|
January 18, 2026
Key Developments and What We're Discussing Today:
- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) proposed dramatically expediting Netanyahu's proposed phase-out of all U.S. financial assistance to Israel, with no exception for Iron Dome or other defensive systems. Remember when Republicans went crazy when Biden paused delivery of one set of weapons that Israel did not urgently need? Times have changed, I guess.
- The U.S.-Israel relationship is changing, which means we will have to redefine what it means to be "pro-Israel." Putting aside the hypocrisy of Graham's proposal and those who are silent about it, the U.S-Israel relationship might be more sustainable if we treat Israel as we have traditionally treated other important allies.
- Republican antisemitism is rampant at the highest levels of the GOP and among major right-wing media influencers. Paradoxically, that creates a political problem for Democrats. The more Democrats call it out, the more partisan Democrats appear.
- The alternative, playing the "both sides" game to avoid appearing partisan, validates a false GOP talking point. The truth is that while no party or ideology is inherently immune from antisemitism, antisemitism is far more prevalent in the Republican Party. We cannot effectively fight antisemitism without understanding where it is thriving.
- Since winning the New York City mayoral election, Zohran Mamdani has proven that he is a strong ally in the fight against antisemitism. Democrats must resist the temptation to ignore the facts and play the "we call out our side too" game at the expense of the truth.
- Adopting the flawed IHRA definition often allows its proponents to check off a box and claim to have done something meaningful to fight antisemitism when all they've done is muddy the waters. The successful efforts of New Jersey Democrats to prevent adoption of the IHRA definition and Mamdani's revocation of NYC's adoption of IHRA are positive developments. Congress must now take meaningful action by enacting the Antisemitism Response and Prevention Act (ARPA).
- Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) endorsed Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss to succeed her. Biss is the grandson of Holocaust survivors who moved to Israel in 1948, settling in Herzliya to rebuild their lives anew after their parents and many of their other relatives perished. Much of his extended family lives in Israel today. He is by far the best candidate in the crowded IL-9 primary. If you know anyone who lives in that district, urge them to vote for Biss.
If you can and if you want to, support my work by chipping in via credit card or PayPal, Venmo @Steven-Sheffey, or check. Thank you.
Greetings!
Thank you to everyone who responded favorably to last week's newsletter. It's nice to know that this stuff is not going into the ether. Your support means a lot to me.
Guess who wants to phase out aid to Israel. Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suggested that Israel should phase out financial assistance from the U.S. over ten years. Nimrod Novik speculated that Netanyahu knows that Trump and Republicans will cut aid to Israel once the memorandum of understanding reached during the waning days of President Obama's term expires in 2027, so Netanyahu wanted to make it seem like it was his idea.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) almost immediately had a hold-my-beer moment and proposed to "dramatically expedite the timetable" for phasing out all aid to Israel.
The usual suspects who waxed apoplectic when Biden temporarily paused one arms shipment to Israel that Israel did not urgently need, the same people who claimed Democrats undermined Israel's security because they wanted to temporarily limit or halt offensive arms sales to Israel during the nadir of the Gaza War, had nothing to say about Graham wanting to cut all aid to Israel permanantly, much faster than Israel's prime minister proposed, for both offensive and defensive weapons. Ilan Goldenberg has more on this major earthquake in the U.S.-Israel security relationship.
Netanyahu is right to worry that American aid to Israel is in jeopardy. Views toward Israel in both parties are changing. Some of that could be driven by antisemitism. Some of that could be driven by isolationism. Some of that is driven by a generational rift on Israel and antisemitism.
Within the Democratic Party, some of that is driven by the current Israeli government's policies. It is hard to justify giving a blank check to Israel's current government, given its policies in Gaza and in the West Bank. Israel absolutely has serious and legitimate security needs. That's the point: Many of its actions in Gaza and in the West Bank are not in furtherance of those needs and are in contravention of U.S. interests and potentially U.S. law.
Calls to condition or limit aid based on the conduct of Israel's current government, or any U.S. aid recipient, are not unreasonable. Arguing that only Israel should be exempt from scrutiny is a double standard that many Americans will not accept.
My guess is that you, like me, instinctively recoil from any limitations on aid to Israel. We cannot help but be nervous for Israel's security, even though we know it is a regional economic and military superpower and not the plucky underdog we grew up knowing.
