For those among us who are interested in issues surrounding Israel/Palestine, Bernie’s comments at the debate were not a surprise. He’s been saying much the same thing since 1988:
So the statements he made on the 2014 Israel/Gaza war were not unexpected. Nor was I surprised that Bernie delivered this message on possibly the most important political stage in the US, a debate for the presidential nomination. I expected him to stay true to his convictions, and I was not disappointed.
Back in August last year, I wrote a longish diary titled: Bernie's been remarkably consistent on Israel for 27 years, but that may not be enough for the left. I’m going to revisit some of what I said then in light of the amount of time spent on this issue during the debate, and the extensive media coverage.
In the Brooklyn debate, Hillary said:
CLINTON: I'm the person who held the last three meetings between the president of the Palestinian Authority and the prime minister of Israel.
There were only four of us in the room, Netanyahu, Abbas, George Mitchell, and me. Three long meetings. And I was absolutely focused on what was fair and right for the Palestinians.
The last line is difficult to square with something she said later on:
CLINTON: It would be great -- remember, Israel left Gaza. They took out all the Israelis. They turned the keys over to the Palestinian people. And what happened? Hamas took over Gaza.
How can you be “focused on what was fair and right for the Palestinians” if you believe giving the Palestinians their right to autonomy back will lead to a takeover by terrorists? And how can you make such claims when you refuse to acknowledge the pervasive oppression of Paestinins by an occupying army in the West Bank and a naval/land blockade of Gaza. How can you claim to be “fair” if you spend as Bernie pointed out, all your time talking about Israeli rights, and don't spare a single thought for Palestinians. That is the very opposite of fairness.
SANDERS: I read Secretary Clinton's statement speech before AIPAC. I heard virtually no discussion at all about the needs of the Palestinian people. Almost none in that speech.
So here is the issue: of course Israel has a right to defend itself, but long term there will never be peace in that region unless the United States plays a role, an even-handed role trying to bring people together and recognizing the serious problems that exist among the Palestinian people.
It seems pretty obvious that the US should be “even-handed between Israel and Palestine". Yet that is almost an unacceptable position to hold within US politics. If you're skeptical about how big a deal this is, I present the case of one Howard Dean, candidate for the Democratic nomination for President of the USA.
In 2003, Howard Dean said the US should be “even-handed” towards both Israel and Palestine. He was immediately set upon by senior Democrats (including Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry). The media openly speculated that pro-Israel donors would abandon him. He quickly back-tracked in the face of universal uproar among Democrats and said that the US must not be even-handed. We must side with Israel.
In doing this, he was simply accepting a fact of American politics. For decades, US policy has supported and abetted the continuing suppression of Palestinian's human rights by successive Israeli governments. These policies are no different from the role our government has played in many other countries in and out of the Middle-East, by supporting a specific group of people to the detriment of the population at large. Women's rights may well be human rights, but when it comes to Israel/Palestine, Hillary is not willing to offer even that platitude to Palestinian women waiting at Israeli checkpoints. Nor is she offering condolences to Palestinian mothers whose children have been shot dead, injured or arrested by Israeli security forces.
Bernie has bucked this trend for decades. The remarkable thing about him is that he seems to have expunged from himself every trace of tribalism, and seems to see every person as an equally valuable end unto themselves. What he calls his “spirituality”, connects him to every other human. Astonishingly, it doesn’t end at our borders, and it does not stop at the borders of Gaza and the West Bank either.
Hillary does not believe in “even-handedness” when it comes to Israel/Palestine. It’s fair to ask why not, though there is no clear answer. It may have to do with the many millions in contributions from donors like Haim Saban, whose single most important issue is continued US support for Israel. We know these contributions get Saban, at the very least, special attention in the form of a personal letter assuaging any concerns he might have had about her commitment on various issues related to Israel. On the right, this role is played by Sheldon Adelson. Then there is her experience during the 2000 NY senate campaign, where she faced pointed questions about being “pro-Arab” from constituents. This was after she had kissed Suha Arafat on the cheek after a conference where Mrs. Arafat had accused the Israeli government of contaminating Palestinian water supplies and employing “poison gas” raising the incidence of cancer among Palestinian children.
