You're welcome to read for free, but you can chip in for the cost of the newsletter by clicking here and filling in the amount of your choice. You don't need a PayPal account; the link lets you use a credit card. If you have trouble, let me know. Or you can Venmo @Steven-Sheffey (if it asks, last four phone digits are 9479).

Friends,

Derek Chauvin is guilty on all three counts. But what does it say about America that the outcome was in doubt? Who can blame us? It wasn't that long ago that a Republican Senate refused to convict Donald Trump despite his clear guilt on three articles of impeachment. Our work will be done when we are surprised if the system does not work.

We can't keep blaming police misconduct on bad apples. The problem is systemic. As poet Jessica Foster wrote, "no healthy tree naturally bears strange fruit.” Black Lives Matter.

The U.S. is making progress toward reentering the Iran Deal. But the Biden administration has made clear that we will do it on our terms. State Department spokesperson Ned Price reiterated last week that "the United States is not going to lift sanctions unless we have clarity and confidence that Iran will fully return to compliance with its obligations under the deal, that it will put a lid on its nuclear program, that it will expand its breakout time, that it will reduce the level of enrichment and the scope of enrichment in its country. And until we have confidence in all those things, the United States is not going to make any concessions.”

When the Iran Deal was debated in 2015, opponents could not come up with a better, realistic alternative. They still haven't come up with anything better, but now we know that the deal worked and that without the deal, we are worse off. The Iran Deal achieved its goal of taking the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran off the table, but Trump walked away. Then his "maximum pressure" strategy failed, his efforts at the UN to continue the arms embargo against Iran failed, and his efforts at the UN to snapback sanctions against Iran failed. Ned Price noted that last week that under Trump's maximum pressure strategy, "Iran accelerated its nuclear program and enacted measures that would have been prohibited under the JCPOA." And that's what the Republicans want more of.

Of the six living former directors of Israel’s Mossad, four have publicly praised the Iran nuclear agreement. "None have echoed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s extraordinary criticism of the deal. These former high-level intelligence officials are not alone. Israel’s military leadership, high-profile Israeli nuclear experts, former directors of Israel’s internal security agency and a former Israeli prime minister have all echoed Mossad’s former chiefs in praising the Iran nuclear deal." As three Israeli security experts recently wrote, "the choice today is not between the existing agreement and a theoretical better one, but between it and no agreement at all."

Pro-Bibi groups that opposed the Iran Deal in 2015 not only lost credibility, but proved that members of Congress could win without their political support. Every member of Congress who supported the Iran Deal and sought reelection won reelection. But anti-diplomacy forces are gearing up for round two, even though in the unlikely event Congress passes legislation blocking or impairing the deal, Biden will have more than enough votes in both chambers to sustain a veto.

Instead of committing political malpractice again, these groups should do what they should have done the first time: Ask serious questions at hearings and work with the administration on legislation to strengthen our ability to enforce the deal (improved technology, precision weapons systems, enhanced intelligence gathering, etc). But they won't because their donors want a fight, and after they lose, they'll say it was worth it because they shed light on the issue, as if no one was otherwise paying attention.

The U.S. will not condition aid to Israel. But it makes for a great fundraising pitch, doesn't it? Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) spoke last week about conditioning aid, saying little they haven't said before. Their views are not news. But what apparently is news to some people is that Democratic voters overwhelmingly chose Joe Biden in the primaries. He is now President. Biden consistently voted for aid to Israel when he was in the Senate, helped put together the largest aid package to Israel in U.S. history as Vice President, and is on record that conditioning aid to Israel would be “outrageous” and “a gigantic mistake.”

The Democratic Platform states that "our commitment to Israel’s security, its qualitative military edge, its right to defend itself, and the 2016 Memorandum of Understanding is ironclad." Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) recently reintroduced legislation that will suffer the same fate its previous iterations suffered: It will get perhaps 15-30 cosponsors (out of over 200 Democrats), it will die in committee, and it will never see a vote on the House floor.

Contrary to inaccurate right-wing fundraising pitches, McCollum's bill outlines new prohibitions on how Israel can use U.S. aid but only requires reports on whether Israel is violating those prohibitions--it does not mandate any cuts in aid. The bill is silent on consequences, so it would then be up to Congress or the president to choose to take action if Israel violated the prohibitions, and we know how Biden--and Congress--feels about conditioning aid.

