Bernie Sanders Skipped AIPAC, But Gave a Middle East Policy Speech Anyway
Unlike Hillary Clinton and the Republicans at the pro-Israel lobby conference, Sanders acknowledged there are two sides to peace negotiations.

Much has been made about Sen. Bernie

Sanders (I-Vt.) being the only candidate from the two major political parties to skip this year's American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) policy conference. To some, he's a self-hating Jew, to others, his absence is a form of quiet protest that positions him as the conscience of progressivism.
The democratic socialist senator had been strongly urged by prominent leftist pro-Palestinian activists (including anti-Zionist writer Max Blumenthal and former Pink Floyd bassist Roger Waters, who has endorsed Sanders) to skip the event that they claim promoted "the racist, militaristic, and anti-democratic policies of the most right-wing government in Israel's history." Sanders' campaign made no reference to those calls, instead blaming his absence on a busy campaign schedule that had him traveling in Utah yesterday.
Sanders had offered to speak via video to the conference, but was refused by the event's organizers. However, in 2012, AIPAC made exceptions for two candidates who were too busy campaigning for president to make it to the hugely influential lobby group's annual meeting, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.
The latter's disengaged performance via video screen (he literally fell asleep while waiting to speak and addressed a panel that was not there) might have had something to do with AIPAC's insistence this year that all the presidential hopefuls wishing to speak be physically present.
In her remarks to AIPAC, Hillary Clinton subtly jabbed at Donald Trump, who had previously promised to be "neutral" in any negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians when she said, "We need steady hands, not a president who says he's neutral on Monday, pro-Israel on Tuesday, and who knows what on Wednesday, because everything is negotiable."
For his part, Trump's speech to AIPAC made no mention of neutrality, saying "The Palestinians must come to the table knowing that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable."
Three of the four presidential candidates in attendance took shots at what Clinton blasted as the "alarming" Boycott Divest Sanction (BDS) movement, saying "Particularly at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise across the world, especially in Europe, we must repudiate all efforts to malign, isolate and undermine Israel and the Jewish people."
In statements fraught with chilling ramifications for freedom of speech and protest, Gov. John Kasich (R-Ohio) promised to "use the full force of the White House to fight this scourge" of BDS, while Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) went so far as to say that any college that participates in BDS will lose federal funding and, if in legal violation, "will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
At a rally in Salt Lake City, Sanders gave a speech he almost certainly would not have delivered to AIPAC, but which addressed his Middle East policy in depth.
Leading off by mentioning the indisputable fact that he is the only major presidential candidate to have ever spent time living on an Israeli kibbutz, then extolling the historical and cultural ties between the US and Israel, Sanders said Israel requires "the unconditional recognition" of its right to exist from "the entire world" and that Hamas and Hezbollah must "renounce their efforts to undermine the security of Israel."
Next, Sanders pivoted into a bit of pragmatic realism that would have been a non-starter at AIPAC:
But peace also means security for every Palestinian. It means achieving self-determination, civil rights, and economic well-being for the Palestinian people.
Peace will mean ending what amounts to the occupation of Palestinian territory, establishing mutually agreed upon borders,and pulling back settlements in the West Bank, just as Israel did in Gaza – once considered an unthinkable move on Israel's part.
Sanders can hardly be described as a harsh critic of Israel and has even engaged in some heated debates on the subject with his own constituents, but his acknowledgment that both sides of conflict have committed terrible acts of violence against civilians provided a nuance to the conversation that was lacking at AIPAC yesterday:
Of course, I strongly object to Hamas' long held position that Israel does not have the right to exist. Of course, I strongly condemned indiscriminate rocket fire by Hamas into Israeli territory, and Hamas' use of civilian neighborhoods to launch those attacks. I condemn the fact that Hamas diverted funds and materials for much-needed construction projects designed to improve the quality of life of the Palestinian people, and instead used those funds to construct a network of tunnels for military purposes.
However, let me be very clear: I – along with many supporters of Israel – spoke out strongly against the Israeli counter attacks that killed nearly 1,500 civilians, and wounded far more. I condemned the bombing of hospitals, schools and refugee camps.
Sanders also addressed what he described as an imperfect Iranian nuclear deal:
I do not accept the idea that the "pro-Israel" position was to oppose the deal. Preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon will strengthen not only America's security, but Israel's security as well. And I am not alone in that idea. While Prime Minister Netanyahu is vocally opposed to the accord, his is hardly a consensus opinion in Israel. Dozens of former security officials, including retired Army generals and chiefs of the Shin Bet and Mossad intelligence agencies support the agreement.
But let me be clear: if Iran does not live up to the agreement, we should re-impose sanctions and all options are back on the table.
There really was nothing radical or overtly dovish about anything Sanders had to say. One could even argue that his Middle East policy speech was a pretty bland embrace of the status quo, with nudges toward peace and a willingness to negotiate with hostile actors.
