Democratic Party’s Bankrupt Israeli-Palestinian Policy

Actually, my blog post title is a misnomer. Unlike President Bush, who has a fairly coherent policy regarding the conflict, the Democrats have none. They do have an Israel policy and it goes something like this: support Israel right down the line, never refer to the Palestinians, never criticize any Israeli policy even the most reprehensible, and never attempt to make your own statements about the conflict correspond to the more moderate views of the vast majority of American Jews and Israelis. Basically, Democrats have ceded their Mideast policy to AIPAC.

President Bush, on the other hand, while he has at times been erratic in his approach, has been willing to expend political capital to attain progress. Condi Rice made a brave decision to lay her prestige on the line in her all-night bargaining session between Israelis and Palestinians over the Rafah border crossing. The result yesterday was the creation of the first Palestinian controlled border crossing. What have the Democrats done in any practical sense to create any forward movement in the process? It’s all well and good to sit on the sidelines and boast about how impeccable your pro-Israeli credentials are. But I’d choose a politician who gets down off his high horse and actually does something.

Dean meets with Bibi “enemy of Israeli poor” Netanyahu (source: NJDC)

Let’s take a look at recent Democratic activities regarding Israel. I’ve already written a critique of Howard Dean’s September, 2005 Israel tour in which he curiously seems to have forgotten that any Palestinians live in the region. He also has forgotten that any Israeli-Arabs exist. He seems to have forgotten that there are any other Israeli political leaders than Ariel Sharon and the Likud (oh yes, he did meet with Shimon Peres who led Labor into oblivion by joining in the current coalition).

Howard Dean knows better. He knows there are Palestinians who oppose terror and Hamas and who want a negotiated settlement with Israel. But you wouldn’t know it from his statements. Howard Dean knows there is a progressive Israeli alternative to Sharon’s cynical policies. You wouldn’t know it from the list of Israeli leaders with whom he met while there.

Here’s the latest Howard Dean statements on Israel as relayed by the National Jewish Democratic Council. You’ll never guess where he delivered them–before an AIPAC audience of course:

“Literally from Israel’s birth, as that great Democrat Harry Truman took the courageous step to immediately extend America’s hand to recognize the State of Israel, Democrats have done all we can to foster the special, enduring relationship between the two countries. Maintaining Israel’s security is a key U.S. national security interest….

“We all support the vision of two states living side by side in peace and security. But, the establishment of a Palestinian state must be contingent on the cessation of violence and terror. The Palestinian Authority must dismantle the terrorist infrastructure and continue the on-going transformation to leaders untainted by terror.”

Dean has swallowed Sharon’s policy hook line and sinker. We will not negotiate with the Palestinians until they stop all violence against Israel, the latter says. The only problem with this is it contravenes the Road Map (something Sharon claims he’s in favor of) which calls for a cessation of Palestinian terror going hand in hand with Israel’s full cessation of settlement expansion (which hasn’t happened). You’ll notice that there’s no mention in Dean’s statement of any Israeli responsibilities regarding the peace process. In his formulation, if no Palestinian state is established it will be solely the Palestinians’ fault. This of course flies in the face of reality on the ground in which there’s more than enough blame to go around.

Clinton at Israel’s security barrier: “This is not against the Palestinians” (credit: AP)

And then there’s Hillary Clinton. She joined Bill for the Yitzchak Rabin memorial rally and a nice tour of the Security Barrier in which she found nothing but laudatory things to say about it. In fact, she had the absolute chutzpah to say, “this isn’t against the Palestinians.” Tell that to the scores of thousands of Palestinians who will no longer be able to access their fields, visit relatives in the West Bank or get to a hospital quickly due to this fence which “isn’t against them”:

“The priority of any government is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens, and that is why I have been a strong supporter of Israel’s right to build a security barrier to keep terrorists out. I have taken the International Court of Justice to task for questioning Israel’s right to build the fence, and on this trip, I wanted to see the fence with my own eyes. Joined by some of my friends from New York – Harold Tanner, Malcolm Hoenlein, Susie Stern and Michael Miller -I stood on a hilltop in Gilo and received a detailed briefing from Col. Danny Tirza who oversees the Israeli government’s strategy and construction of the security fence.