SANDERS: Well, as somebody who spent many months of my life when I was a kid in Israel, who has family in Israel, of course Israel has a right not only to defend themselves, but to live in peace and security without fear of terrorist attack. That is not a debate.
But -- but what you just read, yeah, I do believe that. Israel was subjected to terrorist attacks, has every right in the world to destroy terrorism. But we had in the Gaza area -- not a very large area -- some 10,000 civilians who were wounded and some 1,500 who were killed.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Free Palestine!
SANDERS: Now, if you're asking not just me, but countries all over the world was that a disproportionate attack, the answer is that I believe it was, and let me say something else.
Bernie is referring to the death toll during the Israeli bombing and shelling of Gaza in 2014. 547 children were killed in Gaza during that war. Dozens of them died in their homes, often in their sleep, as a precision bomb made in the US was dropped on it by Israeli drones or planes. In a number of cases, Israeli military sources said these were targeted strikes to assassinate a Hamas fighter. These strikes were authorized with the full knowledge that they would be killing this person along with his entire family, including children. Israel has engaged in such “whole family” assassinations since at least 2002.
All told, the death-toll in Gaza was over 2,200, and 1,492 of those dead were civilians. That means 68% of those killed were civilians. On the Israeli end, 66 soldiers were killed and 6 civilians, one of them a child. 92% of the dead were soldiers.
Testimony provided by Israeli soldiers strongly suggests the Israeli army committed war crimes, including indiscriminate or targeted shelling/bombing of civilian structures, assassinations which were undertaken with the knowledge that civilians would be killed, and senior army personnel describing the mission as the destruction of civilian infrastructure to exact retribution.
The Israeli army employs missiles (mostly US made) which carry 1,000-2,000 lbs warheads. They are designed to bring down even fortified structures (such as bomb shelters). The vast majority of the “missiles” Hamas employs have 10-20 lbs warheads and are unguided. They are not capable of causing significant damage.
So yes, disproportionate is the right word to use. And it was important that Bernie used it, and equally significant that Hillary did not.
SANDERS: I don't think that anybody would suggest that Israel invites and welcomes missiles flying into their country. That is not the issue.
And, you evaded the answer. You evaded the question. The question is not does Israel have a right to respond, nor does Israel have a right to go after terrorists and destroy terrorism. That's not the debate. Was their response disproportionate?
I believe that it was, you have not answered that.
(CHEERING)
CLINTON: I will certainly be willing to answer it. I think I did answer it by saying that of course there have to be precautions taken but even the most independent analyst will say the way that Hamas places its weapons, the way that it often has its fighters in civilian garb, it is terrible.
In a very real way, Bernie is more closely aligned with Democrats on this issue than Hillary is. David Weigel wrote in the Washington Post:
In 2014, when asked by the Gallup Poll about Israel's latest military intervention in Gaza, a 47-31 plurality of Democrats called it "unjustified." Sanders sided with the majority -- but as he found at the town hall in Vermont, it wasn't enough. For the time being, he's winning over audience with a succinct, limited answer about Israel. That could change if there's another flare-up before the primaries.
Bernie has been challenged on his limited answer, and indeed on his even-handedness, and it’s usually from the left. On the left, Israel’s actions towards Palestinians are considered typical settler-colonial treatment of indigenous peoples. Bernie has undoubtedly heard this criticism. For some on the left, the remedy is retribution. Bernie’s preferred action is to move away from a bias towards Israel.
There was an exchange at a town-hall in August 2014, during Operation Protective Edge. Bernie said he thought the Israeli response was disproportionate. Then he said "on the other hand" the rocket attacks were coming from populated areas and repeated aspects of the Israeli view. He was interrupted and heckled aggressively by members of the audience. In response, he told one of the participants to "shut up".
In general, his responses on I/P get a more positive reaction. In the exchange below (a year later in August 2015) he refers to the firebombing that killed a Palestinian toddler sleeping in his home in the West Bank on Friday. Bernie made a point to tell the audience that he did not attend the speech Netanyahu gave to Congress and repeated his long-standing position that the US should be "even-handed" towards Israelis and Palestinians. He also went on to say that his personal view is that the Palestinian people are "entitled to state of its own" and the "US should ensure that state has a strong economy" acknowledging that this is not the case today.
