Hooray!

Were is a website. Were are the canidates?

I have been waiting for this for so long.

MJ:

You elide the fact that AIPAC is a Public Affairs Committee, not a Political Action Committee as many assume. That is, it neither endorses candidates nor funnels contributions to them. So this isn't just a more liberal alternative, it's another beast entirely.

JStreetPAC is taking a different approach. It's a Political Action Committee - it'll be intervening directly in political races, and picking and choosing among candidates. That carries with it a set of risks. One of the things that's made AIPAC succesful is that it tends to work with whomever the voters choose. If JStreetPAC, in fact, starts to target individual races, it may well succeed in bolstering the fortunes of some number of legislators committed to aggressively pursuing the peace process. But it's only planning to focus on a handful of races, just a half-dozen campaigns. To the extent it sides against incumbents, the backlash it provokes may extend to their colleagues. If it intervenes in primary races (as I suspect it will) it may weaken the eventual nominee when it's unsuccesful, and create implacable foes. And perhaps most importantly, it will foster paranoia. We've already seen how, even though AIPAC neither endorses nor donates, an increasing number of commentators have mistaken it for the modern incarnation of the Elders of Zion, an all-controlling cabal operating behind the scenes to warp our foreign policy. If an actual PAC starts intervening in local races on the basis of politicians' stances on the Middle East, funneling large sums of money from outside the district, it's not at all clear to me that such efforts will be helpful either to the candidates they back or to the cause of support for peace.

I understand that many supporters of Israel feel AIPAC doesn't speak for them. But the solution is a rival Public Affairs Committee, focused on networking among like-minded advocates, lobbying, and education. A Political Action Committee is just the wrong way to go.

groups that give money find it easier to get meetings than do groups that don't. AIPAC is big and established, and a similar organization on the other side of the debate would not be able to get into the offices of the people they need to reach. The wonderful non-donating groups working for peace in the Middle East have never been able to match the reach and power of AIPAC -- and they all use the public affairs model already....

A PAC makes it harder to ignore them. It is a smart move and one long overdue.

www.jstreet.org

While I welcome them adding to political and foreign policy debate, I think their video is decptive. The first part features Ann Coulter, Rev. Hagee, Pat Robertson, etc, and tries to make it sound like those are the voices with political clout in Washington. When, in fact, those right-wingers are NOT the voice of AIPAC, which is made up of many Americans (mostly Jewish) who have much more moderate views - and certainly have very different motivations.

They seek comparisons to MoveOn.org. I like that model, though I do not like some of the directions that MoveOn has gone in. I similarly worry about J Street.

I have signed up to get updates from them, and will be interested to see what develops in the coming months.

about time!

when did the word peace become a curse?
i am loking forward to supporting this group.

Thanks,azpaull, for injecting the truth here about AIPAC being comprised of thousands of Americans who abhor Ann Coulter, of which I am one.

Let's see which candidates JStreet supports and how many of those candidates express views that are at all divergent from the fundamental AIPAC talking points: U.S. diplomatic backing and military cooperation with Israel, opposition to dealing with Hamas thugs, and prevention of an Iranian nuclear capablity by any means necessary. Barack Obama has said things which are consistent with these fundamental points, (even as he indicates a willingness to talk to Iran), as have Sens. Clinton and Obama.

I predict that none of the candidates JStreet chooses to support will deviate significantly from
these fundamental points; rather, those candidates will emphasize how much they generally support Israel as that stalwart ally, to use Sen. Obama's words, seeks a durable two-state solution with a Palestinian partner that has both the will and the means to enforce a peace agreement. If those candidates supported by JStreet are elected, they'll vote for billions of dollars of U.S.aid to Israel unconditionally and they'll support Israel's right to engage in self-defense against Hamas and Hezbollah rockets, just like Barney Frank, Jerry Nadler, Nita Lowey, Rosa De Lauro, Bob Wexler, Dick Durbin, Sheldon Whitehouse, Barbara Mikulsky and many, many other progressive Democrats in both Houses.

Any of you who think JStreet will act as a real restraint on AIPAC's influence on U.S. policies affecting Israel are quite delusional.

This is what JStreet supports according to its website. It could have come right from AIPAC's:

"J Street believes that maintaining a strong, vibrant U.S.-Israeli relationship based on shared values and goals is a core American interest. U.S. support for Israel as a Jewish and democratic state is an historic and legitimate commitment. An enduring relationship between the US and Israel can promote common interests.

American assistance to Israel, including maintaining Israel's qualitative military edge, is an important anchor for a peace process based on providing Israel with the confidence and assurance to move forward on a solution based on land for peace.

The US-Israeli relationship across a range of areas has not and need not come at the expense of America's ability to maintain productive and beneficial relations throughout the Middle East.

J Street believes US support for Israel as a Jewish and democratic state is an historic commitment based on shared common values and strategic goals. An enduring relationship between the US and Israel can promote common interests. American assistance to Israel, including maintaining Israel's qualitative military edge, is an important anchor for a peace process based on providing Israel with the confidence and assurance to move forward on a solution based on land for peace. The US-Israeli alliance across a range of areas has not and need not come at the expense of America's ability to maintain productive and beneficial relations throughout the Middle East."

Excellent. That definitely deserves support.

We need to repair the damage done by foolish ME hawks over the last century, starting with resolving the Israel/Arab conflict and establishing a durable peace and two state solution. Additionally we need to *peaceably* encourage real democracy in the ME, even if it's not Jeffersonian Democracy from day one, and show a little faith and respect in our fellow humanity.

There is an error in some commenters' assumptions about what J Street is. It IS a PAC as some have said. But it will also be a lobbying group just as AIPAC is. So it has 2 components.

The potential is huge, but it takes years and years to build an organization that can rival the powerful Likud lobbies like AIPAC or JINSA with their political, social and media outreach. It's a start at least, and we should give all our support.

Funny that they waited until the last months of W's term to jump-start it. AIPAC lite? I would have had more respect for them if they had done it several years ago. Looks to me more like Israel is covering all the candidate bases, positioning itself so that there is an "in" with whichever candidate who wins.