Morgan Moone
By Morgan Moone, Associate Editor
[dropcap]A[/dropcap]ccording to Omar Baddar, deputy director of the Arab American Institute, it is “conventional wisdom that you cannot criticize Israel in American politics.” For years, pro-Palestinian sentiments and non-violent struggle for Palestinian human rights have been viewed as overt acts against Israel and have been largely decried. Progressive politicians are trying to change that. The recent shift in the political environment after the rise of Bernie Sanders, emerging democratic socialists, and the election of Donald Trump has pushed the boundaries of traditional social platforms, creating room for politicians to voice support for Palestinians. Ilhan Omar and Julia Salazar, both newcomers to the larger political arena who ran successful campaigns, raise questions as to whether politicians sympathetic to Palestine are increasing not only in popularity, but also in political viability.
With so much at stake for pro-Palestinian politicians, the question becomes: can a pro-Palestinian, BDS-supporting politician be politically viable?
Politicians have traditionally been forced into, or refused to fight against, lukewarm sentiments towards Israel that are not consistent with reality. Bernie Sanders, for example, received overwhelming support and praise when he stated that the United States should “treat the Palestinian people with respect and dignity,” despite the statement’s absurdly low bar in terms of civil and human rights attainment. Sanders was unsurprisingly called out for his statements by pro-Israel groups. Despite the backlash, Bernie remains as popular as ever. Brad Bannon, a Democratic strategist, stated: “Not too long ago, if a politician expressed sympathy for the Palestinians, they would be cooked. But hardcore Berniecrats are changing all of this.”
While vocally supporting Palestinian rights is slowly becoming a point of valid debate, politicians seeking to be viable candidates are still chastised for taking concrete actions that may make attainment of Palestinian rights a reality. Politicians across the board have been admonished and even lost elections because of their ties to the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement (BDS) or opposition to overwhelming military aid.
“For a long time, the American left has fallen short on supporting Palestinian rights. White Americans on the left have consistently tried to keep discussions about Palestine out of leftist discussions.” – Suzanne Adely
United States support of Israel has been so unwavering and foundational to US politics that it seeps into every aspect of political life and those who attempt to deviate from the rhetoric risk political unviability. In March, a meticulously documented UN report detailing Israeli treatment of Palestinian people was removed from a United Nations website after direct pressure from the United States. It also prompted the resignation of the leader of the UN agency that had issued the report. On the other hand, Ireland has divested itself of Israeli goods produced in the West Bank and the European Union has passed measures to label similar goods.
In the United States, politicians who seek to assert their support of Palestine risk their careers. Last year, democratic Florida State Sen. Dwight Bullard lost his seat for re-election after his opponent drew attention to his ties to BDS. After traveling to Palestine, he spoke out on behalf of what he saw there. “What I found most disheartening was the dismissal of some of the injustices I witnessed as “staged” or “made up”…. As an African-American I know all to well what it is like to feel a sense of oppression in the place I was born in.” His support for the Palestinian cause, he states, “was not meant to disparage any one group, but to encourage empathy for people (Palestinians) looking for freedom in their own land.”
Daniel Bliss, running for governor as a democrat in Illinois, replaced his running-mate after his candidate for lieutenant governor refused to back down from supporting the Palestinian cause. Virginia democrat Leslie Cockburn took a hit in her campaign when a book she authored criticizing Israel-US relations came to light.
Similarly, in 2016, Congressman Keith Ellison was vying for chair of the Democratic National Convention (DND). He was endorsed by Bernie Sanders and had the support of Chuck Schumer, the current Senate minority leader and a strong supporter of Israel. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a pro-Israel advocacy group, said Ellison was unfit to chair the DNC because he had stated that American foreign policy in the Middle East should not be driven by Israel. Days before the vote, DNC members received an email saying“Electing Keith Ellison would send the wrong message. I urge you to consider instead a candidate who will unify the party, bring in Independents, and continue our strong tradition of maintaining a robust US-Israel bond.”
Boycott Divest and Sanctions Movement
[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he BDS movement is non-violent activism guided by three demands: (1) End Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip; (2) End dozens of discriminatory laws against Palestinian citizens of Israel; (3) Recognize Palestinian refugees’ rights to return to Palestine.
In previous years, supporting the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) Movement was political suicide. Even presently, indirect support of the BDS movement is deadly to a political campaign. Cynthia Nixon, who ran against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, fought against anti-Israel claims throughout her candidacy. When Nixon was still preparing to announce her candidacy, she was blasted as being anti-Israel for collaborating with Jewish Voice for Peace. This claim was based on Nixon’s signature, along with 150 other United States artists, voicing their support for actors who refused to perform in West Bank settlements. Then, in an 11th-hour attempt to undermine Nixon’s campaign, the New York Democratic Committee mailed a flyer suggesting that Nixon was anti-Israel and pro-BDS.
