Clintonites oppose ‘occupation’ mention in platform– as Cornel West says party is ‘beholden to AIPAC

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

http://mondoweiss.net/2016/06/occupation-platform-beholden/

Last week the Democratic Party Platform drafting committee had a public hearing in Washington in which the Israeli-Palestinian issue was a source of great dispute. Bernie Sanders’ surrogates said that the platform must include references to the occupation and settlements. Hillary Clinton surrogates said they did not want a divisive platform, and one said that settlements and “what you refer to as occupation” shouldn’t be in there.

For those who think this issue ought to divide the Democratic Party, there was encouragement in Sanders proxy Cornel West’s declaration that the country is at a “turning point” on this issue. He advocated for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) to alleviate the misery of Palestinians, even as Clinton surrogate Robert Wexler said that BDS is anti-Semitic. And West said that “for too long the Democratic Party has been beholden to AIPAC,” a reference to the Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
---
We must recognize that Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian territories and its daily restrictions on the most basic political and civil liberties of the Palestinian people run contrary to fundamental American values. We must reject the idea that we have to sacrifice our values in order to stand with our allies.

The special relationship also “hinders” the U.S. relationships in the region, creating a “deep well of resentment from which extremists draw freely and profitably.”

[mwrguy]

1. West is right

[geek tragedy]

2. The Sanders position is correct, but there's zero political upside for the Democrats

to include it in the platform

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

3. Do you believe that supporters for Israel would vote for Trump over Clinton?

It is probably the best time to put this into the platform instead of the continual Democratic Party nose up Israel's backside routine.

[geek tragedy]

4. some, yes, and for others it would dampen the enthusiasm

to volunteer and donate.

the unspoken truth is that the US political system will never support the US playing a constructive role in the I/P conflict. Because, realistically, that would mean trying to save Israel from itself, which would require a lot sterner measures than even Obama has contemplated.

It eventually will, but by that point it will be too late.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

5. Well I have to disagree.

If some vote for trump over the Dems Ivan Israeli support then they don't need that stone around their neck.

[Ford_Prefect]

6. That is what they said to Harry Truman when he told the Dixiecrats

that the time had come for a civil rights plank in the 1948 platform. He was right and it won new voters to the party.

It is time to make clear that there is no room for apartheid, no matter who is applying it, no mater what excuses they may make. It is time to stop AIPAC's bullying by calling them out on it.

[Little Tich]

7. It's a bit depressing to listen to a tool like Robert Wexler and realize that he's a Democrat.

I really hope that the word "occupation" will be included in the platform - if not, the US can't function as a viable mediator in the I/P conflict.

[Igel]

8. Sure it can.

There aren't that many others.

Imagine a guy about to be lynched by 90 people, already surrounded, and the only reason he's not yet been lynched is because he has a nifty selective-fire weapon and decent body armor. Some of the lynchers have rocks and clubs and rope, others have handguns but aren't good shots, while others are just cheering on those actively lynching. The one person that isn't lynching him and helps him with some ammo from time to time (to universal opprobrium) is urging him to talk about the possibility of confessing because then at least there's the possibility that he'll just be whipped instead of hanged. "First put down your weapons, I'm sure everybody'll be reasonable."

Instead we have a call to make that one person into a "viable mediator" by saying the guy's guilty and really must confess. With the upside that if you think the guy's guilty, it's immoral for the one person to defend him and even mediate for very long before he also has to pick up a club.

Bad racial analogy?

Not given much of the media in the would-be lynch-states around Israel, and even in other countries farther away. Not given the attitude of those countries and the actions taken by those countries in the past. They still call for the rope. It's just those further out that ignore those calls even exist and assume that, unlike in the past, at odds with what's said, peace would break out if Israel would just let it.

[shira]

9. It's willful blindness not to attribute nearly all the blame for the occupation....

....on Palestinian leadership.

[Little Tich]

10. International law aside, I see the current language about the I/P conflict as meaningless and a way

to guarantee the continuation current situation until the one-state solution is unavoidable.

Well, if the "Clintonites" (that's such a horrible word) want the one-state solution, they sure are doing the right thing to make it happen.

Unfortunately for them, the EU has just endorsed the French Peace Initiative which hopefully can lead to two states. The US simply doesn't have the leverage with Israel or any other country in the middle-East to create a framework where a two-state solution could happen, which means that the French Peace Iniative is better than anything the US could put on the table.

Backing French peace push, EU ministers add carrots to sweeten deal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134130134