Most US politicians will not deviate from the two-state formula, but in recent years, this has acquired many caveats similar to the ones Hillary presented at the debate. They are all variations on talking points presented by pro-Israel groups to suggest that Palestinians cannot be “trusted” to govern themselves, or are somehow not “ready”. That is the purpose of applying qualifiers like “Israel left Gaza and hey presto, terrorists”. This is very similar to arguments used by other despotic regimes in the region in pursuing self-preservation. In the Israeli case, these arguments are used to justify land grabs, suppression of protests, the arrest of children as young as six, the imprisonment of children as young as twelve, and many other inhumane actions. After all, once you've branded an entire people as “terrorists”, why would you acknowledge their humanity? That would be weakness in the face of terrorism. The fact that you want something they have is conveniently forgotten.
What sets Bernie apart is that he does not use such caveats, and talks about the suffering of Palestinians. He is also very clear that the suffering is caused by the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and blockade/border controls in Gaza.
Bernie’s voting record on Israel/Palestine issues has been among the best in Congress. In July 2014, as Israeli planes and drones and artillery units were bombing Gaza, the Senate found time to pass a resolution by unanimous consent which expressed support for Israel "as it defends itself against unprovoked rocket attacks". Bernie did not vote for the Senate resolution 498, only 17 other senators chose not to vote affirmatively for it (Diane Feinstein and Elizabeth Warren were among them). Chuck Schumer co-sponsored the resolution.
In June 2011, the Senate passed resolution 185 (by unanimous consent) that threatened to withhold aid and opposed Palestinian statehood outside of bilateral discussions involving Israel. 90 senators who co-sponsored the resolution, Bernie was not among them. Nor has he made exceptions for AIPAC, he has kept a distance from them as he has from other lobbyists.
Bernie was also the first senator to say he would not attend Neyanyahu's speech to Congress (interview on that below). He seems to have a special disdain for Netanyahu (and Likudniks in general), rightfully criticizing him as a right-winger perfectly comfortable with discrimination and war. Hillary in contrast has said she would reaffirm an unbreakable bond with Netanyahu.
He was one of very few people in Congress to call the Gaza attack "disproportionate" and "completely unacceptable" immediately in 2014. His Senate office released the following statement:
Sanders believes the Israeli attacks that killed hundreds of innocent people – including many women and children – in bombings of civilian neighborhoods and UN controlled schools, hospitals, and refugee camps were disproportionate, and the widespread killing of civilians is completely unacceptable. Israel's actions took an enormous human toll, and appeared to strengthen support for Hamas and may well be sowing the seeds for even more hatred, war and destruction in future years.
You can count on one hand the number of senators who used those words, the vast majority were climbing over each other to repeat Likud talking points about "right to defend itself" etc. as hundreds of children were being killed in their homes with bombs made and delivered to the Israelis by us. He also said this at the time:
"there are some colleagues in the Congress who really have a mind for endless war. I do not want to see an endless war in the Middle East."
By virtue of being on the left of most in Congress, Bernie has been engaged with pro-Palestinian activism for decades. Bernie is pretty close to two people who are quite far to the left when it comes to Israel/Palestine. The first is Noam Chomsky. Interestingly, both Bernie and Chomsky spent some time right after college as kibbutzniks in Israel. Chomsky went in 1953 with the explicit goal of finding a community working on Arab-Jewish harmony. Bernie spent several months in 1963 living in the kibbutz Sha’ar Ha’amakim (which leans socialist). I'd say Bernie is personally disillusioned by Israel's current trajectory. Chomsky, famously, was disillusioned decades ago. Then there’s Bernie's brother Larry, who lives in the UK and ran for Parliament on the Green Party ticket. He called for a boycott of Israel (the UK Green Party supports BDS). He's said about Bernie "We have pretty much the same political views on all the main issues.”
Hillary is no stranger to pro-Palestinian activism. Sid Blumenthal, an advisor on Middle-Eastern issues, regularly forwards his son Max’s work to Hillary. Max writes for Alternet and others on Israel/Palestine. But as was clear during the debate, this has had very little impact on Hillary’s publicly expressed views.