Hillary Clinton has penned an op-ed that appeared in the Jewish Journal this week. Frankly, it’s not much more than a pandering love letter to the big Zionist donors of the democratic party. The opening paragraph makes the following assertions:
In this time of terrorism and turmoil, the alliance between the United States and Israel is more important than ever. To meet the many challenges we face, we have to take our relationship to the next level.
I’m not sure why that first sentence is assumed to be true. Nor why the second sentence follows from the first. I’m also wondering why President Obama didn’t think of this “plan” first. He’s pretty smart. But ok.
In the next three paragraphs she sets the scene; it’s one of a beleaguered yet strong Israel (not a contradiction apparently), set upon by ISIS, Iran, and the non-violent Palestinian Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS). There’s no mention of possible other causes of turmoil, such as Israel’s enormous and ongoing crimes against international law (ethnic cleansing, illegal settlement, and a 50-year belligerent occupation, to name just a few).
After that, Clinton addresses each “threat” to Israel, by declaring first, “we must defeat ISIS. ” Groundbreaking. Again, why didn’t Obama think of that? Second, she threatens Iran with more sanctions. Third, she says the BDS campaign must end because it “compares Israel to South African apartheid. That’s wrong...” Uh-huh.
It goes on. It’s a disappointing op-ed, gag-worthy even, but not surprising. After all Clinton is beholden to her major campaign donors. When this topic came up on DailyKos a while back, a few posters declared that both Clinton and Sanders where bad on Israel--that there was no difference between them. Many agreed. Well that is not really true.
Criticism of Israel
While both candidates repeat the standard talking points regarding the moribund two-state solution, Sanders actually criticized both Hamas and Israel for the Gaza turkey shoot in 2014. From his position statement:
The most recent violence in Gaza represented a particularly ugly and violent time in the dispute. Senator Sanders strongly condemned indiscriminate rocket fire by Hamas into Israeli territory, and Hamas’ use of civilian neighborhoods to launch those attacks. However, while recognizing that Israel has the right to defend itself, he also strongly condemned Israeli attacks on Gaza as disproportionate and the widespread killing of civilians as completely unacceptable.
The U.S. must play a leading role in creating a two-state solution, which will require significant compromises from both sides. The Palestinians must unequivocally recognize Israel’s right to exist, and hold accountable those who have committed terrorist acts. The Israelis must end the blockade of Gaza, and cease developing settlements on Palestinian land.
Both sides must negotiate in good faith regarding all other outstanding issues that stand in the way of a durable and lasting peace in the region.
In the meantime, strict adherence, by all sides, to the tenets of international humanitarian law is necessary in order to avoid escalating the conflict yet again.
In addition, Sanders refused to sign a Senate resolution in summer of 2014 that blamed only Hamas for the fighting.
On the other hand, Clinton does not criticize Israel. In fact, she said that criticizing Israel over Gaza was antisemitic.
Criticism of Netanyahu
Another difference between the two is that Sanders actually criticizes Benjamin Netanyahu, and he was the first senator to declare he would not attend Netanyahu’s subversive speech to Congress when Netanyahu was on a campaign to derail the President’s Iran agreement. Sanders has also said he is “not a great fan” of Netanyahu, which is remarkable for a candidate running for President of the United States.
On the other hand, Clinton pledged to invite Netanyahu to the White House in the first month of her presidency.
Recognition of Palestinian Suffering
I’m hard-pressed to find anything from Clinton that expresses any sympathy for the Palestinians, nor even the realist position that a lasting peace will have to provide for justice for the Palestinians. Regarding Sanders, on the other hand, a very good article from Alternet lays it out well:
In the last month, his campaign finally started to roll out foreign policy platforms on his website. The platform repeats much of the same U.S. foreign policy mantras about the need for a two-state solution and Israel's right to defend itself, but also condemns “disproportionate” violence by Israel and killings of civilians by the Israeli army. Most notably, the platform calls for Israel to end its blockade of Gaza, a topic all but forgotten in U.S. discourse.
and recognition of Palestinian suffering at the hands of Israel is a position Sanders has held for a long time:
Sanders offered support for (Jesse) Jackson's position, and went further when asked about Israeli treatment of Palestinians during the first intifada (uprising against the occupation). “The sight of Israeli soldiers breaking the arms and legs of Arabs is reprehensible. The idea of Israel closing down towns and sealing them off is unacceptable,” Sanders said.