“…I proceeded to a meeting with Prime Minister Sharon, where we discussed many of the same issues. During the meeting, we were reminded of the threats that Israel faces. An aide to the Prime Minister interrupted to inform him of a Qassam rocket attack on the town of Sderot, a community that lies near the Gaza strip. Sderot has been the site of many attacks over the years and the urgency of the situation made it even clearer to me how important it is for the U.S. and Israel to remain united against terror and for the Palestinian Authority to take immediate steps against the terrorists who attack Israel and threaten the transition of Palestinians to a better future.”
[from Senator Clinton’s website]

I suppose we need to cut Clinton some slack since she represents New York with its large Jewish population. But there is a false assumption in her thinking that New York Jews have no interest in a just solution to the conflict; that they are not critical of Israel; that they support unilateral Israeli policies like the Security Barrier which are arrived at with no prior consultation with Palestinians (who are deeply affected by it). I maintain that a Democrat can have a nuanced position that balances legitimate needs and interests of both parties. Very few American Jews believe that Israel’s interests are the only ones that should be taken into account. Yet you wouldn’t know that if you read Clinton’s and Dean’s accounts of their Israel trips. Note the reference to Malcolm Hoenlein’s participation in her visit to the Security Barrier. He is the hard-right president of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, who had to be goaded by Ariel Sharon before he expressed any support for Gaza withdrawal.

Among her list of Israelis with whom she met, you’ll find Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom (Likud), Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz (Likud), Ariel Sharon (then Likud), IDF chief of staff Dan Halutz (a hardline security hawk), and Amir Peretz (Labor). Is it an accident that of all the Israeli leaders she lists, only one maintains dovish views of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Someone might come back and tell me that she met with others not listed on her website. That may be so, but I’m going by what she wants the public to know. And she seems to want to avoid any taint of dovish tendencies or interest in the Palestinian half of the conflict. I think it’s shameful. There has to be a better way. Is there no Democratic politician who can set such an example?

Casey meets with neocon darling, Natan Sharansky–what’s he doing meeting with a political ally of George Bush? (credit: NJDC)

The NJDC also highlighted an Israel visit by Pennsylvania State Treasurer Robert Casey. He had this to say about Israel:

“It was a moving experience to pray at the Kotel, and to learn so much about the triumphant story of the Jewish people as well as the challenges they face today as a democracy and a thriving diverse economy. And it was eye-opening to witness the country’s critical security needs, and to discuss those needs with key Israeli leaders. Israelis have a right to live in peace and security, and America has an obligation to build on our close strategic partnership with Israel.”

Mr. Casey was particularly moved by a quote from the book of Zachariah that was affixed to a plaque in the Jewish section of the Old City; the quote reads, “There shall be old men and old women dwelling in the streets of Jerusalem… and the streets of the city will be full of boys and girls.” Mr. Casey commented, “This passage has been brought to life since Israel regained control of the Old City in 1967. It is our responsibility to help Israel ensure that the streets of Jerusalem will remain safe for young and old for generations to come.”

To hear Democrats tell it, there’s only one salient fact in the Mideast–and that is Israel’s security interests. You’ll note that Casey’s quotation from Zachariah seems to imply only Jewish old men and women and Jewish children live in the Old City. You wouldn’t know that anyone else might live there as well. Actually, if the Sharon government has its way East Jerusalem Palestinians will become ever more constricted. Israel aims to make living conditions there so intolerable that either they will leave or become so bottled up they’d wish they could leave. Democrats do neither Israelis, Palestinians, nor American Jews a favor when they pretend only Israel and its interests matter.