Why is everyone talking about J Street?

The Jewish Week’s Jim Besser asks: What is it about J Street that has "the leaders of major Jewish groups in such a snit?" — noting that it seems "far out of proportion" to the Jewish establishment’s reaction to other dovish groups. His theory:

J Street is the first group on the left that’s dared to take on the pro-Israel lobby where it really matters: at the critical intersection of campaign finance and congressional lobbying. …

On a small scale at first, J Street is trying to do what the pro-Israel establishment did years ago: build a lobby on a solid foundation created by big networks of campaign contributors.  In doing so, it represents a much bigger potential threat to the major pro-Israel groups than its dovish cousins.

That’s the long term goal; short term,  J Street is using the funding lever to provide “cover” for pro-Israel lawmakers who disagree with the AIPAC line, threatening what has become AIPAC’s virtual lock on Congress.

American Prospect blogger Ezra Klein responds by generalizing wildly from the experiences of him and his friends:

…[A] more accurate articulation of the concern may be that major Jewish groups feel vulnerable and isolated at this time, and so are particularly fearful of competition. But the fact that I — and many of the young Jews I know — think that there’s such a stark distinction between the interests of Jews, Jewish groups, and Israel, is part of the reason for J Street’s quick fame and similarly rapid infamy.

My sense of the situation — and this is substantially informed, and thus biased, by the reaction to my commentary — is that there’s a lot of generational anxiety in the Jewish community. The experience of Jewishness for older Jews — the generation of Jews that endured the Holocaust, or was directly descended from that generation — is substantially different from my generation’s experience of Jewishness. The sense of continued threat and acute vulnerability that is the abiding companion of older Jews is increasingly absent from younger Jews. The reason is fairly simple: To use Karen Brodkin’s terminology, not only are American Jews white, but in general, they’re privileged.

Being a privileged member of the majority in the most powerful country the world has ever known is a fairly unique experience for Jews. Israel, though hated and vulenrable to terrorist threat, is nevertheless the dominant military power in the Middle East. A history defined by agonizing persecution has given way to a present defined by relative power. But that has, inevitably, changed the relationship young Jews have to both Judaism and Israel. And that’s created substantial concern among older Jews, who sense that the younger generation’s connection to Israel is either slipping or, at the least, becoming something less visceral and recognizable. Just ask my grandfather. J Street — which has always sold itself as a net-oriented enterprise for the Obama generation — inflames that anxiety. My hunch is an examination of AIPAC’s demographics — and even more so its active membership — wouldn’t bar the organization from membership in AARP.

Klein isn’t completely off-base — a number of polls have shown that younger Jews are generally less connected to Israel than their parents and grandparents. But his "hunch" about AIPAC’s demographics is laughable. If he’d spent, say, 10 minutes at an AIPAC policy conference instead of just reading his blog comments, he would have noticed that close to a thousand college students atttend each year– and plenty of other policy conference attendees are young Jews in their 20s, 30, and 40s. There are plenty of young Jews interested in J Street, but there are lots more who are AIPAC activists.

Klein also argues that Walt and Mearsheimer have something to do with it:

I’d also suggest that the influence of Walt and Mearsheimer’s The Israel Lobby has played a serious role. J Street emerged at a moment when the political activity of major Jewish groups was receiving sustained scrutiny for the first time in memory. And that scrutiny kickstarted an overdue process of polarizing Jewish opinion over the generally right wing political approach favored by AIPAC. J Street, in other words, emerged as an alternative to AIPAC at the exact moment that a certain number of center-left and liberal Jews began wondering whether AIPAC remained a suitable representative for their beliefs. In a way, J Street is the concrete manifestation of AIPAC’s — and the Jewish groups that associate with it — organizational anxieties, and that’s led AIPAC and their associates to treat J Street as a threat rather than an annoyance. That, in turn, has made J Street more of a threat than an annoyance.

Besser responded, saying "maybe" about Klein’s "generational anxiety" theory, but rejecting the Walt/Mearsheimer thesis:

The debate over whether AIPAC is truly representative of the American Jewish community has been a persistent undercurrent in Jewish life for decades; “center left and liberal” Jewish groups have been wondering about AIPAC for as long as I’ve been  covering this beat, and yet AIPAC’s preeminence has been unaffected.

Still, it’s probably true that the Walt-Mearsheimer critique and the attention it has received in the past two years has made Jewish leaders a little more sensitive to challenges to the pro-Israel lobby from within the community.

Besser added that the reaction he received to his original J Street post demonstrates that the group is making a mark:

I think the intense reaction to the blog proves its point: there’s something intriguing and revealing about the intense reaction to J Street’s first year.  I wouldn’t go so far as to say other pro-Israel groups are scared. They aren’t; J Street still has a long way to go before it rivals the major pro-Israel groups in size, money and clout, and there are many obstacles it has to overcome.

But clearly, it’s first year has struck a real nerve in the Jewish world.