"US democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is standing by his criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying Israel is 'now run by a right-wing, dare I say, racist government'.... The senator from Vermont said he was 'not anti-Israel" but felt Netanyahu was 'a right-wing politician' who was treating the Palestinian people 'extremely unfairly'. Sanders then added that he was '100% pro-Israel' and that the country has 'every right in the world to exist... in peace and security and not be subjected to terrorists' attack'." (Sanders hits out at 'racist' Israeli rule, McClatchy/AP/Sydney Morning Herald, 24/4/19)
This says just about everything you really need to know about the politics of 2020 presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders.
In the words of a university friend quoted in his Wikipedia entry, he was "a swell guy, a nice Jewish boy from Brooklyn, but he wasn't terribly charismatic." While he has a track record of being on the side of the people against the system, he's obviously intellectually blinkered by his youthful brush with Zionism, including a stint on an Israeli kibbutz in the early 1960s.
It speaks volumes too about the limits to freedom of speech and thought in the so-called 'land of the brave and home of the free'. Sanders "dares to say" that Israel now has "a racist government," but cannot bring himself to acknowledge that the Zionist project in Palestine itself is inherently racist (dare I say apartheid), and that every Zionist government since 1948 has contributed its share of anti-Palestinian racism to the present racism of the Netanyahu government.
What's more, while Sanders' talk of Palestinians being treated "extremely unfairly" doesn't even begin to acknowledge the extent of Zionism's genocidal onslaught against them, to confine said unfairness merely to the present Netanyahu government is beyond belief.
And finally, to prate about terrorism without reference to Israel's role as the pioneer of terrorism in the Middle East surely has to be the mother of all sins of omission.
Showing posts with label Bernie Sanders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bernie Sanders. Show all posts
Thursday, April 25, 2019
Sunday, January 27, 2019
The Simple Truth
In response to this tweet of Bernie Sanders@SenSanders...
The Maduro government has waged a violent crackdown on Venezuelan civil society, violated the constitution by dissolving the National Assembly and was re-elected last year in an election many observers said was fraudulent. The economy is a disaster and millions are migrating. 1/3 (24/1/19)
Asad Abukhalil@asadabukhalil tweeted...
Those who disappoint you on Palestine will disappoint you on Venezuela, and vice versa.
How true.
The Maduro government has waged a violent crackdown on Venezuelan civil society, violated the constitution by dissolving the National Assembly and was re-elected last year in an election many observers said was fraudulent. The economy is a disaster and millions are migrating. 1/3 (24/1/19)
Asad Abukhalil@asadabukhalil tweeted...
Those who disappoint you on Palestine will disappoint you on Venezuela, and vice versa.
How true.
Saturday, November 3, 2018
Herald Plumbs New Depths in Editorial Vileness
One of the most despicable editorials ever to appear in the Sydney Morning Herald cropped up on Monday, October 29. It concerned the recent appalling anti-Semitic shooting rampage in a Pittsburgh synagogue which left 11 worshipers dead and 6 injured.
At first, it stuck to the facts, namely that the gunman, Robert Bowers, was a dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semite, nothing more, nothing less, connected to the American alt-right. Then it veered way off course with this vile conflation of the unconflatable:
"This is not to besmirch the mainstream right, which has often led the way in protecting minority groups, nor to play down anti-Semitism and political violence among African-American and left-wing anti-Zionist movements. A left-wing extremist shot a senior US Republican in 2017." (Alt-right terrorism now stalks the US)
Let me unpack its nastiness.
*"This is not to besmirch the mainstream right... " Just who exactly are "the mainstream right"? Trump's Republicans? What precisely does the editorialist mean by this term?
*"... nor to play down anti-Semitism and political violence among African American... movements... " Who exactly are these anti-Semitic and politically violent African American movements, and when, if ever, has a representative of one of them gone on a shooting rampage in a Jewish institution, spewing, like Bowers, his hatred of Jews? I'd really like to know.
*"... and left-wing anti-Zionist movements." What "movements" are referred to here? Can we have a list of them? And when, if ever, has a representative of one of them gone on a shooting rampage in a Jewish institution, spewing, like Bowers, his hatred of Jews?
*"A left-wing extremist shot a senior US Republican in 2017."