Capture by the Israel Lobby
Again from the Alternet article:
There is no record of Sanders attending events with the primary Israel lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which every presidential contender makes sure to appear at. Sanders also does not speak at pro-Israel rallies, and he hasn't traveled to the region in decades. While he is Jewish, he does not seem to align with the harsh anti-Palestinian politics of many of the mainstream Jewish organizations in the United States such as the American Jewish Committee or the Anti-Defamation League. His brother Larry supports the Boycotts, Divestment, Sanctions campaign...
...Clinton wrote a letter to major Israeli-American donor Haim Saban vowing to help fight the Palestinian movement, and recently parroted an Israeli government talking point when she said there cannot be a resolution to the conflict until the nearby civil war and rise of ISIS in Syria are concluded.
Conventional wisdom says this topic is a political minefield for any Democratic candidate, something that is likely to push pro-Israel donors away from a campaign. But Sanders is not relying on pro-Israel billionaire donors like Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson. The average donation to his campaign is less than $30. And he's grappling with a Democratic Party whose rising youth and minority base is averse to the politics of the Israeli government; by two to one, Americans under the age of 29 said Israel's 2014 war against Gaza was “unjustified”; views were most intense among non-white voters, particularly Hispanics and African Americans.
Fantasy v. Realist View of a Solution
The standard (now DOA) approach to Israel/Palestine has been that the two parties need to negotiate a settlement. It is believed that somehow, the party with overwhelming power will willingly give up any of it. When has that ever happened in the course of human history? Yet this is the approach that Clinton wishes to exhume and retry. It’s a fantasy. Clinton also believes that “we need to ensure that Israel continues to maintain its qualitative military edge.” Leaving aside the fact that it is illegal for the United States to provide military aid to an undeclared nuclear nation, how will continuing to arm Israel the teeth do anything but make them more intransigent?
On the other hand, Sanders has stated several times that he would like to reduce foreign aid to Israel (and Egypt, which is essentially aid to Israel). The logic is, and I think we all understand it: come to a suitable agreement or we will cut off aid.
The United States of America is pouring billions of dollars into arms and into other types of aid in the Middle East. Has the United States of America used its clout, the tremendous clout that it has by providing all kinds of aid to the Middle East, to demand that these countries sit down and talk about a reasonable settlement which will guarantee Israel's sovereignty, which must be guaranteed, but will begin to deal with the rights of Palestinian refugees,” said Sanders.
A reporter asked if Sanders was asking the United States to impose sanctions. He said he wasn't, but did say that “you have the ability when you are the United States of America, which is supporting the armies of the Middle East, to demand that these people sit down and support a reasonable settlement.”
“Or else what?” asked another reporter.
“Or else you cut off arms,” suggested Sanders. “If the United States goes into the Middle East and demands a reasonable, a responsible, and a peaceful solution to the conflict that has gone there because of its clout because of the tremendous amounts of money that it is pouring into that region I think we can do it.”
The truth, though, is that he has never voted against military aid to Israel.
You may think that these differences between the candidates are negligible. I believe however that Sanders is already well ahead of Clinton, and on the right side of the issue. Given the changing demographics of the democratic base and the tendency of Sanders to listen to and adapt to the attitudes of his constituents, I am optimistic that he will be better on Israel/Palestine than Clinton.
.jpg?1447372657 "Palm plantations in the Jordan Valley part of an illegal Israeli settlment built on stolend land.")
