I remain undecided on principle in Presidential primaries, until after voting has started. A 2-year-long campaign “season” seems obscenely long to me and frankly, to most of Humanity.
But I’ve sympathized with Warren for a while, and decided to support (and $$) to her a few weeks ago. Just in time to see internalized misogyny eventually bury her campaign. The telltale sign, which kos in his “Cattle Call” diaries here naively saw as a good sign, was that she was far and away the most popular “second choice”. I am not a woman but have seen enough women experience this. Always “second”, then getting breezily passed over in favor of a man, when it’s time to become first.
If you don’t mind, I will spend another Meta paragraph or two before getting to business.
We the political blogosphere, must take more responsibility about dynamics in Dem primaries and their aftermath. Online, differences become exaggerated, thread rivals are demonized and attacked personally, and candidate imperfections recorded, replayed and inflated ad infinitum. For the third time in a row (2008, 2016, 2020), we risk losing too many fellow Democratic voters in November, due to bitter post-primary resentment. In all 3 times, the differences between Democratic candidates were microscopic vs. the gap from the Republicans, and vs. the immense, very real actual damage a Republican Presidency can bring.Please, don’t write or rec diaries that demonize (or otherwise destroy) Bernie or Biden. Admins should use bans, but very selectively as a last resort, so as not to appear too heavy-handed (which happened in 2016). And after the primaries are over, extend a million olive branches to the vanquished side, rather than sermonize it to “buck up and shut up” (which happened in both 2008 and 2016).
Ok, now a not-quite-Meta paragraph.
Much, waaaay too much has been made of Bernie’s angry style. There was even a reclist diary here spinning it into “a culture of grievance”. RedDan in his excellent diary (please do read it!) pointed out that in Bernie’s milieu — which he described as mostly Jewish ex-hippies exiled from Northeastern cities to the New England woods — Bernie would be a mild case. He attributed the anger he’s seen to the struggles of a generation punished by its society for doing the right thing. I will up RedDan by an order of magnitude. The milieu of reference here is much broader: people of general “Semitic” heritage (count me as one). In the greater Middle East and related cultures (e.g. Jewish society), if you’re passionate about something, you yell and wave your hands. The louder the better. If you speak softly, you either don’t really care or are being fake. And if you quickly give up your anger and turn all smiles (the good old Anglo-American “Kiss and Make Up”) — again, that may be a sign of dishonesty. No. You keep an outward expression of anger even if you’re melting inside, not out of “grudge” or “grievance”, but because this is part of being serious about things and making a difference.
Really, have none of you heard of any Old Testament Prophets? (or at least, watched any of the zillion American sitcom episodes exploiting this cultural chasm?) Sure, it is valid to argue that Prophets might not make great Executives, but faulting Bernie for his “anger” or “attitude” is extremely culturally blind and disrespectful. One could even say, prejudiced. And yet, even prominent diarists who function here as de-facto spokespersons for communities of color, keep committing this sin. Please stop.
Whew. Ok, to business. You should guess the policy topic I’ll discuss from the headline image. Bernie has been, by light-years, the most compassionate prominent American politician on this topic, since at least Jimmy Carter. And he’s been the most compassionate prominent Jewish-American politician on the topic, ever. Which requires not just compassion, but tons of courage.
Details below the fold.
New York Democratic DEbate, April 2016
Remember that debate? Bernie was already >200 delegates behind Hillary at that point, almost hopelessly behind (and many analysts were saying already 100% hopeless), but coming off his best weeks in the race headlined by a +47 delegate win in WA state (where our household caucused 4-0 for Bernie, myself deciding at the last moment). NY with 247 was his last chance to continue the momentum and catch up. While Hillary could claim NY as an adopted home state for which she was Senator in 2001-2009, Bernie is a born-and-raised New Yorker, forever carrying its distinctive accent, and immediately recognizable by the state’s huge Jewish population as one of their own. And due to that very population — by far the largest in the USA both in numbers and percentage— Israel loomed large in the state’s campaign and debate.
