Chicagoland Pro-Israel Political Update

If you're allodoxaphobic, this newsletter might not be for you



December 23, 2018

The resignation of Defense Secretary James Mattis highlights Trump's dangerous, incoherent foreign policy. Trump's withdrawal of troops from Syria is a betrayal of our allies and endangers Israel's security.

The Israel Anti-Boycott Act is not a federal version of state legislation, and we need to think clearly about what it does and does not do.

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.

Friends,

Defense Secretary James Mattis's resignation letter is a clear indictment of Trump's incompetent foreign policy. I can understand (but not excuse) the ignorance of so many Americans who voted for Trump. But I can neither understand nor excuse the complicity of Republican leaders and their refusal to break with Trump, even after they got the precious tax cuts that their donors wanted. During the primaries, they knew exactly who Trump was-- just ask Mitt Romney. But now that it is painfully clear that they were right about Trump during the primaries, they've put party above country every time. That's not winning.

Jewish Democratic Council of America (JDCA) Chairman Ron Klein said on Friday that Tr ump's reckless decision to pull troops out of Syria will give Iran "its long-sought corridor to the Mediterranean, including a land-bridge that will effectively bring Iran to Israel’s border...This might be a great day for Iran, Turkey, and Russia, but it is a dangerous day for America." Every American, regardless of party, who is concerned about Iranian influence in the Middle East should be alarmed by Trump's decision and his betrayal of Israel and our other allies .

Let's think clearly about the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (IABA). Judging from the responses I've received about my support for the IABA, I can tell you that reports about the death of civility have been greatly exaggerated. I am thankful and gratified not only that so many of you took the time to tell me why you disagreed with me, but that you disagreed so thoughtfully and constructively.

We must be careful not to confuse state anti-BDS legislation with the IABA. Of all the reasons to oppose the IABA, the efficacy of state anti-BDS laws is not one of them. State anti-BDS laws differ widely, and generally either prohibit the state from contracting with companies that boycott Israel ( such as Texas) or prohibit state pension funds from investing in companies that boycott Israel ( such as Illinois). The IABA does neither: It is not a federal version of state anti-BDS laws, and those who argue against the IABA based on criticisms, some legitimate, some not, of state anti-BDS laws are confusing the issue.

Stuart Eizenstat, who helped author the current prohibitions against boycotting Israel at Jimmy Carter's behest, wrote an excellent article that addresses most of the concerns that have been raised about the IABA. If you're concerned about the IABA, read Eizenstat's article before continuing.

The real question is whether anti-BDS legislation is worth the fight. BDS is failing spectacularly. It makes a splash on college campuses, and we are dismayed when the occasional entertainer chooses not to play in Israel, but it's not hurting Israel economically. Some state anti-BDS legislation is poorly drafted, and when it is misapplied ( as it may have been in Texas), the pro-Israel community finds itself, rightly or wrongly, on the opposite side from free speech advocates. And boycotts themselves tend to have positive connotations, which means restricting boycott activity raises the emotional bar. Also, it is not clear if state anti-BDS laws even affect decision making by companies--they seem designed more to make state residents feel good knowing that their tax dollars or pension money is not supporting companies that boycott Israel. That's not necessarily an inappropriate rationale, but is the psychic benefit to a small portion of the population worth the trouble?

The federal legislation is a different story. The boycotts of Israel organized by Arab states in the 1970s were real threats, and the U.N. and other international organizations have demonstrated extreme animus toward Israel. There is cause for concern. The question is how real and how significant the threat is from foreign organizations not covered by current law. Eizenstat thinks it's significant, and he is certainly in a position to know, but that is the debate we should be having.

The ACLU is simply wrong about the effect of the IABA on free speech. If the IABA is unlawful viewpoint discrimination, then all of our anti-discrimination laws could be called into question. If current federal law is constitutional--and it's been law for more than 40 years and has survived court challenges-- then the IABA is also constitutional. Of course, if Eizenstat is wrong and the threat of boycotts from the EU or UN are low, then the chances of non-compliance with the IABA resulting in chilled speech are also low.