Julia Salazar, a newcomer running for New York Senate, stated she supports BDS but suffered a deliberate and outright smear attack. Salazar’s case is the exception; she nevertheless continued her campaign, elevated her platform and won her election.
While vocally supporting Palestinian rights is slowly becoming a point of valid debate, politicians seeking to be viable candidates are still chastised for taking concrete actions that may make attainment of Palestinian rights a reality.
The result of anti-BDS sentiment in the political arena has led to otherwise progressive politicians taking a backseat to BDS’s nonviolent resistance strategies. Ironically, this stance against is one that directly contradicts other progressive principles. For example, Senator Leah Vukmir has used the issue of campus free speech to launch a campaign for US Senate, but has done so selectively and on her own terms. Vukmir sponsored “free speech” legislation that calls for strict disciplinary repercussions for those who infringe on others’ free speech rights on college campuses in her state. Months later, she sponsored an anti-BDS law in Wisconsin that prohibited the state from entering into contracts “with businesses that choose to express themselves by engaging in a boycott to protest Israel.” Similarly, Councilman Stephen Levin, a democrat, supported anti-BDS legislation passed in New York City and simultaneously proclaimed that he respects “individuals’ rights to engage in boycotts that are focused on the occupied territory.” That same year, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo proclaimed “If you boycott against Israel, New York will boycott you,” as he signed an executive order that ordered state agencies to divest themselves of companies and organizations who support the BDS movement.
AIPAC: Equating Pro-Israeli Policies with Political Success
“There was a time, not so long ago, when there were left Democrats, in Congress, who had strong anti-imperialist politics and positions. There were even parts of the Left – particularly the black left – that were critical of Israel at a fundamental level. These sentiments have largely passed. In the 1950s, I.L. “Si” Kenen founded the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, otherwise known as AIPAC. Kenen has been described as an “old-fashioned liberal,” who originally faced opposition from representatives and government players for his stance on Israel. However, through political maneuvering and supporting Republicans, AIPAC quickly became a powerhouse player. AIPAC was the only national lobby for Israel’s interests, and it faced no significant and well-funded opponents. By linking the pro-Israel stance to political success, AIPAC quickly began installing politicians in seats of power. In 1982, after Paul Findley, an Illinois congressman declared himself “Yasir Arafat’s best friend in Congress,” AIPAC members encouraged political unknown Dick Durbin to run against him. And he won. In 1984, Senator Charles Percy was replaced by Paul Simon after AIPAC deemed Sen. Percy anti-Israel. And so, a three-decade long cycle of unwavering support from United States politicians began. Politicians were taught to shun pro-Palestinian activities in order to garner political success and, as a result, the United States has given Israel $118 billion in aid over the years.
Progressive and Pro-Palestinian: The New Politicians in an Old Playing Field
[dropcap]S[/dropcap]mall, seemingly undetected shifts have continued to slowly alter our political climate, and the human rights crisis in Israel has helped expedite this movement. Rabbi Jill Jacobs of T’ruah, an organizations that advocates for human rights in the US and in Israel, stated: “What we’ve noticed really loud and clear is that there is an increased awareness of human rights issues in Israel, of the occupation, that the status quo isn’t sustainable.” Rep. Betty McCollum recently took to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, urging colleagues to sign an unprecedented bill that would prohibit Israel from using military aid to imprison Palestinian children, the first of its kind. Support by newly elected representatives similarly signalled a generational shift within the Democratic Party to one that favors Palestinian rights. 46 Democratic senators voted against Trump’s appointment of David Friedman as U.S. Ambassador to Israel, nominations of which usually sail through. Ilhan Omar, an openly pro-Palestinian politician, won the Democratic nomination for a Minnesota House Seat. But is increasing support of Palestinians enough to offset the political backlash that politicians face when publicly supporting pro-Palestinian agendas?
Rashida Tlaib, the first Muslim and Palestinian American woman set to join Congress, was previously supported and endorsed by the liberal pro-Israel lobby group, J Street, through its political action committee, JStreetPAC. Notably, to be eligible for JStreetPAC endorsement, “a political candidate must demonstrate that they support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, active US leadership to help end the conflict, the special relationship between the US and Israel, continued aid to the Palestinian Authority and opposition to the boycott, divestment [and] sanctions movement.” When Tlaib called for a one-state solution, J Street withdrew its endorsement. She responded: “Separate but equal does not work. I’m only 42 years old but my teachers were of that generation that marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. This whole idea of a two-state solution, it doesn’t work.” Tlaib’s support of a one-state solution was precarious, especially considering backlash that other politicians receive for supporting pro-Palestinian efforts like BDS. Tlaib was nevertheless successful in her primary win, but human rights attorney and professor Noura Erakat cautions:
“Tlaib will not change the world from the top down. She will do what she can based on the power we give her from the bottom up …. For those who want Tlaib to publicly endorse the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement as part of her platform and demand an end to US aid to Israel, consider joining her team and her campaign … It is important to remember that Tlaib is not our saviour. We can only save ourselves, and as an elected member of Congress she could play a role in our collective efforts to end US complicity in and support for Israeli apartheid and settler-colonialism.”
