You're welcome to read for free, but if you want to chip in to defray the cost of the newsletter, click here and fill 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,

Last week, I wrote about the danger of conflating antisemitism with criticism of Israel, even unfair, inaccurate, or offensive criticism of Israel. Denying the Jewish people's right, alone among all peoples, to the right of self-determination is antisemitic, as is blaming or attacking Jews throughout the world--because they are Jews--for the policies of Israel's government.

Conversely, a person who supports the policies of Israel's current government can be antisemitic. We sometimes think that anyone who loves Israel must love Jews, but many--especially in the Republican Party, where right-wing antisemitism flourishes--support Israel because their Evangelical base (not all Evangelicals) believes that modern-day Israel is the first step toward "the return of Jesus Christ and the beginning of the Rapture — the end times."

We'll find out soon enough if they are right, but the lesson for now is that GOP support for Israel is not necessarily dependent on affection toward Jews, which explains why the GOP twice nominated Donald Trump despite his long, well-documented history of antisemitism. Just as we should not assume criticism of Israel is necessarily antisemitic, we should not give anyone a pass on antisemitism because they support any particular government or policy of Israel.

If you're confused about drawing the line between antisemitism and anti-Zionism, read Jonathan Jacoby and Hadar Susskind. T'ruah and Nexus can help you draw the line between antisemitism and criticism of Israel generally.

Another definition, the IHRA definition, is almost meaningless unless interpreted with the aid of other definitions. The IHRA defines antisemitism as "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." Clear as mud. The IHRA definition is followed by some examples that conflate, rather than differentiate, antisemitism from criticism of Israel.

Neve Gordon and Mark Levine point out that under the IHRA definition, Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, and Yeshayahu Leibowitz could be considered antisemitic. Nevertheless, for the reasons they outline, this definition appeals to Jewish institutions with certain agendas. Victims of antisemitism object to the IHRA definition because it is vague and inadequate.

Have we learned nothing from history about Iran? Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-CA) wrote last week that "the historical record is clear: at best, there are serious limits to what sanctions and tough rhetoric alone can achieve. In this case, all that the Trump administration’s strategy accomplished was to shred America’s reputation as a country that stuck to its word. Worse, they pushed Iran closer to a nuclear weapon than it had ever been before. Even the former chief of Israeli intelligence, Efraim Halevy, called Trump’s approach to Iran a 'grave mistake' and 'dismal failure'.”

The question is whether domestic political considerations will scuttle re-entry into the JCPOA, which remains the best option to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. If the administration chooses to fight this battle, it will win.

Have we learned nothing from history about GOP attacks on Biden appointees? On January 17, 2021, I wrote that a "certain amount of hypocrisy is par for the course in politics, but watching people who were silent when Trump appointed white nationalist Stephen Miller, neo-Nazi sympathizer Sebastian Gorka, and Steve Bannon to key positions complain about Biden's nominees is chutzpadik par excellence.

"Unlike Trump, who regularly engaged in racist and antisemitic rhetoric prior to becoming president, Biden has a record of opposition to antisemitism and support for Israel five decades long. While Biden's nominees should be judged on their merits, we should remember that they are charged with implementing Biden's policies, not the other way around."

I was writing then about Samantha Power and Kristen Clarke. Last week, Republicans set their sights on incoming Biden press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, because everyone knows that the press secretary sets policy for the administration--how naive do you have to be to think that the press secretary represents the administration's position to the press?

In 2019, she did urge Democrats to boycott the AIPAC Policy Conference because "AIPAC has often been the antithesis of what it means to be progressive." Put aside the absurdity of conflating support for AIPAC with support for Israel. Put aside the absurdity of thinking that the press secretary sets policy. AIPAC has endorsed 109 insurrectionists in this cycle, including four of the five members of Congress subpoenaed by the January 6 Committee last week. Maybe criticism of AIPAC is not quite the disqualifier it might once have been.

Remember when Trump said that Covid would go away? He said it at least 38 times, as early as February 2020. Did you imagine that we'd surpass one million Covid deaths in the U.S.? Politico explains that at least 250,000 of those deaths can be attributed to "a deliberate [misinformation] effort by members of the House Freedom Caucus, in the House, some U.S. senators, amplified nightly on Fox News." The Republican Party has a long history of ignoring science. How many more Americans must pay for the GOP's ignorance with their lives?

Who killed Al-Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh? Here's a novel idea: Why don't we wait until we get the facts before jumping to conclusions? As Rob Eshman explains, the only thing Israel and the Palestinians agree on is that she was shot and killed in Jenin on May 11.

Eshman writes that "Israel’s critics have already decided Israeli soldiers shot the much-loved Palestinian-American journalist while carrying out a May 11 raid in the West Bank city. Israel’s defenders have decided that Palestinian gunmen killed Abu Akleh while firing on Israelis. I’m part of a third constituency: I’d like to know the truth. And America’s Jewish leaders and mainstream organizations need to make finding out the facts behind Abu Akleh’s death a priority as well." David Schraub explains why the Palestinian Authority has little incentive to cooperate with Israel in the investigation.

