Although Hillary Clinton seems certain to win the US Democratic Party nomination, on at least one issue it would be better if her opponent Bernie Sanders emerged as the Democratic nominee: Palestine.
Both Clinton and Sanders are in broad agreement about the Palestine-Israel conflict. They both believe Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state and that the Palestinian people should have a state of their own. But after that there is a striking divergence. During Thursday’s Democratic primary debate, Sanders doubled down on his past argument that Israel’s invasion of Gaza in 2014 in response to rocket attacks was “disproportionate”, said the US and Israel need “to treat the Palestinian people with respect and dignity” and argued that the US “cannot continue to be one-sided”.
He criticized Clinton for “barely mentioning” the Palestinian people during her speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, America’s most powerful pro-Israel group, last month. Of course, he said, Israel had a right to defend itself, but that in the long term, there will never be peace in the region unless the US plays an even-handed role, trying to bring people together and recognizing the serious problems that exist among the Palestinian people.
Clinton told AIPAC in March that “Palestinians should be able to govern themselves in their own state, in peace and dignity,” but used the vast majority of her time to talk about defending Israel’s security and strengthening the US-Israel alliance. Sanders passed on speaking to AIPAC in person and instead gave his speech at a high school in Utah where he talked about Palestinian unemployment and poverty, and dedicated more than a sentence to condemning Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank.
Sanders, who would be the first Jewish president if elected, may feel he has more leeway on this issue than presidential candidates in previous years. But it was nonetheless revealing to hear such clear differences on an issue where Democrats often speak with one voice. Clinton held fast to a more orthodox pro-Israel position throughout — which may prove to be the politically smarter move.
It wasn’t only that Sanders highlighted the need to address the Palestinian issue and Palestinian rights; it is that he turned it into an asset. Rather than be on the defensive, he put Clinton on the defensive for not bringing it up in her AIPAC speech. Posing that equality between Israeli security and Palestinian security is something new. Americans have not heard a candidate for president articulate it as strongly as that before.
Sanders’ talk on the Palestinians is actually not that new. Barack Obama and his predecessors George W. Bush and Bill Clinton used at least some decorum in showing neutrality on the issue. But their sentiments about a fair Palestinian deal were said after they became president, not on the campaign trail where fidelity to Israel is a must when seeking the presidency and any departure from the script is viewed as political suicide.
Barring some unforeseen catastrophe befalling Clinton, the fundamental shape of the race will not shift at this point. Clinton holds a double-digit polling lead in the upcoming New York primary and a near-impenetrable advantage in the Democratic delegate race.
What Sanders said about the Palestinians on a Democratic primary debate stage is bold. He forced Clinton to defend herself about not talking about Palestinian dignity. Maybe, long after Sanders is gone and she vanquishes her anticipated Republican opponent Donald Trump, and becomes the new US president, Clinton will try to be a bit fairer when dealing with the Palestinians.
