Being associated with a group that helped [Richard] Goldstone slander Israel on the Hill, that refuses to condemn his report and accusation that the leadership of Israel PURPOSEFULLY targeted civilians in Gaza, that says there’s no difference between Israel defending itself and Hamas terrorism, that lies about their secret money from anti-Israel George Soros, and derives half their budget from Hong Kong — not from American Jews as they claim — and that lies again and again, even twisting the arm of a former Israeli MK to lie for them after she is on tape exposing their ties to Goldstone, is HAZARDOUS for one’s pro-Israel reputation. … The question candidates in competitive races will be asking themselves is this: Is it worth it to lie down with dogs if all you get is flees!? The answer, I predict, will increasingly be no, it’s not worth it. Unless of course, you’re not pro-Israel.J Street's statement can be found in an article here.
Josh replied to the article in the Washington Jewish Week and you can read that here. Just look at the race in Illinois between Jan Schakowsky and Joel Pollak. That race turned out to be AIPAC vs. J Street. Congresswoman Schakowsky did win her re-election but Alan Dershowitz broke rank with the Democratic Party, which he usually supports, to speak at a fundraiser for Joel Pollak. Some excerpts from Block's reply follow:
I usually evince more discipline than to 'respond' to someone's welcome and predictable reaction to being confronted with uncomfortable facts and truths they would like nothing more than continue to hide and hide from, but given that I am now free to speak for myself, and not as the spokesman for a particular organization, I will indulge this special occasion, and I welcome you to run this note in full, starting at the top.Nicely said, Josh!
Let me begin by saying that having worked to elect more Democratic candidates, starting way back in 1984, than Ms. Spitalnick has probably ever met, she would do well to heed my political advice when it's offered. That is, if her sincere interest is getting Democrats elected, and not, as it appears to be, selfishly promoting a counterproductive agenda-driven and self-congratulatory group that effectively tarnishes Democrats with the taint of a tainted organization.
NEWSFLASH - dateline 1990s: It's no longer brave to say you are for a two-state solution. And everyone is pro-peace.[...]
Democratic candidates should not give Republicans any opportunity to challenge their pro-Israel credentials, yet Jstreet does just that. The average, minuscule amount of support Jstreet claims to pass to their endorsees will again and again be offset by the grief and cost even the most pro-Israel candidates expose themselves to by associating with a group proven to be as duplicitous, deceitful and outright dishonest they have been exposed to be.
It is as simple as the difference between an asset and a liability.
If Jstreet believes they are helping pro-Israel Democrats get elected, then their understanding of the electorate is as bad as their other ideas, like opposing sanctions on Iran for two years in a coalition that included apologists for the Iranian regime like NIAC, or partnering with Churches for Middle East Peace - one of the major forces behind the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) campaign that seeks to isolate, demonize and ultimately erase Israel. Maybe that's where Jstreet caught the fleas.
The more we learn about Jstreet, as the things they tried to hide and keep secret see the light of day, the more we should worry about candidates with competitive races getting anywhere near them. Virtually every reporter in the last three years who has spoken to Jstreet has been lied to. How many members of Congress have gotten the same treatment? These aren't questions that come from nowhere. They are the direct result of Jstreet's conduct and pattern of deception.
Jstreet made very clear that their #1 targeted race this cycle was the Senate contest in Pennsylvania. "There's no question that this race is a very important test of what kind of support J Street and its supporters can deliver," they said. Well, we all know how that turned out. In a race as close at that one, the Democratic candidate chose to repudiate his signature on a Jstreet initiative, and his ties to the group provided a major opening for his Republican opponent to contrast his support for Israel with the Democrats' ties to what was identified as "an anti-Israel organization," a description apparently accurate enough that when the ad making that statement was challenged by the Sestak campaign, it remained on the air.[...]
There is an old saying that asks, "How can you tell they are lying?" Answer: "Their lips are moving." Its been said a lot, by a lot of people lately (see above links) that whenever Jstreet speaks they misrepresent, attempt to deceive and lie. Well, for the record, it is true in this case as well.
The first words Jstreet says to you are false. In what appears to be a clumsy attempt to smear me somehow by putting words in my mouth and attributing to me a description of me, as a "partisan Democrat," that comes from someone else, they stumble again. While I don't describe myself that way, as most informed people who know the meaning of the phrase and read the original item can tell, "partisan Democrat" means staunch Democrat. And a staunch, and proud Democrat I am. That is why, like Alan Dershowitz and tens of million of other Americans, I am Jstreet's worst nightmare: A proud pro-Israel American, an original Progressive, a staunch Democrat, who knows the difference between truth and lies, and between hostile-to-Israel, ambivalent-to-Israel, anti-Israel, and actually being pro-Israel."