That said, it's hard to imagine even someone like the first Jewish-American candidate to ever win presidential delegates giving a speech like this before AIPAC, especially on a day when his Democratic rival was trying to position herself as a more intransigent supporter of Israel than any of the Republicans in attendance.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Why does the US have some duty to be neutral? What have the Palestinians ever done to deserve the US caring about their interests? I think saying we should walk away altogether and take no side is a reasonable position. I think saying that we should side with Israel because it is a long time ally and the one western and democratic country in the region is a reasonable position. I don't see how saying we should intervene and give a shit about the Palestinians is in any kind of a reasonable position.
By intervening do you mean participating in the peace negotiations?
Yes. If we are going to participate, why should we pretend the Palestinians are anything but what they are?
You mean human beings with a desire for life and self-determination?
Palestinians are human beings with a desire for self-determination, but one can't ignore the creepy martyrdom death-cult meme (whether borne from desperation, ethno-religious animus, or some combination of the two) that has poisoned their culture for more than 70 years.
This "culture of death" has even been commented on by a Palestinian imam:
You got that? An Islamist saying ISIS isn't the real deal because they don't martyr themselves enough against the najis Yahudi.
Some Palestinians do push back (somewhat) against the 'culture of death' as can be seen in this exchange:
Intervene, participate...these are just words, Hugh. The important thing is throwing the US' weight around...because they can. I mean, isn't showing these freaks what a bloated, runaway military budget can do the whole point?
Let the fuckers sort it out among themselves.
That is why walking away and taking no side is a reasonable position. But if you absolutely can't help yourself and must do something, it is pretty insane to take the Palestinians' side here.
I think saying we should walk away altogether and take no side is a reasonable position.
Completely agree with this one. We are not the arbiter of the world's problems.
So the US shouldn't take a side? You mean, like, be neutral?
I mean like not be involved. I don't think Fisher is talking about us being neutral. He is talking about us trying to level the playing field by bullying the Israelis. Walking away means walking away.
With our 3 billion dollars a year in our pocket.
Closer to 6.7 billion, because if you're cutting Israel's funding, no sense funding Egypt (1.55 billion), Jordan (1.2 billion), or Gaza (1 billion).
A billion here, a billion there; pretty soon you're talking about real money.
...to others, his absence is a form of quiet protest that positions him as the conscience of progressivism.
You know who else hated the Jews?
Sheldon Richman?
Walt Disney?
Peace will mean ending what amounts to the occupation of Palestinian territory, establishing mutually agreed upon borders,and pulling back settlements in the West Bank, just as Israel did in Gaza...
Yeah, how's that whole Gaza thing working out for them?
The Israelis did all of that and were treated to rocket attacks for their efforts. I read things like this and can only conclude people like Fisher see Palestinians as some kind of lesser animal who cannot be held to any standard of behavior.
After the 2nd intifada, that makes two times in a row that the Israelis were rewarded with violence for making concessions. I don't think they will be doing that again anytime soon.
Unless unreasonably pushed to it by the U.S. Which will reward Palestinain violence, and encourage more of the same, instead of building a functioning society in the territory they already control. U.S. intervention hurts both sides in this mess.
It's a start - Palestinians only wants to end the occupation of Palestinian lands, which, unfortunately for Israel, is Israel. Which makes the idea of "mutually agreed upon borders" kind of a non-starter since the Palestinians deny Israel has any right to any borders at all and it's hard to imagine Israel agreeing to dissolve itself. So sure, we all want peace, we all want an agreeable compromise to achieve peace, but when one side wants the other dead and is unwilling to compromise that principle, any talk of a peaceful agreeable compromise is just a waste of oxygen.
And this is what Fisher calls "pragmatic realism" by Bernie. I'm not sure if Fisher maybe isn't a little too on-the-nose on this one, maybe mouthing empty platitudes is the best we can meaningfully hope to do.
How is this different from bombing Japan in the 1940's?
Watching Sanders sometimes comes across like watching Emmanual Goldstein in the Two Minutes Hate in 1984, except he's the one pushing IngSoc.
You will learn to love Big Bernie.
From the U.S., the libertarian position on the conflict should be simple: no more US government aid to either Israel (in military loan guarantees) or to the Palestinians. We have enough use for our tax dollars over here.
After that, move the fucking embassy to Jerusalem.
Do we give any aid to the Palestinians? Besides indirectly through the UN, anyway.
Ending aid to Israel will be a bit difficult, but for maximum trolling potential it should be done while Jimmy Carter is still alive.
About 5 billion dollars so far since the mid 1990s.
Ah. I think someone failed to explain neutrality to our foreign policy experts. Backing both sides in a conflict just ensures more conflict.
And more arms sales.
my buddy's step-mother makes $89 /hr on the laptop . She has been fired for seven months but last month her income was $19439 just working on the laptop for a few hours. you could check here
? ? ? ? http://www.ReportMax90.com