The alternative Israel lobby, J Street, is in one way like Noam Chomsky: it is the new bete noir whose very utterance sends the neocons into a raging lather.
It is a particular demon to the young turks at the Commentary blog such as James Kirchick, Noah Pollak, and Abe Greenwald. They have chosen to take it on because it is the rudest reminder that they, with all their youthful cadence, are on the wrong side of history.
To understand the bizarre set of premises animating the elevation of J Street to the highest caste of neocon demonology, an indispensable guide was laid out by Jack Wertheimer, one-time provost of Jewish Theological Seminary and Commentary’s go-to-guy on what’s happening on the American Jewish scene. He did so in an incredible essay in which it was plainly articulated that a group critical of Israel had to prove itself kosher through its commitment to the "collective interests" of the "Jewish polity".
Wertheimer begins by telling the story of Breira, founded by a group of rabbis who advocated Israeli negotiations with the PLO in the 70s. The group was riven by a bitter split between a group of old-school "liberal" Reform rabbis who remained steadfast in their ideological commitment to Zionism, and more radical new left rabbis such as Everett Gendler and Arthur Waskow, who were the early pioneers of the progressive Judaism we know today.
After briefly discussing the hard-leftist New Jewish Agenda in the 80s, Wertheimer concludes by favorably contrasting the case of Breira with Americans for Peace Now,which was ultimately embraced in the 90s by the official Jewish community, represented by the Conference of Presidents. Americans for Peace Now, in contrast to its two predecessors in the essay, has totally embraced the ideologies of both Zionism and Jewish collectivism, and boasts of being a member in good standing of not only the Conference of Presidents but of AIPAC itself.
So where does J Street fall into this picture? If they once sought to "lobby the lobby", and perhaps still, to my knowledge they have made no attempt whatsoever to be formally accepted as a part of the Jewish "collective". J Street does, to be sure, constantly insist that it is "pro-Israel" (and quotes Alan Dershowitz favorably), but nonetheless they are fundamentally different from Breira in their attitude toward first principles, that is, to the ideology of Zionism.
What makes J Street different is that it has made a point of being completely agnostic on first principles, in other words, however many times they insist they are "pro-Israel", never once will they utter the word "Zionism". This has not gone unnoticed by their detractors at Commentary, who raised the question of "having no qualms about collaborating with avowed anti-Zionists", but even they have not quite yet taken the issue head on.
This may seem like a trite and trivial thing to the casual reader, but it absolutely is not. The neocons may be talking a lot about the perilous threat of socialism from Obama these days, but the fanaticism expressed in Commentary about the absolutely sacrosanct "collective" of "the Jewish people" is extraordinary, with the mark of judgement of all Jews being their devotion to this collectivism, and if they are found wanting, they are not merely banished as heretics but declared an outright enemy of the Jewish people, in other words, an anti-Semite.
But the growing fanaticism of the neocons toward J Street is not really about J Street itself, or even for that matter about its stated policy objectives. One thing that must be understood about the neocons is that Obama is their worst nightmare – that someone who just five years ago was a state senator from the South Side of Chicago with an African name is now President of the Untied States, a disciple of Saul Alinsky to boot and with a foreign policy resembling no president so much as that of Richard Nixon.
To the neocons, therefore, J Street is above all else a symbol of the reality that the solid, if not overwhelming majority of American Jews are more loyal to their worst nightmare Barack Obama than to "the Jewish people". Oh, they must be lamenting, for the good old days of such lovable foils as Noam Chomsky and Henry Kissinger!

“and with a foreign policy resembling no president so much as that of Richard Nixon.”?
You’re talking about the “Vietnamization” of Afghanistan and Iraq, urging and training them to do their own self-governing policing. Also in Palestine.
Nixon’s domestic policies were a component of his foreign policies, enemies foreign and domestic.
J Street is surprisingly effective. I don’t know numbers and dollars, but their views receive full airing in Congress these days (not with everybody obviously). If anything a blessing is needed, Keep up the good work!!!
You are buying into J Street’s spin.
Ross points out the excellent blog at Commentary allowing me to discover this thrashing of J Street.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/they-re-doing-the-j-street-jive-15103?page=2
Obama’s “socialism” doesn’t seem to be hurting Goldman Sachs too much.
What Noam Chomsky did to deserve comparison with J Street, an AIPAC front group whose Orwellian motto “Pro Israel. Pro peace” would be humorous were it any less chilling, I can’t imagine.
“An AIPAC front group”?
Does anyone know where does J Street stand on America’s annual gift to Israel of $3 billion in military and nonmilitary aid?
J Street’s website voices support for a strong US-Israel alliance, one that assures “Israel’s qualitative military edge.” link to jstreet.org
It seems that J Street’s bottom line here is no different from AIPAC’s. Or am I missing something?
Enlightened Americans often grapple with the issues of whether a binational state or a two-state solution is better for Palestine and Israel; whether a boycott and divestment policy is appropriate. It seems to me however that the first order of business is to demand an end to all US aid to Israel. And not just military aid, but all aid, as money is fungible.
There is no case for giving foreign aid to Israel. It is by global standards a wealthy country. It uses the military aid we send them to commit war crimes and copiously documented human rights abuses. The alliance with Israel confers far more geostrategic liabilities than advantages.
Why is it so difficult for American intellectuals, journalists and politicians to call for a clear and unequivocal end to US aid for Israel?
I appreciate that J Street is pushing the debate in the right direction inside the Israel Lobby, and surely it takes guts to brave all the insults and rage from the Commentary crowd. But J Street’s positions should in no way mark the acceptable outer limit of debate on what the proper relationship should be between the US and Palestine and Israel. And a group that supports continuing military aid to Israel is simply not providing much of an alternative to the dismal status quo.
It is long past time to end our counterproductive and costly aid packages to Colombia, to Egypt, and to Israel.