|
August 16, 2026
Key Developments and What We're Discussing Today:
- Before we criticize anyone for not supporting a "Jewish state," we should ask ourselves what we mean by a "Jewish state." We might not have the same definitions.
- The same is true of socialism and democratic socialism. The democratic socialism that many young people seem to support might not be the democratic socialism we imagine it to be. The best way for Democratic candidates to compete against DSA would be to co-opt the parts of DSA's agenda that address concerns shared by most Americans (wealth inequality, access to healthcare, etc.).
- Supporting Israel should never require defending, excusing, or refusing to condemn settler violence. Supporting Palestinians should never require defending, excusing, or refusing to condemn Hamas.
You can define your support for my work by chipping in via credit card (you do not need a PayPal account), Zelle (contact me for info), Venmo @Steven-Sheffey (last four digits, 9479), or check.
Friends,
Many of our disagreements arise not because we disagree on the merits but because we use polysemic words and phrases differently. It's like the story of the man who goes to the rabbi and explains why he doesn't believe in God. The rabbi responds, "the god you don't believe in? I don't believe in that god either."
That's why we can't blame Michigan Senate candidate Dr. Abdul El-Sayed for asking those who ask him if he supports a "Jewish state" to define what they mean by "Jewish state."
Bear with me for three paragraphs. We love our litmus tests. Remember when we demanded that any candidate's position paper include supporting that the U.S. embassy be moved to Jerusalem, as if it mattered or as if Israel wanted it? That purity test is gone because Trump did move the embassy.
It did not make Israel safer or more secure, but it removed a bargaining chip that might have been useful in final status negotiations. It was nothing more than an antisemitic dog whistle from Trump to rightwing Evangelicals and a bit of pandering to his Republican Jewish supporters. Only seven countries followed Trump's lead: Guatemala, Honduras, Kosovo, Papua New Guinea, Fiji, and Paraguay. Feel safer?
The new purity tests are unconditional aid to Israel, which will soon disappear because the Trump administration said that the next memorandum of understanding with Israel will phase out all aid to Israel (which doesn't prevent Republicans from harping on Democrats for casting symbolic votes to do just that), and support for a "Jewish state."
Before we go further, ask yourself: Do you support a Jewish state?
Now watch this two-minute video of El-Sayed responding to that question with questions of his own (kind of a Jewish thing to do, no?). Can you answer those questions? If you can't, or especially if you think you can, read Adam Serwer's short essay.
For the 70% of Jewish Americans who are emotionally attached to Israel, including me, it seems like an easy question. I support a democratic, Jewish state, which I believe depends on reaching a two-state solution and until then, making progress toward that solution.
But can we blame the vast majority of Americans who are not emotionally attached to Israel or to a certain answer for asking the questions El-Sayed asks? It was easy for politicians not to ask these questions, just as it was easy for politicians to support moving the embassy to Jerusalem, when there was no political cost to questioning the underlying assumptions and when Israel had a government that, if not deserving of our support, at least had earned the benefit of the doubt.
We can't pretend we live in that world anymore. At least not as long as Netanyahu is prime minister. Israel's government is the most extreme, right-wing government in Israel's history. We cannot credibly deny what it is doing or expect Americans, including Americans running for office, to turn a blind eye.
Maybe you are among the 51% of Jewish Americans who do not think Israel is committing genocide. Would you really feel better about the term "war crimes"? Do you think that if you successfully argued that Israel is only guilty of war crimes or ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity, but not genocide, support for Israel would rise to previous levels?
Or maybe you deny all of it, in which case you have to ask yourself if you know more, and are more pro-Israel, than former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert (and here). Maybe you do and maybe you are. Even so, we cannot lightly dismiss Olmert and other Israelis who have spoken out against Netanyahu's policies in Gaza and the West Bank, nor can we automatically write off those in America who agree with him.
