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,

In the text of his speech that was not delivered because of Likud heckling, Yair Lapid said that one of the Haredi Knesset Members sent him a message just before Shabbat which said, "The Kotzker Rebbe defined the saying, ‘Just as their faces are not the same, so their opinions are not the same’ as meaning, ‘Just as no person is angry that his friend has a different face, so no person should be angry at his friend’s different opinions.’” And then he added: “Let us hope for days of common good.” Amen.

If you liked last week's newsletter about when and whether anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel is antisemitic (short version: it depends), you'll like this article from Kenneth Stern even more. Stern was the lead author of the IHRA definition of antisemitism. He takes a scholarly approach and comes to the same conclusions I did--but with footnotes and deeper analysis. If my newsletter did not convince you that opposing Zionism can be, but is not necessarily, antisemitic, read Stern's article.

And if you're still not convinced, Ada Horwich and Karen Adler write that "while anti-Zionist views are not prima facie antisemitic, they do cross the line if they rely on antisemitic tropes or deny the right to self-determination for Jews alone."

Should we condition aid to Israel? I've got news for you: We already do. The $38 billion assistance package to Israel under the ten-year Memorandum of Understanding entered into between Israel and the U.S. at the end of the Obama-Biden administration is conditioned on phasing out funds available for offshore procurement, requiring missile defense funding to be used for "developing and procuring articles and services necessary to missile, rocket, and projectile defense systems necessary for the defense of Israel," maximizing co-production of these systems, not using the aid for the purchase of fuel or other consumables, and on Israel providing "detailed programmatic information related to the use of all U.S. funding" as well as program/acquisition plans for each weapons system procured with U.S. funds and an annual update on all cooperative defense systems.

So the answer to the question "don't we have the right to attach conditions to foreign aid?" is simple: "Yes." The question is not whether to attach conditions, but what conditions are appropriate. That's a legitimate conversation. Arguing against Americans for Peace Now for no conditions whatsoever is neither smart politics nor sound policy.

The question of conditioning aid should be considered in conjunction with the question of honoring our commitments and U.S. credibility. Trump damaged U.S. credibility and strained our alliances by threatening to cut funding to NATO. We have an MOU with Israel. Unless conditions have materially changed--and they haven't--we should honor the MOU we agreed to. The time to consider additional conditions is when the MOU expires or in conjunction with additional aid requests. We should expect those who say they are committed to Israel's safety and security but concerned about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to support President Biden's commitment to replenish Iron Dome without additional conditions, as the Iron Dome system is purely defensive and not used for purposes some may object to.

U.S. aid to Israel amounts to about 7% of the 1% of the total budget that goes toward foreign aid. It's not much for the U.S. and it's becoming less important for Israel. Danny Bahar argues that because of Israel's economic growth, "there is little leverage the U.S. has on Israel in the form of threatening a loss of economic assistance, for better or for worse," so to some extent, these discussions about conditioning aid are more about litmus tests and political theater than reality.

Our two political parties are fundamentally different. Last week, 14 Republicans voted against the Juneteenth holiday, and 21 Republicans voted against awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to the officers who defended the Capitol on January 6. One Republican refused to shake hands with Michael Fanone, the police officer who was beaten unconscious during the insurrection. Another Republican, moments after apologizing for her comments about the Holocaust, refused to apologize for comparing the Democratic Party to the Nazis. That was all just last week. They were not condemned by their Republican colleagues and the "each side should condemn its own" crowd was silent.

In January, 120 Republicans joined a baseless lawsuit to invalidate millions of votes in four states, and 120 House GOP members shared incendiary social media content leading up to the Capitol attack on January 6. After Trump's January 6 insurrection, 121 Republicans voted against certifying Biden's victory in the freest and fairest election in our history. Eleven Republican Senators, led by Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Ted Cruz (R-TX), vowed to oppose certification of the 2020 election. After the insurrection, eight Republican Senators did vote against certification. Only ten Republicans (out of 211) voted to impeach Trump for his role in inciting the insurrection. Only seven Republican Senators voted to convict him.

The leader of the GOP, Donald Trump, regularly traffics in antisemitism, as recently as last week. After Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) posted an anti-Semitic tweet about Jewish money buying the 2018 election, Republicans didn't condemn him. They elected him House Minority Leader. They elected Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), who described himself as "David Duke without the baggage," as the #2 House Republican. They elected Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), one of 23 votes against a resolution condemning antisemitism, as the #3 Republican. Cheney's vote was not a disqualifier, but calling out Trump's election lies was too much, so Cheney was replaced by Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), a loyal member of the sedition caucus.

Today's Republican Party is an authoritarian party. Party labels matter, and if we are serious about protecting democracy and fighting antisemitism, we won't ignore them or let anyone play the "both sides" game--because those who play that game, wittingly or unwittingly, are playing partisan politics of the worst kind by masking the differences our Republican friends would prefer we ignore.

On the other hand, in fairness, the Democratic Party...this is where some of you would like me to equate a few Democrats with these dozens of Republicans. I could find examples among the millions of Americans on the left side of the political spectrum, but in Congress? Some Democratic members of Congress differ from the positions of the Democratic Party and the vast majority of Democrats in Congress on policy related to Israel. None are guilty of antisemitism and none disrespect the democratic freedoms that both protect us as minorities and provide the United States with the strength it needs to defend our interests abroad.

Republicans continue to play games with Israel. Last month, House Republicans falsely claimed that Democrats opposed Iron Dome. Now Senate Republicans are playing procedural games to prohibit U.S aid to Gaza. Sen. Bob Mendendez (D-NJ) called them out, noting that Sen. Rick Scott's (R-FL) proposal was "not a serious attempt at legislating. It is a partisan talking point."

Separately, over 140 Democrats sent a letter to Sen. Jame Risch (R-ID) urging him to release humanitarian aid to Gaza that was passed in the last Congress and signed into law by Donald Trump. The money will not go to Hamas, but once again, for the GOP, the cruelty is the point.

Are you worried about how our grandchildren will repay the national debt? I've got good news: You should not be worried at all. Unlike households and state and local governments, the federal government issues its own currency. The question is not what we can afford, but what we need--the only constraint is inflation, not the extent to which tax revenues exceed expenditures. This interview is 30 minutes, but so good, and it's how every member of Congress should be talking about these issues: Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY), Chair of the House Budget Committee, and one of the most economically literate members of Congress. Watch at least the first ten minutes.

Scott Fullwiler explains that asking "how will we pay for it" is the wrong question for a sovereign that controls its currency. The right question is "how will we manage inflationary pressure."

ICYMI. Israel and young adults--some perspective.

Tweet of the Week. Isi Baehr-Breen.

Poem of the Week. Read to the end and then follow the instructions.

Video Clip of the Week. George Hahn.

Upcoming Events. Confused about what's going on in Israel? Join me and Martin Jay Raffel on Zoom at an event moderated by Jill Zipin and Dana Goldsmith Gordon, sponsored by Politics with Dana and Steve and Democratic Jewish Outreach Pennsylvania, this Wednesday, June 23, at 6:30pm CT. It's free, but RSVP is required to get the Zoom link.

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.