We are uncomfortable with criticism that could lead to aid cuts because we identify with Israel and its people. We have friends there. We have relatives there. We know them. We love them. Israel is a beautiful country that contains historic and religious sites that we have venerated for centuries. We identify with Israel, so we take criticism of Israel as criticism of us and our identity. Being human, we seek to deflect or rationalize that criticism rather than admit its validity when such criticism is justified.
That's why our social media was filled with posts about Sudan from people who never cared a lick about Sudan questioning protests against starvation in Gaza when there was more starvation in Sudan. Good question. A better question is why they did not care about Sudan until October 7 and have forgotten about Sudan now that it no longer serves as a distraction from Israel's conduct in Gaza. The second question answers the first.
Same now with Iran. Some who profess to care about Israel are wondering why anti-Israel protesters who said they cared about Gazans are not out in the streets protesting Iran's crackdown on Iranian demonstrators. Well, why isn't the used-to-care-about-Sudan crowd in the streets backing the Iranian demonstrators? After all, they attended pro-Israel rallies, didn't they? I don't know which is worse: The naked hypocrisy or that they view disasters in Sudan and Iran as nothing more than instruments for advancing their own agenda. And they wonder why we don't have more allies.
All of that might be understandable. But politically, none of that is going to sell, nor should it. And we certainly cannot blame those Jewish Americans who confront the reality that we would rather not admit exists, to ourselves or to others.
If we want to close our eyes, we can. But we in the pro-Israel community cannot tell Democrats to close their eyes, click their heels three times, and imagine that the Israel of today is the Israel of the 60s or even the 90s. Instead, we need to pull whatever levers we have to change Israel's current government--the root cause of the problem--and we need to redefine what it means for a member of Congress to be "pro-Israel."
Most likely, that redefinition will include not blind support for Israel's policies, but that a commitment to Israel's safety and security must be evident in whatever conditions or restrictions we put on aid to Israel.
In recent weeks, I've asked you to read op-eds on this topic from Ben Rhodes, Dan Shapiro, and Andrew Miller. All support a safe and secure Israel and a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. Each persuasively argued for different approaches toward achieving that goal.
On January 8, Ilan Goldenberg compared and contrasted their three approaches and the pros and cons of each. I urge you to read his analysis, and if you haven't already, you can read the three underlying articles in the links he provides.
The policy prescriptions Goldenberg recommends might not be what you want to hear, but it's what we need to hear, and what we should advocate for if we want to maintain a strong U.S.-Israel relationship that is politically sustainable.
What about Mamdani? Republican antisemitism is rampant at the highest levels of the GOP and among major right-wing media influencers. Paradoxically, that creates a political problem for Democrats. The more Democrats call it out, the more partisan Democrats appear.
People love the appearance of even-handedness and non-partisanship because it creates the illusion of objectivity and fairness. The truth is that Democrats have no equivalent to Donald Trump or JD Vance. They have not nominated or seriously considered antisemites or white nationalists for the presidency, vice presidency, or statewide office.
I suppose we could call out Democrats in less important offices and draw false equivalencies to prove that we "call out our own." Or we could accept false claims against Democrats at face value and join the chorus.
The better approach is to be honest. We should call out our own side when justified. But if there is nothing to call out at the same level we are calling out the other side, we should not make stuff up to prop up our "both sides" bona fides.
No ideology or party is immune from antisemitism, but antisemitism is a far greater problem in the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. Pretending that this is a "both sides" problem might win us points in some circles, but it is not true.
The "both parties have an antisemitism problem" argument is a Republican talking point. Think about it. If both parties have a problem, then it cancels out, and it doesn't make sense to vote for one party over the other based on concerns about antisemitism. That's why we must resist the urge to genuflect before the idol of false equivalency and point to the fact that antisemitism is far more pervasive in the Republican Party, especially in its leadership, and vote accordingly.
Cue Zohran Mamdani. He's a mayor, not a president, vice president, governor, or senator, but he's a big city mayor. You can almost feel the relief in some circles: We can call someone out on our side! See, we're not partisan! Republicans love it. Don't fall into that trap.
Instead, look at what he says and does as mayor. The ADL is not the only one that can track Mamdani. I can too. Anyone can:
The day after he was elected, Mamdani condemned an attack on a Jewish day school in Brooklyn as "a disgusting and heartbreaking act of antisemitism."
Before taking office, on December 14, Mamdani condemned the attack at a Hanukkah celebration in Sydney as "a vile act of antisemitic terror." Did your mayor say anything about this attack that occurred in a foreign country?
