J Street is Now The Largest Jewish PAC; It Took a Whole Year!
In theory I should not be posting a tribute to J Street's Election Day triumph. I work for Israel Policy Forum and, on paper, J Street is the competition.
But only on paper. Israel Policy Forum works to change US Middle East policy through our publications and advocacy work. (My IPF Friday, for instance, is the most widely circulated English language publication on the Middle East in the world). Click to subscribe for FREE). We regularly meet with Senators, House Members and White House and State Department officials to inform them about what is really happening in the Israeli-Palestinian arena. In private, I'd say 90-95% of legislators agree with us. Our goal is to turn private support (and resentment of the lobby's unrelenting pressure) into public support and major policy change.
J Street goes the direct route. It provides money to candidates who reject the deadly one-sided policies of the status quo. The man behind J Street, Jeremy Ben Ami, has always believed that challenging the lobby required not just advocating but providing money. Lots of money.
After all, the main reason that candidates and elected officials support the lobby's approach-- keep everything just the way it is rather than seeking peace and security for Israel -- is money, along with inertia, the intense desire to avoid flack on pretty much anything.
I worked on the Hill for 20 years. Legislators resist doing anything that will offend noisy and rich special interests in general, but especially if the opposing side has neither noise nor money behind it.
Happily, a good hundred legislators were with us before J Street started rewarding legislators for doing the right thing.
One, Betty McCollum (D-MN), actually made headlines by publicly telling the lobby that they will regret it in a big way if they continue threatening her. She got an apology -- followed by appointment to the Appropriations Committee and its Foreign Operations Subcommittee. (Somebody up in the leadership likes us and she's not Steny Hoyer).
Anyway, J Street and IPF are doing two different things.
IPF has changed the way Washington thinks and talks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has successfully worked to rollback the lobby's most punitive anti-Palestinian measures. J Street rewards those who have embraced the change and opposes those who haven't.
To make a long story short: here is what J Street accomplished on Tuesday.
**It raised and distributed over $560,000 to candidates for the House and Senate, making it the largest pro-Israel PAC in the country
**It endorsed 24 incumbent members of Congress (all of whom won re-election), the new Senator from Oregon Jeff Merkley and six new Members of Congress (Three races remain too close to call including J Street's Al Franken). The PAC's endorsees included four committee chairs and many senior Jewish members of Congress
**J Street has attracted 86,000 online supporters in just six months
The House Member closest to President-Elect Obama, Robert Wexler of Florida, not only accepted J Street's endorsement, he did so over the forceful objections of the lobby which told legislators and candidates that going with J Street was suicidal.
It most certainly wasn't. In fact, one well-known and powerful AIPAC ally asked for J Street's endorsement only to be told that, as a hawk on all Middle East issues, she didn't qualify. She said that she'll be back in two years with a record that merits J's endorsement!
This is incredible although not surprising.
It is more surprising that anyone supports the traditional lobby which, other than claiming credit for the Israel aid package which passes automatically (with our support as well) has no recent record to speak of. Oh yeah, it did push the Iraq war, block aid to the Palestinian Authority and thereby help to produce the Hamas triumph, and is now focusing like a laser not on Israel at all but on confronting Iran.
Why would anyone support that?
Well, not so many do! J Street has done good. Jeremy Ben Ami has produced, if not a miracle, a revolution.
Okay, it's not as big as the miracle of Barack Obama's election which I still can't get over, but it's big.
Pro-Israel politics has been transformed. The "old" lobby, powerful as it still is,
is not out of the picture. (Sheldon Adelson the right-wing anti-union casino billionaire Republican just built them their own eight million dollar building on Capitol Hill). But the lean and mean J Street machine has got them plenty nervous, as their furious calls to candidates and Members of Congress indicate.
Won't it be nice to have a pro-Israel political machine that will support President Obama's efforts to achieve peace and security for Israel and the Palestinians, a Palestinian state in the West Bank/Gaza with Jerusalem as shared capital, and an end to a conflict that is serves as a recruiting tool for the terror war against us? Won't it be great to have legislators who aren't afraid to tell the Israelis to arrest and jail rightwing thugs who terrorize olive farmers and little kids in Hebron? Won't it be nice to have a lobby that not only uses the word "occupatiom" but fights it?
Guess what we have it. And, although by law IPF cannot engage in campaigns, the words I write are enthusiastically enlisted in the struggle., This isn't just a game changer. It's a life saver. American lives, Israeli lives, Palestinian lives.
Way to go, us.
POSTSCRIPT: This is the attitude we're up against from AIPAC based on one of its self-proclaimed (money giving) members as posted here, under this post. He writes that we'll fail because : ""my friends and I will continue to control how key Congressional decision-makers view Israel--J Street notwithstanding--for the forseeable future." Holy cow. They just say it!!!!
