates who do support Israel, but they aren’t reflexively, mindlessly supportive of every bad thing the government does there. And what’s most important, they are pro-American, pro-American democracy, and that’s what’s critical.
So, Jeremy, safe travels to you. We’ll enjoy seeing and hearing from you, when you return and get your insights, and, thank you, jet lag or no jet lag, for joining us this morning. We really appreciate it.
Jeremy Ben-Ami
Thanks so much, Jen, thanks to all the contrarians.
