FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Bernie, the Democrats and the Palestinians

by

Last Saturday, Steven Salaita published an article on Salon arguing that Bernie Sanders’ record of support and/or acquiescence to Israeli policy is a sufficient enough reason to not vote for Sanders. However, on social media, Salaita clarified that he isn’t aiming to change anyone’s decision about voting for Sanders.

But if his goal isn’t to convince people to change their minds, then what’s the point of writing? Particularly when it’s on Salon.com, a bastion of Clintonite liberalism, and at a particular time when the Clinton campaign is ramping up efforts to criticise Sanders’ positions on Israel.

This is a really good time for the Sanders’ movement to be disoriented.

Salaita assures us that he is not a single-issue fundamentalist, but merely wishes to see Sanders’ position on Israel move towards a progressive, moral and critical discussion of Israel’s occupation.

No such conversation will happen.

Hypothetically, a critical discussion of Israel could very much happen if Sanders decides it should. However, Salaita doesn’t chart how that would come about. For starters, it fails to recognise that Sanders’ campaign has been vilified by every establishment institution to an extent with no precedent.

Try imagining for a second a new benchmark of cynicism the liberal journalism establishment will set the moment the slightest expression of anti-semitism from a Sanders supporter emerges. The “Berniebro” has been damaging enough as Sanders himself acknowledged, think of what the “Bernienazi” will do.

In this respect, Salaita’s piece comes off as an odd exercise in apolitical critique when you consider the fact that he presents no empirical and analytically sound argument indicating that if Sanders begins to be critical of Israel, his campaign will continue to enjoy its momentum.

Given what’s at stake, it’s not too much to ask of Salaita to acknowledge the political dynamics of the moment. And, if one insists it is “wrong” to place such a demand, perhaps one would be well-advised to join a church where moral absolutism reigns above all practical considerations.

Rania Khalek’s recent article attempts to fulfil such a pressing demand. In making the case that Sanders has been the most critical politician of Israeli crimes and U.S. complicity, Khalek argues that he’s the ideal candidate to bring up Palestinians’ rights on a national platform. As Khalek points out, Democrats have been growing critical of Israel and this could be Bernie’s shot. What’s not to disagree with, right?

Well, there is one analytical error with that ties such presumptions. The polls she cites do point out that Democrats have grown more critical of Israel. But of what aspects exactly of Israeli policy? Well, 75% of Democrats believe that Israel’s settlements in the West Bank are counterproductive and 76% of Democrats believe that Israel has “too much influence” on U.S. politics. These are increasingly standard Democratic Party positions, largely a result of Netanyahu’s well-known dirty tactics in Washington and the Democratic establishment’s cold response.

There’s a good case to be made that partisanship—American as apple pie—has played the leading role in forming those views when one considers that, in the same poll, 51% of Democrats said they’ll stand with Israel over Palestinians if they had to choose a side, 31% chose to be neutral, and a mere 18% said they’re supportive of Palestinians. A Gallup poll from the same year indicates Democrat support for Israel has fallen from 74% to 60% from 2014, 10 points lower than the national average of support for Israel.

Americans, especially Democrats, are nonetheless tired of having to defend and arm Israel with so many problems at home. But, the elective affinities of the two nations overwhelm those frustrations in any potential event where one has to choose a side.

Unless someone could suggest a way to get a firm majority of Democrats (and indeed Americans in the general election) to begin supporting Palestinians’ rights, there’s little apparent reason to think that if Sanders, and his movement, could pull it off and survive.

Anas El Hawat is a Montreal-based freelance writer and activist.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine


bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

September 21, 2017
Thomas Mountain
Snowden’s EthiopiaLeaks: Reading Between the Lines
Daniella Zessoules – Dean Baker
The Wage Dividend From Low Unemployment: Blacks and Whites
Matthew Vernon Whalan
Five Basic Differences Between Education and War … and One Similarity
Jimmy Carter
Stop the War-like Rhetoric: It’s Time to Talk to North Korea
September 20, 2017
Ajamu Baraka
The Empire’s Hustle: Why Anti-Trumpism Doesn’t Include Anti-War
Jonathan Cook
How Netanyahu’s Son Became the Poster Boy for White Supremacists
Michael Uhl
Hué Back When: Vietnam’s Pivotal Battle Reconsidered
Russell Mokhiber
Single Payer, the Democratic Party and the Nonprofit Industrial Complex
John W. Whitehead
We Are All Prisoners of the Police State’s Panopticon Village
Tim DeChristopher – Suren Moodliar
After Harvey & Irma: Mitigation, Adaptation & Suffering
Yoav Litvin
To Punch or Not to Punch – The American Left’s Existential Crisis
Patrick Cockburn
Why International Powers Fear Kurdish Independence Vote Could Derail Fight Against ISIS
Thomas S. Harrington
Forced Takeover of Catalan Government Institutions by Spanish Police
Steve Early
Report From Winsted: Nader’s Museum
John Davis
On the New Party Pledge
Gary Leupp
Manafort News: a Blockbuster or Nothingburger?
Ted Rall
No Man is Above the Law, Except on College Campuses
Kenneth Good
The Annulment of Kenya’s August 2017 Elections
Ha-Joon Chang
South Koreans Worked a Democratic Miracle. Can They Do It Again?
Binoy Kampmark
Donald Trump at the UN
Ezra Kronfeld
China’s Persecution of the Uyghur People
Kim C. Domenico
The White Liberal’s Dilemma: How To Be Shamelessly Different
September 19, 2017
Gregory Elich
Trump’s War on the North Korean People
Michael Yates
What We Sow is What We Eat
James M. Williamson
Getting the Gulf of Tonkin Wrong: Are Ken Burns and Lynn Novick “Telling Stories” About the Central Events Used to Legitimize the US Attack Against Vietnam?
Benjamin Dangl
How Top Food Companies Fail to Protect Environmental Activists in Supply Chains
Robert Fisk
Nikki Haley, Israel and Lebanon: When Ignorance is Not Bliss
Jack Rasmus
Greek Debt Crisis: Why Syriza Continues to Lose
Rev. William Alberts
The Greatest Threat Facing America
Julian Vigo
iPhone Ergo Sum
Andre Vltchek
In Bangkok – “No Speak Your Language, Speak Thai or Die!”
Mel Gurtov
Dealing with North Korean Missiles
Mike Whitney
Rohrabacher vs. The Machine 
Fred Gardner
Intertwined Issues: VietnaMarijuana
Manuel E. Yepe
Cuba Recovered and Open for Business
Binoy Kampmark
The Genuine Article in Australian Politics
September 18, 2017
Jason Hirthler
Condemned to Repeat It: History as Rerun
Rannie Amiri
The Saudi Project Has Failed
Mike Whitney
Starve Them to Death: Wall Street Journal’s Solution to North Korea
Gary Leupp
Why Would 58% Favor U.S. Bombing of North Korea?
Patrick Cockburn
ISIS is Stepping Up Its Atrocities to Compensate For Its Defeat
Manuel E. Yepe
Hurricanes and the Blockade Against Cuba
Janet Contursi
No, Antifa, This is Not the 1930s and We Don’t Need to Punch a Nazi
Binoy Kampmark
The CIA Wins: Harvard, Chelsea Manning and Visiting Fellowships
Chad Hanson – Mike Garrity
Logging Won’t Stop Wildfires
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail