Trending Topics:

Sanders risks losing left over unprogressive views of Palestine — Washington Post

on 75 Comments

Dave Weigel in the Washington Post reports that Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who spent time as a youth on a kibbutz before moving to Vermont, has been remarkably consistent in his answers on the conflict over the last 27 years, but as the left moves on the question, he could get marooned:

Sanders’s criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu and his support for the two-state solution and Iran nuclear deal are all firmly in the liberal mainstream. On the left, the discussion has moved on to whether people and institutions should boycott and divest from Israel so long as it occupies Palestinian land. In 2014, when asked by the Gallup Poll about Israel’s latest military intervention in Gaza, a 47-31 plurality of Democrats called it “unjustified.” Sanders sided with the minority. For the time being, he’s winning over audience with a succinct, limited answer about Israel. That could change if there’s another flare-up before the primaries.

That was a great poll, wasn’t it? The Democratic base is wising up. We keep predicting that the issue is going to be a live one in next year’s Democratic primaries. The Washington Post’s semi-straightforward observation about BDS (boycott divestment and sanctions) suggests that day is approaching. And Weigel’s point is: these progressives are Sanders’s base, folks who like his line on economic justice. Will they work for him if he’s a tool for Israel?

I’m not sure what the Post means by a “flare-up,” but remember that Sanders became stiffnecked last summer on the Gaza slaughter, standing by Israel at a town meeting as folks shouted Bullshit. Reporters should note Max Blumenthal’s reports in The 51 Day War that Gazans think it’s only a matter of time till the next slaughter.


Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is senior editor of and founded the site in 2005-06.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

75 Responses

  1. yourstruly on August 4, 2015, 1:35 pm

    Sanders can win the democratic nomination if he ties justice for Palestine to his economic proposals. Not only justice for Palestine but demilitarization en route to peace on earth and goodwill to all living beings.

    • Krauss on August 4, 2015, 3:15 pm

      I want Sanders to win. He’s not good on Palestine but Clinton will be even worse.

      On every other issue, he is better. Then again, he has TERRIBLE poll numbers with minorities. Something like 9% of nonwhite democratic primary voters are rooting for him. Even Biden’s doing better.

      I mean, he is a Vermont Senator, after all. I guess that comes through. (Let’s not talk about race).
      Nate Silver said that he may win Iowa and New Hampshire but will lose everything else. White liberals dominate those caucuses. Then again, winning two states could shift the momentum. I’m not sure liberal minorities are so infatuated with Clinton that they’re unwilling to consider the alternatives if the shifts change.

      But then again, I’m not black/asian/hispanic. I see Zaid Jilani is pushing for him, but Zaid was also an early Dean supporter(even if he now concedes that Dean was just an opportunist and never really a leftist).

      • Atlantaiconoclast on August 4, 2015, 8:49 pm

        What is this obsession with minority votes? If Romney had received 71% of the Latino vote, he STILL would have lost. But yes, the Democrats have nothing to worry about when it comes to minorities. But what about the White vote? Seems to me that Jim Webb would appeal to more Whites, making him a stronger candidate in Red or purple states.

      • Steve771 on August 4, 2015, 11:20 pm

        It will just take some Campaigning in Minority areas and he will have their vote. He goes to the people and talks their language, unlike Hillary.

      • Steve771 on August 4, 2015, 11:21 pm

        Jim web isn’t a democrat, even less than Hillary.

      • echinococcus on August 5, 2015, 2:01 am


        I am dead set against discussing specifically American politics here, as the only thing we are supposed to have in common is support of Palestinian resistance. We cannot afford to have a shouting match between, say, Democratic supporters, Republican supporters, and the opponents of both once it is obvious that Sanders for example is nothing but a Zionist. Those of you who believe there are “liberal” Zionists can play with that without starting the electoral nonsense here all over again.

      • Robert Brooks on August 6, 2015, 12:11 am

        I am 80 and for years I tried to avoid becoming a one-issue voter, but my many working visits to E. Jerusalem, WB, and Gaza from 2002 to 2012 put an end to that. Like so many of Mondo’s readers I suppose, I am broken hearted over Bernie. Yes, HRC is worse . But I will stay home if she or Bernie make the ticket. I used to think that in politics good often comes from the bad (e.g., Nixon’s recognition of China), but with Berni’s record on I/P and HRC’s love for Israel and coziness with Bibi, it’s not gonna happen. And only Rand Paul among the GOP hopefuls has ever said anything sensible about arming the IDF. The Palestinians and their American supportes are in for a roughtime ahead…unless Obama can muster the grit to support the Palestiians in the UN and ICC before his time runs out.

