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,

President Biden reiterated U.S support for Israel at the UN last week. In his first address to the UN as president, Biden told the world that "the commitment of the United States to Israel’s security is without question. And our support for an independent, Jewish state is unequivocal. But I continue to believe that a two-state solution is the best way to ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish, democratic state living in peace alongside a viable, sovereign, and democratic Palestinian state. We’re a long way from that goal at this moment, but we must never allow ourselves to give up on the possibility of progress." That's a good working definition of what it means to be pro-Israel.

Biden also said that "the United States remains committed to preventing Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. We are working with the P5+1 to engage Iran diplomatically and seek a return to the JCPOA. We’re prepared to return to full compliance if Iran does the same."

Democrats funded Iron Dome. Iron Dome is a defensive missile system that shoots down incoming rockets. It's not perfect; if it were, millions of Israelis would not periodically be forced into bomb shelters by attacks from Hamas to the south or Hezbollah to the north. But it is 90% effective, and it has saved countless Israeli lives, Jewish and Arab.

Without Iron Dome, Israel would be forced to take much harsher action to stop cross-border missile attacks, which would result in more loss of innocent life. As Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) said, "by supporting this program, you are supporting peace," and that's why, as Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL) said and as Thursday's vote proved, "America’s commitment to Iron Dome is rock solid."

President Obama fully embraced Iron Dome (he visited Sderot as a candidate in 2008) following a frosty reception from the Bush administration and skepticism from the Pentagon. As Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) said, "only in a morally inverted universe" would Iron Dome be considered controversial.

On Thursday, Democratic leadership brought to the floor and passed a stand-alone $1 billion bill in response to Israel's request for aid to replenish its Iron Dome batteries. The bill passed 420-9, with two voting present and one not voting. Eight Democrats (Rashida Tlaib, Andre Carson, Ilhan Omar, Raul Grijalva, Ayanna Pressley, Marie Newman, Cori Bush, Chuy Garcia) and one Republican (Thomas Massie) voted no. Two Democrats voted present (Hank Johnson, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez). For those keeping score at home, roughly 96% of all Democrats, 90% of the 95-member Progressive Caucus, and 90% of the Black Caucus voted for Iron Dome. Democrats might have problems, but overwhelming support for security assistance to Israel ain't one of them, not as a party and not among key constituencies.

President Biden was right to agree to Israel's request for additional Iron Dome funding, and the House was right to approve his request. But the process was messy.

Under President Obama's record-setting ten-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Israel, which includes funding for Iron Dome, Israel agreed not to seek additional funding for missile defense "except in exceptional circumstances...such as in the event of a major armed conflict involving Israel." Following the Gaza flare-up in May, when 4,400 rockets were fired at Israel, Israel requested--and President Biden agreed to--an additional $1 billion for Iron Dome beyond what is in the MOU.

In July, the House passed the 2022 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs funding bill, which included $3.3 billion in aid for Israel. AIPAC and J Street supported the bill. Every Republican voted "no." The only "yes" votes were cast by Democrats, and the bill passed 217 to 212. Republicans also opposed the bill during the appropriations process in each chamber.

Last week, Democrats added the $1 billion for Iron Dome to the continuing resolution necessary to keep the government open to get the Iron Dome supplemental funding passed as quickly as possible. Then a handful of Democrats threatened to vote against the resolution if additional funding for Iron Dome was included. Not one Republican was willing to join the vast majority of Democrats in supporting the resolution, so Democrats had no choice but to remove the Iron Dome funding to guarantee passage of the resolution and keep the U.S. from defaulting on its debts. The final resolution did not include Iron Dome because every Republican and a handful of Democrats would have voted against it and it would not have passed.

But our Republican friends then cried crocodile tears about Democrats not including additional funding for Iron Dome even though Republicans made clear that they would oppose the continuing resolution necessary to keep the government running (and they did) with or without the Iron Dome funding, knowing full well that one way or another, Democrats would fund Iron Dome, and conveniently forgetting that in July, they voted unanimously against $3.3 billion in aid for Israel.

The mid-week headlines were terrible, but two days later, House Democrats delivered on President Biden's pledge to replenish Iron Dome at the full amount requested by Israel.

In his must-read article on this controversy, Alon Pinkus writes that "It is very convenient, and equally lazy and unserious, to quote Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as proof of progressives’ anti-Israel tendencies. The progressive caucus also includes, on some issues and among others, Jerry Nadler, Jamie Raskin, David Cicilline, Brad Sherman, Alan Lowenthal and Jan Schakowsky. They all have impeccable pro-Israel bona fides that need no kashrut certification from anyone in Israel."

As noted above, roughly 90% of the Progressive Caucus voted for the Iron Dome bill and 96% of Democrats overall voted for Iron Dome--and every Republican voted against $3.3 billion in aid for Israel in July. Focusing on 4% of the Democratic caucus makes no sense unless your goal is to obscure rather than illuminate the differences between the parties.

Does this process make you angry? It should. Democratic majorities are so small that as long as every Republican refuses to cross party lines, all it takes is one Democrat in the Senate, or three or four Democrats in the House, to threaten to vote with the Republicans to derail anything. That's what happened on Tuesday with Iron Dome, which is why Democratic leadership had to break the bill into two parts and vote on each separately, and we've seen it repeatedly with threats by small numbers of so-called centrist Democrats to block parts of Biden's economic agenda.

The answer is to increase the Democratic majority in the House and Senate, which will reduce the influence of any particular member or group of members. Until then, when you see absurd headlines claiming Democrats have abandoned Israel, look beyond the headlines (that's why I'm here!) for the truth. None of this is to justify the actions of a handful of Democrats on Iron Dome, just as none of this is to justify what another handful of Democrats are attempting to do to Biden's economic agenda. The difference is that on Israel, the outliers have no impact on policy.

Last week's newsletter.

Mandatory Reading. This article is so important that I'm tempted to hard-code this and include it every week: Our constitutional crisis is already here. Nothing is more important.

ICYMI. Placing additional end-use restrictions on aid to Israel won't bring two states.

Tweet of the Week. Brett Meiselas.

Twitter Thread of the Week. Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI).

Video Clip of the Week. Norm Macdonald on Germany.

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.