Good piece. And the analogy with "the Groups" is spot on. Self-righteous, short sightedness that is ultimately counterproductive.
Had J Street been the dominant voice in the American Jewish community over the last 15 years, both Israel and the United States would be in far better shape.
Hopefully, AIPAC growing irrelevance won't come too late to save Israeli-U.S. relations.
AIPAC has become toxic, no doubt, but let's not put J Street on a pedestal it has not earned. As others have pointed out, J Street is just AIPAC with anti-AIPAC views. It's another interest/lobbying group funded by rich donors and foundations (not by real grassroots support), staffed by overpaid hacks, and focused on releasing statements and endorsements and statements commenting on other statements (I wish I was kidding).
Meanwhile, the voices of actual Israelis and Palestinians are drowned out by these know-betters in DC on both the right and left.
We would be better off if neither AIPAC nor J Street was around.
To some extent, a way to frame this would be to ask whether US policy toward Israel would be better or worse if the public was as disengaged as it is on other foreign policy issues. Our alliance with Saudi Arabia or our policies (or lack thereof) on the Sudanese or Ethiopian civil wars were shaped by pressure from foreign governments, but are not strongly shaped by pressure from domestic lobbying groups.
My best guess is that we'd still be allied to Israel if the US public had no interest one way or the other, but would probably give them less aid. We'd probably also be less interested, not more interested, in human rights and West Bank settlements.
Of course, pro-Israel lobbying groups would argue that they're countering pressure from anti-Israel campaigns--particularly in the last 10 years or so.
First, here was Adam's description of "when a group become a 'Group'":
"Does it demand that elected officials take positions that are wrong on the merits or politically disastrous, or both? Does it use misleading polling and policy analysis to make its case? Does it deploy resources such as donations, endorsements, volunteers, and TV ads as pressure tactics against candidates who refuse to kowtow to its rigid litmus tests?
Think AIPAC meets all these criteria. Don't think that is true of J Street.
Second, I'd argue that by far the most important of these criteria is whether the organization is pushing elected officials to take positions that are wrong on the merits. AIPAC has spent the last 15 years essentially advocating for U.S. elected officials to provide unconditional support for Netanyahu despite his policies on the West Bank and that has been bad for the United States and disastrous for Israel. And while I don't 100% agree with all of J Street's stands, I believe they have generally been right on the merits with their positions.
Third, I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say that the "voices of actual Israeli and Palestinians are being drowned out by these knowbetters in DC". Even setting aside the fact that J Street has Israelis on staff, J Street's mission is to be a voice for American Jews who want to influence U.S. foreign policy to support the state of Israel as a democratic homeland for the Jewish people. It doesn't claim to speak for Israelis.
If you have substantive concerns about J Street positions it would be interesting to hear them, but I think your critique is misguided.
It is true that J Street uses less overt pressure tactics than AIPAC -- that is the result of the fact it has less resources to throw around. Its pressure is more subtle, but that doesn't make it not a source of pressure. I think it has become a Group.
"Wrong on the merits" is a pretty subjective test! Yes, I think J Street is wrong on the merits, and itself is a driver of anti-Israeli bigotry that is also driving hatred against Jews in general. AIPAC also meets that standard to me, for different reasons. But this is not an empirically provable point, for either one. And I am sure you will disagree (as would J Street itself, no doubt; likewise AIPAC!) but from my (subjective) position, that's what they both do.
J Street's mission may have once been a voice for American Jews; it has become a voice to American Jews, trying to shape the American Jewish narrative towards Israel into what they believe it should be. In doing so, they have demonized everyone who doesn't agree with their litmus test of what that narrative should be. Maybe not as aggressively and openly as AIPAC demonizes its opponents, but demonization all the same. They have helped poison the discourse, and only now have they "discovered" that the discourse is poisoned, as backlash has hit them and their allies directly.
If that doesn't fit into what a Group is, I don't know what does, and the term is meaningless.
I'm sorry, but this feels like an attempt to smear J Street and its supporters.
Adam provided a bunch of examples of all of the problems with AIPAC's policies and behaviors. Can you provide any similar examples of why you think J Street is wrong on the merits, how it has "driven anti-Israeli bigotry and hatred of Jews in general", "demonized everyone who doesn't agree with their litmus tests", or "poisoned the discourse".
I'm happy to have a good faith discussion with folks I disagree with (and we may well have to agree to disagree in the end), but it's impossible to have a good faith argument over pure ad-hominen, which is so far all you have provided.