If I daresay (as an expatriate Jewish Israeli and dual citizen), many American Jews, a famously progressive community, leave their progressivism at the door when it comes to Israel’s relations with Arabs. And around New York in particular, to my knowledge the default view among the area’s Jews on Israel-Palestine is pretty right-wing.
That would not bode well for Bernie, who does not like to leave his progressivism at Israel-Palestine’s door. But what does a desperate primary challenger does, when political calculus suggests his only chance to catch up is to curry some favor with his New York brethren?
Obama faced a similar dilemma in 2008. Not only was his middle name Hussein and his skin color a “potential problem” for any white-ish American with residual prejudice, but he was also on record from his earlier political career as being pretty Woke on Israel-Palestine (hereafter: I-P). So during the 2008 campaign Obama hedged a lot on the topic, went to the AIPAC conference and gave a rather pro-Israeli-position speech there, etc.
So what did Bernie do in 2016? Here are excerpts from the New York debate transcript. (emphases mine)
BLITZER: Senator, let's talk about the U.S. relationship with Israel. Senator Sanders, you maintained that Israel's response in Gaza in 2014 was, quote, "disproportionate and led to the unnecessary loss of innocent life." (APPLAUSE) What do you say to those who believe that Israel has a right to defend itself as it sees fit? 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. (APPLAUSE) 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. 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. (APPLAUSE) (CHEERING) SANDERS: And, let me say something else. As somebody who is 100% pro-Israel, in the long run -- and this is not going to be easy, God only knows, but in the long run if we are ever going to bring peace to that region which has seen so much hatred and so much war, we are going to have to treat the Palestinian people with respect and dignity. (APPLAUSE) (CHEERING) SANDERS: So what is not to say -- to say that right now in Gaza, right now in Gaza unemployment is somewhere around 40%. You got a lot of that area continues, it hasn't been built, decimated, houses decimated health care decimated, schools decimated. I believe the United States and the rest of the world have got to work together to help the Palestinian people.
This might have been — and please correct me if I’m wrong — the first campaign in which a major candidate spoke in a major debate about Palestinian respect and dignity.
Hillary, by contrast gave the standard liberal-Democratic line…
CLINTON: I negotiated the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas in November of 2012. I did it in concert with President Abbas of the Palestinian authority based in Ramallah, I did it with the then Muslim Brotherhood President, Morsi, based in Cairo, working closely with Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli cabinet. I can tell you right now I have been there with Israeli officials going back more than 25 years that they do not seek this kind of attacks. They do not invite the rockets raining down on their towns and villages. They do not believe that there should be a constant incitement by Hamas aided and abetted by Iran against Israel. And, so when it came time after they had taken the incoming rockets... So, I don't know how you run a country when you are under constant threat, terrorist acts, rockets coming at you. You have a right to defend yourself. (APPLAUSE) That does not mean -- that does not mean that you don't take appropriate precautions. And, I understand that there's always second guessing anytime there is a war. It also does not mean that we should not continue to do everything we can to try to reach a two-state solution, which would give the Palestinians the rights and the autonomy that they deserve. And, let me say this, if Yasser Arafat had agreed with my husband at Camp David in the Late 1990s to the offer then Prime Minister Barak put on the table, we would have had a Palestinian state for 15 years. (APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)
Hillary seemingly acknowledges Palestinian rights, but immediately follows up with a widely debunked and laughably colonialist Israeli talking point. A talking point suggesting that people’s right to independence from violent foreign rule is actually only a temporary favor, offered in one sitting and once only. A favor that can be withdrawn with 100% justification, indefinitely withdrawn, if the colonized side does not accept the terms (offered only verbally and not in writing) by the ruler at that sitting.
Yet Bernie does not relent — and Hillary responds with two additional, false and mendacious Israeli government talking points...
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. (AUDIENCE REACTION) I'm not saying it's anything other than terrible. 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. So instead of having a thriving economy with the kind of opportunities that the children of the Palestinians deserve, we have a terrorist haven that is getting more and more rockets shipped in from Iran and elsewhere.
