Saving Jewish Conservatism

The institutions built to protect us have become a liability. It's time to lead with America.

By Anonymous

Last November, I sat at the Republican Jewish Coalition leadership conference in Las Vegas as a curious spectator. Though I have been a major donor for many years, I had never been physically involved with them or any other Jewish political organizations. Yet at the time, with the rising surge in antisemitism apparent on the online right, I decided to make the pilgrimage to sin city to see if anyone had the answer.

I didn’t find it.

What I heard & saw was speech after speech about the classics. Antisemitism. Iran. Israeli security. The room nodded along, even cheering occasionally at the prescribed points. We’ve all heard these speeches–conservatives have been repeating them for decades.

What struck me about the experience wasn’t explicitly what I heard but was instead the absence of anything else. No one articulated what conservative American Jews actually stand for in America, for America. The question doesn’t get asked. It may not even occur to most of the donors in the room that the question should be asked.

I’m a member of a prestigious synagogue in Manhattan. I donate to mainstream Jewish conservative organizations, like RJC. My family is Jewish. I work in conservative politics and media. This topic is very important to me.

And yet, this essay is unsigned. It may mean communal and professional damage. I could be disinvited from, even attacked by the institutions I support. I could be accused of antisemitism, or disloyalty, or appeasement to the enemies of the Jews. People may write to my synagogue.

That fact alone is the first exhibit of my argument.

The Trap

For decades, conservative American Jews have had their political identities tied to the state of Israel. In the era of a globally minded, interventionist, ally-focused American right, this made sense. Jewish conservatives could care intensely, and advocate publicly, for Israel and feel completely at home in the movement.

That world no longer exists. The American right is turning nationalist and their animating question is not “how do we lead the free world?” and instead “what is good for Americans, in America?” There is a genuine, non-performative skepticism towards foreign entanglement of all kinds, whether beneficial or not.

The impulse is understandable. Decades of foreign misadventure has enriched defense contractors and hollowed out American communities, and voters are asking more difficult questions about the return on America’s blood and treasure. Even if you disagree with the premise, the sentiment is arguably valid.

In this nationalist frame, a political identity centered on Israel, a foreign country, is a liability. It doesn’t matter how democratic, or strategically valuable, or allied the country is. These nationalists are not inherently antisemetic, they just follow a different logic. The logic that asks “whose side are you on?” first. Any answer that isn’t “America, unambiguously” is the wrong answer.

Take, for example, the NatCon announcement: their conference this summer will be held in Jerusalem.

The response was predictable:

This isn’t even a Jewish organization. And this response is totally in line with what you’d see across the Right. Worryingly, all of the Jewish conservative political organizations fall into the same type of trap.

As such, Jewish conservatives are holding onto a position that loses value every year.

Silence of the Majority

The problem in America is not that the nationalist right is hostile to Jews. Indeed, many Jewish conservatives are prominent members of the movement. The problem is that it is indifferent to Israel. For most nationalists, Israel simply isn’t a priority. They’re focused on the border, on industrial policy, on housing, or on the feeling that their country is literally slipping away from them. In this framework, Israel is someone else’s problem.

This indifference creates a vacuum where the actual antisemites–a small but growing minority–find freedom to operate.

The policy positions of the antisemite, like reducing foreign influence, reorienting foreign policy away from the Middle East, questioning foreign aid relationships, and scrutinizing “dual loyalty” suddenly sound like normal nationalist priorities rather than antisemitic ones. The antisemite is no longer arguing against the commitments of the conservative coalition but instead is arguing with the coalition’s instincts. His agenda gets laundered through the majority’s indifference.

The threat, therefore, is not the antisemite. He has and always will be there on the fringe. No, the threat is that the majority no longer cares enough to police the boundaries. Passivity is enough.

The Advocacy Problem

The default response for Jewish conservatives is to advocate harder: make the case more forcefully, explain the value of Israeli intelligence, military technology, and regional partnership. Surely, if people understand how Israel benefits America they’ll care?

This doesn’t work. I wish it would, the logic seems airtight, but politics isn’t logic.

The nationalist calculus isn’t “does Israel benefit us?” It’s “whose side are you on?” and with that question, it doesn’t matter if every claim about Israel’s value to us is true. The person arguing for Israel is seen in binary as not arguing for America. The case itself signals that Israel is the priority–advocacy itself is the problem.

This is identical to why “immigration is good for the GDP” fails with nationalists. It is seen as an argument designed to get them to accept something they don’t want. The framing is wrong, you’re trying to convince them rather than represent them, and they can tell.

Jewish conservatives have been building the most airtight case for Israel’s strategic value for years, and it doesn’t matter. Making the case at all marks you as someone whose primary loyalty is elsewhere.

The Deeper Problem

To clarify: Jewish conservatives are genuine American patriots. Their support for Israel is one component of a broader commitment to American strength, not a replacement for it. They serve in the military, build businesses, raise families, and invest in their communities, with no daylight between their Jewish identity and their American loyalty. My point isn’t about them as individuals.

The institutional ecosystem that surrounds them is failing.

Ask a Jewish conservatives organization what it stands for, and the answer will include Israel within the first sentence if not the first few words. The website, the mission statement, the gala are all Israel as the headline, the brand, the shibboleth.

