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,

A proverb ascribed to Mark Twain and Jonathan Swift tells us that “a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes." Last week, a baseless story alleging that Democrats voted against Iron Dome got halfway around the world. Some of Israel's best friends on either side of the aisle were falsely accused of abandoning Israel in her time of need.

The truth, as Halie Soifer said on Thursday, is that "there was no vote on Israel last week in the House. There was a vote on Capitol security, and all Democrats supported it, while all Republicans opposed it."

Rep. Louis Gonzales (R-TX) made a motion to recommit having nothing to do with Israel that would have sent the Capitol security bill back to the Committee on House Administration. Gonzales falsely claimed that if the bill, which had nothing to do with Iron Dome or foreign aid, was sent back to committee, he would have offered an amendment to include funding for Iron Dome (which is not an emergency for Israel and which President Biden has already promised to replenish).

In fact, Gonzales would not have been able to offer such an amendment because funding for Iron Dome goes through the Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs of the Appropriations Committee. There was never a vote on the amendment Gonzales claimed he would offer. It an orchestrated political stunt designed to give Republicans fodder for false attacks on Democrats.

If you want more details, read my analysis, read Jewish Insider, and read Rep. Brad Schneider's (D-IL) letter to constituents. If you have three seconds, because that's all it takes, read Gonzales's motion to recommit in all of its glory.

The Democratic Party remains overwhelmingly pro-Israel. The votes in Congress and recent statements prove it, and a handful of media-savvy members who are way outside the Democratic mainstream do not prove otherwise.

President Biden stood with Israel in its time of need. President Biden vetoed three UN Security Resolutions on the Israel-Gaza conflict because they were biased against Israel. Secretary of State Blinken said that Israel “took very significant steps” to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza and reiterated the administration's commitment to Israel's security.

Blinken also reiterated our commitment to a two-state solution, which remains the best and most plausible solution to the conflict. Zack Beauchamp explains that a two-state solution is not only easier to achieve than a one-state solution, but is the "only realistic way of dealing with the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one between two distinct nations."

A two-state solution is an existential necessity for Israel. Former Deputy Prime Minister Tzipi Livni writes that to get there, "we must cooperate and support everything that strengthens pragmatism and weakens extremists. This seems so obvious as to appear basic. And yet the U.S.-Israeli policy in the past few years was completely the opposite." She also notes that "even if peace is not around the corner, the point of no return is closer than ever before."

That's why President Biden's April reversal of Trump's policies on aid to the Palestinians and his supplemental funding in the wake of the conflict is so important. If you don't understand why this aid is pro-Israel after clicking the links, read this from Michael Koplow. There is no contradiction between supporting Israel's security and supporting aid to Palestinians--if you support one, you should support the other.

What is the risk of jeopardizing prospects for a two-state solution? Former prime ministers Ehud Olmert, and Yitzhak Rabin (who compared settlements to cancer) have warned that Israel risks becoming an apartheid state (their words) if it does not achieve a two-state solution.

Former prime minister Ehud Barak wrote in his memoir that as long as the occupation is an interim arrangement with the ultimate goal of a political resolution of the conflict with the Palestinians, treating Jewish settlers differently from Palestinians in the West Bank, legally and politically, is defensible. "But under a one-state vision, it will become harder and harder to rebut comparisons made with the old South Africa."

Olmert, Rabin, and Barak did not say Israel was engaged in apartheid or was an apartheid state. Israel is not an apartheid state. They chose the word "apartheid" to illustrate what Israel could become by not pursuing a two-state solution. Those who don't know quite as much about Israel as Olmert, Rabin, and Barak should be careful about using the word "apartheid," which is a loaded term. Those who would be quick to accuse anyone of antisemitism for using the word "apartheid" to describe Israel's practices should remember that three people who, I daresay, were more committed Zionists than they are used the same word.

Former Knesset Member Stav Shaffir, now on the Engagement Committee of Heart of a Nation, writes that "anyone whose heart has filled with despair should breathe deeply and wake up. The strengthening of extremists is intentional — and to oppose it we need an alternative alliance that will work for a future of shared life here, out of the recognition that there is no other way."

What a difference an election makes. Donald Trump called marchers in Charlottesville chanting "Jews will not replace us" "very fine people" and refused to denounce white supremacy when asked to do so at the first presidential debate. The leader of the GOP regularly trafficked in antisemitism, and Republicans who supported Trump and engaged in their own antisemitism now want us to pretend the last four years never happened.

