|
July 16, 2023
Key Takeaways:
- Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) led 14 GOP senators on a letter that could have been written to prove that we cannot trust the Republican Party to support Israel or fight antisemitism: The letter conflated the West Bank with Israel, supported policies inimical to achieving a two-state solution, and misused the IHRA definition to falsely accuse the Biden administration of antisemitism.
- In 2020, Israel signed a major research and innovation agreement with the European Union that excluded West Bank settlements, east Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. Then again, maybe Israel did not consult Ted Cruz.
- Whether Israel or the Palestinians are more to blame for the current situation does not change the reality that without a two-state solution, Israel cannot remain Jewish and democratic.
- The IDF can safeguard Israel against a small state whose creation is predicated on security arrangements acceptable to Israel. Gaza is an inapposite example because Israel's withdrawal from Gaza was unilateral. It is unreasonable to expect Israel to withdraw from the West Bank unilaterally. It is eminently reasonable to expect Israel to unilaterally stop settlement expansion because more settlers will make a two-state solution more difficult if/when leaders simultaneously emerge on both sides and in the U.S. who are serious about making peace. Biden's return to traditional U.S. policy that deems areas that came under Israeli control in 1967 as subject to final status negotiations is consistent with this philosophy.
Read to the end for corrections, what you may have missed last week, fun stuff, and an in-person event in Highland Park and on Zoom with Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), candidate for U.S. Senate, hosted by Politics with Dana and Steve.
You're welcome to read for free, but if you want to chip in to help defray the cost of the newsletter, click here to pay by credit card or PayPal. Just fill in the amount of your choice. 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. You don't need a PayPal account. Or you can Venmo @Steven-Sheffey (last four phone digits are 9479). You can send a check too.
Hi Steve,
In June, the Biden administration informed Israel that the United States will not transfer any funds to research institutes or scientific and technological projects taking place in the West Bank, reversing a policy that Trump implemented in the final weeks of his administration and returning to what until then had been long-standing U.S. policy.
The West Bank is not part of Israel. Israel has not annexed it. The Biden administration is not boycotting Israel but acknowledging the distinction between Israel and the West Bank. This return to U.S. policy (a policy the Trump administration did not reverse until its waning weeks) proves that one can support Israel–as Biden has throughout his decades in public life–and oppose settlement expansion, which pushes a two-state solution further from reach.
The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel advocates for boycotts against Israel. Nothing in the Biden administration’s announcement prevents transferring funds to research institutes within Israel. Critics of Biden’s announcement don't understand that the West Bank is not Israel, as much as they might like to see a one-state solution.
If we act as if the West Bank–which Israel has not annexed–is Israel, then we give a boost to the BDS movement and others who argue that the undeniable disparity in legal rights between Jews and Palestinians in the West Bank means Israel is not a democracy. If West Bank Palestinians cannot vote in Knesset elections (they can’t), it means Israel is not a democracy only if the West Bank is part of Israel. If the West Bank is not part of Israel, then Israel is a democracy. That's why maintaining the geographical distinction between the West Bank and Israel is important.
In voicing its opposition to Biden's return to sanity, AIPAC wrote that Biden's return to previous policy "would ban important U.S.-Israel cooperative projects based solely on location." No kidding. That's the point. The West Bank is not part of Israel. It is a different location. U.S.-Israel cooperative projects will continue in Israel under Biden's policy. (The practical impact is likely to largely impact just one university located in the northern West Bank settlement of Ariel.)
Defending Israel against allegations of apartheid depends on maintaining clarity between the West Bank and Israel. Some argue that Israel has de facto annexed the West Bank. Reacting to Biden’s announcement as if it affects projects in Israel lends credence to this argument.
Yet 14 Republican Senators, led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), blurred the lines by arguing that Biden is engaged in an antisemitic boycott of Israel. The BDS movement could not ask for better, albeit unwitting, allies.
