The Jewish community has a long and rich tradition of being part of coalitions, joining other religious, racial and ethnic communities in pursuing common action. In this moment, it is essential that our community relations and social justice organizations continue to pursue such partnerships.

Building the case for such engagement may indeed prove to be challenging at this time. We know that some within our community feel discouraged, angry and frustrated by the failure of other constituencies to show up for Israel and the Jewish community over these past months. For them, initiatives such as intergroup dialogue, interfaith relations and coalition building are seen as failed or futile efforts. 

Getty Images

My response to this perspective can be summed up with the following principles:

Not all relationships are the same. Some of our intergroup connections have endured the test of time and tension.

Selective relationships have value. In certain intergroup relationships, the parties find common ground in one or a few areas but have different interests and priorities in connection with other agenda items. We are reminded that self-interest dictates political outcomes.

Don’t be naive about reciprocity. Every political player has certain priorities. When an issue of importance to one community emerges, sometimes the “uninterested” party will extend their political capital in return for support for an agenda item of their own. This type of political gamesmanship should be seen as a common practice. Engage in it or avoid it at your peril, but don’t treat it like a scandalous surprise.

Confidence-building measures come first. Whenever possible, begin work or negotiations in the spaces that allow for agreement and buy-in. Establishing a degree of confidence and trust can make it easier to tackle more complex and challenging issues.

Agree to disagree. No doubt there are communities who do not see their political interests served by being in alliance with the Jewish community. This too represents political reality.

Finally, there are no given outcomes. We don’t have to look far to find political actors shifting their priorities, desired policy outcomes and alliances.

The first task in rebuilding the case for engagement is to remind our own community of the following realities: Not everyone bailed on us. The case for Israel and the core interests of our community both require partners. Coalition building remains vital to us, and there are opportunities to build connections with both old and new players. The Jewish community has an established record of successfully building coalitional relationships, with some significant outcomes, giving us credibility in the political marketplace. 

Our second undertaking involves unpacking what has taken place. Even as we acknowledge that we have lost some of our former allies and partners, we should hold accountable those who turned silent as well as those who publicly came out against us. I believe that whenever a relationship is ending or in trouble, the parties owe one another some answers, an explanation for their actions. Candor is key to community-building and players must be open to discussing their differences — even their decisions to step away.

Our third task is to present any potential partners going forward with certain core givens we expect them to accept or affirm, just as we would anticipate that they have prescribed expectations of us. When entering relationships with prospective players, we need to establish a shared set of best practices for the process and vision of the product of our communal partnerships. 

We should expect our future partners to accept two basic principles: Oppose antisemitism and hate speech in all forms; and support Israel as a Jewish democratic nation that has the right to exist, to defend its citizens and to protect its sovereignty.

Of course, clarification of and agreement on certain definitions — what constitutes antisemitism, anti-Zionism and anti-Israel expression — will be necessary, just as we should expect our partners to offer their preconditions for engagement. The following code of conduct in such situations will be key:

• Enter these conversations with the mutual assumption that all participants are entering the discourse with the intent of learning, growing and contributing.

• Be open to sharing personal experiences and beliefs, even as you seek to reflect the interests of your community.
• Allow others to define their own religious or ethnic identities and beliefs.
• Treasure the sense of wonder that comes with encountering the new, the unusual and even the difficult. 
• Have (and retain) the capacity to listen and civilly disagree over positions and policies.

• Be honest in putting forth your priorities. 
• Don’t feel like you need to be the spokesperson for your community.
• Admit when you’re confused or uncertain about positions or ideas put forth by others.
• Ascertain and confirm when there appears to be consensus, and similarly acknowledge when there is an impasse.

We know that some participants will come to the table with a very clear understanding of where consensus and agreement are possible. In other situations, it will be important to reaffirm our awareness that the process of reaching a mutually acceptable way forward can be challenging, difficult and even uncertain.

The Jewish community has much at stake in being engaged in such essential dialogues. As a minority, we have always understood the value and power of these relationships — not only in connection with the self-interests of our community but as part of the American democratic process of consensus and coalition building.

Steven Windmueller is a professor emeritus of Jewish communal studies at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Los Angeles.