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 overwhelming majority of House Democrats supported including $1 billion in supplemental funding for Iron Dome in the continuing resolution to fund the government on September 21 as well as the $1 billion that passed in the stand-alone bill two days later, and they were right.

From the time House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) announced that the continuing resolution would include the $1 billion until the House passed the Iron Dome funding in a stand-alone bill on September 23, a grand total of two days elapsed. But even though this funding came at President Biden's request, and even though Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Bob Menendez (D-NJ) support it, the Senate has yet to vote on it because Republican Rand Paul (KY) is blocking it.

Paul has been criticized for his stance, but with nothing close to the vitriol reserved for the handful of House Democrats who opposed, but did not block, the funding in the House. Will Israeli civilians will feel more secure knowing that Iron Dome was not replenished because the Republican blocking it didn't send mean tweets about Israel?

The double standards, hypocrisy, and yes, racism and sexism, from members of our community and some of the organizations that purport to speak for us cannot be ignored. Either opposing aid to Israel is anti-Israel (or worse) or it isn't. Jewish Democratic Council of America CEO Halie Soifer is right: Democrats are labeled as anti-Israel when they oppose funding for Israel, but when Republicans do – “and this isn’t the first time that Rand Paul has single-handedly blocked aid to Israel – some Jewish organizations make excuses for their intransigence.

“This simply proves that feigned Republican outrage last week over the Iron Dome vote was yet another example of their clear pattern of the GOP playing politics with Israel’s security, which imperils bipartisan support of Israel."

When the issue was in the House, the claim was that opposition to Iron Dome was antisemitic because Iron Dome protects Jewish lives, regardless of the stated reasons for opposition, including the argument the money could be better spent at home (similar to Paul's argument that it needs to be paid for by cuts in other areas--economically illiterate, but not antisemitic).

Whether one agrees or not that voting against Iron Dome in the House was per se antisemitic (I don't), some argued that it was, and regardless of the reasons any given member provided for voting against funding or voting present, they were all lumped together.

But those who argued that opposition to the supplemental funding for Iron Dome in the House was antisemitic are not making that argument against Rand Paul. Why are we more worried about a few House members, whose opposition to the supplemental funding did not stop Iron Dome from passing the House overwhelmingly--with the support of 96% of all Democrats and 90% of the progressive caucus--than we are about Rand Paul, whose opposition to Iron Dome funding has yet to be overcome in the Senate and who killed anti-BDS legislation (the Israel Anti-Boycott Act) in 2018?

It's not too hard for most of us to understand that Rand Paul is an outlier in the GOP, at least on aid to Israel. He's only 2% of the Senate Republican caucus. Why is it so hard for some of us to understand that the handful of Democrats who opposed supplemental funding for Iron Dome are outliers in the Democratic Party, at least on aid to Israel? They are only 4% of the House Democratic caucus.

Rand Paul has far more power in the Senate than any combination of low-seniority House Democrats, and unlike them, Rand Paul has blocked legislation that many in the pro-Israel community supported. But no one calls him names. The House would be the same on Israel with or without those who opposed the supplemental funding. The Senate would be a different and better place on Israel without Rand Paul. Our community needs to get its priorities straight.

I'd be concerned about a handful of out-of-step Democrats if votes in Congress were weighted based on Twitter followers or media hits. But they're not, and we have to stop pretending that they are. You are what you vote for, and by that standard, the Democratic Party is overwhelmingly pro-Israel.

As for the GOP, for those keeping score at home, 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. Not one House Republican was willing to vote for the continuing resolution in September that included $1 billion for Iron Dome--if only four Republicans had crossed over, it would have passed. Are you okay with that?

Let's judge the parties not on their outliers on any given issue but on their votes, all of their votes, not on who talks the loudest or introduces legislation with a few cosponsors that we don’t like. No matter what standard you use to judge Democrats, hold Republicans to the same standards because, to paraphrase one of Joe Biden’s favorite sayings, the choice is not between Democrats and the Lord Almighty, but between Democrats and Republicans, and that choice is clear--if you know the facts.

We must condemn settler terrorism. Some of our friends think advocating for Israel means asking the world to close its eyes and pretend that today's Israel can do no wrong. If we want people to believe us when we are telling the truth, such as the reality of the terrorism Israel faces from Hamas and Hezbollah and the need for Iron Dome, we cannot deny the terrorism perpetrated by some settlers in the West Bank. If we want to prepare our high school kids to talk about Israel in college, they need to hear about this from us, not for the first time from enemies of Israel on campus.

Michael Koplow writes that "it is vital for Israeli Jews and American Jews to condemn it, to name it as terrorism—which is precisely what it is when masked men put people in the hospital and destroy property to send a political message—and not to make excuses, qualifications, or indulge in the often-inevitable 'but the other side is worse...' You have to be on the margins to view Israel defending itself from rockets aimed at its cities as reprehensible, but you also have to be on the margins to view Israelis’ attacks on Palestinians as aberrant or unworthy of condemnation. And the more they go on, the more they will become the abiding image for many of what Israel is."

The alternative is to let others call it out, on their terms and with their solutions. Which approach do you think is better?

When rabbis bless Congress. When Rabbis Bless Congress, the new book by C-SPAN Communications Director Howard Mortman, does for rabbis delivering prayers in Congress what Bill James did for baseball. It is loaded with statistics you never thought you needed until you read them: The 613th Jewish prayer in Congress was delivered by a woman rabbi, nearly one-third of the 441 rabbis from over 400 synagogues who opened Congress have been New Yorkers, six rabbis who survived Auschwitz have opened Congress, 10% of the rabbis cite Isaiah, three rabbis didn’t mention God…the stats and facts go on and on, along with important and amusing anecdotes. If you want to impress your friends at kiddush or win some bets after Shabbat, this is the book for you. Read my review.

Last week's newsletter.

Tweet of the Week. Senate Judiciary Committee.

Video Clip of the Week. Jon Stewart on religion.

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.