To prove their point, these Republican senators made up language they claim is in the International Holocaust Remembrance Association’s non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism (the IHRA definition)--compare what they say the IHRA definition says to what it actually says. If anything, their letter proves that the IHRA definition is susceptible to abuse and misuse (if they are right about what the definition means then that’s one more reason to reject it) and that the Biden administration made the right decision to welcome the Nexus Document and to note other efforts in its National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. Cruz and his colleagues could have saved themselves and the GOP considerable embarrassment had they read the Nexus Document.
Jacob Magid explains that "the IHRA definition and its examples do not touch on the issue of settlements but its citation in the GOP letter could legitimize fears by progressive Jewish groups that it is being 'weaponized' by conservatives to stifle criticism of Israeli policy in the West Bank."
The irresponsible actions of these Republicans--who threatened to hold up State Department nominees like babies screaming for toys--should not surprise us. The Republican Party removed support for a two-state solution from its platform in 2016 and nixed language supporting a two-state solution in the Israel 75th birthday resolution the House passed in April. In Republican eyes, pushing a two-state solution further from reach is a good thing.
JDCA CEO Halie Soifer responded to Cruz's letter, noting that the letter's attacks have "no basis in reality" and that Republican threats to derail Biden nominees will leave critical national security posts vacant--not good for the U.S. or Israel.
The irony is that in 2020, Israel signed a major research and innovation agreement with the European Union known as Horizon Europe that excluded West Bank settlements, east Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights from the program. But who knows? Maybe the government of Israel is antisemitic too (check the IHRA definition and let me know).
The rationale for Biden’s move, and decades of U.S. policy prior to the final weeks of the Trump administration, is that settlement expansion is contrary to the goal of a two-state solution, the only solution that will ensure Israel’s survival as a Jewish, democratic state.
But why pursue a two-state solution if Palestinian leadership has rejected it in the past? A common but misplaced argument against pursuing a two-state solution is that the Palestinians are at fault and that the ball is in their court, not Israel’s, to pave the way for a two-state solution. Putting aside the current Israeli Prime Minister’s declaration that Israel “needs to crush [the Palestinian] ambition” for an independent state, even if you can prove that history shows that Israel was always right and the Palestinians were always wrong, even if you can prove that settlements are legal and Israel is not an occupying power, even if you can prove that time and time again Israel offered peace on generous terms only to be rebuffed by the Palestinians, what are you proving? That Israel is entitled to keep the West Bank forever? That the Palestinians had their chance, blew it, and now Israel can write off Palestinian demands, continue to build settlements, and create a one-state reality?
No matter how we got to where we are, and no matter whose fault it is, the population of Jews and Arabs between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River is roughly equal. Israel can only be Jewish and democratic if the vast majority of its citizens are Jewish.
Palestinians who live in the West Bank do not have the same legal rights as Jews who live in the West Bank or as Jews and Palestinians who live in pre-1967 Israel. That’s understandable in the context of a temporary military occupation caused by Jordan’s attack on Israel.
But Israel cannot remain Jewish and democratic and in permanent control of the West Bank indefinitely; it can only have any two of the three, which means that the only way to realize the classic Zionist dream of a democratic Jewish state is to cede the West Bank. Zionists in America and Israel must remember, as former Prime Minister Ehud Barak has written, that the ultimate aim of Zionism and Zionists was "not to secure every inch of the Land of Israel: it was to redeem, reinvigorate, and rededicate themselves to the People of Israel."
If you accept the imperative of a two-state solution, then it no longer matters whether Israel’s claim to the West Bank is superior to the Arab claim or how we got to where we are, because a two-state solution necessarily means Israel relinquishing nearly all of the West Bank.
Construction on the other side of the 1967 borders is an obstacle to peace because it makes a two-state solution more difficult. Settlements are not the root cause of the conflict, but they impede a solution. Even if a two-state solution is not possible now because Israel has no partner for peace, the United States and other governments that support Israel oppose settlement expansion because it will eventually make a two-state solution impossible.
