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,

Let's start with the basics: The West Bank is not part of Israel. Ben & Jerry's (and its parent company, Unilever) announced that it will no longer sell ice cream in the West Bank but would continue to sell in Israel. If a company sells in Israel, it is not boycotting Israel. As Ben and Jerry themselves noted, "the company drew a contrast between the democratic territory of Israel and the territories Israel occupies."

Let's maintain some perspective. The practical result of Ben & Jerry's decision is that settlers will have to drive five or ten minutes into Israel to buy ice cream. Imagine if the organizations ranting and raving against this decision spent their time fighting for our democracy, advocating for vaccinations, or pushing for a two-state solution. I guess that's why I'm not in fundraising.

I disagree with Ben & Jerry's decision (as I noted last week), not because it is antisemitic or a boycott of Israel, but for many of the reasons articulated by Michael Koplow and Partners for Progressive Israel. It takes two to make peace, and neither the Palestinians nor Israel can make peace without the active engagement of the other. One-sided pressure on either side will cause the side under pressure to dig in and will cause the other side to sit back and watch.

And that's what's happening. Israel's government launched a campaign against Ben & Jerry's decision and is urging states that have passed anti-BDS laws to take action against Ben & Jerry's (some of these laws extend beyond BDS and explicitly extend to boycotts of territories under Israel's control). Ninety of Israel's 120 Knesset members signed a letter implying that the West Bank was part of Israel. Some later withdrew their names, but that's still most of the Knesset.

Knesset members sign letters for different reasons, just like members of Congress. Some Knesset members support annexation. Some might be motivated by political considerations--the settlers aren't going anywhere in the near-term, and 475,00 voters can make a difference. Regardless, letters worded like this (the alternative would have been to criticize the tactic) contribute to the perception that the current Israeli government, by conflating the West Bank with Israel, is not serious about peace: The two-state solution depends on differentiation between the West Bank and Israel.

If we act as if the West Bank--which Israel has not annexed--is Israel, then we are giving a boost to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and others who argue that the undeniable disparity in legal rights between Jews and Palestinians in the West Bank means Israel is not a democracy. If West Bank Palestinians cannot vote in Knesset elections, and they can't, it doesn't mean Israel is not a democracy if the West Bank is not part of Israel. If the West Bank is part of Israel, then Israel is not a democracy.

Defending Israel against allegations of apartheid depends on maintaining clarity between the West Bank and Israel. Some argue that Israel has de facto annexed the West Bank. Reacting to the Ben & Jerry's boycott as if it is a boycott of Israel lends credence to this argument.

The bond between the U.S. and Israel is based on shared strategic interests and shared values. Over the years, many of us argued that it was a mistake to emphasize the strategic value of the U.S.-Israel relationship (reliable ally in the region with military expertise) because the importance of that dynamic could change over time, whereas shared values such as democracy would endure forever. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are major human rights abusers, but our relationships with Egypt and Saudi Arabia were never based on shared values, but on cold economic and military interests.

Without a two-state solution, and with continued settlement expansion, Israel will become either Jewish and not democratic or democratic and not Jewish. Jewish and not democratic is the more likely result, which will cost Israel support in the U.S. Ostensibly pro-Israel organizations are making a major mistake by conflating the West Bank with Israel and bolstering the argument that the West Bank is part of Israel.

They will compound their error if they press for enforcement of state-level anti-BDS laws, such as the Illinois law, against Ben & Jerry's, which will (i) reinforce the false notion that Ben & Jerry's is engaging in BDS (why would we want to tell people that a well-known progressive company is engaging in BDS when it isn't?), (ii) conflate Israel with the West Bank, and (ii) pit a loud subset of the pro-Israel community against the free speech community, forcing allies of Israel to choose between free speech and action against an American company whose decision to pull out of the West Bank will have little or no economic impact on Israel. Any action taken now against Ben & Jerry's would be premature since they will continue to sell in the West Bank until the end of 2022.

