[Beerinkol]

http://www.jstreetjive.com/2009/10/l...e-oil-and.html
From news article:

Does J Street espouse positions that, given all the current evidence, are most likely to lead to a just and lasting peace?

For years Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the map, denied the Holocaust as a trick to justify the establishment of Israel, and has predicted the end of Israel and of the United States. President Barack Obama recently revealed that Iran has been lying for years about a secret underground nuclear plant. Iran is closer to its goal of nuclear weapons than officials previously thought. Obviously any entity so publicly and enduringly committed to death, destruction and deception is a major obstacle to global peace. Surely any pro-peace organization would support every possible means of ensuring that this country, nominally headed by a highly volatile dictator (whose strings are pulled by fanatical mullahs waiting for the 12th Imam to come up out of a well on Judgment Day), would be prevented from completing its race towards nuclear weapons.

But even after Obama revealed Iran's secret nuclear plant, J Street's position remains unequivocal: it is "strongly opposed to any consideration at this time" of "further sanctions" against Iran, and it is of course categorically opposed to "the use of military force by Israel or the United States to attack Iran's nuclear infrastructure." As the peace window is closing, J Street opposes swift, decisive action to prevent it from slamming shut.

Now let's look at whether J Street's positions concerning Israel are calculated to ensure a real and lasting peace between Israel and its enemy neighbors.

The raison d'etre of the terrorist group Hamas is the annihilation of Israel (and the Masons and the Rotarians -- who knows why?). The Hamas charter says this in black and white -- there's no costume in use here. Hamas's sole modus operandi is murderous violence and intimidation.

In January, 2009, Israel deployed a military response intended to eliminate the continuation of years of violent attacks by Gazans against Israeli civilians. Surely the cessation of attacks on its people is a necessary part of ensuring a country's existence. J Street claims that "it recognizes the unquestioned right of Israel to take action to answer acts of terror and violence." But it came out strongly against Israel's efforts at self-defense. Better, apparently, so far as J Street was concerned to let the rockets continue to fall, as they have for years, on Israeli towns.

Perhaps J Street simply cannot condone a "stronger" nation imposing its will on one that seems weaker? That would be in concert with the au courant policy of cultural authenticity and moral relativism.

No, that won't work either. There is one area where J Street comes down very harshly, very decisively against the local populations and on which it seeks to impose the will of outside super powers in order to achieve the results other than what the native populations wants. That local population is -- contrary to what most would think given J Street's professed "pro-Israel" position -- the Israeli one, and, -- here we have a surprise! -- also the Palestinian one.

In its hegemonic insistence on the immediate creation of a Palestinian state, J Street is President Obama's self-described "blocking back" determined to impose a two-state solution on the Israelis and the Palestinians in the shortest possible timeframe.