It’s painful to see Israel criticized when the Palestinians bear responsibility as well, but Israel, not the Palestinians, controls the land that must eventually become two states. Israel cannot make peace on its own but peace will never happen if Israel continues to expand settlements and make peace politically more difficult. The burden is on Israel to find a solution not because this is Israel’s fault or because Israel has not done enough, or even more than enough relative to the Palestinians, but because Israel is the party that needs a two-state solution. Eventually, if settlement expansion continues, Palestinians will see that a two-state solution is impossible and demand legal equality within the one de facto state comprising Israel and the West Bank. What then?
Is this unfair? Yes. Why should Israel have to give up land to which Jews have had historic ties for thousands of years that Israel won in a defensive war? But no matter how they got there, the Palestinians who live in the West Bank aren’t going anywhere. Neither are the Jews who live in the major settlement blocs and behind the 1967 lines. The reality is that for Israel to remain Jewish and democratic, fair or unfair, Israel has to find a way to relinquish the West Bank.
Tamar Zanberg wrote that “Some people from the right would like to tell us that speaking out against settlements is anti-Israel. I want to say loud and clear that they are 100% wrong. Speaking out against the settlements is not only pro-Israel, but it is the act of true Zionists. Zionists who wants Israel to reflect their democratic values. Zionists who want Israel to reflect their Jewish values.”
Zanberg is essentially echoing David Ben-Gurion, Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert and so many other Zionists who realized that regardless of Jewish religious and historic ties to the land, Israel cannot be true to its basic values and control the West Bank.
Acknowledging that settlements are an obstacle to peace does not mean that we are excusing Palestinian violence, intransigence, or incitement. It’s not either/or. Neither does acknowledgment that both Israel and the Palestinians must take steps toward peace imply moral equivalence. What it does mean is that stopping settlement expansion is a necessary albeit insufficient condition for a two-state solution, and since a two-state solution is an existential necessity for Israel, Israel cannot afford to wait for movement on the Palestinian side: The more settlements there are, the harder a two-state solution becomes, and that’s bad for Israel.
Ask yourself honestly: Do you favor a two-state solution? If the answer is yes, ask yourself this: Do settlements increase the likelihood that Israel will achieve a two-state solution? Since settlements do not advance a two-state solution, how can you oppose a decision by the Biden administration based on opposition to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank? I’ll tell you how: by confusing the West Bank with Israel itself. No true supporter of Israel should ever concede that the West Bank, and settlements in the West Bank, are on the same moral or legal footing as Israel itself.
But doesn’t Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza and the thousands of rockets fired into Israel from Gaza prove that a two-state solution will not work? Secretary of State John Kerry addressed this concern on June 3, 2013: “Some are wary because of Israel’s experience following the withdrawal of Gaza and Lebanon. You have no idea how many times I hear people say, ‘We withdrew from Lebanon, we withdrew from Gaza, and what did we get? We got rockets.’ Well, folks, it’s worth remembering these withdrawals were unilateral. They were not part of a negotiated peace treaty that included strong guarantees for Israel’s security, and they certainly weren’t part of a peace agreement that agrees to be a demilitarized state or entity.
“We know that peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, on the other hand, which were bilateral, yielded a much better result for Israel…We know that any peace agreement with the Palestinians will need to include extensive, mutually agreed security arrangements in order to ensure a Palestinian state that does not become the launching site for future attacks against Israel.”
Former Israeli Prime Minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak agrees. Barak has faith in the Israel Defense Forces and is firmly convinced that Israel can cede the West Bank without putting Israel's security at undue risk. The point of the Zionist project was for Jews to take their future into their own hands; to say that the IDF cannot manage a small state on its border shows an astonishing misunderstanding of the IDF’s capabilities.
Neither current Israeli nor current Palestinian leadership has the will to move forward toward a two-state solution. But Israel holds most of the cards, and the absence of a Palestinian partner for peace does not justify Israeli actions that put peace further out of reach.