I am not attacking J Street's supporters. Likewise, many of AIPAC's supporters mean well, even if you or I disagree with their politics. I do not want to fall into the very actions I critique and attack their supporters. In both cases, it is the organization that is the issue.
I will give an example; namely that J Street decided to jump on the Gaza genocide bandwagon. Look -- there is legitimate disagreement regarding Israeli conduct in Gaza. Was the trauma of 10/7 such that the rules of engagement were loosened too much? What were the balancing tests used when civilians were caught in attacks and became collateral damage? On the other hand, it was urban warfare, and Hamas' strategy was explicitly to maximize their own civilian deaths. There are good faith arguments to be had.
That there is genocide in Gaza is not a good faith argument. Not when the very definition of the word was changed in activist NGO reports in order to make sure it could be applied. I have argued this elsewhere; the world will regret this genocide libel, as the word will soon mean only "a war I don't like" and the next real genocide will be dismissed as politics. When whether something is a genocide depends on political stances, the point of the definition will be lost, to the detriment of the next victims.
But J Street jumped in because of its mission of shaping the American Jewish narrative, and its fear of being outflanked on the left by competitors in the same space.
To me, it appears to be pure politics, and preservation of their influence.
The price? Well Scott Wiener in CA just paid some of that price (despite himself folding to the activists and using the genocide label too), as have many Jewish public officials, especially those who continue to refuse to join in the libel. Not to mention regular American Jews operating in an environment where J Street has provided a permission structure to make this accusation.
Wrote than in June of 2024 and my position hasn't changed. Having said that, even then (pre-famine, etc.) I do recognize in this piece that it's quite possible that the ICJ may rule that the Israeli response in Gaza was a genocide.
2. J Street's only official statement on this issue was in January 2024 when they explicitly rejected the genocide accusation. What I think you're referring to is this August 2025 personal reflection piece by Jeremy Ben-Ami, the head of J Street:
"Until now, I have tried to deflect and defend when challenged to call this genocide. I have, however, been persuaded rationally by legal and scholarly arguments that international courts will one day find that Israel has broken the international genocide convention..."
(Note: Essentially saying the same thing I did)
"..,The personal pain of my own family from a crime that I believe has no parallel – and my association of the word genocide exclusively with that event - means I am unlikely to use the term myself. But I cannot and will not argue any more against those using the term. I simply won’t defend the indefensible."
Now I don't think it's unfair to disagree with this perspective. Again, you can read my linked essay to see where I personally disagree. But I also think it reflects someone genuinely struggling with the fact that Israel has been committing some war crimes in Gaza (something that is undoubtedly true). I think describing it as "J Street jumping on the Gaza bandwagon" is a huge distortion.
3. In general, though a member and strong J Street supporter, I tend to disagree with them in two ways:
- I'm less likely to be critical of the use of force in Gaza and Lebanon.
- I'm even more critical of Israeli behavior in the West Bank than J Street it. I believe that not only should the U.S. stop all aid to Israel until all settlements west of the eventual border (i.e. the Olmert/Al-Kidwas line) are dismantled, but the U.S. should back strict economic sanctions as well until this happens.
4. I'd repeat again that equating J Street and AIPAC is very, very wrong. In fact, I'd suggest this issue is a great example of it. J Street has demonized no one around this issue and hasn't demanded anything from politicians on it. And where they think that folks who they previously supported (e.g. Jamaal Bowman) crossed the line, they withdrew their support.
I don't live Israel and want to see it replaced by one democratic state for all, Palestinians and Jews, with right of return for exiled and displaced Palestinians. Having said that, AIPAC is a menace to American democracy and sovereignty. You cannot be a loyal Zionist and a loyal American, full stop. You can be a good Jew and a loyal American. Israel is a menace to Americans not just to Palestinians, Iranians, et al. It is a global menace. Prove me wrong.
I think there needs to be some sort of statute of limitation on this issue. I certainly have problems with candidates accepting money from them going forward, not so much pre-Gaza. Most of the free world acknowledges Israel’s right to exist, and I do not blame them for going after Hamaas after October 7, but the destruction and starvation of Gaza civilians went way too far and I condemn Netanyahu for that and I would be fine cutting off taxpayer aid to Israel.
Great article! - but it's American Israel Public Affairs Committee, not American Israel Political Action Committee.
Good piece. And the analogy with "the Groups" is spot on. Self-righteous, short sightedness that is ultimately counterproductive.
Had J Street been the dominant voice in the American Jewish community over the last 15 years, both Israel and the United States would be in far better shape.
Hopefully, AIPAC growing irrelevance won't come too late to save Israeli-U.S. relations.