The "left-wing extremist" obliquely referred to here is James Hodgkinson, who harboured a dislike for Trump and a partiality for Bernie Sanders. This, apparently, in the eyes of the editorialist, is all one needs to qualify for the label "left-wing extremist." And, since Sanders is a Jewish supporter of a Jewish state in Palestine, in other words a Zionist, quite how this qualifies Hodgkinson as a card-carrying anti-Zionist is beyond me.
What the editorialist is doing here, of course, is conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, a smear straight out of the Zionist playbook. To go on and explain the simple fact that when Zionism first emerged in the late 19th century, the vast majority of the world's Jews were anti-Zionists would be wasted on the Herald editorialist. To conflate the likes of Bowers and Hodgkinson with ant-Zionists, many of whom today are Jews, is about as low as it gets. In fact, it speaks volumes that not even the editorial in the Australian of the same day (Toxic ingredients in America) on the same subject went that far.
Enough said...
At first, it stuck to the facts, namely that the gunman, Robert Bowers, was a dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semite, nothing more, nothing less, connected to the American alt-right. Then it veered way off course with this vile conflation of the unconflatable:
"This is not to besmirch the mainstream right, which has often led the way in protecting minority groups, nor to play down anti-Semitism and political violence among African-American and left-wing anti-Zionist movements. A left-wing extremist shot a senior US Republican in 2017." (Alt-right terrorism now stalks the US)
Let me unpack its nastiness.
*"This is not to besmirch the mainstream right... " Just who exactly are "the mainstream right"? Trump's Republicans? What precisely does the editorialist mean by this term?
*"... nor to play down anti-Semitism and political violence among African American... movements... " Who exactly are these anti-Semitic and politically violent African American movements, and when, if ever, has a representative of one of them gone on a shooting rampage in a Jewish institution, spewing, like Bowers, his hatred of Jews? I'd really like to know.
*"... and left-wing anti-Zionist movements." What "movements" are referred to here? Can we have a list of them? And when, if ever, has a representative of one of them gone on a shooting rampage in a Jewish institution, spewing, like Bowers, his hatred of Jews?
*"A left-wing extremist shot a senior US Republican in 2017."
The "left-wing extremist" obliquely referred to here is James Hodgkinson, who harboured a dislike for Trump and a partiality for Bernie Sanders. This, apparently, in the eyes of the editorialist, is all one needs to qualify for the label "left-wing extremist." And, since Sanders is a Jewish supporter of a Jewish state in Palestine, in other words a Zionist, quite how this qualifies Hodgkinson as a card-carrying anti-Zionist is beyond me.
What the editorialist is doing here, of course, is conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, a smear straight out of the Zionist playbook. To go on and explain the simple fact that when Zionism first emerged in the late 19th century, the vast majority of the world's Jews were anti-Zionists would be wasted on the Herald editorialist. To conflate the likes of Bowers and Hodgkinson with ant-Zionists, many of whom today are Jews, is about as low as it gets. In fact, it speaks volumes that not even the editorial in the Australian of the same day (Toxic ingredients in America) on the same subject went that far.
Enough said...
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
The Three NOs of Bernie Sanders
Interview with US Senator (and erstwhile Hillary Clinton rival) Bernie Sanders by Dena Takruri of AJ+:
Last week you joined every single US senator in signing a letter to the UN secretary general saying that the institution is biased against Israel and effectively trying to shield it from criticism...
- No, no, no. I don't accept that. Look, I didn't write that letter, I signed on to the letter. It's not a letter I would've written. There are many problems with Israel.. I have been critical and will be critical of a lot of what Israel does. On the other hand, to see Israel attacked over and over again for 'human rights violations,' which may be true, when you have countries like Saudi Arabia or Syria. Saudi Arabia - I'm not quite sure if women can even drive a car, OK? So I think that the thrust of that letter is not to say that Israel does not have human rights issues. It does. But to say, how come it's only Israel when you have other countries where women are treated as third-class citizens. Where is Egypt, I don't know how many thousands of people are lingering in jail. So that the point of that [is] not to defend Israel, but to say, why only Israel? You wanna talk about human rights. Let's talk about human rights.
Should the UN shield Israel from criticism?
- No, of course not.
This letter also denounces the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions movement, known as BDS. You are a longtime proponent of nonviolent protests. This, in the eyes of many Palestinians is the effective way to get Israel to comply with international law and respect Palestinian human rights. Do you accept that?
