It is pretty impressive that 160 House members have signed on as hosts to the J Street conference. Here's the list. If your representatives are not on the host committee, you may want to ask them why not.

I am not surprised that Representative Chris Van Hollen is not on the host committee even though he personally shares the views of J Street (I heard him discuss the Middle East in great depth during his first campaign).

So why isn't Van Hollen doing what he should be doing? After all, he is a terrific, effective, energetic progressive.

Here's my guess. Back in 2006, during the Lebanon war, Van Hollen stated that he thought the United States should seek a cease-fire. The local Likudniks went crazy, led by the utterly unrepresentative Jewish Community Relations Council and its head, Ron Halber. It was ugly and Van Hollen apologized. Not only that, he was almost immediately taken on one of those lobbying trips to Israel for a come-to-Jesus experience.

Here is a story on the pressure brought on Van Hollen.

And his climb down.

Ever since, Van Hollen -- who is eager to move to the Senate -- has been as reliably AIPAC as a Representative from Brooklyn. I feel bad for the guy.

The irony. Everyone now agrees that Van Hollen was right to call for that cease-fire when he did. Had it gone into effect when he called for it, many of the Israelis who were killed in that war would still be alive.

But no matter. More important to the forces that put the pressure on Van Hollen was that he learn his lesson.

But times are changing. The same people who got Van Hollen to support positions that are utterly alien to him tried the same thing with his next door representative, Donna Edwards. She outraged the AIPAC crowd by not falling over in admiration for the Gaza war. Halber and the Jewish council obviously thought she would follow Van Hollen's lead and back down.

She didn't. In fact, she has repeated her pro-peace, pro-Israel, pro-Palestinian positions (no, they don't conflict) over and over again.

Van Hollen knows foreign policy more than most of his colleagues. We need his voice supporting the two-state solution and the US playing the role of honest broker, not Israel's lawyer.

Come home, Congressman. Your constituency thinks you are one impressive legislator and the Likudniks don't count even in Potomac and Bethesda.

Besides, AIPAC is the past. J Street is the future.

Meanwhile, Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, is said to be ostentatiously boycotting J Street's conference. The ambassador believes, in the embassy's words, that J Street could "impair Israeli interests."

That is a pretty incredible statement. J Street is an American organization dedicated to working toward Israeli-Palestinian peace because peace is in America's interests.

It is made up of individuals who are also deeply concerned about Israel's security and well-being. Nonetheless, the ambassador's language is offensive.

Oren's decision to boycott the conference is also self-defeating. Why would he not want to discuss Israeli policies at J Street? It is a Jewish organization composed of people who care deeply about Israel (why else would they get involved with a pro-Israel organization like J Street?).

Apparently, the ambassador believes that an organization dedicated to the two-state solution and ending the occupation is, by definition, unfriendly to Israel. If so, his tenure as ambassador will not be a happy one.

Most Americans who care about Israel understand that the only way to preserve Israel as a Jewish state and a democracy is by implementing the two-state solution. The alternative is the perpetuation of the status quo which will inevitably result in an Israel in which Israelis are heavily outnumbered by Palestinians. That would mean the end of the Zionist enterprise.

Oren knows that. But he wants to send a message. It is: don't criticize Israeli policies if you want the ambassador to honor you with his presence.

That is an odd message to come from a diplomat. And utterly inappropriate.

NOTE: The status quo crowd is nervous. Jeffrey Goldberg, the Atlantic blogger, posted this today:

A Question for J Street

Hmmm. What sort of a democracy, exactly, does J Street envision? President Obama, as I understand it, thinks Israel should be a Jewish democracy. Does J Street?"

No, Jeffrey, J Street favors a State of Israel that is, I don't know, Italian or Shiite. When a self-proclaimed moderate on the Israeli-Palestinian issue like Goldberg is getting this exercised and this silly, you know the AIPAC crowd is nervous. None of these guys ever bothered attacking any of the other pro-Israel peace groups. They just ignored them, knowing that their impact was limited at best. But J Street is succeeding and the status quo crowd is beside itself. Skip Goldberg. Read Eric Alterman here.