Control.















The public policy now is support for the Quartet plan of a negotiated two-state solution. What policy change are you advocating here, MJ?
November 9, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pushing it to fruition, starting with Israel living up to the commitments it has made to the US and the Quartet on settlements, Palestinian freedom of movement, etc. Violence against Palestinians has not only not ended, it has dramatically increased. The occupation is as onerous as ever.
The PA has lived up to its commitments. Israel has lived up to hardly any at all.
So far, it's all talk and has been since Rabin was killed.
November 9, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.btselem.org/english/Video/
November 9, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, MJ. I love the Palestinians, but I love peace more. It's nice to see that moral Jewish majority is starting to become more assertive.
November 10, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Congratulations, MJ. And thanks. I guess you all will never know how many lives you save but I think you will succeed.
November 9, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
One can only hope -- and work.
This is our time. Desmond Tutu is chanting "USA, USA" and the neocons are now the barely living dead.
Don't you just love it that the Italian left is attacking the PM for insulting the American President-Elect? The world turned upside-down.
November 9, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Berlusconi is in a different world and he doesn't know it. Bad news for a PM and a telecom/media exec. Both can get taken down in an instant by a radically changed environment.
November 9, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Congratulations, MJ. And thanks. I guess you all will never know how many lives you save but I think you will succeed.
November 9, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ says the "Palestinians are living up to their comittments" WHAT PLANET ARE YOU LIVING ON? That is what I notice about all you "progressives" on Israel, you, Bernard Avishai, Richard Silverstein and many others, you totally distort reality.
They are doing NOTHING to stop terror, their state-controlled media incites to violence every day (Palestine Media Watch says that there is not difference in the amount of incitement against Jews and Israel between FATAH's Palestinian Authority media and that of HAMAS in the Gaza Strip). The Palestinian police force only operates against local crime, they do NOTHING to stop terror groups from working...it is the IDF which does this.
The PA was supposed to reform its finances, they didn't, even with supposed "expert" Salam Fayyad in charge...they are asking for increased handouts this year.
I already pointed out that fellow "progressive" Yossi Alpher wrote on 4 October in the Jerusalem Post that there is NO AGREEMENT on anything in the negotiations between Israel and the PA. MJ keeps claiming "the outlines of an agreement are known to everyone" but this is not true, even though Olmert has agreed to withdraw to the pre-67 lines, more or less....so we see the issue is not "territory".
Enough of your falsehoods. "J-Street" is a fraud and everyone is going to see through them. Although as Americans, they can advocate any policies they want, but they are being deceptive if they claim they represent either the Israeli Government's position or that of the Israeli people.
November 9, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
YBD--I thought you moved to a settlement. Does the government supply broadband?
November 9, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
What "committments" has the Palestinian Authority lived up to? Please specify.
You know very well that AIPAC supports the "2-state solution". What J-Street and you want is an "imposed" solution, regardless of Palestinian behavior. It riles you that AIPAC and others oppose Palestinian terrorism, which you find convenient to ignore. You also ignore the fact that everyone knows the Christians will be the first to suffer if Jerusalem is divided (torn up, destroyed, not "shared" in your Orwellian Newspeak) and many American non-Jews are rightfully concerned about it. You simply dismiss it with your fairytale "shared" Jerusalem.
Tell us how Jerusalem is going to be "shared". Go ahead.
November 9, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Rosenberg, please ask your friends at J Street to declare that they will only endorse candidates who publicly call for the withdrawal of all Israeli troops and civilians from the West Bank, and the end of all checkpoints and barriers on the West Bank. Then let's count the number of Democrats who meet those requirements and who seek J Street's endorsement in 2010 under those conditions.
You know and I know that the reason J Street can claim so many Democrats sought its endorsement was because all they had to do was say they supported vigorous diplomacy to achieve a two-state solution and the letter sponsored by Rep. Ackerman--a down the line AIPAC man--calling for targeted economic aid to the Palestinian Authority. AIPAC does not oppose either one. You know and I know--but your devotees here don't-- that if J Street ever adopts a position that the U.S. should suspend aid or reduce diplomatic backing if the Government of Israel does not do what the State Dept. demands, or that the U.S. should declare the military option with Iran is off the table, that not a single one of the Democrats who sought J Street's endorsement this year will be seen within 100 miles of it.
So please try to leaven your exuberance with reality--yes, J Street members support more diplomacy with Palestinians and Iran and Syria than about half of AIPAC members would support, but for the most part J Street is not about to make life very tough for liberal Democrats to accept a few thousand dollars from it. Those liberal Democrats are not going to pressure either Livni or Bibi to do anything, and your readers should know that.
