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,

Yesterday was 20 years since 9/11. May the memories of those who were murdered by Al-Qaeda terrorists that day and those who gave their lives trying to rescue them be for a blessing.

To its credit, the ADL apologized last week for its opposition to an Islamic Center near Ground Zero 11 years ago. To his credit, President George W. Bush yesterday drew a straight line between the 9/11 terrorists and the 1/6 terrorists. Reporting on his speech, Jennifer Rubin writes that "the Republican Party continues to minimize, deflect and ignore the 1/6 terrorist attack [and] operates outside of and is a threat to peaceful democratic governance and a multiracial democracy." I'm all for unity. I wish the GOP would join us and support democracy instead of encouraging insurrection and making it harder to vote.

Bush suffered no political consequences for 9/11, in part because Democrats chose not to politicize the legitimate question of whether we were adequately prepared for the attacks. After 9/11, Bush manufactured reasons to invade Iraq, in part to rid the U.S. of "Vietnam syndrome," which was actually a healthy skepticism of foreign wars with murky rationales and objectives. More Americans died in Iraq than on 9/11. The Afghanistan war ended only last week, long after we had any business being there. We might never understand the security lapses that led to 9/11, but we can learn from the mistakes we made following 9/11. President Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan is a good start.

I am sometimes asked to recommend books on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. I respect the question because it shows that a realization that the conflict cannot be distilled to an 800-word op-ed. But what to recommend? An 800-page history of the conflict? A book that presents one side or a book that attempts to present both sides, even at the risk of presenting false claims as fact? And even if the question is sincere, which it often is, who has time to do all that reading?

I think I finally have an answer, at least for now. Two books, both imperfect, both short enough to read over a weekend: Catch-67, by Micah Goodman, and Haifa Republic, by Omri Boehm. I am not aware of any book that has all the answers. If there were such a book, its author would have already won a Nobel Prize. I am aware of plenty of books that offer glib answers and superficial analysis for those who seek to confirm their biases.

These books propose unsatisfactory solutions and contain other flaws, but they are valuable because, collectively, they raise the issues that advocates for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship must understand and address.

Goodman's book made my 2018 book review list. It's become relevant again because Goodman's solution, "shrinking the conflict," appears to be the favored policy of newly-elected Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett. Goodman, who lives in the West Bank settlement of Kfar Adumim, argues that both the right and the left in Israel are correct--the right because its security concerns about a two-state solution are legitimate, and the left because the status quo is not sustainable from a demographic perspective.

Goodman argues that "the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has three components: the centuries-long trauma of Islam's humiliation by the West; the decades-long trauma of the mass Palestinian exodus during the War of Independence; and the fifty-year trauma of occupation and military rule from the Six-Day War to the present. The solution of two states for two peoples addresses only the third component."

Goodman says that we focus on the occupation because that is the one element within Israel's control, but "no diplomatic accord could end the violent conflict between Israel and the Palestinians--just as no diplomatic accord could compensate Israel for the inherent danger to its security posed by the withdrawal from the mountains of Judea and Samaria." Goodman suggests since there is no satisfactory solution, the best approach is to shrink the conflict by reducing tensions where possible.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, the most decorated soldier in Israel's history, wrote a scathing review of Catch-67 in 2017, arguing that it is steeped in right-wing ideology. Perhaps we should not be surprised that Goodman's approach, which rationalizes maintaining the status quo and relieves Israel of the necessity of resolving the conflict, appeals to Bennett, who boasted to his Cabinet following his meeting with President Biden that “I am the only prime minister in three decades who told the president of the United States I am not going to hold peace talks with the Palestinians. But I told Biden I am serious in my intentions to improve the Palestinian economy and Palestinian lives." (Bennett told the New York Times prior to his meeting with Biden that he would expand West Bank settlements, he would not back American plans to reopen a consulate for Palestinians in Jerusalem, and he would not reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians.)

Shrinking the conflict might serve Bennett's political goals, but Barak demolishes many of Goodman's arguments, particularly the argument that Israel must choose between security and demography. Barak points out that Israel successfully defended itself from the pre-1967 borders in the Six Day War and that any two-state solution would address Israel's security concerns. The "catch" Goodman describes does not exist--the risk to Israel's democracy from continuing the occupation is real, but the security risk of a two-state solution can be managed, according to Barak. Goodman's book is worth reading to understand a certain mentality within Israel, and parts of it are valid, but it must be read with Barak's criticisms in mind.

Omri Boehm argues in Haifa Republic that even if a two-state solution were possible, it would not solve the conflict because a "Jewish" state necessarily abridges the rights of its non-Jewish citizens. Boehm writes that "whereas liberalism depends on the idea that states must remain neutral on matters of religion and race, Zionism...consists in the idea that the State of Israel belongs to the Jewish people."

Boehm argues that early Zionists, including Herzl, Jabotinsky, and Ben-Gurion, favored Jewish autonomy, not sovereignty, within the land of Israel. But when circumstances provided the opportunity for a sovereign state, the opportunity proved irresistible. Boehm argues for a binational state with autonomy for its Jewish and Muslim citizens. It sounds good in theory but seems unworkable in practice, and this book too is flawed in some respects. The book is worth reading for its history of Zionism and the issues which, even if intractable, we must address or at least be cognizant of. We can disagree with Boehm's recommendations, but some of the facts he reports are facts some of us would rather pretend did not exist. The better way to advocate for Israel is to acknowledge the facts and advocate for the real Israel.

A two-state solution remains the best, albeit imperfect, solution. But neither side seems ready to take steps to give the other side confidence that such a solution is possible, and neither side benefits from the status quo. If settlement expansion continues, the alternatives proposed by Goodman and Boehm, or more likely, a binational state that is either democratic but not Jewish or Jewish but not democratic, might become the reality.

Briefly, because you need to know:

Last week's newsletter.

ICYMI. Annoying people in shul.

Tweets of the Week. Mikel Jollett and Because the election is Tuesday.

Twitter Thread of the Week. Loren deJonge Schulman.

Video Clip of the Week. Trolling a school board meeting.

Upcoming Events. Politics with Dana Gordon and Steve Sheffey is back to live events. Join us outdoors in Highland Park, Illinois, on Sunday, September 12, at 3:00pm CT for a special event with Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY). Torres is progressive, pro-Israel, and a rising star in Congress. Contributions are encouraged but not required. Vaccinations are absolutely required. RSVP here if you want to attend. This event will be entirely off the record and closed to press. If you are reading this after Sunday, you've missed the event. But we'll soon be announcing more...

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. I am willing to sacrifice intellectual consistency for intellectual honesty. Smart, 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.