Why on earth would The Jerusalem Postchoose to publish a misleading and intellectually dishonest piece at a time when Israel is fighting for its survival?
Opinion journalism is supposed to sharpen debate, illuminate facts, and challenge readers honestly. Instead, Sebastien Levi’s attack on Ambassador Yechiel Leiter reads less like serious analysis and more like a political smear dressed up as moral concern for American Jewry.
Its target is not some anonymous political operative. It is Yechiel Leiter - an American-born Israeli diplomat, scholar, bereaved father, and public servant whose son gave his life defending the Jewish people after October 7. Levi, writing comfortably from afar, lectures such a man about morality, restraint, and rhetoric.
The audacity is astonishing.
The entire article depends on obscuring the core issue from readers. Levi wants his audience to believe that Ambassador Leiter irrationally lashed out at a perfectly mainstream “pro-Israel" organization over ordinary policy disagreements.
That is simply false.
Levi sidesteps what J Street has actually become.
This is not merely an organization that “criticizes" Israeli policy. Israelis criticize Israeli policy every day. The question is whether a group that repeatedly undermines Israel diplomatically, pressures Israel during wartime, platforms anti-Israel activists, supports campaigns against Israeli military policy, and legitimizes accusations of genocide can still honestly present itself as “pro-Israel."
That is the real debate.
And Levi clearly does not want to engage it directly.
The record speaks for itself.
J Street publicly advocated phasing out American military aid to Israel during a multi-front war against Iranian proxies and terrorist organizations.
J Street supported the deeply controversial Iran nuclear deal despite repeated warnings from Israel’s elected leadership and security establishment that the agreement endangered Israel’s survival.
J Street repeatedly condemned Israeli military operations in Gaza while Israeli civilians were under rocket fire.
J Street has given platforms to BDS sympathizers and activists openly hostile to Israel’s legitimacy.
J Street aligned itself with organizations and movements that seek to isolate and delegitimize the Jewish state internationally.
And perhaps most disturbing of all, Jeremy Ben-Ami publicly lent legitimacy to the grotesque accusation that Israel may be guilty of genocide - one of the most dangerous modern blood libels directed at the Jewish state.
That is what Ambassador Leiter was responding to.
Not “bulldozers."
Not “2,000-pound bombs."
Not routine democratic disagreement.
Levi’s article therefore rests on a deeply misleading premise from its very first paragraphs.
Levi attempts to portray J Street as the guardian of Jewish ethics while casting Leiter as some kind of extremist. The reality is far closer to the opposite.
Leiter is precisely the sort of figure diaspora Jews once instinctively admired: intellectually serious, deeply rooted in both American and Israeli society, personally sacrificed for the Jewish state, and unwaveringly committed to Israel’s survival.
Born in Pennsylvania, Leiter made aliyah, served in the IDF, earned a doctorate in political philosophy, and published academic work through Cambridge University Press. He has advised senior Israeli government officials for decades. Then came the tragedy no parent should ever endure: his son, Major Moshe Yedidya Leiter, was killed leading troops into Gaza after Hamas’ October 7 massacre.
Yet Levi sneers at such a man because he used the word “cancer." But the comparison was not irrational. It was apt.
An organization that persistently weakens Israel’s diplomatic standing, pressures Israel during wartime, amplifies narratives weaponized by Israel’s enemies, and erodes bipartisan support for the Jewish state behaves like a malignancy within the pro-Israel world whether Levi appreciates the terminology or not.
What makes Levi’s outrage hollow is his own long history of inflammatory rhetoric. He has described Evangelical supporters of Israel as “morally disgusting" and “useful idiots." He has repeatedly portrayed Israel under Netanyahu as morally diseased and politically dangerous.
Yet suddenly, when an Israeli ambassador bluntly calls out J Street’s duplicity, Levi discovers the importance of civility and restraint.
And J Street’s own history makes Leiter’s criticism look restrained by comparison.
This is an organization whose conferences have featured BDS sympathizers and anti-Israel activists.
An organization repeatedly condemned by senior Israeli officials.
An organization publicly rejected by Ambassador Michael Oren.
An organization criticized by mainstream Jewish leaders for undermining communal unity and weakening Israel’s security interests.
An organization whose polling practices have repeatedly been accused of ideological manipulation and framing.
An organization whose critics - including respected voices across the Jewish spectrum - have warned for years that it weakens Israel while pretending to defend it.
Yet Levi wants readers to believe the real scandal is Leiter’s tone.
No. The real scandal is that an Israeli ambassador had to explain the obvious in the first place.
There is something profoundly decadent about diaspora commentators attacking Israeli officials while Israelis bury their dead after the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.
Leiter’s son died fighting Hamas terrorists in tunnels so Israeli civilians could live.
J Street pressures Israel during wartime, legitimizes narratives weaponized against Israel internationally, and helps fracture bipartisan support for the Jewish state.
And Levi responds by scolding the ambassador.
The Jerusalem Post should be apologetic for publishing this piece.
Not because disagreement is illegitimate - disagreement is healthy and necessary - but because Levi’s essay was fundamentally deceptive. It withheld the central facts readers needed in order to evaluate the controversy honestly.
Once those facts are restored, the article collapses under its own weight.
What remains is not thoughtful criticism of Israel’s ambassador. It is an angry, selective, highly partisan defense of an organization that has spent years blurring the line between criticism of Israel and active political harm to Israel.
The author can be reached at yairhoffman2@gmail.com