      • echinococcus on August 7, 2015, 1:51 am

        Robert Brooks,

        Well, you can forget Rand Paul, too. He’s a whole nother thing from his father. Flaky as a coconut –now he seems to be suddenly back in the Zionist camp again. The only one at this moment who has a clear anti-Zionist policy is Dr Jill Stein –not that you would expect to get her elected, if you are after immediate rewards that is.

  2. a blah chick on August 4, 2015, 1:48 pm

    I heard Senator BS last week make statements on the I/P issue and it was the usual BS. It was something like “Let us move to ensure Israeli (Jewish) security and when that is done Palestinian rights will follow.” In other words the usual liberal Zionist crap that always puts “security” for Jewish Israel before anything else. Why don’t these people EVER talk about Palestinian security.

    • W.Jones on August 4, 2015, 2:24 pm

      Let’s say the Muslim world has an epiphany and decides that it will now practice absolute Pacifism. Who wants to bet that full Palestinian rights would follow, and that Bernie would lead the charge?

      If so, why does he not speak out on those issues of Palestinian rights where there is no security issue at all, like housing issues in Jerusalem?

    • Kay24 on August 4, 2015, 3:24 pm

      They never do as if it is a priority. They seem to think the safety of the well armed occupier should come first. They do not seem to even acknowledge that the Palestinians have suffered under this brutal occupation for decades, and that they are in dire straits right now just after the reason “mowing of the lawn” by Israel. It is Israel, Israel, Israel!

      • just on August 4, 2015, 3:43 pm

        “Why don’t these people EVER talk about Palestinian security.”

        Or their right to self- defense? Or international law? Or anything but Israel’s rights and their right to ‘self- defense’ which when they spout it, simply is not what Israel is exercising!

        I ain’t taking the bait from Senator BS (thank you, btw~ had not heard that before). He can love Israel ’til the special cows come home PRIVATELY, not as a matter of national policy.

      • Steve771 on August 4, 2015, 11:24 pm

        That is because There are so many Christians in Politics. Get them out and it would be a totally different story. Right now Bernie is our best bet and he has the most progressive stance on Palestine/Israel atm. He is the only one that supports a 2 state solution.

      • annie on August 4, 2015, 11:33 pm

        That is because There are so many Christians in Politics. Get them out..

        uh huh. and when you say “our best bet” with whom are you referring mr. anon?

        we have over a year before the elections.

    • Steve Grover on August 4, 2015, 4:43 pm

      Blah asks:
      “Why don’t these people EVER talk about Palestinian security.”
      They forfeited it when Arafat walked from the deal, when the 2 intifadas happened and when over 10,000 missiles were launched from Gaza and the construction of terror tunnels were built in Gaza. So no, Palestinian security won’t be entering the discussion by legitimate presidential candidates any time soon.

      • Stephen Shenfield on August 4, 2015, 5:51 pm

        Conversely, Israel never ever forfeits its right to endless concern for its security, whatever it does.

      • diasp0ra on August 4, 2015, 6:04 pm

        I never knew a basic human right could be forfeited, not even addressing your skewed narrative of events.

        The Arafat “deal” was complete crap, that’s why he walked from it.

        I love how you picture this to be so one sided, the rockets just somehow fell out of heaven from an organization that SOMEHOW formed itself for no reason. It’s not like Hamas was a reaction or anything.

        It’s not like the Intifadas were both triggered directly by Israeli actions.

        Also the whole idea of “terror tunnels” has been debunked, they were never used in any terror attacks but were all aimed at legitimate military targets so drop the propaganda terminology already.

      • just on August 4, 2015, 6:09 pm


        I guess the sun and sand got to you since you are repeating yourself and babbling.

        From yesterday:

        “Diasp0ra: “Do you ever think about the millions in refugee camps living in squalor so that you can enjoy your day at a beach in Netanya? Or does it never cross your mind?”

        Not for a second! They live in squalor because Arafat walked away from the deal and the 2 intifadas ensued so there is no sympathy for the squalor.

        From the moment I first heard about the BDS movement, I have been taking my family to Israel for our summer vacation. We haven’t missed a year comming here since 2006. I even pay extra to fly here on El Al.” – See more at:

        As for your “So no, Palestinian security won’t be entering the discussion by legitimate presidential candidates any time soon.”

        Just wait and see, SG.

