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,

Rosh HaShanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, Shemini Atzeret, Simchat Torah--you'd think that after 3,000 years we'd figure out how to space these out a little better. Let's see where we are.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is blocking Iron Dome funding. Those who littered our timelines and in-boxes with faux outrage that "only" 96% of Democrats supported supplemental Iron Dome funding in the House should be outraged that in the Senate, a Republican is single-handedly holding up the package, but they're not. Nothing but crickets even though as a senator, Rand Paul alone has more power over legislation than any handful of low-seniority Democrats.

Daniel Silverberg reminds us that Iron Dome funding was pulled from the continuing resolution on September 21, prior to its overwhelming passage two days later, not because of "a narrow group of members commanding more influence, but rather the extraordinarily thin margins of any legislation moving through the House these days. On Sept. 21, a mere four votes could have tanked the bill, not just because of four Democrats, but because the entire GOP conference was willing to vote against the measure." Does it make sense to blame a handful of Democrats for an outcome that any four out of about 210 House Republicans could have prevented?

Michael Koplow adds that "it is difficult, if not impossible, to look at this vote and still credibly talk about the Democratic Party having been taken over by anti-Zionism or antisemitism, or sound the alarm about Israel being abandoned." Koplow notes that while Congress overwhelmingly supports Israel's legitimate defensive needs, we should expect skepticism about "Israeli security requests that appear to them more about maintaining permanent control over Palestinians than about keeping Israelis safe." As well we should.

Democrats are not shifting their position on Israel. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), the chair of the Senate subcommittee that deals with the Middle East and a strong supporter of Israel, points out that “it’s absurd that the story in Washington isn’t the movement of the Republican Party on Israel, versus the Democratic Party. It’s the Republican Party that is moving away from its historic support for two states; the Democratic Party has remained solid in our support for a Palestinian state. To the extent there is increased criticism of Israel, it’s because our position has remained the same; the position of the Israeli government has changed.”

Murphy is right. Israel's new Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett, boasted to his Cabinet following his meeting with President Biden that “I am the only prime minister in three decades who told the president of the United States I am not going to hold peace talks with the Palestinians." Bennett told the New York Times prior to his meeting with Biden that he would expand West Bank settlements, he would not back American plans to reopen a consulate for Palestinians in Jerusalem, and he would not reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians.

Robert Wexler was one of Israel's best friends on either side of the aisle when he served in Congress. Wexler recommends that the Biden administration "take robust action to create a two-state reality on the ground, one that gives all wings of the Democratic Party a stake in stability and security for all within Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. That means helping Israel and the Palestinian Authority to improve the lives of their people without compromising security as well as to narrow the political disagreements between the sides."

Wexler's solution might be the best we can realistically hope for right now. The U.S. cannot force peace on leaders who are not ready for peace, and wishing will not make it so. But the U.S. can and should use its influence to bring the parties closer to peace and to preserve prospects for a two-state solution, which is the only path to Israel's survival as a Jewish, democratic state and the key to maintaining strong bipartisan support for Israel.

Ben and Jerry's Update: On Thursday, the Decalogue Society of Lawyers published my article on Ben and Jerry's. Ben & Jerry's updated its statement with a Q&A reiterating that it will stay in Israel and that it is not part of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.

By my count, five states-- Texas, New Jersey, Arizona, Florida, and Illinois--are somewhere along the path toward divesting from Unilever, the parent company of Ben & Jerry's. These steps will have little, if any, economic effect on Unilever and will not change Ben & Jerry's decision. They won't lower the price of Unilever stock because, believe it or not, large quantities of Unilever are bought and sold every day. (To the extent pension sell-offs did affect the price, which they won't, all they'd do is give someone who doesn't care about this issue a chance to buy Unilever at a slightly lower price.)

These actions against Unilever prove that state anti-BDS laws are nothing but political theater designed to pander to right-wing pro-Israel voters and drive a wedge between opponents of BDS and the free speech community.

Moreover, by equating boycotts of the West Bank (which I oppose for many of the reasons articulated by Michael Koplow) with boycotts of Israel, those advocating action against Unilever make the case for Israel harder. A boycott of the West Bank can only be a boycott of Israel if the West Bank is part of Israel, and if the West Bank is part of Israel, then Israel is not a democracy.

We have more pressing issues than whether settlers must drive an additional ten minutes for ice cream.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee approved the bipartisan Israel Relations Normalization Act. It's Rep. Brad Schneider's (D-IL) bill, so let's let him explain it.

The Vice President and Israel. Watch Vice President Kamala Harris talk to college students about listening to different points of view. If your reaction to watching that clip was "thanks Steve, that was boring," you're right. But if you're familiar with the manufactured controversy about that talk, you owe it to yourself to watch the clip and read this analysis from Halie Soifer.

This was neither a CNN Town Hall nor a candidate debate. This was the Vice President of the United States talking to kids about not shutting down debate. Should Harris have debated the kid point by point and turned the event into an argument about Israel? Should she have addressed only the most egregious comment and opened herself up to allegations that by not addressing the rest, she tacitly agreed? Harris handled it correctly.

When Jonathan Kessler, formerly of AIPAC and now of Heart of a Nation, was asked by a woman how to talk to her daughter about her daughter's "terrible" views on Israel, Kessler did not recommend reciting Myths and Facts talking points because that would shut down the conversation. Instead, he recommended these talking points: "first talking point would be to tell her you love her. Second, give her a hug. Third, tell her that her opinion matters to you.” Harris went straight to number three. The words and actions of the Biden-Harris administration on Israel are more than sufficient to address the substance.

Last week's newsletter.

Mandatory Reading. This article is so important that I'm tempted to hard-code this and include it every week: Our constitutional crisis is already here. Nothing is more important. If you've already read it and are wondering what we should do, read this from Jamelle Bouie.

ICYMI. ‘Shrinking the Conflict’: What Does Israel’s New Mantra Really Mean?

Tweet of the Week. Shaquille O'Neal (be sure the sound is on).

Twitter Thread of the Week. Marc Jacob.

Video Clip of the Week. 25 best Weekend Update jokes of all time.

Upcoming Events. On Wednesday, October 6, from Noon to 1:00 CT, Heart of a Nation presents "The Danger of Politicizing Israel and Peace," which will feature me interviewing Halie Soifer, the CEO of Jewish Democratic Council of America and former National Security Advisor to then-Senator Kamala Harris. We'll take questions from the audience too. The event is free. You don't even have to RSVP. Just click here at Noon CT/1:00 ET on Wednesday, October 6 to join us on Zoom.

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.