Dems vote against meddling in Israel settlements dispute

[ericson00]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/09/politics/democratic-platform-israel-palestine-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/

Hillary Clinton supporters rejected an effort Saturday to add a call for "an end to occupations and illegal settlements" in Palestinian territories into the Democratic platform.

Clinton's backers argued that the current language in the party's platform, calling for negotiations for a two-state solution in Israel to give Palestinians a homeland, are enough and that going further would inflame tensions and undercut U.S. diplomats' ability to lead future negotiations.
But Bernie Sanders' supporters -- as well as dozens of young people in the crowd in an Orlando hotel ballroom for the Democratic National Committee's platform drafting committee's two-day meeting -- said the language they'd proposed simply repeated a position Clinton herself has taken in the past.

GOOD! Fact is the American people stand with Israel and throwing them under the bus would only help Trump. The settlements are a red-herring; the Palestinian Arabs had been making war against the Jewish State since before 1967.

It would also have been disasterous to look like the party was throwing an ally in the fight against Islamist terrorism under the bus when Trump's numbers on the issue are a little strong for a guy with no experience.

Its also great that the platform trashes BDS; I think now is the time for the party to curb the anti-Israel sentiment that has been rising since 2003, once and for all. Too many people erroneously tried to blame the mythical "Israel lobby" for the Iraq War, which does seem to be where the dislike emanates, even tho the idea that the "Israel Lobby" brought about the war is a faulty premise.

Now that Hillary has given the party free public education, $15 min wage, any voter who would still stay home over the Palestinians probably shouldn't vote.

[spud_demon]

1. If only we hadn't "meddled" in Iraq, Libya, Syria.

Israel's behavior is actually our responsibility because we fund it!

[Scootaloo]

2. What's a few international laws, anyway?

[ericson00]

3. well given the kind of countries that get the chance to be on the Human Rights councils,

which has included countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Cuba, etc., its hard to take them seriously on this issue.

[Scootaloo]

4. I was talking about international law.

You know, multinational treaties laying out the guidelines of how thigns work? Treaties that UN members are bound by?

This is a different subject than the UNHRC. But I'm sure you knew that, correct?

[ericson00]

6. the same "international law" influenced by bodies and members

like I mentioned? Or the sad attempt to spin actual international law against Israel, even tho in reality, it goes in Israel's favor, given how one could argue the West Bank was terra nullius in 1967 bc Jordan's occupation of the WB was only recognized by UK and Pakistan...

[Scootaloo]

11. Why the scare quotes? it's international law.

And I'm certain that whatever nation you call home regards treaties it is party to as being laws of your nation. I know mine does (Article II, Section 2, clause 2.)

Terra Nullius also does not apply to the West Bank. That's a new argument though, good to see there's still some inventiveness going around.

Here's two real fast, easy question for you - Is Israel a nation-state? And Is Israel a member of the United Nations?

[TubbersUK]

5. Disappointing, but not surprising

As an aside, I see that the headline from the primary link is actually:

"Clinton supporters reject Israel settlements proposal"

rather than your headline.

[ericson00]

7. if you want Hillary to win, you should be happy

because the American people stand up next to the Jewish State and defend her still today.


why would you want the nominee to take a fringe stance, and had Trump more Jewish voters (and swing gentile voters who also stand with Israel, per the polls, largely over national security, anti-jihad issues) and potentially the election?

[Ken Burch]

12. Will you quit acting as if "Standing with Israel" HAS to mean defending the settlements

and the Occupation?

Neither is good for Israeli security(which can only be assured by accepting a Palestinian state-it is impossible to get hostilities ended without that).


You aren't pro-Israel, you are pro-Netanyahu. Netanyahu doesn't want a Palestinian state and doesn't want Israel to live in peace with its neighbors-his political career and the electoral survival of his right-wing hate party depends on making sure peace never happens.

It's actually anti-Israel(and endangers Israelis) to defend any part of the Likudnik-settler status quo in the West Bank. There is no chance of any part of the status quo ever leading to peace or anything positive.

[ericson00]

15. Israel will deal with settlements when the Palestinian deal with peace. See Egypt.

Israel had settlements in the Egyptian Sinai; when they saw Egypt was serious about peace, they signed the accord, and THEN got rid of them. It worked. The Palestinians need to follow. Not even Kadima and Labour are against such an approach.

Also, even for my disagreements with Netanyahu, he is 1000x more honourable than every leader in the adjacent countries. He's accountable. He leads a free country, and he has democratic legitimacy. Abdullah is a king (monarch), Lebanon is subverted by Hezbollah, Assad is a hereditary dictator, Fahd is a king, Sisi is a military dictator (tho better than Islamist Morsi), etc. And not the least, Abbas has overstayed his term for a few years now, eh.

[Ken Burch]

18. Actually, Israel had almost no settlements in the Sinai. They basically left the place alone.

I think there were just a couple of holiday resorts and that was it.

There are so many settlements in place in the West Bank now, it is already nearly impossible for a two-state solution to be put in place.
And the encouragement of the settlement project(a project that is a distortion of the original Zionist intent-since it is about putting another people in a subordinate, effectively colonized status, rather than doing anything to assist in the positive goal of the construction of a Jewish homeland-state).
You would agree, I hope, that Israel has no real right to expect the Palestinians to leave in peace with it if they DON'T get their own state.

David Ben-Gurion(a person I think we can assume was at least as pro-Israel as you are) was opposed to the idea of settling the West Bank and Gaza(they waited until after his death to start the settlement project).

I don't like those other leaders in the region, but there is nothing that Netanyahu is doing that can ever lead to them(or the Palestinian leadership)being replaced by better leaders.

[AgingAmerican]

16. Same argument Republicans made for apartheid

[ericson00]

17. Non-Jews and Jews serve in the same chamber of the same parliamentary body in Israel.

therefore, the apartheid comparison is DOA.

And don't give me more of this "intersectionality" crap or "there's other parallels" business.

[Night Watchman]

8. Gutless

I'll be voting for Hillary in spite of this!

[Jitter65]

9. Funny how a position of the winning candidate should be placed in the party platform.

[ericson00]

10. exactly. Hillary is possibly the most gracious primary winner ever seen

in politics. W didn't give McCain anywhere close to the kind of power we're seeing a winner give a non-winner. Nor did Clinton with Tsongas and Kerrey, nor did Obama with Hillary, or Reagan with Bush I, etc.

[geek tragedy]

13. Best to have no mention of foreign countries nt

[DanTex]

14. Politically it's sticky. Israel should, of course, end the illegal occupation and the

settlements. But putting that in the platform opens up a can of worms.