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,

The Combating BDS Act, recently reintroduced by Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), is both inconsequential and dangerous: inconsequential because it is an unnecessary, toothless attempt to counter the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, and dangerous because it is an attempt to divide the pro-Israel and free speech communities.

If truth in advertising laws applied to legislation, the Combating BDS Act would be called the “State Anti-BDS Laws Are Not Preempted By Federal Law But Are Still Subject To First Amendment Challenges Act,” but a name like that would be a lot harder to fundraise off of. The Combating BDS Act does not combat BDS. Read more in my Times of Israel post.

Rubio, incidentally, was one of two senators to support Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-TX) amendment to remove a line from the Israel Relations Normalization Act stating that U.S. policy is to support a negotiated two-state solution. With friends like that...

A two-state solution remains possible--if we take the right steps. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and more than 70 Democrats urged President Biden to reverse the Trump administration’s harmful policies toward Israel and the Palestinians and instead work toward a two-state solution. Their letter emphasizes that "the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has no military solution and can only be resolved through diplomacy and a negotiated two-state solution that guarantees the civil and political rights, safety, and self-determination of both peoples."

The Biden administration is speaking out against Palestinian Authority abuses. The Palestinian Authority fired tear gas at demonstrators demanding that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas resign following the severe beating and death of a Palestinian activist in PA custody. The Biden administration said that it has "serious concerns about Palestinian Authority restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression by Palestinians and harassment of civil society activists and organizations."

Separately, the Biden administration reiterated its opposition to PA payments to the families of terrorists even as it continue to ensure that aid to the Palestinians complies with the Taylor Force Act.

Reentering the Iran Deal is the best way to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The Biden administration is working closely with Israel, and Biden delayed the next round of talks with Iran to allow more time for discussion with Israel's new government.

The Biden administration's position is 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.”

As of Thursday, the U.S. still had "serious differences with Iran over the host of issues, whether it’s the nuclear steps that Iran needs to take to come back into compliance, the sanctions relief that the U.S. will be offering, or the sequence of steps that both sides would be taking...By the same token, we wouldn’t be going back for a seventh round if we didn’t think that a deal was possible."

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 Trump's "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. Under Trump's maximum pressure strategy, Iran has moved closer to nuclear weapons. But as Nicholas Miller observed, "maximum pressure advocates tend to be immune to evidence. If sanctions fail, it's always because they weren't strong enough or weren't given enough time."

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 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 Biden administration continues to lead by example in the fight against antisemitism. The U.S. was the first country to announce it would not attend the Durban Review Conference, citing “concerns over the Durban process’s anti-Israel sentiment, use as a forum for antisemitism and freedom of expression issues.” Last week, the UK announced it would not attend, joining the U.S., Canada, and Australia.

Setting the record straight. If you read Natan Sharansky's screed about un-Jews, you owe it to yourself to read Natan Sharansky, Un-Hero. If you were duped into believing that the Biden administration will rescind recognition of the Golan Heights, read Jacob Magid and this from the State Department.

Last week's newsletter.

ICYMI. The Coda to the Israeli-American Food Truck Fiasco.

Tweets of the Week. Jess Dweck and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT).

Twitter Threads of the Week. Rabbi Jill Jacobs and Shai Franklin.

Video Clip of the Week. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley's response to a question about Critical Race Theory.

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.