AIPAC has become toxic, no doubt, but let's not put J Street on a pedestal it has not earned. As others have pointed out, J Street is just AIPAC with anti-AIPAC views. It's another interest/lobbying group funded by rich donors and foundations (not by real grassroots support), staffed by overpaid hacks, and focused on releasing statements and endorsements and statements commenting on other statements (I wish I was kidding).
Meanwhile, the voices of actual Israelis and Palestinians are drowned out by these know-betters in DC on both the right and left.
We would be better off if neither AIPAC nor J Street was around.
To some extent, a way to frame this would be to ask whether US policy toward Israel would be better or worse if the public was as disengaged as it is on other foreign policy issues. Our alliance with Saudi Arabia or our policies (or lack thereof) on the Sudanese or Ethiopian civil wars were shaped by pressure from foreign governments, but are not strongly shaped by pressure from domestic lobbying groups.
My best guess is that we'd still be allied to Israel if the US public had no interest one way or the other, but would probably give them less aid. We'd probably also be less interested, not more interested, in human rights and West Bank settlements.
Of course, pro-Israel lobbying groups would argue that they're countering pressure from anti-Israel campaigns--particularly in the last 10 years or so.
Strongly disagree. Three points:
First, here was Adam's description of "when a group become a 'Group'":
"Does it demand that elected officials take positions that are wrong on the merits or politically disastrous, or both? Does it use misleading polling and policy analysis to make its case? Does it deploy resources such as donations, endorsements, volunteers, and TV ads as pressure tactics against candidates who refuse to kowtow to its rigid litmus tests?
Think AIPAC meets all these criteria. Don't think that is true of J Street.
Second, I'd argue that by far the most important of these criteria is whether the organization is pushing elected officials to take positions that are wrong on the merits. AIPAC has spent the last 15 years essentially advocating for U.S. elected officials to provide unconditional support for Netanyahu despite his policies on the West Bank and that has been bad for the United States and disastrous for Israel. And while I don't 100% agree with all of J Street's stands, I believe they have generally been right on the merits with their positions.
Third, I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say that the "voices of actual Israeli and Palestinians are being drowned out by these knowbetters in DC". Even setting aside the fact that J Street has Israelis on staff, J Street's mission is to be a voice for American Jews who want to influence U.S. foreign policy to support the state of Israel as a democratic homeland for the Jewish people. It doesn't claim to speak for Israelis.
If you have substantive concerns about J Street positions it would be interesting to hear them, but I think your critique is misguided.
It is true that J Street uses less overt pressure tactics than AIPAC -- that is the result of the fact it has less resources to throw around. Its pressure is more subtle, but that doesn't make it not a source of pressure. I think it has become a Group.
"Wrong on the merits" is a pretty subjective test! Yes, I think J Street is wrong on the merits, and itself is a driver of anti-Israeli bigotry that is also driving hatred against Jews in general. AIPAC also meets that standard to me, for different reasons. But this is not an empirically provable point, for either one. And I am sure you will disagree (as would J Street itself, no doubt; likewise AIPAC!) but from my (subjective) position, that's what they both do.
J Street's mission may have once been a voice for American Jews; it has become a voice to American Jews, trying to shape the American Jewish narrative towards Israel into what they believe it should be. In doing so, they have demonized everyone who doesn't agree with their litmus test of what that narrative should be. Maybe not as aggressively and openly as AIPAC demonizes its opponents, but demonization all the same. They have helped poison the discourse, and only now have they "discovered" that the discourse is poisoned, as backlash has hit them and their allies directly.
If that doesn't fit into what a Group is, I don't know what does, and the term is meaningless.
I'm sorry, but this feels like an attempt to smear J Street and its supporters.
Adam provided a bunch of examples of all of the problems with AIPAC's policies and behaviors. Can you provide any similar examples of why you think J Street is wrong on the merits, how it has "driven anti-Israeli bigotry and hatred of Jews in general", "demonized everyone who doesn't agree with their litmus tests", or "poisoned the discourse".
I'm happy to have a good faith discussion with folks I disagree with (and we may well have to agree to disagree in the end), but it's impossible to have a good faith argument over pure ad-hominen, which is so far all you have provided.
I am not attacking J Street's supporters. Likewise, many of AIPAC's supporters mean well, even if you or I disagree with their politics. I do not want to fall into the very actions I critique and attack their supporters. In both cases, it is the organization that is the issue.
