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,

All Democrats should adopt Rep. Brad Schneider's (D-IL) Schneider Standard: Do not co-sponsors bills with Republicans who will not endorse the presidential election results. We should treat these Republicans as personae non gratae and ask that organizations we support do the same until and unless these Republicans acknowledge that Biden was legitimately elected.

"The central strategic imperative of Republicans is scaring the living s**t out of white people." If you think that's inaccurate or simplistic, read this brilliant piece by Dan Pfeiffer. Republican economic policy appeals to the top 1%, and even Republicans can't suppress enough votes for 1% to be a majority. Most Republican voters support Biden's Covid stimulus plan, yet not one Republican member of Congress voted for it. Biden's American Jobs Plan also enjoys broad bipartisan support--among Americans, but not Republican members of Congress.

Republicans in Congress represent their wealthy donors, not their constituents, which means that they can't unite their base around their policies. That's why Republicans focus on Dr. Seuss, Mr. Potato Head, and other elements of what they call "cancel culture."

Republicans hope that when they are called out, those doing the calling out will be accused of extremism and tearing the country apart. But we cannot cure the disease without describing the symptoms. If Republicans don't like being called racists they could try not being racists--but then they'd have only their policies to run on, and that would mean certain defeat at the polls.

Or would it? A significant portion of GOP voters are detached from reality. This does not bode well for our democracy. Misinformed GOP voters, demagogic GOP leadership, and propagandistic right-wing media is a dangerous mix. But we cannot give up, not on democracy and not on any American. Teams that walk off the field rarely win, so don't get discouraged. Get energized.

Of the six living former directors of Israel’s Mossad, four have publicly praised the Iran nuclear agreement. "None have echoed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s extraordinary criticism of the deal. These former high-level intelligence officials are not alone. Israel’s military leadership, high-profile Israeli nuclear experts, former directors of Israel’s internal security agency and a former Israeli prime minister have all echoed Mossad’s former chiefs in praising the Iran nuclear deal." But some Republicans think they know better, and they will be citing Netanyahu's shameful Holocaust Remembrance Day speech.

Iran is a dangerous actor. No one is arguing otherwise. It is because Iran is dangerous that getting back into the JCPOA, which verifiably prevents Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, is essential. Please call your Senators to confirm that they have signed the letter on Iran led by Senators Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Tim Kaine (D-VA), which closes on Monday. Thank you to Illinois Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth for adding their signatures.

Confused about what is happening at the southern border? Listen to Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT).

Unclear on why the U.S. is resuming aid to the Palestinians? Read Secretary of State Blinken's explanation. This thread from Joel Braunold is a bit technical, but it explains where this money is going and whether it is lawful. Ilan Goldenberg argues that Biden's approach, which happens to be the humane approach, is more likely than Trump's counterproductive aid cuts to result in UNRWA reform. Note that UNRWA's is the only non-Hamas school system in Gaza.

Michael Koplow explains that Biden is not funding the Palestinian Authority (aid is going directly to non-governmental organizations), that this package complies with the Taylor Force Act, and that "the U.S. is now for the first time explicitly extracting commitments from UNRWA on accountability, transparency, and neutrality."

Still wondering about how to define antisemitism? The fundamental problem with the IHRA definition is that by its terms, all its examples depend on the context. But the IHRA definition offers no guidance on how to evaluate the context. The definition itself does not define antisemitism, but only says that antisemitism is "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews."

The IHRA definition almost begs those who use it to impose their own conceptions of antisemitism on the examples to determine if, in context, such examples constitute antisemitism, which is why it is susceptible to abuse and of limited educational value.

Using the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism or the Nexus Document in addition to or instead of the IHRA definition provides clarity to an otherwise amorphous IHRA definition that is, as David Schraub wrote, "vague to the point of incoherency, and riddled with so much imprecision and hedging that it could justify labeling anything or nothing anti-Semitic."

The JDA naturally focuses more on antisemitism related to Israel, partly because the JDA originated in Jerusalem, partly because that is the greatest flaw in the IHRA definition and because many IHRA examples deal with Israel, and partly because antisemitism related to Israel is harder to define--Israel is a Jewish state, which means that criticism of Israel lends itself both to falling back on antisemitic stereotypes and to false claims that criticism of Israel is antisemitic. The JDA delineates specific examples of antisemitic speech, but includes examples of what is not antisemitic speech in response to potential misuse of the IHRA definition.

The true test of these definitions will come when they are used in real life. Thus far, we don't have too much to go on. But you can try it at home. Plug any allegedly antisemitic speech into all three definitions and see what you come up with. You'll find that you can rationalize almost anything as antisemitic--or not--under the IHRA definition, but that if you use JDA or Nexus, you're more likely to discover clearer boundaries, and that those boundaries make sense, both on their own and, if you are inclined, as necessary clarifications to the IHRA definition.

The truth is that there is disagreement within the Jewish community about how to define antisemitism in the context of criticism of Israel. Many are looking at these definitions not to find out what antisemitism is, but for confirmation of their definition of antisemitism (or especially in the case of the IHRA definition, to read into it their definition of antisemitism). To the extent that these definitions advance constructive discussions about antisemitism, so much the better. In the meantime, we can unite around the many areas of agreement among the three. And maybe we can learn something from kids at the University of Iowa.

Last week's newsletter.

ICYMI. JDCA's Iran Resource Center.

Tweet of the Week. I'll have the Caesar.

Twitter Thread of the Week. Birds Walking.

Looking for good books? If you want to understand the filibuster debate, read Kill Switch, by Adam Jentleson. Once you know the facts, it will be hard to draw any conclusion other than that the filibuster should be abolished. If you want to understand modern economics, read The Deficit Myth, by Stephanie Kelton. Both are lively, entertaining, informative and will make you a better citizen.

Video Clip of the Week. Covid-19 job interviews.

Paid Announcement: Americans for Peace Now’s Online Auction! April 11-20. Bid on a private concert with David Broza, a letter signed by Ben-Gurion, lunch with Mandy Patinkin, a challah cooking class with Joan Nathan, travel, jewelry, fine art and much more. Winning bids support APN’s efforts to ensure a just and lasting peace for all Israelis and Palestinians. Register and start bidding April 11.

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.