|
February 8, 2026
Key Developments and What We're Discussing Today:
- We cannot effectively advocate for Israel if we deny what the rest of the country and the world sees.
- Our advocacy for Israel must distinguish the state of Israel from the government of Israel and must be based on facts, not fiction.
- We cannot dismiss fact-based criticism of the Netanyahu government's conduct as anti-Israel or antisemitic.
- Israel's best friends in Congress are those who offer constructive solutions to real problems that, in some cases, might include scrutinizing aid to Israel, not those who offer blind support for Netanyahu's policies.
- A Jewish Federations of North America survey found that only 37% of Jewish Americans said they identified as Zionist, yet some people would have us believe that opposition to or agnosticism on Zionism is per se antisemitic.
- AIPAC blew a New Jersey congressional primary on Thursday and is attempting the same stunt in the Illinois 9th congressional district primary, where it is opposing Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss, Rep. Jan Schakowsky's choice to succeed her.
Watching the Super Bowl? Why not celebrate when your favorite team scores by supporting my work via credit card or PayPal, Venmo @Steven-Sheffey, or check? Then we all win.
Greetings!
I used to buy into the notion that pro-Israel advocacy meant acting as Israel's lawyer in the United States. If we didn't make the case for Israel, the thinking went, who would? The unspoken assumption was that the case for Israel was the better case. All we had to do was find the facts and share them.
Finding the facts meant confirming what we wanted to believe. The advent of the internet made it easier. But the internet also made it easier for others to discover the facts--which were not necessarily the facts we wanted to believe.
We cannot effectively advocate for Israel if we deny what the rest of the country and the world sees. The Gaza War was a just war. Hence the outpouring of support for Israel from both Democrats and Republicans on October 8.
As time went on, Israel sometimes waged that war unjustly.
Hence increasing criticism of Israel's conduct from pro-Israel members of Congress, including support for limited restrictions on arms transfers to Israel. Hence credible accusations of war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and even genocide, from experts in the field (only 51% of Jewish Americans think Israel did not commit genocide).
To be clear, credible accusations are not conclusive verdicts. But they cannot be waved away as anti-Israel or antisemitic, especially when made by the authorities cited in the preceding links and when accepted by large percentages of the Jewish community.
Advocating for Israel in 2026 means advocating for Israel's right to exist as a Jewish, democratic state, a right that is not forfeited by the conduct of its current government, just as other countries do not lose their right to exist based on their government's conduct.
It means supporting policies that will ensure Israel's safety and security, including its ability to defend itself from external threats, ensuring Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons, and progress toward a two-state solution which, however distant it may appear now, is the only solution that will prevent Israel from losing its democracy and descending into apartheid.
Supporting a two-state solution is meaningless without supporting steps in support of a two-state solution, including opposing annexation of all or parts of the West Bank and support for measures to combat settler violence, such as the West Bank Violence Prevention Act.
Advocating for Israel does not mean sparing Israel from fact-based criticism or using propaganda instead of fact-based evidence to evaluate Israel's conduct.
Part of the reason we instinctively reject criticism of Israel is that we think that such criticism can lead to a rejection of Israel's right to exist. That's why we need to explain that the answer to credible allegations of misconduct by Israel's government is to address those specific allegations while at the same time maintaining the crucial distinction between a government that we may abhor and a state that we support and that we are proud of.
We are capable of distinguishing Trump from America, even though many Americans voted for Trump. We reject claims that strong or even unfair criticism of any U.S. government is anti-American or should not be aired in public.
It should not be hard to distinguish Netanyahu from Israel, even though many Israelis voted for Netanyahu. It should not be hard to reject claims that strong, evidence-based criticism of Israel's policies is anti-Israel or should not be aired in public.
Rather than deny the facts, we should focus on where the facts lead. If the next step is cutting off all arms transfers to Israel, then that's unacceptable because Israel has legitimate needs for offensive and defensive weapons. But if the next step is greater scrutiny of how Israel uses weapons provided by the United States or requiring that U.S weapons must be used in accordance with U.S and international law--how can we credibly argue against that? How can we argue against consequences if Israel violates U.S. or international law with U.S. weapons?
Calls to condition or limit aid based on the conduct of Israel's current government, or any U.S. aid recipient, are not automatically inappropriate. Arguing that only Israel should be exempt from scrutiny is a double standard that many Americans will not accept.
We might want to live in denial to preserve our image of an Israel that does no wrong, but the rest of the country and the rest of the world won't. The sooner we make our case based on the facts, the more effective we will be.
If we don't like the facts, the answer is to change them by supporting those in Israel opposing Israel's current government, not by supporting politicians and organizations in the U.S. who pander to our emotions at the expense of their and our credibility.
What does this mean in practice? All countries lie when they are at war because bad things, intentional and unintentional, happen. War includes the battle for public opinion. We should not take the claims of our enemies at face value, but neither can we blindly accept the claims of our allies.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has accepted the estimate of the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry that approximately 71,000 Palestinians were killed during the Israel-Gaza war, noting that the number does not include missing residents who are potentially buried under rubble. That the IDF considered the Hamas numbers reliable was reported two years ago but was acknowledged by the IDF only two weeks ago.
