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,

I hope you had a good Thanksgiving. Among many other things, I'm grateful that whether we agree or disagree, you read this newsletter. Have you ever wondered why cars come with spare tires but boxes of Hanukkah candles come without extra candles, as if no one ever broke a candle trying to stick it in the Hanukkiah?

The real mystery is why Republicans don't promise that extra candle when they pander to Jewish voters. If Judah Maccabee was a Republican he would have called the miracle a hoax, blamed the oil shortage on a supply chain crisis, and claimed bone spurs to avoid fighting (but it's unlikely he was a Republican since 75% of Jews vote Democratic).

Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, Happy Hanukkah Hannukah Chanukah Festival of Lights, which starts tonight. Chag Urim Sameach!

Three years later, Israelis are finally learning the truth about Trump. Trump made no progress toward the two-state solution that Israel needs to remain Jewish and democratic, and his "maximum pressure" on Iran resulted in maximum failure. Even though the Iran Deal achieved its goal of taking the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran off the table, 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. His record at the UN was a record of abdication and defeat.

The facts are irrefutable, but the question remains: Why was Trump popular in Israel? Part of the reason was that Israeli Jews did not know as much about Trump as American Jews (how much do you know about foreign leaders?). But part of the reason was that Netanyahu's government dishonestly praised Trump for political gain. Netanyahu's former Mossad chief, defense minister, and IDF commander are finally speaking out publicly against Trump's departure from the Iran deal, calling Trump’s decision to withdraw from it – with Netanyahu’s encouragement – “the main mistake of the last decade” in Iran policy. Better late than never.

Do supporters of state anti-BDS legislation carry political malpractice insurance? Maybe they should. Laws passed by individual states imposing penalties on people or companies who support or engage in the Boycott, Sanctions, and Divestment (BDS) movement against Israel, none of which have yet survived judicial scrutiny, are unnecessary and counterproductive.

These laws are unnecessary because the BDS movement is failing spectacularly. Anti-BDS laws give the BDS movement the publicity it craves and could never earn on its own. The controversy these laws engender creates the impression that the pro-Israel community opposes free speech in the name of opposing BDS. The truth is that one can oppose BDS (as I do) and support free speech (as I do). The problem is that a small but vocal segment of our community does not realize that.

The enforcement of some state laws against Unilever (the parent company of Ben & Jerry's) has accomplished nothing other than obscuring the fact that the West Bank is not part of Israel. Ben & Jerry's has not changed its decision to sell ice cream in Israel but not the occupied territories.

Alan Leveritt writes that these laws are already laying the groundwork for further attempts to restrict speech and that "states are trading their citizens’ First Amendment rights for what looks like unconditional support for a foreign government." At a time when the leader of the Republican Party is claiming that Israel "literally owned Congress," a claim the ADL's Jonathan Greenblatt said "is despicable and reeks of antisemitism," the optics Leveritt describes are not what we need.

Those who claim that Trump's antisemitic statements are meant in good fun or friendship should ask themselves how Jews fared in the past when government leaders spewed antisemitic rhetoric. Maybe Trump sees his antisemitic rhetoric as praise for Jews, but as Yair Rosenberg explains, "at best, expression of such stereotypes by the most powerful man in the world affirms and reinforces the beliefs of bigots who see those anti-Semitic ideas as reasons to hate Jews. At worst, given the right impetus, the coin of philo-Semitic anti-Semitism can easily be flipped, and all those formerly positive stereotypes can be weaponized against Jews."

No one should make excuses for Trump's antisemitic rhetoric, and anyone who does not find his antisemitic rhetoric--and the GOP's refusal to condemn his antisemitic rhetoric--disqualifying should ask themselves how they can credibly and without hypocrisy condemn antisemitism from anyone else. As Carly Pildes wrote, Trump "views us as petty, greedy, and deeply transactional — willing to trade support for Israel for the lives of our neighbors. His is an anti-Semite's view of Jewish values and politics."

Reopening the U.S Consulate in Jerusalem is a good idea. Nimrod Novik notes that the Consulate was established in 1844 and operated without interruption for 175 years until someone chose to ignore long-established U.S. policy and close it, and now, two years later, someone else wishes to make things right.

Michael Koplow explains that "opposing the division of Jerusalem is a strong talking point, but it is nothing more than that—a talking point. In all manner of ways, Jerusalem is very much divided, so the question is not whether Jerusalem should be divided, but what the appropriate scope of that division should be...to suggest that reopening a facility in a spot that is unambiguously and uncontroversially part of Israel and that the Palestinians themselves have no designs on would divide the city is a strange claim...If anything, it only strengthens the American recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and were the Israeli government inclined to be savvy about this, they would spin it as a win."

