|
February 22, 2026
Key Developments and What We're Discussing Today:
- Pro-Israel is not synonymous with pro-AIPAC or pro-Netanyahu. Sometimes, it is the opposite.
- We should reject AIPAC's purity tests, whether in New Jersey, Illinois, or anywhere.
- Candidates like Tom Malinowski and Daniel Biss might not fit AIPAC's definition of pro-Israel, but they fit mine: They support Israel's safety and security and are committed to ensuring Israel's future through a two-state solution--and to opposing actions that impede that solution.
- Denying Israel vital security assistance is not the same as requiring Israel (or any recipient of U.S. military aid) to follow U.S. and international law and to put in place reasonable restrictions if we have concerns about how our assistance is used
You can define "supporting my work" by a contribution via credit card or PayPal, Venmo @Steven-Sheffey, or check. Thank you.
Greetings!
What does "pro-Israel" mean? It's the name of this newsletter, so I ought to know, right? I define "pro-Israel" as supporting policies that will help ensure Israel's future as a Jewish, democratic state living in peace and security, which must include working toward a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
My definition of "pro-Israel" means distinguishing support for the State of Israel from the government of Israel, whose policies we can agree or disagree with, even vehemently if necessary and appropriate. Everyone who opposes Trump and supports America should intuitively understand this.
Others seem to define "pro-Israel" as supporting the policies of the government of Israel, no matter what those policies are (or at least not speaking out publicly against them) and rejecting any conditions on military aid to Israel as automatically inappropriate, leaving no room for even contemplating or debating the merits of such conditions.
We saw this play out in the New Jersey primary, where the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) spent about $2.1 million against Tom Malinkowski, a pro-Israel former member of Congress who was willing to consider conditions on aid to Israel.
From AIPAC's perspective, any deviation from its purity test lands a candidate on the other side of pro-Israel. As Malinowski said, “AIPAC’s definition of ‘pro-Israel’ has become so narrow that only somebody who agrees with them 100 percent of the time and who is willing to provide unrestricted and unconditional support to the current Israeli government qualifies. And that definition excludes most Democrats and most of the American pro-Israel Jewish community.”
In his must-read Bulwark piece, Malinowski writes, "if AIPAC’s definition of 'pro-Israel' now demands blind a embrace of and funding for policies that even most Americans with a lifelong commitment to Israeli security cannot in good conscience support—like the violent expulsion of West Bank Palestinians from their homes—and if it requires smearing even the most moderate elected officials who ask questions about those policies, the number of Americans (and the number of members of Congress) who pass its test will be too small to sustain any kind of relationship with the Jewish state."
Noting that "AIPAC knows that even most pro-Israel Americans don’t support a blank check for Netanyahu," Malinowski suggests that Democrats reject AIPAC money (most of AIPAC's donors are Democrats, but its biggest donors, says Malinowski, are pro-Trump billionaires) and instead "embrace—loudly and unequivocally—the popular position on these issues (which happens to be the principled one, too). They should be pro-Israel, but anti-Netanyahu."
(A spokesperson for Illinois Governor JB Pritzker said that AIPAC has become a pro-Trump organization.)
David Schraub nailed it: "More than anything else, AIPAC wants to sabotage the emergence of any political movement that couples care and concern for Israel, its legitimate security needs and democratic prerogatives, with care and concern for Palestinians, their legitimate democratic aspirations and human rights entitlements."
No wonder AIPAC vehemently opposed Malinowski and opposes Daniel Biss. AIPAC called Daniel Biss, the frontrunner to succeed retiring Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Kat Abughazaleh "dangerous detractors" despite their very different approaches to Israel and backgrounds on the issue. Indeed, in last week's report on AIPAC's involvement in several Illinois races, the Washington Post noted that Biss is "a supporter of Israel whose mother is Israeli."
It made no difference to AIPAC. They seem not to differentiate between candidates who fail their purity test. Biss is following Malinowski's advice. Fine is ignoring it, refusing to differentiate her positions on Israel from AIPAC's right-wing positions on Israel and taking AIPAC's financial support while not acknowledging it. The Daily Northwestern has more on the AIPAC controversy in this race.
AIPAC's approach in the primaries is similar to when it fought tooth and nail against the Iran Deal in 2015 and succeeded only in making Israel a partisan issue, exacerbating divisions, and losing a fight that was doomed from the start. Now we are on the brink of a war with Iran that would not be necessary, or much easier, if the Iran Deal were still in place. AIPAC opposed a good deal because it wasn't perfect.