Neither side has to give up its narrative or accept the other side's narrative, but both sides must realize that the only path forward, a two-state solution, requires both sides to give up sovereignty over land that they believe should be theirs and both sides to accept that previous sins of the other side may never be fully redressed.
Palestinians must realize that violence will not gain them their dignity. Contrary to what some Palestinians believe, Israeli Jews do not see themselves as colonialists from somewhere else but as a people returning to their homeland. They will not leave and will fight for their state.
Contrary to what some Israelis believe, Palestinians are a people, they have a history, and they too consider this their homeland. Their will cannot be crushed and they will fight for a state.
It is time for those of us who support Israel to rededicate ourselves to the true mission of Zionism. Just as the protesters in Israel have recaptured the Israeli flag, the vast majority of Jewish Americans must reclaim the Israeli flag from the small but vocal right-wing minority in our midst--that's a good lesson for Democrats too. How often do you see an American flag and think Republican even though the Republican Party has made a mockery of everything America stands for? Democrats need to start waving flags too.
Corrections. I'm entitled to my own opinions but not to my own facts, so I appreciate it when readers bring errors to my attention. In last week's newsletter, I incorrectly stated that the Ricketts family owned the Chicago Tribune. They own the Cubs but Alden Global Capital owns Tribune Publishing.
In Case You Missed It:
-
Buddy Guy canceled shows in Israel. He should have played in Israel and supported the pro-democracy protesters. I can't count how many times I saw Buddy Guy and Junior Wells for $5.00 at Biddy Mulligan's in Chicago back in the day. Just as Dean Smith was the only person to hold Michael Jordan to 20 points per game, Junior Wells was the only person to hold Buddy Guy's ego in check--and he was better for it. Too bad Junior Wells isn't still around. In the meantime, looks like someone done hoodooed the hoodoo man.
Tweet of the Week. Nimrod Novik.
Twitter Thread of the Week. Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL). Read all of it because even if you're not paying attention, Casten is.
Thread of the Week. Hillary Clinton.
Video Clips of the Week. Who said all political ads are boring? And for you logophiles out there, Blackladder the Third.
Upcoming Event. Politics with Dana and Steve was the first Jewish group in the Chicago area to back Elissa Slotkin when she initially ran for Congress in Michigan after working for the CIA as a Middle East analyst, serving three tours in Iraq, and holding defense and intelligence positions under President Bush and President Obama. Other groups said "no" or "maybe later" or "we're not sure if she's viable." But we knew she would never be viable unless someone gave her a chance. She beat the odds, she won, and now she is running for the U.S. Senate.
Join Dana Gordon, Steve Sheffey, and our amazing co-chairs for an in-person and on Zoom event with Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) in support of her Senate campaign in Highland Park, Illinois, on Monday, July 24 at 6:00 pm CT. You must RSVP to attend. This Senate race will be competitive, expensive, and critical to our efforts to hold the Senate. Early money is important because it allows Elissa’s team to hire staff, develop strategy, and buy advertising at discounted rates.
This is the newsletter even Republicans have to read and the original home of the viral and beloved 2022 and 2023 Top Ten Signs You're At a Republican Seder. If someone forwarded this to you, why not subscribe and get it in your inbox every Sunday? Just click here--it's free.
My most popular Times of Israel posts are How Not To Define Antisemitism and Pro-Israel Or Pro-Bibi? I periodically update my Medium posts on why Democrats are better than Republicans on Israel and antisemitism. You can read my most recent effort to define "pro-Israel" here (it's a work in progress, as am I).
I hope you enjoyed today's newsletter. Donations are welcome (this takes time to write and costs money to send). If you'd like to chip in, click here and fill in the amount of your choice. 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. You don't need a PayPal account. Or you can Venmo @Steven-Sheffey (last four phone digits are 9479). You can send a check too.
I accept advertisements. Let me know if you're interested.
| 
