Monday, July 25, 2016
Israel/Palestine:
Bad Policy, Bad Politics
To
understand why the United States fails so miserably in efforts to achieve an
Israeli/Palestinian peace, all you need to do is take a look at the mix of bad
policy and bad politics found in the Israel/Palestine sections of platforms of
both the Republican and Democratic parties.
The
Republican document is particularly extreme, even bizarre. Finding
opportunities to mention Israel in five different sections, the GOP platform:
refers to Israel as “beacon of democracy and humanity”; claims that “support
for Israel is an expression of Americanism”; “recognizes Jerusalem as the
eternal and indivisible capital of the Jewish state and calls for the American
embassy to be moved there; terms the BDS movement “anti-Semitic; “rejects the
faulty notion that Israel is an occupier”; and calls for “an immediate halt to
all US funding” to entities that admit the Palestinians as a “member
state”—singling out the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Because
the GOP platform committee specifically rejects any reference to either two
states or to recognition of Palestinians as a people, the only time
Palestinians are even mentioned in the document is in the context of the
funding cut proposed for the UNFCCC.
The
Democrats’ platform, though weak, is clearly more sober. They, too, find the
need to shower excessive unwarranted praise on Israel, claiming that “a strong
and secure Israel is vital to the United States because we share overarching
strategic interests and the common values of democracy, equality, tolerance,
and pluralism”. The Democrats also “oppose any effort to delegitimize Israel,
including at the UN or through the BDS movement”. And, in a weirdly
contradictory formulation, the platform both recognizes that Jerusalem is a
“matter for final status negotiations”, while at the same time insisting that
“it should remain the capital of Israel, an undivided city accessible to people
of all faiths”.
"If the platforms’ policies are bad or weak, so too are the
political calculations that went into writing them—especially for
Democrats."
Finally,
while rejecting efforts to include language calling for an end to the
occupation and illegal settlements (claiming that these terms “prejudge” issues
to be decided in negotiations!), the Democrats, nevertheless, pledge to
“continue to work toward a two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict negotiated directly by the parties that guarantees Israel’s future as
a secure and democratic Jewish state with recognized borders and provides the
Palestinians with independence, sovereignty, and dignity”.
Republicans
wrote their document haunted by billionaire Sheldon Adelson and threats from
far-right evangelical Christians. Their candidate, Donald Trump, after early on
suggesting that he would “be neutral” and work to earn the trust of both
Israelis and Palestinians, has clearly been chastened. He now relies on the
counsel of his hardline pro-Israel son-in-law (the author of Trump’s AIPAC
speech).
By
adopting a Netanyahu-like approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the GOP
will only hasten Israel’s dangerous rightward drift, emboldening both Israel’s
extremists, who will feel they can’t lose, and Palestinian extremists, who will
feel they have nothing to lose.
For their
part, the Democrats wrote their language influenced by one of their own
billionaires, Haim Saban (a strong BDS opponent, who secured a written anti-BDS
pledge from Hillary Clinton), and haunted by their mistaken fear of “losing
votes”—(their code, not mine, for Jewish voters).
The
Democrat’s platform claims to want two states and supports “independence,
sovereignty, and dignity” for Palestinians. This aspiration is commendable, but
when they reject terming Israeli control over Palestinians an occupation and
refuse to call for an end to settlements, they give little hope to Palestinians
that action will be taken to fulfill their aspirations.
The
bottom line is that both platforms are bad policy. If the GOP platform were
followed, it would produce policies resulting in disaster, not only for
Palestinians and US interests in the Middle East, but for Israel, as well. On
the other hand, if the Democrat’s platform were followed, it would result in
continuing the region’s depressing and dangerous downward spiral of oppression
and violence.
If the
platforms’ policies are bad or weak, so too are the political calculations that
went into writing them—especially for Democrats. The so-called “political fear”
that drives Democrats to shy away from criticism of Israeli policies ignores
the very real shifts that have occurred in the attitudes of the electorate.
Polls show that: despite the fact that Israel retains a higher approval rating
than the Palestinians, by a margin of 65% to 14% American voters believe that Israelis
and Palestinians deserve equal rights.
Attitudes have clearly changed, especially among Democratic
voters. For example, a strong plurality of Democrats (more than 2 to 1) want
settlements to end, believe the US must “get tough with Israel” to force them
to stop construction, and feel that boycotts are a legitimate tool that can be
used to pressure Israel to end its settlement program. And a plurality of all
voters, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, feel that Israel currently
receives too much US aid.
It is
also clear from polls and from the rapid growth and impact of groups like J
Street and Jewish Voice for Peace that speaking the truth about Israeli
policies will win and not lose the support of a substantial majority of Jewish
voters.
Republicans
are calling their document the “strongest pro-Israel platform, ever”, while
Democrats are terming their language on Israel/Palestine the “most progressive,
ever”. In a sense, both are right. The problem is that I know Israeli peace
activists who would seriously question the GOP claim and I know Palestinians
who are deeply disappointed with the Democrats’ final product.
###
Donations can be sent
to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD
21218. Ph: 410-323-1607; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class
has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject
class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives."
Eugene Victor Debs
No comments:
Post a Comment