I will give an example; namely that J Street decided to jump on the Gaza genocide bandwagon. Look -- there is legitimate disagreement regarding Israeli conduct in Gaza. Was the trauma of 10/7 such that the rules of engagement were loosened too much? What were the balancing tests used when civilians were caught in attacks and became collateral damage? On the other hand, it was urban warfare, and Hamas' strategy was explicitly to maximize their own civilian deaths. There are good faith arguments to be had.
That there is genocide in Gaza is not a good faith argument. Not when the very definition of the word was changed in activist NGO reports in order to make sure it could be applied. I have argued this elsewhere; the world will regret this genocide libel, as the word will soon mean only "a war I don't like" and the next real genocide will be dismissed as politics. When whether something is a genocide depends on political stances, the point of the definition will be lost, to the detriment of the next victims.
But J Street jumped in because of its mission of shaping the American Jewish narrative, and its fear of being outflanked on the left by competitors in the same space.
To me, it appears to be pure politics, and preservation of their influence.
The price? Well Scott Wiener in CA just paid some of that price (despite himself folding to the activists and using the genocide label too), as have many Jewish public officials, especially those who continue to refuse to join in the libel. Not to mention regular American Jews operating in an environment where J Street has provided a permission structure to make this accusation.
Thanks for providing a specific example. A few points in response:
1. I'm guessing we're actually mostly in agreement on this issue. I wrote a piece here about why I think the term is both wrong and counterproductive:
https://gordonstrause.substack.com/p/the-genocide-accusation
Wrote than in June of 2024 and my position hasn't changed. Having said that, even then (pre-famine, etc.) I do recognize in this piece that it's quite possible that the ICJ may rule that the Israeli response in Gaza was a genocide.
2. J Street's only official statement on this issue was in January 2024 when they explicitly rejected the genocide accusation. What I think you're referring to is this August 2025 personal reflection piece by Jeremy Ben-Ami, the head of J Street:
https://jstreetdotorg.substack.com/p/genocide
Here are the key quotes:
"Until now, I have tried to deflect and defend when challenged to call this genocide. I have, however, been persuaded rationally by legal and scholarly arguments that international courts will one day find that Israel has broken the international genocide convention..."
(Note: Essentially saying the same thing I did)
"..,The personal pain of my own family from a crime that I believe has no parallel – and my association of the word genocide exclusively with that event - means I am unlikely to use the term myself. But I cannot and will not argue any more against those using the term. I simply won’t defend the indefensible."
Now I don't think it's unfair to disagree with this perspective. Again, you can read my linked essay to see where I personally disagree. But I also think it reflects someone genuinely struggling with the fact that Israel has been committing some war crimes in Gaza (something that is undoubtedly true). I think describing it as "J Street jumping on the Gaza bandwagon" is a huge distortion.
3. In general, though a member and strong J Street supporter, I tend to disagree with them in two ways:
- I'm less likely to be critical of the use of force in Gaza and Lebanon.
- I'm even more critical of Israeli behavior in the West Bank than J Street it. I believe that not only should the U.S. stop all aid to Israel until all settlements west of the eventual border (i.e. the Olmert/Al-Kidwas line) are dismantled, but the U.S. should back strict economic sanctions as well until this happens.
https://gordonstrause.substack.com/p/israel-and-the-palestinians
4. I'd repeat again that equating J Street and AIPAC is very, very wrong. In fact, I'd suggest this issue is a great example of it. J Street has demonized no one around this issue and hasn't demanded anything from politicians on it. And where they think that folks who they previously supported (e.g. Jamaal Bowman) crossed the line, they withdrew their support.
Well said. It's nice to read anti aipac messaging that sounds like a week reasoned argument rather than a foaming at the mouth rant.
I don't live Israel and want to see it replaced by one democratic state for all, Palestinians and Jews, with right of return for exiled and displaced Palestinians. Having said that, AIPAC is a menace to American democracy and sovereignty. You cannot be a loyal Zionist and a loyal American, full stop. You can be a good Jew and a loyal American. Israel is a menace to Americans not just to Palestinians, Iranians, et al. It is a global menace. Prove me wrong.
At a time when DSA is winning Democratic primaries with an anti-Israel message, this pearl clutching over AIPAC seems quaint and outdated.
Thank you so much for writing a thoughtful piece
I think there needs to be some sort of statute of limitation on this issue. I certainly have problems with candidates accepting money from them going forward, not so much pre-Gaza. Most of the free world acknowledges Israel’s right to exist, and I do not blame them for going after Hamaas after October 7, but the destruction and starvation of Gaza civilians went way too far and I condemn Netanyahu for that and I would be fine cutting off taxpayer aid to Israel.