Sanders Is Israel’s Best Friend in 2016 — Precisely by Refusing to Bow to Its Reactionary Government

[Cheese Sandwich]

Sanders Is Israel’s Best Friend in 2016 Election — Precisely by Refusing to Bow to Its Current Reactionary Government

by Rabbi Michael Lerner

The New York Times has consistently turned its news pages into the loudest cheerleader for Hillary Clinton’s bid for the nomination. If mentioned at all, they bury deep in their paper, Bernie Sanders’ primary wins and the many polls that indicate he’d be more likely to win against Trump than Hillary.

So it’s no surprise that when Bernie won permission to appoint 5 of the 15 members of the Platform Committee of the Democratic Party Convention, the Times made the story focus on the possibility that 2 of these appointees, James Zogby and Cornel West, would turn the convention into a debate about US policy towards Israel, and thereby weaken Hillary’s capacity to fight off Trump in the general election. There was nothing in the story to confirm that these appointees had any such intention, but that didn’t keep the Times from making this front page story a way to once again stir worries that Bernie pursuing the nomination vigorously (as Hillary Clinton herself had done in 2008 against Obama even after it was clear she would not win the nomination) was going to hurt Hillary’s chances in the Fall election—thus creating the story should Hillary lose that it was really all the fault of that socialist Jew from Vermont!
...

Pushing Israel to negotiate a sustainable peace arrangement that would grant Palestinians an economically and politically viable state is the only path toward a sustainable peace. Sander’s rather temperate remarks indicate a willingness to push Israel and Palestine both in this direction. 23 years ago when Hillary Clinton invited me to the White House and told me that she agreed with Tikkun magazine’s stance in support of the Israeli peace movement, she too seemed to be willing to push for a stronger stance by the U.S. in opposing Israel’s harsh occupation of the West Bank and subjugating 2.5 million Palestinians. But as in so many other areas, when her assessment of what was in her political interests changed, so did her principles.
...

So saying Bernie is Israel’s best friend in the 2016 election is not meant to be an endorsement. It’s just meant to speak the obvious truth that Israel and the Jewish people would benefit greatly if some US political leaders were willing to push Israel to negotiate a peace that would work for both Israel and Palestine.
...

Bernie appears to be one of the very few politicians in the U.S. willing to state publicly that he wants to change the one-sided policy which pretends to be pro-Israel but actually is in fact destructive to the best interests of Israel and the Jewish people. As someone who wishes Israel to be strong and secure, I have to acknowledge this fact. And his appointment to the Platform committee of Cornel West, Jim Zogby and Congressional Representative Keith Ellison should bring Sanders praise for using his moment of fame to support his ideals, not just himself as so many other politicians might have chosen to do.
...

more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-michael-lerner/sanders-is-israels-best-f_b_10155266.html

[Warren DeMontague]

1. Likud doesn't have a good long-term strategy. Unfortunately, though, no one does right now.

To be fair, though, it's not just Israeli leadership that has been the stumbling block to a 2 state solution. We came close in 2000- with the help of Bill Clinton- but the deal fell through at the last minute. Who was at fault, of course, depends on who you ask.

[Cheese Sandwich]

2. No it's not only the Israeli leadership because there are bad actors on both sides, and because the

voters in Israel keep electing those leaders as well.

Bill Clinton and his diplomats deserve a lot of credit for trying to move the process forward, right up to the last minute. But times have changed and like the linked piece makes the point, Hillary probably won't try for peace as much as Bill Clinton did, because the political climate has shifted. "As in so many other areas, when her assessment of what was in her political interests changed, so did her principles." All of Hillary's signals and statements give a very clear picture of what she will be doing as president. I think the idea that no one has a long term strategy may be somewhat overblown. Nobody can know perfectly what is going to happen but the obstacles to a resolution are quite clear.

The basic outlines were presented here in a resolution brought to the U.N. Security Council in January 1976. It called for a two-state settlement on the internationally recognized border—and now I’m quoting—"with guarantees for the rights of both states to exist in peace and security within secure and recognized borders." The resolution was brought by the three major Arab states: Egypt, Jordan, Syria—sometimes called the "confrontation states." Israel refused to attend the session. The resolution was vetoed by the United States. A U.S. veto typically is a double veto: The veto, the resolution is not implemented, and the event is vetoed from history, so you have to look hard to find the record, but it is there. That has set the pattern that has continued since. The most recent U.S. veto was in February 2011—that’s President Obama—when his administration vetoed a resolution calling for implementation of official U.S. policy opposition to expansion of settlements. And it’s worth bearing in mind that expansion of settlements is not really the issue; it’s the settlements, unquestionably illegal, along with the infrastructure projects supporting them.

For a long time, there has been an overwhelming international consensus in support of a settlement along these general lines. The pattern that was set in January 1976 continues to the present. Israel rejects a settlement of these terms and for many years has been devoting extensive resources to ensuring that it will not be implemented, with the unremitting and decisive support of the United States—military, economic, diplomatic and indeed ideological—by establishing how the conflict is viewed and interpreted in the United States and within its broad sphere of influence.

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/11/27/in_un_speech_noam_chomsky_blasts

[Warren DeMontague]

4. I have friends and extended family on the Israeli left.

Part of the problem is that many Israelis became disillusioned (as did the Palestinians) with the peace process after the failure in 2000. And as such many Israelis decided to opt for short term security over pursuing peace.

The 90s, by contrast, were a very optimistic time in Israel.

i didnt say no one has a long term strategy- (edited to add: okay, yes I did..consistency, hobgoblins, small minds etc. i should have said, no one seems to be really advancing one right now on either side)

the basic parameters of a 2 state solution have been known for a while- it's Likud that doesnt have one, or just doesnt care.

I agree with what you are saying, I think Sanders is the better choice for a lot of reasons, but I dont see either candidate being able to get much progress the way things stand.

[Tarc]

3. Bernie Sanders downplays his Jewish heritage, except for these transparent attempts at "friendship"

He is out-of-step with the overwhelming majority of the American electorate on this issue.