An American Jewish organization concerned about the US-Israel relationship should not endorse candidates for Prime Minister or for President of the United States.

When J Street first launched, I didn't understand the debate about it. I thought it would augment what AIPAC did. The Two State Solution was on its platform. Okay, understood. 'That couldn't possibly be the only thing they talk about.'

J Street has become a parrot for the White House, repeating whatever it says.
Well, here we are six years later and I was right about their having other things to talk about. They go out of their way to be a blue stick for the President of the United States to attack the Israeli Prime Minister whenever the White House needs it. They took on another issue: supporting whatever the White House decides on Iran unconditionally without asking questions about the negotiations. And in the wake of Likud’s win yesterday, apparently an American Jewish organization that endorses foreign candidates.

I shouldn't have to say this to a liberal organization, but you have to question everything. It's so absurd that these are clearly partisan positions that J Street has taken, relying on helping both countries' leaders amplify their already problematic relationship in order to further wedge the two countries' diplomatic and security establishments apart.

AIPAC doesn't oppose the Two-State Solution. It just doesn't. It tries to stay away from it more often than not because it is political religion for a lot of people, which is bad to attack, or to modify or to question or to have deal with at all. If you are lobbying for a position, you want to

A) be certain you want that position also and

B) consider the chances of whether or not your lobbying could be done on issues with a higher chance of success.

Either because AIPAC already supports the idea or because advocating against it would itself be strategically problematic for the organization's strength in lobbying for 'softer' issues, AIPAC simply does not oppose the idea of two states. Now, that might not be agreeable for a lot of my peers on the right, but that's not why I am saying this. I am saying this because J Street is at best redundant in lobbying for Israel. But given its behavior over the last two months, they have presented themselves as the token Jewish lobby that will mimic the position of the White House no matter what it is.

I am not a member of the far right. I might be considered far right because I care about holy sites in Israel like the Temple Mount and am skeptical of the trustworthiness of the Palestinian Authority, but those are rational positions of many Israelis. But, I will admit it freely that in 2004 I voted for John Kerry and in 2008 for Barack Obama. On American domestic issues, I am probably still more of a Democrat than a Republican. And somehow, I was also active in AIPAC in college. Who'd a thunk it?

As much as I get Obama's positions, the right wing in Israel and the United States are at this moment being more rational about the position of J Street vis-a-vis the Israeli-American alliance than anyone who has enjoyed J Street’s vigorous anti-Netanyahu campaign over the last two months. J Street has become a parrot for the White House, repeating whatever it says.

The other thing that makes it hardly an alternative to AIPAC is that AIPAC will not endorse a candidate in the Israeli election.

It's a tragedy this has happened to this organization, because J Street could have added certain issues to its agenda that AIPAC wouldn't because, well, AIPAC limits its legislative agenda to four or five items a year. That's it.

• J Street had its choices to introduce legislation asking for American grants to build schools anywhere in Israel or the Palestinian-controlled areas. They didn't.

• They could have chosen to emphasize that no matter who is in power in Israel, everyone agrees on economic prosperity for everyone living in the Holy Land no matter where the final borders end up. They haven't.

• They could have asked Congress to pressure the UN to set up a fairer voting system so blocs of countries (like the Arab League or Organization for Islamic Cooperation) couldn't bully states outside of conventional blocs (Israel) with a disproportionate number of resolutions that also exaggerate issues inside Israel. They didn't do that either.

No, J Street has not added much. They have made the wedge a lot stronger though. They've certainly widened the gap. I am disappointed that J Street thinks that by saying the Obama Administration should take the opportunity to worsen the relationship that they are speaking for some silent Jewish majority. If there is such a silent majority, I will go out on a limb and assume they did not want J Street to advocate their positions in this way.

J Street is not advancing the US-Israel alliance.