Trump said in his statement on Jerusalem that "we are not taking a position of any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved."

Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, but he left to the parties involved the question of what the boundaries are, which means that a future Palestinian state could include what some now consider "Jerusalem" as its capital. Re-opening the U.S. consulate will not change that. As Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Matan Vilnai, Chair of Commanders for Israel's Security wrote, "it was not the existence of the consulate that divided Jerusalem; its closure did not unite the city; nor will its renewal affect in any way the freedom of sovereign decisions of this or future governments regarding the fate of the city."

Republicans continue to block Iron Dome. If you were upset that 4% of House Democrats opposed funding President Biden's commitment to replenish Israel's Iron Dome batteries on September 23, you should be outraged that 100% of House Republicans refused to cross party lines to fund Iron Dome on September 21 and that 66 days after the House approved full funding, the entire Republican Senate apparatus refuses to lift a finger to end Sen. Rand Paul's (R-KY) blockade of funding for Iron Dome.

Eight Democrats voted against Iron Dome funding and delayed it for two whole days. “That same level of outrage has not been directed toward this one senator: Rand Paul,” said Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America. “Rand Paul’s hold is far more consequential than those eight no votes put together.”

If Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) wanted to, he'd find a way to force Paul to move. In 2014, when another Senate Republican was blocking Iron Dome funding, Senate Republicans successfully pressured him to lift his hold. One word from Donald Trump and Paul would give in. But the GOP doesn't care. It never did, and it's time to stop pretending otherwise.

Seventy-six House Democrats and eight Republicans, anticipating that Republicans will continue to block Iron Dome in the Senate, sent a letter to President Biden urging him to include Iron Dome funding in any year-end requests.

Roughly 96% of all Democrats, 90% of the 95-member Progressive Caucus, and 90% of the Black Caucus voted for Iron Dome on September 23. 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.

Iron Dome funding would have passed on September 21 as part of the continuing resolution if 100% of Republicans had not opposed a continuing resolution to keep the government open that would have included funding for Iron Dome. It would have passed if only four Republicans had crossed party lines for Iron Dome. But if Republicans had supported a continuing resolution on September 21 that included Iron Dome, they would have also have had to support keeping the government open and allowing the U.S. to pay debts already incurred. In other words, they didn't do the right thing because that would have forced them to do the right thing--not much of an excuse.

Woe to any Democrat who voted against Iron Dome due to concerns about process, but Republicans opposing Iron Dome because they don't want to keep the government open or they think the only place to get the money is by cutting funds for Afghanistan? Our Republican friends are cool with that.

CNN fact-checked House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy's false claim about Democrats and Iron Dome; the fact check contains a good summary of how Democrats passed funding for Iron Dome in September. A handful of Democrats and the entire Republican caucus was wrong to oppose including Iron Dome funding in the original House continuing resolution, and Senate Republicans are wrong for refusing to lift a finger to get Iron Dome through the Senate. Why is that so hard for some people to say? If we want unity, this would be a good place to start.

Republicans continue to block the nomination of Dr. Deborah Lipstadt. Read Dr. Lipstadt's expert report on antisemitism at the Charlottesville demonstration (the rally where white supremacists carrying torches and chanting "Jews will not replace us" were deemed "very fine people" by Donald Trump).

Her report is an excellent primer on antisemitism generally and the antisemitism on display in Charlottesville specifically, and her report helped Integrity First for America win a $25.3 million verdict against 24 far-right individuals and organizations last week. It could also be Exhibit A for why the Senate should confirm her nomination for Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism. Unfortunately, not one House Republican was willing to sign a letter with House Democrats urging the Senate to move on Dr. Lipstadt's nomination. As long as Senate Foreign Relations Ranking Member Jim Risch (R-ID) refuses to allow a hearing, Dr. Lipstadt will not even have a chance to make her case.

Last week's newsletter.

ICYMI. Statement in Support of the Freedom to Vote Act and Democratic Leadership Statement on Recent Islamophobic Comments by Congresswoman Lauren Boebert (background here).

Tweet of the Week. Neri Zilber.

Video Clip of the Week. Thanksgivukkah: The Movie (Official Thanksgiving - Hanukkah Trailer)

Upcoming Events. Dana Gordon and I are hosting Rep. Cindy Axne (D-IA) on Zoom at 6:45 pm on Thursday, December 9. RSVP here to get the Zoom link.

We are hosting Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL) on Zoom at 3:00 pm on Sunday, January 9. RSVP here to get the Zoom link.

For both events, contributions are encouraged but not required. You can attend either or both for free and you can contribute even if you cannot attend--those links can do it all. Axne and Casten are outstanding members of Congress who share all of our values and need and deserve our help to get re-elected.

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.