But what about the ratio of combatants to civilians killed? Contrary to what we were told by John Spencer and others, and contrary to what we wanted to believe (how else to excuse those deaths?), we now know, writes retired U.S. Marine Corps Colonel Andy Milburn, that Israel's practices during the Gaza War "reflect more than permissive risk tolerance. They amount to a breakdown in the application of distinction and proportionality as those principles are normally understood and enforced in modern Western militaries." So if we oppose double standards and want Israel to be judged similarly to other democracies...
What about the argument that Gazans chose Hamas, so they are getting what they deserve? Bogus too, writes Seth Frantzman.
Americans who strongly supported Israel in the aftermath of October 7 did not suddenly become anti-Israel or antisemitic. They saw what the Netanyahu government did in Gaza. They saw what some of us wished away. The solution is to stop defending the indefensible and start advocating for Israel, not for Netanyahu.
Among the many reasons we cannot make a blanket declaration that anti-Zionism is per se antisemitic is that the term "Zionism" has different meanings for different people. A Jewish Federations of North America survey conducted in March 2025 found that only 37% of Jews surveyed said they identified as Zionist, but as this report on the survey explains, much depends on how "Zionism"is defined.
If we can't agree on what Zionism means, how can we expect others to understand the term, let alone declare that opposing a term whose meaning is the subject of disagreement within the Jewish community is antisemitic?
We should talk about what we mean rather than use words that are understood differently within the Jewish community and among the general population. That's Comms 101. We should not condemn anyone who claims to be anti-Zionist or non-Zionist without understanding what they mean by Zionism and why they don't support it. That's Empathy 101.
We should continue to identify ourselves as Zionists. We cannot let Zionism become a pejorative. But when someone tells us that they are not a Zionist, rather than assume we have a common understanding of what Zionism is, we should ask them what they mean and explain what we mean.
We might wind up saying, to borrow a construct from Rebbe Levi Yitzchak, that "the Zionism you're against, I'm against that Zionism too."
The survey also found that 88% of Jewish Americans feel it is important that Israel be a Jewish and a democratic state. That's impossible if Israel proceeds with de facto or de jure annexation of the West Bank. The only way to ensure Israel's future as a Jewish, democratic state is progress toward a two-state solution.
I do not know why JFNA waited nearly a year to release this survey. The methodology seems sound.
AIPAC blew it again in New Jersey. AIPAC attempted to defeat former Rep. Tom Malinowski in Thursday's New Jersey special congressional election. Malinowski, by any reasonable standard (but not AIPAC's), is a strong friend of Israel. AIPAC's goal was to elect a candidate more in line with their way of thinking.
AIPAC's barrage of negative ads hurt Malinkowski. But instead of Malinowski, AIPAC is not going to get a better candidate from their perspective. As of this writing, the winner of the 11th district primary will be either Malinowski or Analilia Mejia, backed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), a candidate far less to AIPAC's liking.
Even centrist Democrats are livid with AIPAC after this primary fiasco.
AIPAC claims to work toward bipartisan support for Israel, but its actions belie its words.
It was clear from day one that Congress would not block President Obama's Iran Deal, but that did not stop AIPAC from supporting Netanyahu's efforts to torpedo the deal and turn what it means to support Israel into a partisan issue.
AIPAC supported, and continues to support, Republicans who voted to overturn the 2024 election. Nothing justifies sacrificing our democracy.
Compounding its political malpractice, AIPAC is injecting itself into Democratic primaries against Democrats who are pro-Israel by any reasonable standard (but not AIPAC's), alienating Democrats and exacerbating the partisan divide.
AIPAC will claim that devotion to its self-defined single issue requires that it take these stands. I say that if your single issue requires you to oppose pro-Israel Democrats and support Republicans who voted to destroy our democracy and continue to support Trump's authoritarianism, you need to redefine your single issue or close up shop.
Will AIPAC blow it again in Illinois? AIPAC is attempting the same stunt in Illinois, where AIPAC is supporting state senator Laura Fine (who had a rough week). She is running against Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss, the frontrunner endorsed by Rep. Jan Schakowsky, in a crowded primary that includes several candidates not supportive of Israel, including social media influencer Kat Abughazaleh.
I wrote about Biss's positions on Israel last week in my latest Times of Israel post, Daniel Biss Deserves Pro-Israel Support.
If Malinowski ends up losing to Mejia, it won't be by much. We cannot afford to let that happen to Biss. Please urge your friends in Illinois to support him.
Corrections. I'm entitled to my own opinions but not to my own facts, so I appreciate it when readers bring errors to my attention. In last week's newsletter, I left the word "not" out of a quote from Nexus President and National Director Jonathan Jacoby. This is the accurate version of the quote: "The Holocaust did not begin with gas chambers. It began with words, discrimination, and normalization of hate--and with discriminatory laws and policies that sought to marginalize, isolate, and scapegoat."
In Case You Missed It:
- In under 500 words, a judge weaponized wit to free the child detained by ICE.
Social Posts of the Week. George Clinton via Brian Hiatt, James Acton, Frank Conniff, and ConnorNotConnor.
Thread of the Week. Ami Fields-Meyer.
Video Clips of the Week. MAGA Mom has something to get off her chest and the 30-second JDCA ad that Fox News did not want you to see.
Vintage Music Clips of the Week. Who did it better? Nirvana or Weird Al?
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.
| 