On his first day in office, Mamdani revoked all executive orders issued by Mayor Adams after September 26, 2024, the day Adams was indicted on federal bribery and fraud charges.
His revocation of the order adopting the IHRA definition is good news. That's a point in Mamdani's favor. More cities and states should follow suit.
It is unclear what impact, if any, the revocation of the executive order issued a month before Mamdani took office on boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel will have or what practical impact the order had when it was issued: NYC law already prohibits denial of contracts based on creed, national origin, or citizenship status. The comptroller, not the mayor, makes investment decisions.
On his first day in office, Mamdani issued a new executive order that continues the Mayor's Office to Combat Antisemitism (section 13) and directs the Police Commissioner and the Law Department to "provide clear guidance for protection of both houses of worship and persons exercising their rights to free assembly and free speech near houses of worship" (section 19).
(Mamdani retained Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch; contrary to false reports, Mamdani did not demote her.)
Following a pro-Hamas demonstration outside a Queens synagogue the night of January 8, Mamdani said the next day that "chants in support of a terrorist organization have no place in our city."
On January 11, Mamdani spoke out against the synagogue arson in Mississippi. Did your mayor say anything about this antisemitic attack in another city? Did your president?
On January 12, Mamdani reiterated this commitment to fighting antisemitism and that there is no place for supporting a terrorist organization.
And yes, the mezuzah is still on Gracie Mansion.
That's the first two weeks. Could he have issued some responses faster? Maybe, but no matter how quickly he responds, his critics will say it should have been faster, even if Mamdani's choosing to work with Jewish leaders on his responses (which is a good thing, isn't it?) is slowing them down. But he could sing "Hatikvah" in flawless Hebrew and critics would fault him for singing off-key.
Emily Tamkin recommends a better approach to thinking about Mamdani. We should give it a try.
In Case You Missed It:
- Good news from Gershon Baskin for those who think Israel cannot make peace with the Palestinians or with Islam: It's fake news.
- New Jersey Democrats made the right call in derailing legislation that would codify the IHRA definition of antisemitism into law.
- The obsession some organizations have over codifying the IHRA definition makes Ahab's pursuit of Moby-Dick seem like a casual weekend hobby. Let's focus instead on passing legislation that will make a difference. Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Becca Balint (D-VT), and Maxwell Frost (D-FL) introduced H.R. 6806, the Antisemitism Response and Prevention Act (ARPA). Nexus Project President and National Director Jonathan Jacoby said, "At a moment when some are exploiting Jewish fears to advance partisan agendas, [ARPA shows] that Congress can take antisemitism seriously while defending the democratic values that have historically kept Jewish Americans safe." Please urge your member of Congress to support this legislation.
-
Condemning hate from all sides means condemning hate from all sides. Shaul Magid asks why so little attention was paid to the "hateful and racist rhetoric of the pro-Israel counter-protestors" at the Queens synagogue on January 8.
- JDCA Halie Soifer describes the Nazi slogans and white nationalist anthems emanating from the Trump White House. Trump is not some 19-year-old college student chanting "globalize the intifada." He is the President of the United States. We cannot let Republicans, not even Jewish Republicans (yes, they still exist) "both sides" this away.
Tweet of the Week. Keith Olbermann.
Video Clips of the Week. Jerome Powell and on the lighter side, Bob Weir.
Vintage Music Clip of the Week. Jerry Garcia and Bob Weir.
The Fine Print. I read every reply to this newsletter. I reply as often as I can. All I ask is that you read the Fine Print before you reply or send me anything.
For those new to this newsletter. This is the newsletter even Republicans have to read and the original home of the viral and beloved Top Ten Signs You're At a Republican Seder (yes, I wrote it). If someone forwarded this newsletter to you, why not subscribe and get it in your inbox every Sunday? Just click here--it's free.
Be sure to read my posts on distinguishing anti-Zionism from antisemitism, how to heal the generational rift on Israel and antisemitism, and the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
I hope you enjoyed today's newsletter. It takes time to write and costs money to send. If you'd like to support my work, click here and fill in the amount of your choice. You don't need a PayPal account. If you see something that says "Save your info and create a PayPal account," click the button to the right and it will go away. Or you can Venmo @Steven-Sheffey. Or you can send a check.
Unless stated otherwise, my views do not necessarily reflect the views of any candidates or organizations I support or am associated with.
| 