- No, I don't. I mean, look, I respect people who do what they want to do. But I think our job as a nation is to do everything humanly possible to bring Israel and the Palestinians and the entire Middle East - to the degree that we can - together. But no, I'm not a supporter of that.
Palestinians will say they've resisted violently, they get punished. They resist nonviolently with BDS, they're also punished. We're entering the 50th year of the occupation. We know the occupation has no end in sight. We know that this is a government that doesn't plan on ending it and talks have failed for a quarter of a century. What, if not BDS, is left for the Palestinians to do?
- What must be done is that the United States of America must have a Middle East policy which is even-handed. Which does not simply supply endless amounts of money, of military supplies, to Israel, but which treats both sides with respect and dignity and does our best to bring them to the table.
It's increasingly evident that hopes for a two-state solution are almost dead. At the same time, polls among Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza are showing that they're increasingly in favor of a one-state solution, with equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians alike and equal citizenship. Is that something you believe could happen, or is that something you support?
- No, I don't. I mean, I think if that happens, then that would be the end of the state of Israel. And I support Israel's right to exist.
Do you think, a two-state solution is still viable?
- Yes, I think if there is the political will to make it happen and if there is good faith on both sides, I do think it's possible. And I think there has not been good faith certainly on [the part of] this Israeli government, and I have my doubts about parts of the Palestinian leadership as well.
Last week you joined every single US senator in signing a letter to the UN secretary general saying that the institution is biased against Israel and effectively trying to shield it from criticism...
- No, no, no. I don't accept that. Look, I didn't write that letter, I signed on to the letter. It's not a letter I would've written. There are many problems with Israel.. I have been critical and will be critical of a lot of what Israel does. On the other hand, to see Israel attacked over and over again for 'human rights violations,' which may be true, when you have countries like Saudi Arabia or Syria. Saudi Arabia - I'm not quite sure if women can even drive a car, OK? So I think that the thrust of that letter is not to say that Israel does not have human rights issues. It does. But to say, how come it's only Israel when you have other countries where women are treated as third-class citizens. Where is Egypt, I don't know how many thousands of people are lingering in jail. So that the point of that [is] not to defend Israel, but to say, why only Israel? You wanna talk about human rights. Let's talk about human rights.
Should the UN shield Israel from criticism?
- No, of course not.
This letter also denounces the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions movement, known as BDS. You are a longtime proponent of nonviolent protests. This, in the eyes of many Palestinians is the effective way to get Israel to comply with international law and respect Palestinian human rights. Do you accept that?
- No, I don't. I mean, look, I respect people who do what they want to do. But I think our job as a nation is to do everything humanly possible to bring Israel and the Palestinians and the entire Middle East - to the degree that we can - together. But no, I'm not a supporter of that.
Palestinians will say they've resisted violently, they get punished. They resist nonviolently with BDS, they're also punished. We're entering the 50th year of the occupation. We know the occupation has no end in sight. We know that this is a government that doesn't plan on ending it and talks have failed for a quarter of a century. What, if not BDS, is left for the Palestinians to do?
- What must be done is that the United States of America must have a Middle East policy which is even-handed. Which does not simply supply endless amounts of money, of military supplies, to Israel, but which treats both sides with respect and dignity and does our best to bring them to the table.
It's increasingly evident that hopes for a two-state solution are almost dead. At the same time, polls among Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza are showing that they're increasingly in favor of a one-state solution, with equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians alike and equal citizenship. Is that something you believe could happen, or is that something you support?
- No, I don't. I mean, I think if that happens, then that would be the end of the state of Israel. And I support Israel's right to exist.
Do you think, a two-state solution is still viable?
- Yes, I think if there is the political will to make it happen and if there is good faith on both sides, I do think it's possible. And I think there has not been good faith certainly on [the part of] this Israeli government, and I have my doubts about parts of the Palestinian leadership as well.
Monday, November 21, 2016
From Neoliberalism to Neofascism
There is much truth in this post-election statement by Cornel West, US philosopher, academic, social activist, author, public intellectual and member of the Democratic Socialists of America:
"The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishment in the Democratic and Republican parties - both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians. The Bush and Clinton dynasties were destroyed by the media-saturated lure of the pseudo-populist billionaire with narcissist sensibilities and ugly, fascist proclivities. The monumental election of Trump was a desperate and xenophobic cry of human hearts for a way out from under the devastation of a disintegrating neoliberal order - a nostalgic return to an imaginary past of greatness.