The answer is more difficult when you look at what conservative American Jews care about domestically. The infrastructure stays trained on Israel. The political organizations support Israel. The fundraising flows toward Israel.

The individual patriot is lost in all of this, subsumed into an ecosystem that makes his patriotism and loyalty to America invisible. When the organization speaks, it speaks about Israel. When the money moves, it moves towards Israel. When the coalition looks at Jewish conservatives, what it sees is the ecosystem–AIPAC, RJC, ZOA, JINSA–and not the individual. What it sees is an ecosystem saying Israel when the political moment is asking about America.

There’s no institutional vision for what conservative American Jews are for in America that doesn’t depend on Israel. Not because the individual Jews don’t have such a vision, many do and are vocal about it, but because the institutions have never bothered to develop one.

The question worth asking: what are these institutions for, if not for moments like this? They weren’t built to support Israel, Israel has its own institutions for that. They were built, presumably, to protect and advance Jewish flourishing in America. And here we are, facing a genuine political challenge to Jewish standing in the conservative coalition, and the institutions have nothing to say except Israel.

The Alternative

What I believe: America is the last best hope for Western civilization, which includes Jews.

If America declines, we all lose. If it loses its strength or coherence as a nation there is no fallback. Not for anyone. The conservative movement, even with all its flaws, is the best hope for American society. All of these issues are downstream from American strength and conservative leadership of America. This is uncomfortable for those who’ve built their political lives around Israel as the central commitment, but it’s true.

The best thing American Jews can do for themselves is to invest in American greatness and the conservative movement. As a genuine conviction that a strong, culturally coherent America is the best possible outcome for Jews, Americans, and the West. Therefore, we have an obligation to America that usurps all other priorities.

All of the resources flowing through Jewish conservative organizations should be deployed towards conservative priorities with no Israel asterisk. Border security, immigration, industrial policy, education reform, all of the things nationalists actually care about.

Imagine is Jewish conservatives were not seen as the Israel lobby but as the most committed Americans in the room. People whose loyalty isn’t questioned because their actions make the question absurd.

That’s a political identity that can survive a nationalist turn. It’s not a solution to antisemitism, which we don’t need, but instead is a foundation for a Jewish conservatives identity in America that is durable and valuable.

The Objections

I foresee numerous good-faith objections to this idea.

“You’re telling Jews to hide their Jewishness.”

I’m telling Jews to lead with their Americanness. You can be proudly Jewish and fully American. The question is which identity is primary in your political activities and which is fully apparent to your coalition.

“This is an argument for assimilation.”

American Catholics spent generations under suspicion of dual loyalty to Rome, to the Pope, etc. Kennedy had to give a speech promising he wouldn’t take orders from the Vatican. Catholics responded not by abandoning their faith but by becoming more American in their political presentation. They built schools and hospitals and unions. They served in wars. They stopped leading with Rome and started leading with America. Today, no one questions Catholic loyalty. The suspicion evaporated because Catholics made it absurd through action.

The objection “you’re arguing for assimilation” is a tell. It reveals that the current institutional posture conflates Jewish identity with Israel-centric politics so completely that any separation feels like erasure. But that conflation is the problem. Jewishness is older than the modern state of Israel and will outlast any particular political configuration.

“You’re blaming Jews for antisemitism.”

Antisemites are responsible for antisemitism. But political strategy is about operating in the world as it is, not as it should be. The world as it is includes a nationalist surge that creates vulnerability for groups perceived as foreign-oriented. Acknowledging this is necessary pattern recognition.

“You’re conceding too much to the nationalists.”

Maybe. But the alternative, insisting that the coalition continue to prioritize Israel when it clearly doesn’t want to, has already lost. The question isn’t what the coalition should value. The question is what it does value, and how to remain viable within it.

“This is what antisemites want to hear.”

Antisemites want Jews to be weak. A political identity that depends on coalition partners caring about a foreign country is a weak position. A political identity grounded in unambiguous American commitment is a strong position. This argument strengthens Jews and the antisemite’s preference is irrelevant.

“You’re telling us not to fight back.”

Nothing in this essay counsels passivity in the face of antisemitism, but fighting antisemitism is a defensive action, not an identity. You can’t build a political future on “stop attacking us.”

The current institutional ecosystem is organized around Israel, funded around Israel, and branded around Israel. This isn’t the same as fighting antisemitism, it’s a strategic choice that made sense in one coalition and makes less sense in another.

Our Window

I don’t know how long we have a window for change. It may already be closed, or never have existed in the first place.

I do know that every month that Jewish conservatives remain legible as “the Israel lobby” the frame hardens like cement. The nationalist surge isn’t slowing for anyone to figure out their positioning. The question is whether we adapt or get left behind, holding onto a political relic as our foundation.

This can be fixed, but it requires doing things that the current institutions have thus far refused to do.

I’m saying them anonymously because I can’t say them otherwise. That fact alone should tell you something about the state of our discourse. A community that can’t tolerate strategic self-examination is a community that has already lost.

I hope I’m wrong about the timeline, but I don’t think I’m wrong about the direction. And I’d rather be early than late.

This piece was run anonymously at the request of the author and their identity has been verified. Junto welcomes feedback and encourages opposing viewpoints in the form of competing essays or comments. Reach out if you’d like to contribute.