      • Steve Grover on August 4, 2015, 6:24 pm

        Hi Just,
        How are you?
        Anyway you said “Just wait and see, SG.”
        I am willing to bet that soon after the inauguration in 2017, that Israel will receive long range strategic bombers that will be able to take out Iran’s nuke facilities and still there won’t be any talk of Palestinian Security.

      • ritzl on August 4, 2015, 6:29 pm

        People who live in zero-sum BS bubbles shouldn’t fling poo.

        With all your Marie Antoinette attitude, if you were on fire, Grover… (google it). Don’t you see the danger in your behavior?

        If I have to spell it out: nobody cares about you. :)

      • a blah chick on August 4, 2015, 7:48 pm

        That’s what I love about Mondoweiss. The way it allows Zionists to comment here and show us what they really think about human rights and dignity.

      • talknic on August 4, 2015, 8:25 pm

        @ Steve Grover ///Blah asks:
        “Why don’t these people EVER talk about Palestinian security.”///

        “They forfeited it when Arafat walked from the deal, when the 2 intifadas happened and when over 10,000 missiles were launched from Gaza and the construction of terror tunnels were built in Gaza. “

        You talk sh*te so fluently… The Occupying Power has a duty to protect the occupied and their property and their territory as long as they remain the Occupying Power.

        Arafat ha a legal right ti completely ignore any deal that did not give the Palestinians their full legal rights according to the Laws and UN Charter Israel agreed to uphold.

        The intifadas occurred as a response to Israeli provocation

        The IDF Memorial site tells us more military have been targeted, injured and killed by rocket from Gaza than have Israeli civilian

        There have only been military operations arising from the tunnels, no terror incidents

        Score NIL … BTW comments have a time stamp … holidays over already?

      • Atlantaiconoclast on August 4, 2015, 8:52 pm

        the deal was a lemon, and you know it. Arafat did not refuse to continue negotiating. The progress made at Taba post Camp David is proof of that.

      • zaid on August 4, 2015, 11:43 pm


        I understand your frustration because of the humiliation this deal inflicted on the Zionist orchestra in the US.

        After all,

        The whole world approved the deal despite Iran threats to wipe israel from the map …. must be awful for you.

        But please dont repeat the military threat again , believe me we heard these threats since 2005 and nothing happened.

        By the way israel does not need long range bombers to do an attack since they have air fueling tankers and submarines .

        they were just chickens.

      • Mooser on August 5, 2015, 11:51 am

        “The way it allows Zionists to comment here and show us what they really think about human rights and dignity.”

        Oh, I think “Grover” mostly shows he likes to post while drinking.

      • Kay24 on August 6, 2015, 7:03 am

        10,000 missiles eh? According to Wikipedia, from 2001 the number of Israelis killed by rockets is

        Now let’s take last year’s “mowing of the lawn” by Israel (one of many other massacres) number of Palestinians killed was OVER 2000, and out of it over 500 women and children.

        Palestinians are being killed on a daily basis.

        Take a look at the totals.

        Aw, apologists love to whine, blame Arafat, and pretend to be victims of occupied people.
        Not going to work here.

    • diasp0ra on August 4, 2015, 6:18 pm

      Has there been other cases in history where an occupied population is demanded to provide security for their occupying army?

      • Kay24 on August 6, 2015, 6:53 am

        That is what makes the entire situation absurd. The well armed, well trained military, that can within seconds level Gaza, need protection from a few homemade rockets (that hardly hit it’s target) and stones. Only the naive will believe this victim narrative.

    • turveyd on August 5, 2015, 9:04 am

      Netanyahu said a very telling (or insane; who can tell the difference with Bibi) thing yesterday re Palestinian security; “If the Arabs give up their arms, it will be peace on earth. If Israel gives its arms, there will be no Israel’. As Annie would say, ‘yikes!’

    • RockyMissouri on August 5, 2015, 11:57 am

      A blah chick: EXCELLENT COMMENT.!!

  3. hophmi on August 4, 2015, 3:30 pm

    The claim that the “left” is debating whether to boycott Israeli institutions is plainly unsupported. I’d like to see a poll indicating that a substantial minority of left-wing Democrats in the mainstream support boycotting Israeli institutions. I haven’t seen any evidence of that. There’s just no support for the idea that anyone in the mainstream would care this much about any foreign policy issue.

    It is certainly unsupported that progressives, who largely support Sanders because of his economic rhetoric, would refuse to support him over Israel. It’s frankly ridiculous. Who would they support instead? Ralph Nader?

