I’m down in DC in a hotel, and there are a lot of folks staying here who are in town for the AIPAC conference. Bernie Sanders didn’t show up. He was the only remaining presidential candidate to blow it off, although he did make a video for the internets.
His message was a bit different than Clinton’s.
A week after Israel appropriated huge tracts of land in the occupied West Bank, Sanders joined the United Nations and the European Union in criticizing Israel’s expansion of settlements, saying it “undermines the peace process” and Israeli “security.”
“It is absurd for elements within the Netanyahu government to suggest that building more settlements in the West Bank is the appropriate response to the most recent violence. It is also not acceptable that the Netanyahu government decided to withhold hundreds of millions of Shekels in tax revenue from the Palestinians, which it is supposed to collect on their behalf,” Sanders said.
The Vermont senator also called for an end to the economic blockade of Gaza and a “sustainable and equitable distribution of precious water resources so that Israel and Palestine can both thrive as neighbors.”“Peace has to mean security for every Israeli from violence and terrorism. But peace also means security for every Palestinian. It means achieving self-determination, civil rights and economic well-being for the Palestinian people,” said Sanders.
“Peace will mean ending what amounts to the occupation of Palestinian territory, establishing mutually agreed upon borders, and pulling back settlements in the West Bank, just as Israel did in Gaza – once considered an unthinkable move on Israel’s part,” he added.
In contrast, Hillary Clinton attended the AIPAC conference and praised the “deep emotional connection” the U.S. shares with Israel.
The Democrat front-runner made it clear she would not remain neutral in the Israel-Palestine conflict and would invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the U.S. as one of her first moves in the White House.
Clinton also criticized the growing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, telling Netanyahu: “Don’t let anyone bully you, or shut down debate … especially in places of learning like college or universities.”
It’s interesting that the only Jewish candidate in the race is the one taking the most critical and standoffish positions vis-a-vis Israel. I suppose he’s partially inoculated against charges of anti-semitism which frees him up a bit, but he’s basically taking the mainstream progressive posture toward Netanyahu’s right-wing government.
Clinton’s position is that she’s not allowing any daylight between the U.S. and Israel, and that means that we won’t hear anything critical of Netanyahu on the campaign trail.
Given the conditions in the Middle East, especially in Syria, and the current leadership vacuum on the Palestinian side, and the periodic ISIS-sponsored terror attacks in the West, I think Clinton is taking the shrewder political position here. That doesn’t mean I like it. But the same old progressive critique of Israel is beginning to look a bit torn and frayed as both the Arabs and Israelis have changed the facts on the ground in the region.
I mean, can you really look at Libya and Iraq and Syria, and the Palestinian political landscape, and the leadership of Egypt and Turkey and Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, and see in that some ripeness for the idea of a Palestinian State?
There’s a regional war of religion going on which seems to be sucking up most of the attention at the moment. I mean, the refugee crisis and the behavior of Islamic State are higher priorities on everyone’s agenda than trying to reanimate Abu Mazen.
Still, Sanders’ decision to campaign among the Mormons rather than attend AIPAC is a strong statement of disapproval toward Netanyahu’s government, and it’s certainly preferable to engaging in a panderfest.