The bill's 37 "findings" are one-sided. One would have no idea from reading this bill that Israel is a close ally of the United States or that these cases (and how they should be reported) are not clear-cut. The bill's statement of U.S. policy does not mention our unbreakable alliance with Israel or our support for a two-state solution, a fatal omission. Concerns such as those contained in the bill would be better addressed through diplomacy. We should oppose this bill.

McCollum's bill won't pass. However, calls for additional oversight of U.S. aid to Israel will increase to the extent that Israel does not curb expansion of settlements in the West Bank. Israel cannot achieve a two-state solution on its own, but Israel can prevent a two-state solution from becoming more difficult.

Now for a blind taste test. Studies show that amateurs and professionals will rate older, more expensive wines higher than lower priced wines yet will rate the wines differently in blind taste tests. They are not lying when they rate higher priced wines higher--the knowledge makes it genuinely taste better. The same is true of our political beliefs. We often adjust our position on an issue based on the position of our tribe, however we define our tribe. So let's try a blind taste test on three definitions of antisemitism:

Which do you like better? Don't peek until you decide. Each definition offers examples, but the value of the examples depends on the coherence of the definition. Otherwise, the examples are just lists.

Definition one is IHRA, two is JDA, and three is Nexus.

Neve Gordon and Mark Levine point out that under the IHRA definition, Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, and Yeshayahu Leibowitz could be considered antisemitic. Nevertheless, for the reasons they outline, this definition appeals to Jewish institutions with certain agendas. Victims of antisemitism object to the IHRA definition because it is vague and inadequate.

Some House Democrats are urging the administration to consider all three definitions rather than only the flawed IHRA definition. Please ask your member of Congress to sign their letter.

By the way, if you want to do Scotch tastings with or without a blindfold, I am available.

I grow this newsletter one subscriber at a time. Most of my signups result from readers forwarding and recommending the newsletter to their networks. Before you get to the stuff below, please forward this email to whoever you think might be interested and recommend that they subscribe. They will thank you, my friend. So will I.

Last week's newsletter.

ICYMI. Conservatives are more likely than liberals to be antisemitic.

Tweet of the Week. Adrienne Kirschner.

Twitter Thread of the Week. Joe Trippi.

Video Clip of the Week. Republicans respond to accusations of racism from a Black congressman by asking him to withdraw his words.

I guess this is a good problem to have: This list is now so large that while many people are local, even more live outside the Chicago area and have no interest in local news. If you want to be on a list that will receive infrequent newsletters about local issues and events, reply to this email and I'll add you.

Did someone forward this newsletter to you? Why not subscribe? It's free! Just click here. 

Donations are welcome (because this costs money to send). If you'd like to chip in, click here and fill in the amount of your choice. You don't need a PayPal account; the link allows you to use a credit card. If you'd rather send a check, please reply and I'll send you mailing information (please do NOT send checks to the P.O. Box). Venmo to @Steven-Sheffey (last four 9479) is fine too.

You’re reading this. So are other influentials. If you want the right people to know about your candidate, cause, or event, reply to this email to discuss your ad.

The Fine Print: This newsletter usually runs on Sunday mornings. If you receive it as an ICYMI on Wednesday it's because you didn't open the one sent on Sunday. Unless stated otherwise, my views do not necessarily reflect the views of any candidates or organizations that I support or am associated with. I reserve the right to change my mind as I learn more. Intelligent, well-informed people may disagree with me; read opposing views and decide for yourself. A link to an article doesn't mean that I agree with everything its author has ever said or that I even agree with everything in the article; it means that the article supports or elaborates on the point I was making. I take pride in accurately reporting the facts on which I base my opinions. Tell me if you spot any inaccuracies, typos, or other mistakes so that I can correct them in the next newsletter (and give you credit if you want it). Advertisements reflect the views of the advertisers, not necessarily of me, and advertisers are solely responsible for the content of their advertisements. I read, value, and encourage replies to my newsletters, but I don't always have time to acknowledge replies or to engage in one-on-one discussion. Don't expect a reply if your message is uncivil or if it's clear from your message that you haven't read the newsletter or clicked on the relevant links. © 2021 Steve Sheffey. All rights reserved.