I won’t quote too much of the rest, except that Hillary says at one point
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. I was absolutely focused on what we needed to do to make sure that the Palestinian people had the right to self-government. And I believe that as president I will be able to continue to make progress and get an agreement that will be fair both to the Israelis and the Palestinians without ever, ever undermining Israel's security.That is actually quite to the left of what one often hears from Establishment Democrats, and is likely the result of the pressure by Sanders’ position. Yet claiming to want what is “right” or “fair” to Palestinians is hard to square with the litany of demonizations and hostile framings she had engaged in before that. Unfortunately, what Hillary did is par for the Democratic party course. She’s even better than the Democratic average here. Then, Sanders ends the topic with:
You gave a major speech to AIPAC, which obviously deals with the Middle East crisis, and you barely mentioned the Palestinians. And I think, again, it is a complicated issue and God knows for decades presidents, including President Clinton and others, Jimmy Carter and others have tried to do the right thing. All that I am saying is we cannot continue to be one-sided. There are two sides to the issue.
Hillary went on to win NY 58-42. We never know what would happen, had Sanders hedged or pandered on I-P. To his immense credit, he did not.
For decades, Rule 1 of Political Expediency among Democrats was to give AIPAC whatever red meat it wants, while giving everyone else some word salad about “two states” or “peace process”. Conveniently ignoring that the “peace process” has been hollowed out since fall 2000. Conveniently ignoring the virulent Occupation regime, and the direct American complicity and support in propping it up whenever it backfires.
The calculus has always been the massive Jewish vote, and the key role of Jewish citizens in the Democratic party, arguably co-founders of the party’s modern incarnation. Charitably one could say that such massive participation and contribution deserves respect to the Jewish-American constituency’s sensitivities.
And at face value, there’s no price to pay! The media usually parrots the very same Israeli talking points. The American public is famously ignorant of world history and international context. Even most progressive groups tend to leave I-P on the back burner. On this very Daily Kos, in my experience there’s a lifelong ban on I-P stories on the front page. Even worse: it’s a gagged ban! Rule #1 of I-P is You don’t even talk about not talking about I-P. For shame.
But there’s always a price. It is no coincidence that (AFAIK) more aspiring Arab-American politicians have found the GOP of all places, or a third party, more welcoming than Democrats, even as the GOP has become more and more virulently anti-Arab and anti-Muslim. And while the Jewish vote is crucial in the eternally swingy Florida, the Arab vote is key in Michigan, and they were not too happy with Hillary there in 2016.
But by far the bigger cost is on the ground in Israel-Palestine. A seemingly meaningless, harmless declarative bill, that most Democrats happily support to gain some free Brownie Points, can sit on the shelf for 20-plus years, until along comes a President crazy and callous enough to enact it, and detonate it like a neglected WWII landmine. And even then, because they had co-endorsed it, Democrats are not even able to call out what was done. Likewise, the 2006 anti-Hamas bill, again passed with huge Democratic support, was far from being just some declaration. It has played a deadly role in closing the window of opportunity to leverage the Gaza withdrawal towards constructive directions; instead, the bill helped usher in the cycle of ghettoization and bloodshed still suffered in Gaza.
And this is what’s so refreshing, so inspiring, so hopeful, about Bernie’s Israel-Palestine position. Bernie has single-handedly changed the rules on this. It is no coincidence that more and more of the newer Democratic politicians are willing to speak out on I-P. Bernie has played on I-P the role that oppressed communities of color always need more of: a true ally among the powerful. And he’s doing that without losing compassion for his own Jewish people as well.
Israel-Palestine was the tie-breaker in my 2016 primary vote. I then supported Hillary without batting an eye in the general. She would have made a good, super-competent, possibly even great president.
This time around it is not as close; with Warren out, I have many reasons to prefer Bernie over Biden. There are also reasons to prefer Biden, too, and I will support Biden wholeheartedly should he win.
But for me Bernie’s willingness to do what’s right even when obviously not convenient, on an issue where the (anti-)Golden Rule among Democrats for so long has been to do what’s wrong, Bernie’s compassion and courage on this furthest-in-the-back-of-the-bus topic of Palestinian rights and freedom, is damn near priceless.