"White working- and middle-class fellow citizens - out of anger and anguish - rejected the economic neglect of neoliberal policies and the self-righteous arrogance of elites. Yet these same citizens also supported a candidate who appeared to blame their social misery on minorities, and who alienated Mexican immigrants, Muslims, black people, Jews, gay people, women and China in the process. This lethal fusion of economic insecurity and cultural scapegoating brought neoliberalism to its knees. In short, the abysmal failure of the Democratic party to speak to the arrested mobility and escalating poverty of working people unleashed a hate-filled populism and protectionism that threaten to tear apart the fragile fiber of what is left of US democracy. And since the most explosive fault lines in present-day America are first and foremost racial, then gender, homophobic, ethnic and religious, we gird ourselves for a frightening future.
"What is to be done? First we must try to tell the truth and a condition of truth is to allow suffering to speak. For 40 years, neoliberals lived in a world of denial and indifference to the suffering of poor and working people and were obsessed with the spectacle of success. Second we must bear witness to justice. We must ground our truth-telling in a willingness to suffer and sacrifice as we resist domination. Third we must remember courageous exemplars like Martin Luther King Jr, who provide moral and spiritual inspiration as we build multiracial alliances to combat poverty and xenophobia, Wall Street crimes and war crimes, global warming and police abuse - and to protect precious rights and liberties.
"The age of Obama was the last gasp of neoliberalism. Despite some progressive words and symbolic gestures, Obama chose to ignore Wall Street crimes, reject bailouts for homeowners, oversee growing inequality and facilitate war crimes like US drones killing innocent civilians abroad. Rightwing attacks on Obama - and trump-inspired racist hatred of him - have made it nearly impossible to hear the progressive critiques of Obama. The president has been reluctant to target black suffering - be it in overcrowded prisons, decrepit schools or declining workplaces. Yet, despite that, we get celebrations of the neoliberal status quo couched in racial symbolism and personal legacy. Meanwhile, poor and working class citizens of all colors have continued to suffer in relative silence. In this sense, Trump's election was enabled by the neoliberal policies of the Clintons and Obama that overlooked the plight of our most vulnerable citizens. The progressive populism of Bernie Sanders nearly toppled the establishment of the Democratic party but Clinton and Obama came to the rescue to preserve the status quo. And I do believe Sanders would have beat trump to avert this neofascist outcome!
"In this bleak moment, we must inspire each other driven by a democratic soulcraft of integrity, courage, empathy and a mature sense of history - even as it seems our democracy is slipping away. We must not turn away from the forgotten people of US foreign policy - such as Palestinians under Israeli occupation, Yemen's civilians killed by US-sponsored Saudi troops or Africans subject to expanding US military presence. As one whose great family and people survived and thrived through slavery, Jim Crow and lynching, Trump's neofascist rhetoric and predictable authoritarian reign is just another ugly moment that calls forth the best of who we are and what we can do. For us in these times, to even have hope is too abstract, too detached, too spectatorial. Instead we must be a hope, a participant and a force for good as we face this catastrophe." (Goodbye, American neoliberalism. A new era is here, theguardian.com, 17/11/16)
"The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishment in the Democratic and Republican parties - both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians. The Bush and Clinton dynasties were destroyed by the media-saturated lure of the pseudo-populist billionaire with narcissist sensibilities and ugly, fascist proclivities. The monumental election of Trump was a desperate and xenophobic cry of human hearts for a way out from under the devastation of a disintegrating neoliberal order - a nostalgic return to an imaginary past of greatness.
"White working- and middle-class fellow citizens - out of anger and anguish - rejected the economic neglect of neoliberal policies and the self-righteous arrogance of elites. Yet these same citizens also supported a candidate who appeared to blame their social misery on minorities, and who alienated Mexican immigrants, Muslims, black people, Jews, gay people, women and China in the process. This lethal fusion of economic insecurity and cultural scapegoating brought neoliberalism to its knees. In short, the abysmal failure of the Democratic party to speak to the arrested mobility and escalating poverty of working people unleashed a hate-filled populism and protectionism that threaten to tear apart the fragile fiber of what is left of US democracy. And since the most explosive fault lines in present-day America are first and foremost racial, then gender, homophobic, ethnic and religious, we gird ourselves for a frightening future.
"What is to be done? First we must try to tell the truth and a condition of truth is to allow suffering to speak. For 40 years, neoliberals lived in a world of denial and indifference to the suffering of poor and working people and were obsessed with the spectacle of success. Second we must bear witness to justice. We must ground our truth-telling in a willingness to suffer and sacrifice as we resist domination. Third we must remember courageous exemplars like Martin Luther King Jr, who provide moral and spiritual inspiration as we build multiracial alliances to combat poverty and xenophobia, Wall Street crimes and war crimes, global warming and police abuse - and to protect precious rights and liberties.
"The age of Obama was the last gasp of neoliberalism. Despite some progressive words and symbolic gestures, Obama chose to ignore Wall Street crimes, reject bailouts for homeowners, oversee growing inequality and facilitate war crimes like US drones killing innocent civilians abroad. Rightwing attacks on Obama - and trump-inspired racist hatred of him - have made it nearly impossible to hear the progressive critiques of Obama. The president has been reluctant to target black suffering - be it in overcrowded prisons, decrepit schools or declining workplaces. Yet, despite that, we get celebrations of the neoliberal status quo couched in racial symbolism and personal legacy. Meanwhile, poor and working class citizens of all colors have continued to suffer in relative silence. In this sense, Trump's election was enabled by the neoliberal policies of the Clintons and Obama that overlooked the plight of our most vulnerable citizens. The progressive populism of Bernie Sanders nearly toppled the establishment of the Democratic party but Clinton and Obama came to the rescue to preserve the status quo. And I do believe Sanders would have beat trump to avert this neofascist outcome!
"In this bleak moment, we must inspire each other driven by a democratic soulcraft of integrity, courage, empathy and a mature sense of history - even as it seems our democracy is slipping away. We must not turn away from the forgotten people of US foreign policy - such as Palestinians under Israeli occupation, Yemen's civilians killed by US-sponsored Saudi troops or Africans subject to expanding US military presence. As one whose great family and people survived and thrived through slavery, Jim Crow and lynching, Trump's neofascist rhetoric and predictable authoritarian reign is just another ugly moment that calls forth the best of who we are and what we can do. For us in these times, to even have hope is too abstract, too detached, too spectatorial. Instead we must be a hope, a participant and a force for good as we face this catastrophe." (Goodbye, American neoliberalism. A new era is here, theguardian.com, 17/11/16)
Sunday, April 17, 2016
The Guardian Takes the Piss
From the Guardian's Candidates spar over Israel and fate of Palestinians in Democratic debate:
"The Democratic debate between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton on Thursday night was electrified by a series of feisty exchanges, but one especially pugnacious discussion stood out as a potentially historic moment in presidential politics: the candidates' dispute over Israel and the fate of Palestinians. Close observers of New York politics and the place within it of the city's prominent Jewish population were astonished that Sanders spoke openly and directly about the plight of Palestinians in Gaza while criticizing Israel and its prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, for responding disproportionately to Hamas provocations. Never before had such an outspoken pro-Palestinian message been delivered from the presidential campaign stage. During the debate, Sanders... allud[ed] to his heritage by saying that 'he spent many months of my life when I was a kid in Israel.' He was careful to describe himself as '100% pro-Israel." (Ed Pilkington, 16/4/16)
Surely, Ed Pilkington, chief reporter for Guardian US, is taking the piss here.
I mean, the 100% pro-Israel Sanders' characterisation of Israel's genocidal frenzy in Gaza as merely disproportionate AND the result of Hamas provocations... is an outspoken pro-Palestinian message?
Seriously?
And then this: the stolen, ethnically-cleansed land of Palestine is the Brooklyn-born (of Polish parents) Sanders' heritage?
OFFS...
"The Democratic debate between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton on Thursday night was electrified by a series of feisty exchanges, but one especially pugnacious discussion stood out as a potentially historic moment in presidential politics: the candidates' dispute over Israel and the fate of Palestinians. Close observers of New York politics and the place within it of the city's prominent Jewish population were astonished that Sanders spoke openly and directly about the plight of Palestinians in Gaza while criticizing Israel and its prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, for responding disproportionately to Hamas provocations. Never before had such an outspoken pro-Palestinian message been delivered from the presidential campaign stage. During the debate, Sanders... allud[ed] to his heritage by saying that 'he spent many months of my life when I was a kid in Israel.' He was careful to describe himself as '100% pro-Israel." (Ed Pilkington, 16/4/16)
Surely, Ed Pilkington, chief reporter for Guardian US, is taking the piss here.