AIPAC is running a similarly costly, needlessly divisive playbook against pro-Israel candidates like Malinowski and Biss, who they feel are not perfect, and alienating large segments of the electorate. In New Jersey, their efforts got them a candidate far less to their liking. Let's hope they don't "succeed" in Illinois.
No conditions on aid to Israel might have made sense during the decades when Israel's use of military aid was consistent with U.S. interests and values, but a year into the Gaza War, by which time it was a war of choice rather than a war of necessity (for Israel, not Netanyahu's political survival), conditions and limitations that might have been previously unnecessary became politically and morally hard to argue against.
Denying Israel vital security assistance, which Biss is not proposing, is not the same as requiring Israel (or any recipient of U.S. military aid) to follow U.S. and international law and to put in place reasonable restrictions if we have concerns about how our assistance is used.
The challenge for pro-Israel Democrats running against AIPAC-backed candidates in Democratic primaries is informing voters who is behind the Super PAC ads that they are seeing.
In Illinois, AIPAC is using newly-formed Super PACs named Elect Chicago Women and Affordable Chicago Now. Laura Fine, Biss's principal opponent, denies knowing who is behind Elect Chicago Women.
The AIPAC-backed Super PAC took out a huge ad buy in the ninth district and upped it last week. I have no doubt that this PAC will be either attacking Biss or propping up Fine (maybe this time they can at least get it right).
Given that it is illegal for campaigns to coordinate with Super PACs, the timing of the ads is...interesting.
Unlike other candidates, and unlike many members of Congress, Biss has the intellect and the background on Israel to credibly stand up for what is right and for what he knows in his heart and mind is necessary to ensure Israel's safety and security as a Jewish, democratic state.
Maybe that's what AIPAC is afraid of: someone who literally speaks the language and coming from a position of love for Israel and Israelis and offers policy solutions that are better than AIPAC's.
Daniel Biss is the best candidate for American democracy and the U.S.-Israel relationship in this race. He will be outspent, so please spread the word by sharing this newsletter.
In Case You Missed It:
- Trump appears to be headed toward war with Iran, which would be an unconstitutional abuse of power absent a declaration of war from Congress. Thus far, Trump has failed to articulate a strategy or an objective. Joshua Leifer writes, "The Iranian people deserve to be free. But Donald Trump, to understate things grossly, is not the liberator for which so many are waiting. A U.S. war of regime change is unlikely to bring about a better, freer future; it is more likely to lead to a violent, chaotic and inhumane one." No one should support strikes on Iran unless they can answer these six questions. Read more from JDCA CEO Halie Soifer on what comes next.
- Trump gave Hamas credit for the "hard work" of digging around to locate the Israeli hostages they kidnapped and murdered.
- Thomas Friedman writes that "Netanyahu has played Trump for a sucker, as well as the pro-Israel lobby led by [AIPAC] and many other so-called American Jewish leaders."
Tweets of the Week. Halie Soifer and Emo Philips.
Thread of the Week. Inventor of the Dishwasher.
Facebook Post of the Week. Joshua Shanes on Marco Rubio.
Video Clip of the Week. Gianmarco Soresi on Prince Andrew's arrest.
Jesse Jackson Video Clips of the Week. Keep Hope Alive, Sesame Street, and Saturday Night Live.
Vintage Music Clip of the Week. Paul Simon on Sesame Street.
The Fine Print. I read every reply to this newsletter. I reply as often as I can. All I ask is that you read the Fine Print before you reply or send me anything.
For those new to this newsletter. This is the newsletter even Republicans have to read and the original home of the viral and beloved Top Ten Signs You're At a Republican Seder (yes, I wrote it).
If someone forwarded this newsletter to you, your luck continues. You can subscribe and get it in your inbox every Sunday for free. Just click here.
Be sure to read my posts on distinguishing anti-Zionism from antisemitism, how to heal the generational rift on Israel and antisemitism, and the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
I hope you enjoyed today's newsletter. It takes time to write and costs money to send. If you'd like to support my work, click here and fill in the amount of your choice. You don't need a PayPal account. If you see something that says "Save your info and create a PayPal account," click the button to the right and it will go away. Or you can Venmo @Steven-Sheffey. Or you can send a check.
Unless stated otherwise, my views do not necessarily reflect the views of any candidates or organizations I support or am associated with.
| 