What about the West Bank? Unlike current law, the IABA as introduced explicitly includes the West Bank, along with a caveat that nothing in the IABA is intended to alter U.S. policy on final status issues. The rationale for including the West Bank is that the economies of Israel and the West Bank are inextricably linked, so a boycott of the West Bank could effectively be a boycott of Israel--and it's not as if Israel could end the occupation on its own. Israel needs a partner for peace and it doesn't have one now, so even if the current Israeli government favors a two-state solution (a legitimate question), it could not on its own create one. That being the case, boycotting the West Bank does not make sense.

Also, the vast majority of settlers live in the major settlement blocs bordering Israel proper that will become part of Israel under any conceivable two-state solution. That is what Obama meant when he talked about borders based on the 1967 lines with "mutually agreed upon land swaps" (Palestinians would get territory currently within Israel in return). So should international organizations be able to tell U.S. companies to boycott settlements that aren't part of the problem, since they will become part of Israel? Boycotting those settlements, which are the vast majority of West Bank settlements, only makes sense if Israel itself is the problem-- that's the BDS view, not the two-state view.

The real obstacles to peace in the West Bank are the other settlements, which are built in part to make a contiguous Palestinian state difficult to achieve. But they so relatively small that boycotting them wouldn't achieve much anyway.

On the other hand, if current law is effective without reference to the West Bank, and if all the IABA does is extend current law to include foreign organizations, why is it necessary to mention the West Bank? Alternatives would be to delete references to the West Bank or to strengthen the proviso by specifically referencing U.S. support for a two-state solution and for a Palestinian state existing in peace and security next to a Jewish state of Israel. It's not an easy call, but on balance, the IABA is worth supporting even as is.

Is this much ado about nothing on both sides? Jay Michaelson thinks so, but the risks of being wrong are great, and since the IABA does not impermissibly restrict speech or alter U.S. policy on final status issues, I support it. Nevertheless, the pro-Israel community does need to consider whether--regardless of the merits of the legislation--fighting BDS via legislation is the best strategy. Many opponents of the IABA have taken pains to point out that they too oppose BDS; they just don't think this is the way to oppose it, and while we may disagree, that's a legitimate point of view and within the pro-Israel tent (as opposed to supporting BDS or opposing Zionism, which is outside the boundaries).

What about Israel? Some supporters of BDS don't understand that the goal of BDS is the elimination of the Jewish State of Israel and support BDS because they support the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside of Israel. While Israel cannot create a Palestinian state on its own, Israel could diminish support for boycotts by firmly reiterating its commitment to a two-state solution and taking steps to prove its commitment, such as freezing settlement growth outside of the settlement blocs that will become part of Israel under a two-state solution. Regardless of the merits of Palestinian claims, Israel needs a two-state solution for its own sake if it is to remain both Jewish and democratic. Failure of the current Israeli government to act will not justify terrorism or BDS, but whatever success the BDS movement has will then partially be an Israeli own-goal.

Did you miss last week's newsletter? Here it is.


Twitter Thread of the Week. You can't be socially liberal and a Republican .

Video Clip of the Week. It's a Wonderful Life: The Lost Ending.

If you like what you've read and you're not a subscriber ,  why not subscribe? It's free! Just click here . 

Contributions 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 . If you'd rather send a check, please make it out to Steve Sheffey (NOT to the newsletter) and send it to me, not the P.O. Box.

The Fine Print : This newsletter usually runs on Sunday mornings. Unless stated otherwise, my views do not necessarily reflect the views of any candidates or organizations that I support or am associated with. My views might not even be my views tomorrow; I reserve the right to change my mind as I learn more, and sometimes I make myself mad too. Intelligent, well-informed people may disagree with me; seek out opposing views and decide for yourself. When I link to an article, it 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. 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.