President Biden responded to the recent spike in antisemitism by saying "The recent attacks on the Jewish community are despicable, and they must stop. I condemn this hateful behavior at home and abroad — it’s up to all of us to give hate no safe harbor." Then on May 28 Biden announced that "the Department of Justice will be deploying all of the tools at its disposal to combat hate crimes."

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) (and here), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and many other Democrats, as well as the Black-Jewish Relations Caucus, issued statements condemning the recent rise in antisemitism.

Republicans opposed stripping Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) of her committee assignments, and now, as she doubles down on antisemitism, none have joined Rep. Brad Schneider's (D-IL) call to censure her.

Cue the "both sides" crowd. A handful of Democrats in Congress have harshly criticized Israel. If we are serious about fighting antisemitism, we have to recognize the difference between criticism of Israel--even harsh, unfair or inaccurate--and antisemitism. If you're unclear on the boundaries, read this statement from Rabbi Jill Jacobs.

To the extent the recent spike in antisemitism is related to anger, justified or not, at Israel, it is even more important not to conflate criticism of Israel with criticism of Jews. Part of the problem is that Israel uses Jewish symbols (Star of David, Menorah), so when Israel depicted in political cartoons, those symbols will be used. In addition, legitimate criticism of Israel can fuel antisemitism, again because Israel is a Jewish state and because most American Jews identify with and support Israel.

None of this in any way justifies or excuses antisemitism in any form from any source, and even harsh critics of Israel have condemned antisemitism. Our response to harsh, unfair criticism of Israel should be to address it on the merits, not dismiss it as antisemitism.

Criticism of Israel that is not antisemitic can lead to antisemitic attacks. We cannot expect criticism of Israel, justified or not, to stop, but neither can we excuse antisemitism. There is no excuse for antisemitism. As Lonnie Nasatir wrote, "when people are targeted for no reason other than being Jewish, it is antisemitism, plain and simple. Nothing justifies it, and no one should rationalize or minimize it." We cannot expect criticism of Israel, justified or not, to stop. But we must demand that our elected officials, at every level, do all they can to fight antisemitism.

We need to do better educating our kids. Arming our high school kids with right-wing talking points will not prepare them to advocate for Israel on campus. Some right-wing organizations think that's the answer, and some well-intentioned parents believe them. It's understandable: These groups say they stand with Israel, and that's what we want to hear when Israel is under attack. I don't doubt the sincerity of these parents and the love they have for Israel, or that what some might consider "right-wing" are considered by others the fair and honest truth.

The problem is that, as Tzipi Livni wrote, "supporting only one narrative and denying the other will lead us nowhere and will strengthen extremism on both sides. The solution must reflect both sides’ legitimate rights, aspirations and interests, with compromises that allow us both to fulfill our legitimate national aspirations and live side-by-side in peace and security." If that's not the message we teach our kids, we won't get far. Even if your goal is simply to win a debate, you've got to understand the other side's best case, not a caricature of that case.

So if you send your kids one of those crash courses on Israel, ask to see the curriculum in advance (that's not an unreasonable request), and ask your kids when they come back to tell you the Palestinian narrative. If they can't describe it well enough to create empathy in your mind for the Palestinian cause, they don't know what they need to know. But if they come back with something like this, maybe they are ready.

The fight on college campuses is not right vs. left. It's left vs. left. That's why we need genuinely progressive voices advocating for Israel using the language of the left, not right-wing messaging that only alienates the students they are trying to persuade. That's why most of the right-wing pro-Israel advocacy groups are not up to the task of defending Israel on campus or preparing our kids. I don't agree with everything in this article, and neither will you, but it raises some points worth considering about how we educate our kids.

This newsletter and the last two were twice as long as usual. Next week should be back to normal unless you like them this long or other ideas--let me know.

Last week's newsletter.

Tweet of the Week. The Magician.

Twitter Threads of the Week. Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL) and David Faris.

Facebook Post of the Week. Oren Jacobson.

Video Clip of the Week. Hope.

Upcoming Events. Confused about what's going on in Israel? Dana Goldsmith Gordon and I are hoping to resume our event series in person at some point over the summer, but until then, I'd love for you to join me and Martin Jay Raffel on Zoom at an event moderated by Jill Zipin and Dana, sponsored by Politics with Dana and Steve and Democratic Jewish Outreach Pennsylvania on 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. Intelligent, 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.