Has Ben & Jerry's created a perception problem because people think that they are anti-Israel and boycotting Israel? Their statement could not have been clearer. Should they have put the part about selling in Israel in all caps? Ended that sentence with an exclamation point? Perhaps included a smiley face at the end? The fault for the misperception lies with the right-wing organizations in our community falsely accusing Ben & Jerry's of boycotting Israel, of antisemitism, and of engaging in BDS. If we care about accurate, honest reporting, we should push back against those falsehoods.

Others claim that Ben & Jerry's independent Board wanted to boycott Israel. The Board's original statement didn't say that. Rather, the Board's original statement did not include the sentence affirming that Ben & Jerry's would continue to sell in Israel. Unilever added it. This "independent" Board does not seem to have the power to even issue statements on behalf of Ben & Jerry's.

We are not the thought police. What matters is not whether those within the Ben & Jerry's organization agree with the statement issued by Ben & Jerry's. What matters is the statement issued by Ben & Jerry's, and as of now, it's clear as clear can be that they will continue to sell in Israel. If and when that changes, we'll do what intelligent people do: We'll reevaluate our opinion.

Ben & Jerry's decision is neither antisemitic nor supporting BDS. As Ben and Jerry themselves said, "it’s possible to support Israel and oppose some of its policies, just as we’ve opposed policies of the U.S. government...As Jewish supporters of the State of Israel, we fundamentally reject the notion that it is anti-Semitic to question the policies of the State of Israel."

Instead of giving BDS an unearned victory by parroting its claims that its pressure on Ben & Jerry's was successful, we should tell it like it is: This was a rejection of BDS, which advocates for boycotts of Israel, and is instead a targeted, limited boycott of the West Bank that will have little economic impact. We should use this opportunity to explain why we disagree with the tactic rather than using potentially unconstitutional laws to alienate those who otherwise might agree with us, and we should explain that we believe settlement expansion, while not the root of the conflict, is an impediment to a solution.

This has nothing to do with Israel's legitimate security needs, so we should continue to support the Obama-Biden administration's record-setting security assistance package to Israel. We should oppose breaching the Memorandum of Understanding by adding additional conditions/restrictions, which does not mean giving Israel a blank check: The MOU itself contains restrictions.

On Wednesday, the House barely passed the 2022 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs funding bill by a vote of 217 to 212. All of the no votes were Republicans. Among other things, this bill is the vehicle for funding the MOU. Despite backing from AIPAC and J Street, it did not pass with bipartisan support. It passed thanks to overwhelming Democratic support. JDCA is right: If every Democrat voted against it, the GOP would be running deceitful ads claiming that Democrats are anti-Israel. Remember what happened in May?

We should continue to support the two-state solution that Israel needs to remain Jewish and democratic and that the Palestinians need to live in peace and dignity. Last week, I participated in a fascinating discussion with Hussein Ibish, sponsored by Heart of a Nation, about the structural and political realities that are preventing Israeli and Palestinian leaders from shifting course. Read the transcript--it's not long.

Finally, we must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons by supporting President Biden's attempts to reenter the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran--which means rejecting phony arguments against the JCPOA. The ball is currently in Iran's court, but we need to be ready if Iran signals a willingness to return to the deal.

President Biden nominated Dr. Deborah Lipstadt for the position of State Department Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism. I've spoken personally with Deborah Lipstadt on several occasions and can personally vouch for her intelligence and wisdom. She is an excellent choice. We now spell "antisemitism" as one word with no hyphen because Dr. Lipstadt advocated for that change, arguing that it would help clarify that antisemitism is hatred of Jews, not hatred of all Semites (which is why some argue that "Jew-hatred" might be an even better term).

JDCA CEO Halie Soifer said that Dr. Lipstadt is "the right person at the right time for this critical role" and that her selection "sends a strong message that antisemitism will not be tolerated by the Biden White House." Legislation authored by Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL), who also praised Lipstadt's nomination, elevated the Special Envoy post to Ambassador status.

Biden has been in office roughly six months. Trump left the the Envoy position vacant for two years.

Last week's newsletter.

ICYMI. Nancy Pelosi did this.

Tweets of the Week. President Joe Biden and Anshel Pfeffer.

Twitter Thread of the Week. Thomas Zimmer.

GIF of the Week. Kisscam.

Video Clip of the Week. A reason not to hate Tom Brady quite so much.

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.