November 9, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please don't paint us as naive here. MJ's group is trying to build public support for a more reasoned approach to Israel/Palestine and the Middle East in general. J Street doesn't have to come out and say that military options regarding Iran are off the table. Instead, they need to advocate for other solutions, making the military option less desirable, less necessary and less likely. They don't have to threaten to cut off aid to the Israeli government. Instead they should just encourage the Israeli government to act in such a way that no such threat need ever be made. You talk about ultimatums and pressure. I see J Street as advocating other, better ideas than the ones that haven't worked for half a century.
November 9, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right, Destor. I don't know why we bother arguing with someone who chooses to name himself AIPACmember and has no interests other than defend Israel against peace.
Would we argue about animal rights issues with PETAman (just chosen arbitrarily, I have nothing against them) or the 2nd amendment with NRAman. Or about Howard Dean with GOPman.
I mean, these names posters use for themselves indicate where they are coming from.
November 9, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You just like to mis-name me and mischaracterize my views. You never respond to my specific points because you can't.
November 9, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The naivite is all yours. You can help J Street encourage the Government of Israel to adopt policies you favor. Nobody in Jerusalem who counts will pay any attention, and there ain't a fucking thing you, or Rosenberg, or Levy, or Mort or Finkelstein or Lerner or Avaishai can do about it, because my friends and I will continue to control how key Congressional decision-makers view Israel--J Street notwithstanding--for the forseeable future.
November 9, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
AIPACmember says we all give up because "my friends and I will continue to control how key Congressional decision-makers view Israel--J Street notwithstanding--for the forseeable future."
Precisely AIPAC thinking, inadvertently revealed by one of its members. They will "control" US policy "for the forseaable future."
Thanks for that quote. I'll get plenty of use oout of it. "Meanwhile, here is how a typical AIPAC member looks at attempts by to modify US policy, 'my friends and I will continue to control US policy for the foreseeable future.' "
I LOVE IT. Thank you, Sir. More!!!!!
November 10, 2008 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ: I don't know if you're just needling him or not, but I do not think it would be on the up-and-up for you to try to get mileage out of the quote by saying it is from "a typical AIPAC member", etc. His comments show him to be far from the typical AIPAC member that I know and love. (I'm thinking you are more than just needling, because you stuck it up as a P.S. in your initial post.)
That said, I continue to think that there is room in the process for both AIPAC and J Street to make an impact, and that they are not mutually exclusive. That may inadvertently add some credibility to Dan K's comment below, but so be it. There are many instances of groups with similar goals taking different paths to the shared destination.
November 10, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is "AIPAC" A Trademark? Is it covered by a copyright? If so I believe AIPAC can put a stop to apacmember anytime they choose to do so.
November 10, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I that event, apacmember can become then zoamember. That's where he/she belongs (or JDLmember)!
November 10, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dream on, AIPACmember.
November 9, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Rosenberg, please wake me up the next time somebody with real power in Washington D.C. adopts your views as a matter of Administration policy or Congressional legislation. bett McCollum is a nice lady with whom i agree on maost matters. She ddoes not have power over U.S. foreign policy.
November 9, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why should I care about a "Jewish" PAC?
If you're going to bitch about Israel's best interests how about a Palestinian/Israeli PAC?
That's the only one I'd give a cent to.
November 9, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
JStreetPAC didn't endorse Al Franken. Its Senate candidates were Merkley, Allen, and Martin.
November 9, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't find Franken's name on the JSTREETPAC endorsement page either?
http://donate.jstreetpac.org/page/pac
That's strange? So MJ, why wasn't Franken on the endorsement page -- do you know something about Franken that we don't know?
November 10, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
If i had my druthers, there would be no PACS and total public financing. Then we could have a chance at Middle East policy that was honest and fair. Plus, no electoral college. Popular vote only.
The only cure to the ills of democracy is more democracy--Al Smith
November 9, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The intractable problem that a(i)pacmember & "friends" have is that the majority their base is approaching, if not already in, a state of dottage.
The energy fueling J Street and the IPF is expanding while the Lobbyistas are being forced to defend "their" territory with shopworn tactics as the sands shift under their slippered feet.
Hah!
November 9, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
apac member and MJ can argue all they want. But to me this just looks like two extremely pro-Israel groups battling over money and membership, with slightly different preferences about rhetorical style. One likes bluntness and bluster; the other likes to fret and make noises about the "peace process". The same argument has been going on in Israel for decades. They Israeli left sells its members the guilt and shame they crave and enjoy wallowing in, but it never actually changes long-term Israeli policy.
November 9, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you -- and all Lieberman fiasco crap from Senior Dems is just plain pathetic.
