Always happy to guide the perplexed, Michael Goldfarb, spokesman for the Emergency Committee for Israel, answers J Street’s questions:

Question: “ECI refuses to take a position on the two-state solution. But two-thirds of Israelis and American Jews support it. The last four prime ministers of Israel have. Will ECI stop hiding its true colors on the only possible way to achieve real peace and security for Israel as a Jewish, democratic homeland?”

Answer: ECI supports a two-state solution if Israel has defensible borders and if the Palestinian state is stable, peace-loving, and anti-terrorist. ECI does not support a “two-state solution” if one of the states is to be a terrorist state or is going to use its new status as a means to continue the conflict. And, yes, ECI believes there can be peace and security for Israel without having yet achieved a two-state solution.

Question: “Does [ECI] support the new peace talks starting this week, built on the notion that it should be possible to achieve a negotiated resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?”

Answer: Yes.

Question: “Do they support the governments of Israel and of the United States in doing what they can to make them successful?”

Answer: Yes, if “success” means real peace and security. No, if “success” means the Obama administration pressuring Israel to make concessions that would strengthen anti-Israel extremists, weaken Israel’s security, decrease the chances of real peace, and lead to a terrorist state on Israel’s borders.

In the interest of fairness, here are two simple questions for J Street: Does J Street support a two-state solution no matter what the character and borders of both states? And does J Street support peace and security for Israel in the absence of a Palestinian state?

Why would Chuck Hagel, a former Republican Senator from Nebraska, endorse Joe Sestak, a Democratic candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania?

They both share one thing in common: a record on Israel that is deeply troubling to anyone who cares about a strong U.S.-Israel relationship and the clarity of American leadership in the Middle East.

Chuck Hagel’s record in the Senate is unique in its hostility to Israel. He repeatedly refused to join large majorities in supporting Israel’s right of self-defense and he repeatedly obstructed efforts to sanction Iran and hold terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah, accountable. Hagel’s record on Israel is so poor that the Republican Jewish Coalition refused to support his campaign and the National Jewish Democratic Council publicly warned the Obama administration that it may criticize any attempt to appoint Hagel to a policy or leadership position in government.

There is another commonality between the two men: they are both admired by the anti-Israel group CAIR. Sestak headlined a CAIR fundraiser in 2007. The year before, CAIR lavishly praised Senator Hagel, saying: “Potential presidential candidates for 2008, like Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Joe Biden and Newt Gingrich, were falling all over themselves to express their support for Israel. The only exception to that rule was Senator Chuck Hagel.”

Today’s endorsement of Joe Sestak by one of the leading anti-Israel politicians in the United States again exposes the danger a Senator Sestak would pose to the U.S.-Israel alliance. He claims to be pro-Israel, but his actions – whether fundraising for CAIR, or signing a letter that criticizes Israel for defending herself from Hamas, or seeking the endorsement of a former Senator who is notorious for his hostility to Israel – tells voters all they need to know about the kind of Senator Joe Sestak would be.

See video below of Joe Sestak explaining that Chuck Hagel is “the guy I most admired in the Senate.”

How do you know someone really isn’t a “moderate” on the question of Islamic radicalism? When he endorses a double standard for terrorism — appearing to condemn it when it is directed against Americans, refusing to condemn it when directed against Israelis.

Feisal Abdul Rauf, a self-styled champion of moderate Islam, was recently asked whether he thinks Hamas is a terrorist organization. “The issue of terrorism is a very complex question,” he replied. When pressed, he insisted that “I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy.”

But surely there should be no middle ground when it comes to Hamas, just as there can be no middle ground when it comes to Al-Qaeda.

Hamas is an Islamic supremacist group that has murdered dozens of Americans and hundreds of Israelis. Hamas leaders routinely call for genocide against Jews, refer to them as vermin and bacteria, and broadcast TV shows teaching their children that their highest ambition should be the slaughter of infidels. On September 11th, 2001, as Americans recoiled in horror at the murder of thousands, members of Hamas were throwing candy in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank to celebrate.

In light of this, it is especially worrisome that the State Department continues to employ Mr. Rauf as an emissary to the Middle East. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley calls him “a distinguished Muslim cleric,” and says, “His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well known, and he brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it’s like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States.”

The employment of Mr. Rauf by the State Department lends American credibility to a disturbing trend in the West: the idea that terrorism against Israelis falls into a different and less objectionable category from terrorism against other people. This may be fashionable in Europe, but the United States does not embrace an Israel exception to the unacceptability of suicide bombings.

One of the most important messages the United States can deliver to the Middle East is that there is never a justification for jihadist murder, whether in New York, Madrid, London — or Tel Aviv. It is clear from Mr. Rauf’s statements that when he travels abroad at U.S. taxpayers’ expense he is not delivering this message.

There are numerous Muslim leaders in America who are willing to speak the plain truth about Hamas. If the Obama administration and the State Department wish to deliver a clear and compelling message about American values to the Middle East, they can start by disassociating from Feisal Abdul Rauf.

– Noah Pollak

Among the first things the Obama administration did to break from the “unilateral” policies of the Bush administration was to join the United Nations Human Rights Council, which the U.S. shunned when it was formed in 2006. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised that “we will engage in the work of improving the U.N. human rights system.” U.N. ambassador Susan Rice declared that we were joining “because we believe that working from within, we can make the council a more effective forum to promote and protect human rights.”

Now, almost a year and a half later, the Council remains as it ever was: a body composed of some of the worst human rights abusers in the world, devoted to attacking Western democracies, demonizing Israel, covering up the abuses of authoritarian regimes, and undermining the pursuit of human rights. The only difference today is that America’s name is being lent to this effort.