You're welcome to read for free, but if you want to chip in to defray the cost of the newsletter, click here and fill 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,

This newsletter is the Chicagoland Pro-Israel Political Update. But what does it mean to be "pro-Israel" in 2022? The two pillars of the U.S.-Israel relationship are shared foreign policy interests and shared values. “Shared” does not mean identical, which is why every administration, from Truman to Biden, has at times publicly disagreed with Israel.

The U.S. commitment to Israel is, as President Biden said on August 7, "long-standing and unwavering" and as the State Department said on August 8, "the United States remains dedicated to our ironclad commitment to Israel’s security." The U.S.-Israel relationship endures not because the two nations always agree, but because we recognize that disagreements between leaders and governments of allies are natural; the question is how they are resolved.

Pro-Israel means supporting the values and interests that bind the U.S. and Israel and speaking out when either country weakens those pillars of support. Pro-Israel does not mean blindly supporting the policies of whatever government happens to be in power in Israel and then turning on a dime when another government is elected, just as "pro-America" does not mean blind allegiance to the policies of Joe Biden (or, dare I say, Donald Trump). Pro-Israel does not mean supporting insurrectionists in the United States: Undermining democracy in the U.S. undermines the strength of the U.S.-Israel relationship by toppling one of the pillars that support the U.S.-Israel alliance.

Zionism expresses "the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State." Zionism does not require the rejection of the Palestinian national identity, nor does it require Jewish control of the entire Jewish homeland: Israel accepted U.N. Resolution 181, which established an Arab state in what is now called the West Bank and put Jerusalem under international administration. The Arabs, not the Zionists, rejected partition of the land, and we need partition (two states) today for the same reason we needed it then.

Those who deny the Jewish right to self-determination must ask themselves how they can justify a Palestinian right to self-determination. Even if one denies 3,000 years of Jewish history and ties to the land, even if one believes that Jewish nationalism began with the rise of modern Zionism in the 1800s, the reality is that every national movement began at some point and that today seven million Jews live in Israel. They are not going anywhere. As Golda Meir told Joe Biden in 1973, "Israel has a secret weapon--we have nowhere else to go."

None of this obviates or invalidates the Palestinian national movement. The pro-Israel position, or at least my pro-Israel position, is that Palestinian nationalism must be effectuated in addition to, not instead of, Jewish nationalism. Neither side can or should abandon its narrative. Jews do have historic ties to cities and land in the West Bank. Palestinians do have ties to pre-1967 Israel. But both sides will have to give up land they believe is theirs if both sides are to live together in peace and security, and while neither side has to agree with the other side's narrative, both sides must understand and accept the determination of the other side.

Ehud Barak served as Israel's Prime Minister and Defense Minister. He is the most decorated soldier in Israel's history and served as armed forces chief of staff. In his memoir, My Country, My Life: Fighting for Israel Searching for Peace, Barak writes that when asked in 1998 how his life might have turned out if he had been born a Palestinian, he replied "At some stage, I would have entered into one of the terror organizations and fought from there."

Barak discusses Moshe Dayan's famous 1956 eulogy for Roi Rotberg, who was murdered by Arab terrorists. Dayan said that "For eight years, [the Palestinians] have been sitting in the refugee camps of Gaza, while before their eyes we have been transforming the lands and villages where their fathers dwelt." Sounds like something you'd expect a radical Palestinian or a naive lefty to say, but this is Moshe Dayan speaking in 1956, quoted by Ehud Barak in 2018. Pro-Israel does not have to mean anti-Palestinian.

Zionism means rejecting galut mentality. "Galut" is the Hebrew word for diaspora (exile). Barak writes that the refusal of former Prime Minister Netanyahu's government to take risks to disentangle Israel from Palestinians on the West Bank is "living proof of the old saying that it's easier to take Jews out of the galut, than take the galut out of the Jews." Barak explains that "the whole Zionist project was based on the idea of taking our fate into our own hands, and actively trying to change the reality around us."

A two-state solution remains the only solution that will allow for a Jewish and democratic State of Israel. Barak explains that as long as the occupation is an interim arrangement with the ultimate goal of a political resolution of the conflict with the Palestinians, treating Jewish settlers differently from Palestinians in the West Bank, legally and politically, is defensible. "But under a one-state vision, it will become harder and harder to rebut comparisons made with the old South Africa." Former prime ministers Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Olmert have made similar points.

Even if you can prove that history shows that Israel was always right and the Palestinians were always wrong, even if you can prove that settlements are legal and Israel is not an occupying power, even if you can prove that time and time again Israel has offered peace on generous terms only to be rebuffed by the Palestinians, what are you proving? That Israel is entitled to keep the West Bank forever? That the Palestinians had their chance, blew it, and now Israel can write off Palestinian demands and continue to build settlements?

No matter how we got to where we are, and no matter whose fault it is, the population of Jews and Arabs between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River is roughly equal. Israel can only be Jewish and democratic if the vast majority of its citizens are Jewish.

Arabs who live in the West Bank do not have the same legal rights as Jews who live in the West Bank or as Jews and Arabs who live in pre-1967 Israel. That’s understandable in the context of a temporary military occupation caused by Jordan’s attack on Israel. But Israel cannot remain Jewish and democratic and in permanent control of the West Bank indefinitely; it can only have any two of the three, which means that the only way to realize the classic Zionist dream of a democratic Jewish state is to cede the West Bank.

If you accept the imperative of a two-state solution, then it no longer matters whether Israel’s claim to the West Bank is superior to the Arab claim, because a two-state solution necessarily means Israel relinquishing nearly all of the West Bank. Settlements are an obstacle to peace because they make a two-state solution more difficult. Settlements are not the root cause of the conflict, but they impede a solution. Even if a two-state solution is not possible now because neither side seems interested, the United States and other governments that support Israel oppose settlement expansion because it will eventually make a two-state solution impossible. The burden is on Israel to find a solution not because this is Israel’s fault or because Israel has not done enough, or even more than enough relative to the Palestinians, but because Israel needs a two-state solution.

Why should Israel have to give up land to which Jews have had historic ties for thousands of years that Israel won in a defensive war? Because no matter how they got there, the Palestinians who live in the West Bank aren’t going anywhere. Neither are the Jews who live in the major settlement blocs and behind the 1967 lines. The reality is that for Israel to remain Jewish and democratic, fair or unfair, Israel has to find a way to relinquish the West Bank.

Acknowledging that settlements are an obstacle to peace does not mean excusing Palestinian violence, intransigence, or incitement. It’s not either/or. Neither does acknowledgment that both Israel and the Palestinians must take steps toward peace imply moral equivalence. What it does mean is that stopping settlement expansion is a necessary albeit insufficient condition for a two-state solution, and since a two-state solution is an existential necessity for Israel, Israel cannot afford to wait for movement on the Palestinian side: The more settlements there are, the harder a two-state solution becomes, and that’s bad for Israel.

But is a two-state solution possible? Many Israelis and Palestinians seem to have given up. Who are we in the U.S. to tell either side what to do? Israel cannot unilaterally disengage from the West Bank even if that was politically possible: The result would be the thousands of rockets Israel continues to face following its unilateral disengagement from Gaza. Any two-state solution must be negotiated, bilateral, and account for Israel's security concerns.

Israel's peace treaty with Egypt remains the most important diplomatic achievement in its history. The treaty was possible because at the same time, the United States (Carter), Israel (Begin), and Egypt (Sadat) were headed by leaders with the vision, political courage, and the ability to convince both the other leaders and their own people to take risks for peace. A two-state solution will not occur until a similar combination arises among the U.S., Israel, and the Palestinians (spoiler alert: We are not there now).

Ami Ayalon, Gilead Sher, and Orni Petruschka wrote in July that "there is currently no political feasibility for a two-state solution," but instead of "blindly walking down the road of a one-state reality" by ignoring settlement expansion and settler violence, Israel should "preserve the chances and conditions for future Israeli-Palestinian disengagement and creation two distinct nation-states with a border between them."

The U.S. cannot impose a solution, and Israel does not forfeit its right to exist or our moral obligation to provide security assistance if it does not act in what we believe is in its best interests. If this is a conflict between two peoples, then the Palestinians have agency too, and we must help both sides (including with humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians) develop the confidence and capacity to take risks for peace. That's what it means to be "pro-Israel."

Today Orli Sheffey z''l would have been 20. My youngest daughter died on February 11, 2022. She fought racism, she fought anti-Israel bias, she spoke out against injustice wherever she saw it, and in her short life she made the world a better place and everyone she knew was better for knowing her. My wife wrote a tribute to her memory on Facebook.

Last week's newsletter--Highland Park Strong.

ICYMI. Dystopian nightmare! FBI obtains warrant, conducts search!

Tweet of the Week. Duty to Warn.

Video Clip of the Week. Little League.

Upcoming Events. Politics with Dana and Steve, the premier Jewish political organization in the Chicago area, presents Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL) on Sunday, August 21, at 4:00 pm at a private residence in Highland Park, outdoors. Tickets are free, but contributions are encouraged. Rep. Casten is one of the brightest members of Congress and is excellent on all of our issues. RSVP here.

Please join me, Dana Gordon, and Marcy Fleisher & Steve Kanner plus a growing list of co-hosts (check out the invitation) for an in-person (outdoors if the weather is nice) reception in support of U.S. Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH) candidate for U.S. Senate, on Wednesday, August 24 at 6:30 PM at a private residence in Highland Park. RSVP using this link. Please let me know if you would like to attend the event and meet Ryan before committing to a specific or any contribution amount.

We need at least two more Democrats in the Senate to move forward with our agenda. With our help, Tim Ryan can be one of them. Ryan is great on our issues, and he's running against J.D. Vance--this 30-second clip is all you need to know.

This is the newsletter even Republicans have to read. And it's the original source of the viral Top Ten Signs You Might be at a Republican Seder.

So if someone forwarded this 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. I might be wrong: 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 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. I'm happy to read anything, but please don't expect me to watch videos of any length--send me a transcript if the content is that important. 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. Dedicated to Ariel Sheffey, Ayelet Sheffey, and Orli Sheffey z''l. ©2022 Steve Sheffey. All rights reserved.