Israeli security forces beat Abu Akleh's funeral procession. Horrific images are not assignations of blame--the videos do not show what happened before--but here too, we need to know the truth. The Israeli police issued a statement that puts the video in an entirely different light. Let's get the facts and weigh the evidence--we don't have to draw any conclusions today.

No one can disagree with Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) that "journalism is not a crime & neither is attending a funeral. Shireen Abu Akleh was an American citizen performing important work of transparency in a conflict. The Israeli government is responsible for ensuring there is real accountability for her death."

Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL) joined the Administration in condemning Abu Akleh’s killing and called "for a full and complete investigation of her death," adding that "Israel must investigate the events surrounding the funeral, including the actions of its police officers, and take corrective action to prevent such situations in the future."

Noa Tishby again proved that she is the master of modeling how not to advocate for Israel, attempting to defend Israel by crying antisemitism and double standards. If Israel is held to a double standard in these situations, it is because, as Israel Policy Forum stated, "we hold Israel to the higher standard that befits a democratic state that respects freedom of conscience."

No occupation is benign. To the extent Israel is to blame for either the killing of Abu Akleh or the violence at her funeral, it will be because of Israel's policies, from which it logically follows that the answer is better policies, not better hasbara.

Absent a two-state solution, we can expect more of the same and waning support for Israel in the U.S., not because Americans are changing, but because over time, Israel seems increasingly unwilling to abandon its efforts to permanently retain the West Bank, jeopardizing Israel's future as a Jewish and/or democratic state.

A two-state solution would not only ensure Israel's future as a Jewish, democratic state, but would pull the carpet from underneath the feet of the BDS Movement by clarifying which supporters of BDS supported the elimination of Israel (even after the Palestinian's relinquished their remaining claims, a necessary component of any two-state solution) and which supporters of BDS did so as a means not of eliminating Israel, but of ending the occupation. Neither side has leadership ready to move forward on a two-state solution, but as Theodor Herzl said, "if you will it, it is no dream." Those of us who love Israel and value the U.S.-Israel relationship must speak out.

Teen essay contest: I serve on the Advisory Committee of Heart of a Nation, which is inviting American, Israeli, and Palestinian teenagers, 13-19 years old, to submit short (not more than 450 words) essays, poems or songs in English, Hebrew or Arabic on the topic: What would you most like to improve about your own society and how would you do it? Authors of winning essays will receive $500. The deadline has been extended to September 1. Details here.

Need help with your essay? On May 22, at 1:00 pm ET & 8 pm Jerusalem time, Heart of a Nation will be hosting a Zoom meeting with three world-class journalists, including Trudy Palmer from the Christian Science Monitor, for teens interested in our Teen Essay Competition. Sign up here.

Last week's newsletter.

ICYMI. The future is our past unless we act now, by Barbara Goldberg Goldman.

Tweet of the Week. Jewish Democratic Council of America.

Twitter Thread of the Week. Orson Welles on...everyone.

Video Clip of the Week. Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL) honors Orli Sheffey's memory with a powerful and moving floor speech on mental health awareness.

Paid Advertisement. What evidence-based policy looks like: humorous 2-minute video.

On Monday, May 16, from 7:00 pm to 8:00 pm CT on Zoom, join hosts Lynn & Skip Schrayer, along with me, Dana Gordon, Politics with Dana and Steve, Marc Berman, Suzanne Muchin & David T. Brown, Carol & David Golder, Deborah Schrayer Karmin & Jon Karmin, Michael Levinson, Linda Schottenstein Fisher, Barbara Schrayer, Perry & Kim Shwachman, Mike & Eileen Tarnoff, Hilary Wolfe, Barb & Michael Zaransky, and many others for a discussion on the impact of the Jewish vote in 2022 and protecting our democracy with special guests Rep. Shontel Brown (D-OH), Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL), and JDCA CEO Halie Soifer. Contributions to JDCA are encouraged but not required. RSVP to [email protected] to reserve your space and get the Zoom link.

On Sunday, May 22, at 10:30 am at the Hilton in Northbrook, please attend Rep. Brad Schneider's biennial Women for Brad Event. Timna and I have co-hosted this event since its inception. This year, Congresswoman Shontel Brown (OH-11) and Congresswoman Kathy Manning (NC-6) will be our featured special guests, along with Nikki Budzinski, candidate for IL-13. RSVP here.

This is the newsletter even Republicans have to read. And it's the original source of the viral Top Ten Signs You Might be at a Republican Seder.

So if someone forwarded this 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. I might be wrong: 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 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. I'm happy to read anything, but please don't expect me to watch videos of any length--send me a transcript if the content is that important. 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. Dedicated to Ariel Sheffey, Ayelet Sheffey, and Orli Sheffey z''l. ©2022 Steve Sheffey. All rights reserved.