As Esther Sperber writes, our main problem is not U.S. critics of Israel's policies, but the actions of Netanyahu's government in the West Bank and Gaza. I don't like to hear that. The Jewish community is emotionally attached to Israel and so used to defending Israel against false accusations that we don't know what to do when the accusations are true. That might stop us from talking about it, but others will stop talking about it only when Israel's policies change.
For his part, El-Sayed seems agnostic on the best way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, telling David Remnick, "I will support whatever the outcome is that a free Palestinian people and a free Jewish Israeli people decide is the right outcome. If that’s two states, great, I’m for it. If it’s one state, I’m for that. If it’s this 'land for all' model, or twenty-three states, or whatever it is that they decide."
Lest you think I left anyone out (I am very inclusive), Christian nationalists are also emotionally attached to Israel. But as Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CO), whose new book, No Prophets: The Fight To Save Democracy From Christian Nationalism, comes out on Tuesday, explained to me in July, those Christian nationalists who call themselves Christian Zionists don’t want self-determination for Israel and the Jewish people and intend for Israel to be the center of a global Christian kingdom.
Not exactly what most Jews who are emotionally attached to Israel have in mind. Maybe the Republican Party, which is infected to the top with Christian nationalism, is not the answer.
Democratic House and Senate majorities that support our policies and values, even if every member of those majorities does not share all of our values and priorities, are better than two more years of Republican rule firmly committed to doing nothing to stop Trump from ruining our democracy and our country.
The question is not whether we agree or disagree with El-Sayed on any given issue. We disagree with nearly every candidate on any given issue, and I disagree with some of El-Sayed's positions and statements related to Israel.
The question is whether we prefer El-Sayed to his opponent, Mike Rogers, whose questionable associations have yet to come under scrutiny. Rogers supports Donald Trump, whose platform is larger than that of any social media influencer and whose record of antisemitism is longer than that of any social media influencer.
The answer in Michigan is either a Democratic Senate that includes Abdul El-Sayed or a Republican Senate that includes Mike Rogers. Which scenario do you think would be better for our country?
For more on what words mean, read my explainer on Zionism, Genocide, and Apartheid.
I'll leave you with these words of wisdom from Avi Fields-Meyer, which you can watch or read.
In Case You Missed It:
- As we approach November, expect Republicans to criticize strong supporters of Israel for voting against particular aid or arms sales to Israel. The facts and politics on all of these votes are different. When you hear these attacks, check to see if the attacks include specific votes. If not, disregard them. If so, find out why any particular vote was cast by any particular senator or representative. The reasons will differ, the specific items voted on will differ, and you might find yourself agreeing with the vote. This statement from Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) is a good example.
- Jeremy Ben-Ami: How Abdul El-Sayed – and All of Us – Can Build Bridges in Michigan.
- Why do so many young Americans support democratic socialism? Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) explains that they "are not talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat or seizing the means of production." They want what we should all want. The short text is different from the short video, so read and watch both.
- Democrats should co-opt those parts of the DSA agenda that are popular and that make sense. For example, as Paul Krugman explains, objectively, Medicare-for-All is the best system, and if it's not politically possible now, we should at least push for a public option (Medicare Buy-In).
Jewish Insider Fail of the Week. Daniel Bral found it before I did. We should treat Jewish Insider with the level of trust that we would Fox News.
Social Media of the Week. William Shatner and MC Squared.
Video Clip of the Week. Martin Short impersonates Jerry Lewis impersonating Bob Dylan.
Vintage Music Clip of the Week (because the above clip is vintage but not really "music"): Wang Chung - Everybody Have Fun Tonight (live TV 1987).
The Fine Print. Read the fine print before you reply or send me anything.
This is the newsletter even Republicans have to read. 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.
I hope you enjoyed today's newsletter. It takes time to write and costs money to send. You are on this list because you are smart, good-looking, and generous. 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 use Zelle, (contact me for info), Venmo @Steven-Sheffey (last four digits, 9479), or 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.
| 