November 10, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
We are all the same, Dan K. Me and AIPAC and J Street and Rahm. All peas in a pod. Glad you figured that out.
We're like Farrakhan and Obama or Bill Clinton and Orville Faubus.
November 10, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll change my mind if I actually see evidence of any accomplishments that go beyond increasing membership lists.
November 10, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uhhhh, we dont care if you change your mind.
November 10, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You went a bit over the top there.
Some of us have a knack and enough critical thinking skills to see through the political ra ra... I think Dan K needs some credit.
November 10, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ claims:-
-------------------------------------
My IPF Friday, for instance, is the most widely circulated English language publication on the Middle East in the world)
-----------------------------------------
"the world", the whole world, planet Earth, our terrestrial home. How do you know that?
What are the other "English language publications on the Middle East"? How do you know how many they distribute? Did you contact each one and did they tell you, or is there a central clearing house for such information?
November 9, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The whole universe, which does not include your West Bank settlement home. That is extra-terrestrial.
November 10, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
American Jews like MJ and those of J Street may one day be seen as having "saved" Israel. Otherwise, the likes of apacmember will be seen as having led to Israel's demise. Thanks for your efforts, MJ!
November 10, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otherwise, the likes of apacmember, John Hagee, Pat Robertson, etc will be seen as having led to Israel's demise.
November 10, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otherwise, the likes of apacmember, John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Eliot Abrams, the Podhoretzs, Ms Decker, the Kristols, Doug Feith, Richard Perle, Scoop Jackson, David Wurmser, Daniel Pipes, Michael Ledeen, the Kagans, Joshua Muravchik and the AEI, JINSA, Committee on the Present Danger, PNAC, the AJC, the ADL, Sheldon Adelson, Irving Moskowitz, Newt Gingrich, Rabbi Eckstein, Bibi Netanyahu, Nathan Sharansky, the Liebermans (Joe and Avigdor), Dick Cheney, George W. Bush etc will be seen as having led to Israel's demise.
November 10, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, I mean't ELLIOTT ABRAMS (the pardoned felon in charge on Middle Eastern policy on the National Security Council).
November 10, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, thank you for spelling my screen name right. Second, sorry to disappoint you and your cohorts here, but having worked in my life for two of the greatest liberal Democratic Governors elected in Connecticut and New York and having contributed over a thousand dollars to the Obama-Biden campaign, my views are not in sync with all the neo-cons you name, and I personally wish that AIPAC finds other evangelicals to ally with than the odious Rev. Hagee.
Where I differ from Mr. Rosenberg and his cohorts is that I am firmly behind the Bill Clinton--Dennis Ross realistic approach to a two-state solution, not the George H.W. Bush-James Baker-Jimmy Carter moralizing and naive approach, and I am confident that the course I favor will be the one that President Obama, with the help of Vice President Biden and Ambassador Ross, will adopt. I am absolutely certain that the vast majority of liberal Democrats in both the House and Senate will continue to advocate the approach I favor--no matter how many candidates J Street endorses. And Mr. Rosenberg, before you quote me too widely, keep in mind that is what I meant by my friends and I continuing to control how Congress views Israel.
name
November 11, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I should have said DR. Irving Moskowitz!
November 10, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
God forbid that this list should grow to include Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber!!!!!!!!
November 10, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose that I should add nearly all of the right wing radio talk show hosts (excluding
Father Coughlin)
November 10, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
And of course, Rupert/News Corp/Fox News!!!!!!!!
And the CORPORATE NEWS (excluding Olberman, Matthews, Maddow, Stewart, Colbert etc)!!!
November 10, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse all of the corrections, my computers seem to be under attack by a "foreign entity"!!!! I have to post quickly when I can without proof reading.
November 10, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ: Kudos to you for your efforts, and for the success of those efforts. I'm grateful to your group, the IPF Forum, as well as J-Street for their contributions to the peace effort and hope they lead to a fair settlement of the conflict.
I searched around the IPF site and don't see any statement describing what your organization thinks a peace settlement ought to look like. I'm concerned, because I know there are some groups that, although ostensibly promoting a two-state solution, have a vision of a peace settlement in which the terms are so favorable to Israel that a viable Palestinian state would not be possible. Such issues as the dismantling of the West Bank settlements, security arrangements, final borders, status of Jerusalem, water rights and final ownership of the Jordan Valley are crucial elements to be resolved - most of these could make or break a Palestinian state. Can you describe what a good peace agreement might look like to you personally and/or the IPF Forum?
I ask these questions, MJ, with a certain amount of regretful sympathy, because I know what a tough position you're in right about now, caught as you are between the Israel hawk rock and the Israel dove hard place.
November 10, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink