"… the best interests of the US and Israel, including a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on the 1967 borders with agreed reciprocal land swaps."

Oh, my. For all of its self-congratulatory liberalism and open-mindedness, isn't it incredibly presumptuous for a group of mostly American Jews to dictate what the solution is going to be: the 1967 borders, plus reciprocal land swaps?

Bluntly, "reciprocal land swaps" means that Israel gets to keep big chunks of settlements in the West Bank. In return, they imagine — they fantasize — swapping away some "Arab spots" within Israel to the Palestianian statelet.

Isn't that magnanimous? No, actually, it suits zionist preoccupations to a tee. Zionism views every Arab within Israel as a "demographic time bomb." Every Arab that can be redlined out of Israel increases the all-important Jewish supermajority, so that Israel can "exist as a Jewish state" (the non-negotiable bottom line, to which J Street hews just as surely as AIPAC does).

Israeli Arabs have already sniffed out that they're going to be denationalized, stripped of their citizenship, for the greater glory of the Jewish state — and they're having none of it. Quite properly, they simply want equal rights within the state they live in now.

At worst, J Street may be a "zionist lite" marketing front for a younger, less Israeli-centric Jewish generation … and for gullible gentiles, who are getting a little restless with Israel's steady slaughter in its occupied Arab Sim Cities. J Street's notion that they can simply "redline the Arabs out of Israel" by making their villages into little Palestinian Indian reservations inside Israel, is despotic and misanthropic. Will they wall in those villages, too? Hello, Warsaw ghetto!

It's all still self-serving, tribal thinking at the service of an ill-concealed zionist agenda, and it ain't gonna fly. Zionism is the problem, and post-zionism is the solution. The 'J' is supposed to make you think of Judaism, but it may end up standing for "jackboot" or "Judas." Call me when you get some Israeli Arabs and Palestinians on board, ya hear?

Should the United States support the right of return to all those displaced during Israel's 1948 War for Independence?

I wonder about what those results would say about "Americans' support for Israel"…

A 'new Israel' lobby could throw zionism's whole legitimacy into question and provoke a necessary discussion on the crisis precipitated by zionism and American interventionism in the Middle East that could greatly shake the American approach to Israel, setting in motion real changes leading to a political transformation in Israel/Palestine…

Or just defend zionism, and make the courageous demand that 22% be given for sovereign statelets, and not bring up the whole water issue.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/seth_freedman/2008/04/selfhelp_for_selfhaters.html

Very interesting essay by Seth Freedman in the Guardian, cogit8; thanks. Excerpt:

"Islamic radicals and fundamentalists are highly adept at conflating the Zionist philosophy with the Jewish faith, and Israel's hiding behind a façade of acting on behalf of World Jewry only plays into their hands. Which is why it's essential that those Jews who recoil at the criminal actions of the Israeli government make it quite clear that this is not being done in their names. The dominant form of Zionism might be a racist, supremacist ideology – but Judaism is most definitely not."

Never mind individual Jews saying "not in my name" — when is any branch of organized Judaism going to speak up?

Judaism has become complacent about the prominence of the Holocaust narrative in the postwar era — nazism is universally discredited as illegitimate and genocidal.

Woe to Judaism, if the Nakba becomes the dominant narrative of what happened in Palestine. Judaism will be as tainted as the German völkisch movement, for having provided the quasi-theological underpinnings for a murderous nationalist, ethnic-supremacist ideology.

It doesn't have to go down that way. But time is getting short. And "J Street" provides yet another convenient diversionary whitewash for those who want to reinvent zionism in their own minds, into a settler movement with a kinder, gentler machine-gun hand. Who knew that Poppy Bush's "thousand points of light" were actually muzzle flashes?

But what is much more important now is that someone challenges the anti Obama or anti-Obama-substitute propaganda:

http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=756

The best argument for Obama is a negative one. Just watch the resistance and the diligent collection of anti-arguments.

Even on the popular conspiracy front:
link to amazon.com

From the review:
"The real kicker, the "truth-teller" that persuades me this author is on to a very important potential nightmare scenario for the USA, is the role of Zbigniew Brzezinski as the top foreign policy advisor and indeed the "maker" of both Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama."

Steel of course ranks high in the Amazon review universe:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A1S8AJIUIO6M9K/ref=cm_cr_pr_pdp
link to en.wikipedia.org

Much work. Here e.g. a counter review would be needed. This could be a field were "J Street" could even – in spite of differences – need people like Philip Weiss.

I think it is better to assume that the counter voices are funded, and not all of them act out of political consternation.