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,

Americans are dying of COVID and gun violence, our democracy is at risk from insurrectionist Republicans attempting to suppress votes across the country, Iran is closer to nuclear weapons than when Trump took office, and the two-state solution that Israel needs is moving away from reach, but sure, let’s focus on whether gourmet ice cream is available in West Bank settlements or whether settlers will have to drive ten minutes into Israel to get their beloved ice cream.

Ben & Jerry’s is not boycotting Israel. Both Ben & Jerry's and its parent company, Unilever, explicitly stated that they will continue to do business in Israel. Continuing to do business in Israel is not a boycott of Israel.

Ben & Jerry's will stop selling ice cream in the West Bank at the end of 2022. The West Bank is not part of Israel. Israel has not annexed the West Bank. There is nothing antisemitic about choosing to do business in Israel but not the West Bank. The last time I checked, lots of Jews lived in Israel.

The BDS movement seeks to conflate Israel with the West Bank and calls for boycotts of Israel itself. When we conflate Israel and the West Bank, we are doing the work of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel and giving ammunition to those who say the two are the same. As Joshua Shanes reminds us, the argument that Israel is not an apartheid state depends on recognizing that the West Bank--where Jews and Palestinians have different legal rights and only Jews can vote in national elections--is not part of Israel. Those who argue that Ben & Jerry's is boycotting Israel when it is actually boycotting the West Bank are not only wrong, but playing into the hands of the BDS movement.

I don’t know where else Ben & Jerry's sells ice cream. Unilever seems to sell in many more countries than Ben & Jerry's. Those who accuse Ben & Jerry's of holding Israel to a double standard need to explain (i) what they mean since Ben & Jerry's is not boycotting Israel and (ii) what other occupied territories Ben & Jerry's continues to sell in. Regardless, we all pick and choose our causes, and double standards are not necessarily antisemitic or inappropriate.

Imagine if you criticized Hamas and someone asked why you are not criticizing worse human rights offenders, such as China for its treatment of Uyghurs. What if they took it a step further and accused you of Islamophobia for criticizing Hamas, which is Muslim, instead of China, which is not? And what about all the other terrorist organizations you aren't criticizing? You're smart, my friend. My guess is it would take you about five seconds to dismiss those objections as absurd. But some of our friends have no problem believing the same arguments when applied to Ben & Jerry's and the West Bank.

Rabbi Jill Jacobs explains when criticism of Israel crosses the line into antisemitism. What some call "double standards" often do not cross that line: "Human rights activists and organizations almost always choose a focus for their efforts. (One may reasonably work to end the genocide of the Rohingya community in Burma, for instance, without simultaneously addressing Bashar al-Assad’s slaughter of his people in Syria.) Israel attracts additional scrutiny because it is a top recipient of U.S. foreign aid and the only Western nation currently carrying out a military occupation of another people. Its territory is sacred to three major world religions. The existence of a strong U.S.-based lobby dedicated to promoting the policies of the Israeli government unsurprisingly generates a counterresponse. And Palestinians have built a national movement over the past five decades, unlike more recently displaced people. These trends shape a legitimate political dynamic."

Ben & Jerry’s decision does not delegitimize Israel. It is, as a practical matter, a symbolic statement against settlements. Continuing to sell in Israel does not delegitimize Israel, but it does call into question the legitimacy of the settlement enterprise, which is an Israeli policy, not Israel itself.

Ben & Jerry's decision is not antisemitic. As Michael Koplow points out in a piece you should read if you want to understand the details of this decision, Ben & Jerry's decision "is the very definition of tying a decision not to Jewish status or even Israeli status, but to specific Israeli activity in a specific location, and to limiting the consequences of that decision to that specific location...If it is antisemitic to continue selling ice cream to Jews and to Israelis in Israel but not in territory that Israel itself defines as disputed, then the term really has no meaningful ability to distinguish between categories of behavior that are about hating Jews as Jews and categories of behavior that impact Jews for other reasons."

Economic boycotts rarely achieve their policy objectives and generally accomplish little more than hurting ordinary citizens without effecting change in policy. Sanctions on Iran are a classic example. They hurt Iran's economy, but Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign yielded worse than minimal results: Iran has moved in the opposite direction from what Trump intended and is now closer to nuclear breakout than it was when Trump left the deal.

BDS against Israel has been a spectacular failure economically, let alone on policy, and the likely political result of economic pressure on Israel that makes a difference would be to cause right-wing Israelis to dig in their heels. But in this case, Ben & Jerry's is only boycotting West Bank settlements outside of Israel, and the effect will be minimal.

I don't support settlement expansion because I support a two-state solution, and while settlements are not the cause of the conflict, they are becoming an increasingly major impediment to resolving the conflict. Ben & Jerry's is right to oppose settlements. As explained above, they may have chosen the wrong tactic, but they are not antisemitic or anti-Israel, nor are they engaging in BDS against Israel.

What happens next? If you like Ben & Jerry's ice cream and you like Israel, keep eating it. If you support a one-state solution and if you support settlements, then maybe stop eating it if that makes you feel better. But before you accuse BDS supporters of hypocrisy for availing themselves of technology developed in Israel, take a good look in the mirror if you boycott Ben & Jerry's and continue to use any of the products made by Unilever. You might also ask yourself whether boycotting Ben & Jerry's is the best way to send a message that you don't think boycotts are the best way to send a message.

Many states have anti-BDS laws, and some of them include refusing to do business in territory controlled by Israel, which means the West Bank. The Ben & Jerry's decision will have little economic impact on Israel, but why pass up an opportunity to pit self-proclaimed pro-Israel advocates against free speech advocates on an issue of no practical impact on Israel? That's just what we need, right? Thus far, no state anti-BDS law that has been challenged has survived court scrutiny. We'll soon see if that streak continues. For more on the applicability of state anti-BDS laws to Ben & Jerry's, read this conversation with Lara Friedman.

Would you rather do something more productive? Instead focusing on how many minutes Israelis who live in West Bank settlements might have to drive to get ice cream, let's focus on bringing together progressive Americans, progressive Israelis, and progressive Palestinians to make all three societies better. That's what Heart of a Nation does, and that's why I joined its Advisory Committee. Read about Heart of a Nation in the Jerusalem Post and founding co-chair Brian Jaffee on how Heart of a Nation is a mission, not a memo.

We must fight Islamophobia. Speaking of double standards, what would we say if we were asked why we are so concerned about antisemitism but less concerned about other forms of hate? I hope we could reject the premise of the question by responding that we do fight other forms of hate and that we live by Hillel's dictum, "if I am not for myself, who will be? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?"

On Wednesday, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), along with 23 Members of Congress, including Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL), sent a letter calling on Secretary of State Antony Blinken to create a special envoy to combat Islamophobia. The letter addresses the rise in attacks against the Muslim community. Read it and thank these members of Congress.

Last week's newsletter.

ICYMI. Dueling narratives.

Tweet of the Week. Anthony Fauci.

Twitter Thread of the Week. Melissa Turkington.

Video Clip of the Week. Let's Talk Straight.

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.