Still, how is it, then, that otherwise seemingly democratic, progressive or constitutionally-focused politicians, despite their political leanings, seem consistently to be missing the mark on voicing discontent on the plight of Palestinians? As Seymour Reich, former chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organization suggested that as progressive movements continue to build, and win, support for Israel is diminishing and continued heavy reliance on Republicans and evangelicals is unsustainable.
Peter Feld, an activist, organizer and consultant, stated: “politicians run on fear. The second they think that running [their campaign] on Israel will cost them, they’ll change.” The way to do that, he says, is by flipping the script: “We have to look at it not from the angle of ‘how can our candidates be brave and take the criticism that comes from these positions,’ but from a point of ‘how can we make this beneficial?’ We must look at how we can get candidates that take vocal positions with Palestinian solidarity and make that stance a political plus, not a political minus.”
Politicians have been largely afraid to take any stand other than that traditionally proposed by AIPAC and other lobby groups. Remember the 2012 Democratic Convention’s marred voice vote on a platform amendment declaring Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital. Now, just 27% of Democrats sympathize more with Israel than with Palestinians, a departure that is notable, particularly considering that there is “no AIPAC for Palestine stalking the halls of power in Washington,” suggesting that this political shift happened organically through grassroots activism and not through corporate-funded lobbying.
It’s up to Palestinian supporters to force the issue and, according to Feld, this happens through electorally-focused grassroots organizing. With consistent attempts by establishment politicians to thwart activists’ efforts to change the debate on Palestine, it’s time for activists to band together and fight against the “Red Lines” artificially imposed by donors, organizations and fundraisers that gridlock politicians into strictly pro-Israel stances. Suzanne Adely, an activist and grassroots organizer, states: “Because of strong grassroots organizing that has come out of Palestine and within communities here in the United States, the tides have changed. There is growing support for the Palestinian people.”
“Only a deliberative conversation centered in honesty and love for one another will bring about peace.”
As the 2020 presidential election inches closer, it is believed that Palestine will evolve into a true debate in the presidential race. The conflict has already come up for a topic of debate in primaries in Georgia, Maryland, South Carolina and California. Bernie Sanders, supposed 2020 potential, recently called on the US to adopt a more balanced policy towards Israel and Palestine, despite his vehement opposition to the BDS movement. Signals by the Sanders team, including hiring Matt Duss as his foreign policy advisor, indicate that Sanders may be amping up to take a harder stance on Middle East politics, including Palestine.
This is huge.
“For a long time,” Adely says, “the American left has fallen short on supporting Palestinian rights. White Americans on the left have consistently tried to keep discussions about Palestine out of leftist discussions.” Part of that, she suggests, is the result of American voters allowing politicians to speak about Palestinians on their own terms. For this next election and beyond, she says, we must “be clear on what is acceptable for candidates that call themselves progressives.” Mobilization of communities must include a strategizing call that unites voices and demands a baseline stance on Palestine, “whether it’s supporting BDS, opposing anti-BDS legislation, or otherwise.”
Kamau Franklin, founder of Community Movement Builders and supporter of Palestinian liberation, stated that the best thing that candidates themselves can do is learn the history of the movements: “People have to know history so they can challenge mainstream arguments that are based on hegemonic rhetoric but not actual history.” By understanding the history and having the tools to withstand criticism, pro-Palestinian politicians, much like Cynthia McKinney of Atlanta, who served six terms in the United States House of Representatives, and Charles Barron of New York, a self-described “elected activist,” can survive the windstorm of anti-Palestinian attacks that follow voiced support
Former Florida State Senator. Bullard, who now works as the Political Director of New Florida Majority, is hopeful: “the space for pro-Palestinian policy in organizations like the Movement for Black Lives and Jewish Voices for Peace means that newer generations are more open to restorative and holistic dialogue on the issue and are willing and determined to not let a one-sided narrative be the dominant narrative in the future.” He is hopeful that more aspiring politicians will “travel to areas like the West Bank and be encouraged to seek out their own truth, for only a deliberative conversation centered in honesty and love for one another will bring about peace.”
Maintaining momentum, increasing awareness, developing progressive policies and demanding that Palestine be on the political agenda will not happen on its own; it’s up to all of us to demand it and hold our democratically-elected politicians accountable for the positions to which they’ve committed.