I mean, the 100% pro-Israel Sanders' characterisation of Israel's genocidal frenzy in Gaza as merely disproportionate AND the result of Hamas provocations... is an outspoken pro-Palestinian message?
Seriously?
And then this: the stolen, ethnically-cleansed land of Palestine is the Brooklyn-born (of Polish parents) Sanders' heritage?
OFFS...
Thursday, March 24, 2016
Sanders Does AIPAC
The circus clowning of a Clinton or a Trump is not the nadir of a US presidential campaign. Kissing Israel's ring at the court of King AIPAC is.
This was Obama in 2008:
"I first became familiar with the story of Israel when I was 11 years old. I learned of the long journey and steady determination of the Jewish people to preserve their identity through faith, family and culture. Year after year, century after century, Jews carried on their traditions, and their dream of a homeland in the face of impossible odds... Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel, threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security."
This is Bernie Sanders now:
"I was invited along with other presidential candidates to be at the AIPAC conference in Washington, but obviously I could not make it because we are here. The issues that AIPAC are dealing with are very important issues and I wanted to give the same speech here as I would have given if I were at that conference. Let me begin by saying that I am probably the only candidate for president who has personal ties with Israel. I spent a number of months there when I was a young man on a kibbutz, so I know a little bit about Israel. Clearly the United States and Israel are united by historical ties. We are united by culture. We are united by our values, including a deep commitment to democratic principles, civil rights, and the rule of law." (Sanders outlines Middle East policy, berniesanders.com, 21/3/16)
No need, as you can see, to bother with the rest of his speech. Same old, same old.
As Mearsheimer & Walt noted almost ten years ago:
"America is about to enter a presidential election year. Although the outcome is of course impossible to predict at this stage, certain features of the campaign are easy to foresee. The candidates will inevitably differ on various domestic issues - health care, abortion, gay marriage, taxes, education, immigration - and spirited debates are certain to erupt on a host of foreign policy questions as well... Yet on one subject, we can be equally confident that the candidates will speak with one voice. In 2008, as in previous election years, serious candidates for the highest office in the land will go to considerable lengths to express their deep personal commitment to one foreign country - Israel - as well as their determination to maintain unyielding US support for the Jewish state. Each candidate will emphasize that he or she fully appreciates the multitude of threats facing Israel and make it clear that, if elected, the United States will remain firmly committed to defending Israel's interests under any and all circumstances." (The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, 2007)
This was Obama in 2008:
"I first became familiar with the story of Israel when I was 11 years old. I learned of the long journey and steady determination of the Jewish people to preserve their identity through faith, family and culture. Year after year, century after century, Jews carried on their traditions, and their dream of a homeland in the face of impossible odds... Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel, threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security."
This is Bernie Sanders now:
"I was invited along with other presidential candidates to be at the AIPAC conference in Washington, but obviously I could not make it because we are here. The issues that AIPAC are dealing with are very important issues and I wanted to give the same speech here as I would have given if I were at that conference. Let me begin by saying that I am probably the only candidate for president who has personal ties with Israel. I spent a number of months there when I was a young man on a kibbutz, so I know a little bit about Israel. Clearly the United States and Israel are united by historical ties. We are united by culture. We are united by our values, including a deep commitment to democratic principles, civil rights, and the rule of law." (Sanders outlines Middle East policy, berniesanders.com, 21/3/16)
No need, as you can see, to bother with the rest of his speech. Same old, same old.
As Mearsheimer & Walt noted almost ten years ago:
"America is about to enter a presidential election year. Although the outcome is of course impossible to predict at this stage, certain features of the campaign are easy to foresee. The candidates will inevitably differ on various domestic issues - health care, abortion, gay marriage, taxes, education, immigration - and spirited debates are certain to erupt on a host of foreign policy questions as well... Yet on one subject, we can be equally confident that the candidates will speak with one voice. In 2008, as in previous election years, serious candidates for the highest office in the land will go to considerable lengths to express their deep personal commitment to one foreign country - Israel - as well as their determination to maintain unyielding US support for the Jewish state. Each candidate will emphasize that he or she fully appreciates the multitude of threats facing Israel and make it clear that, if elected, the United States will remain firmly committed to defending Israel's interests under any and all circumstances." (The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, 2007)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)