WarSclerotic

Worrying signs in Democratic platform, Israel Hayom, Zalman Shoval, June 27, 2016

Israel and its allies in the Democratic Party cannot afford to be complacent in light of the prevailing trends in the drafting committee.

*************

As is the case every four years before U.S. presidential elections, Israelis try to figure out which candidate will be better for Israel. The answer is often: Whoever is elected.

This does not mean that both presumptive nominees, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, are identical political twins. What it does mean is that candidates’ rhetoric on the campaign trail usually has little impact on their overall policy once they become president. In any case, it is not wise for Israelis to speak out on such issues. And in any event, such talk has no bearing on the election’s outcome.

But this should not prevent us from discussing the official party platforms, which are updated ahead of each election. Israelis will find it hard to stay ambivalent about the emerging Democratic platform in light of its clauses dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Although the new platform will only be formally adopted at the Democratic National Convention in July, the new language introduced over the weekend on Israel-related issues makes it abundantly clear that the party is distancing itself from its traditional pro-Israel stance.

This trend was evident in 2012 as well, when the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee removed a clause mentioning Jerusalem as Israel’s capital — only to have it reinserted following pressure by party leaders. This time the very nature of the drafting committee underscores the negativity toward Israel. Five members of the committee were appointed by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and six were appointed by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (and four more were appointed by the Democratic National Committee).

But what matters more is not the proportion of pro-Sanders members in the committee, but their identities. They include James Zogby, a leading pro-Arab activist; U.S. Representative Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a Muslim; and Dr. Cornel West, a professor with provocative views on Israel who has embraced the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement and has come out against the Israeli “occupation.”

The Clinton campaign is fully aware of the electoral damage an anti-Israeli platform could inflict on her candidacy, not to mention the financial fallout on her fund-raising efforts, even if the platform is described as “balanced.” This is why her allies took pains to make sure the drafting committee hears out expert testimony from the likes of Dennis Ross, who served as a Clinton’s Middle East adviser, and former key Democratic lawmakers, but this did not sway the hard-core Sanders loyalists. Sanders has been invigorated by his impressive campaign against Clinton, while Clinton has had to deal with very low favorability ratings.

Thus, Sanders has had the upper hand in the ideological arm twisting, even though Clinton’s supporters have gone out of their way to describe the new language as a compromise that does not depart from the party’s traditional stance. They explained that it was designed to help party unity.

But here are the facts. Ellison, who represents Sanders on the committee, and Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez from Illinois, who represents Clinton, wrote a joint statement calling on party delegates to adopt the new language on Israel during the convention. They published it on left-wing organization J Street’s blog. Gutierrez recently returned from a trip to Israel and the Palestinian Authority organized by a pro-Palestinian group.

“Israelis today live in fear of acts of terror that can turn peaceful marketplaces and neighborhoods into scenes of violence and horror,” the two warned in their statement. “Palestinians struggle under an unjust occupation that deprives them of the rights, opportunities and independence that they deserve.” The statement made no mention of Palestinian incitement, of the Palestinians’ unwillingness to hold talks without preconditions, of Hamas, or of the real reasons behind the century-old conflict.

Some play down the importance of party platforms, and sometimes this dismissive approach has merits, including in Israel. Having said that, Israel and its allies in the Democratic Party cannot afford to be complacent in light of the prevailing trends in the drafting committee.

This entry was posted on June 27, 2016 at 9:49 PM and is filed under 2016 elections, Bernie Sanders, Democrat party platform, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Israel, Palestinians. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments.

Tags: Bernie Sanders, Democrat party platform, Donald Trump, Israel, Palestinians