[Ifroham4]

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/bl...p/rubin/380261

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/bl...p/rubin/380209

http://www.mererhetoric.com/2010/11/...e-house-races/

Josh Block, a long-time Democratic, pro-Israel activist and former AIPAC spokesman, e-mails: “Of 25 competitive races in which Jstreet endorsed, their candidates lost in 14 races, including in all three Senate races.” And then he unloads: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.Block, mind you, is a partisan Democrat. His advice should serve as a warning to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle — vote however you like and associate yourself with whomever you wish, but be prepared to be confronted on your record.



The Emergency Committee for Israel’s executive director (and CONTENTIONS contributor), Noah Pollak, has released a statement:Last night was a good night for the US-Israel relationship, with supporters of a strong alliance prevailing over a number of incumbents who had received financial and rhetorical support from anti-Israel groups. In Pennsylvania in particular, there was a close Senate race that resulted in the defeat of a candidate who had accused Israel of war crimes and helped raise money for an organization the FBI later called a front group for Hamas. ECI ran ads informing voters of that record, and no doubt many of those voters share our concerns. We are delighted with the result.Meanwhile, the Republican Jewish Coalition points out that in 11 races in which RJC-supported candidates faced off against J Street–funded candidates, the RJC candidate came out on top in seven, including three Senate races.


It is important in trying to decipher all this to weed out the candidates who were always going to win and those who were never going to win. When you get down to competitive races, J Street proved to be no help to its chosen candidates and a great deal of trouble. In the future, do you think mainstream Democrats with a generally good record on Israel are going to take money from J Street? No. Why in the world would they? That will leave J Street with its hardened group of donors and the fringe Israel-bashers. Not so influential, I suppose. Maybe their big donor and his friend from Hong Kong will close up shop and spend their largess on groups that haven’t made themselves irrelevant.


J Street endorsed 61 candidates for the 2010 election, 58 Democrats for the House and 3 Democrats for the Senate, and today they’ve been bragging about how 46 of those candidates won. The results are supposed to boost the group’s post-Soros, post-Goldstone, post-Levy rehabilitation strategy, where they’re bypassing the journalists they’ve alienated and appealing to politicians in terms of raw power. They’re rolling out two different sets of arguments, one based on these election results and one based on a couple of polls they did.
The polling arguments have to do with the strength and direction of American Jewish opinion, and those will have to wait for a different, longer post. You don’t need another exegesis on the biased effects of double barreled and leading questions to know where this is going, but the stuff they’re doing with their Jewish voter screen is kind of new. So maybe tune in for that.


J Street’s claims about the election, in contrast, are less tangled but more obnoxious. The argument here is that politicians should buy into J Street’s anti-Israel political activism, because then the organization will dump a portion of its Soros money into their campaign coffers. They’re very proud of that part. The ultimate test is supposed to be last night’s scoreboard, where 46 of J Street’s 55 incumbents won their races.


Without putting too fine a point on it, expecting people to find this nonsense persuasive is borderline insulting. Half of J Street’s list reads like a catalog of the safest Democratic districts in the country. Four of their candidates had opponents who couldn’t break 20%. Another two had opponents who couldn’t get above 15%. A seventh candidate, Michael Capuano, ran unopposed. Etc.