    • DoubleStandard on August 4, 2015, 5:07 pm

      Yeah but it doesn’t matter whether Sanders in particular is representative of his base on Israel/Palestine. If the base really turns against Israel, it will eventually spawn a winning candidate who shares that view.

      However, I don’t think anyone except the extreme far-left is really turning so decisively against Israel.

      Against the occupation maybe, but against Israel I don’t think so.

  4. homingpigeon on August 4, 2015, 4:32 pm

    A similar discussion has happened among libertarians about Rand Paul, with similar excuses as to why dissidents from the system should vote for someone who is effectively sucking them back into supporting it. Like Bernie, Rand also tried to ingratiate himself with AIPAC and like Bernie he also has cranky views about immigrants and supports wars abroad. Fortunately most of those libertarians who supported Rand have dropped him and will be supporting the Libertarian Party presidential candidate. I hope the greens and socialists will also discard Bernie and his shilling for the Democratic Party. We must BDS these two old parties of war and horror. A pox on their houses.

    • ritzl on August 4, 2015, 6:09 pm

      There’s still [increasing?] opportunity for a Libertarian-Progressive-Green alliance if they (we, I guess, having voted Green the last two cycles) could get their/our heads out of our purist asses and make it happen.

      Moves that coalition from a static 3% to a synergistic 10% as the coalition gains credibility and the “throw your vote away” hesitation transfoms into a “maybe, just maybe” junior juggernaut.

      ★Leader needed. Apply within.★

    • Atlantaiconoclast on August 4, 2015, 8:57 pm

      amen and I really love Ron Paul

      • Citizen on August 5, 2015, 8:24 am

        Me too. I notice main media has not covered Jim Webb’s run for POTUS. Who else running has two purple hearts and has written so many deep books? His foreign policy? He was against war on Iran and on Libya. He questions, how does US benefit? His criteria for just war & valid support of foreign governments would logically eliminate supporting Netanyahu’s Israel, but he’s been very careful not to be specific about its application to Israel. This has not helped him because the principles he advocates re foreign policy would end “the special relationship.”

      • annie on August 5, 2015, 11:12 am

        i think they don’t cover him because he’s the only viable dem competition for hilary clinton. bernie sanders can’t get elected, they know that already so he poses no threat. but web? that’s another story altogether. there’s time tho.

  5. ivri on August 4, 2015, 5:01 pm

    A man has to have his priorities. There are often clashes between objectives/goals.
    In this case: you can be socially left but support Israel in the political context that it is in. Not selling off your beliefs for votes deserves applauds.
    A personal example: I am often wary of the US big Corporations in terms of impacts of their acts on ordinary people (doing so to further their commercial interests) but I still support them because I understand that they are the power-base of the US and the US` s support of Israel is crucial. You always need to have your priorities ordered.

    • Walker on August 4, 2015, 5:27 pm

      I still support them because I understand that they are the power-base of the US and the US` s support of Israel is crucial. You always need to have your priorities ordered.

      Yes, and your priority is “Israel First”. If only more American supporters of Israel were as honest as you.

      • zaid on August 4, 2015, 11:12 pm


        Thanx for the honesty.


        He Means ” A mean to an end”.

        Which is exactly what Alhusseini Allegedly did with his power base (Hitler).
        And Ivri Agrees with it.

    • Citizen on August 5, 2015, 8:35 am

      So, how is Israel analogous to the “power base of the US”? In what positive way does what Israel does impact ordinary Americans in a way that is positive? Further, how is the impact of big US corporations a good thing for the average American, as distinguished from the US small business community? That, e.g., GM pays no taxes? That FTAs send good jobs overseas?

  6. joemowrey on August 4, 2015, 5:11 pm

    Oh my. I’m afraid I have to agree with the dreaded hophmi on this on. It’s pretty clear that “progressives,” for the most part, don’t give a rats ass about Palestinians. Just as they don’t give a rats ass about Sanders support for war and defense spending. The “left” is a perfect representation of the narcissistic nature of our culture. As long as they can support someone who addresses their own personal economic needs, the rest of the human rights and social justice agenda doesn’t matter.

    Here’s a good look at Sanders by Jeffrey St. Claire.

    Besides, once Sanders goes down in flames (the inevitable final outcome of his effort to achieve the nomination) he will throw his support to Clinton. He has already stated this categorically. In fact, there is a case to be made (my opinion only for the most part) that he is simply birddogging for the Clinton campaign. He’ll woo disillusioned Progressives ( faux progressives in my view) back to the Democratic Party. There is a long history of this paradigm, going back as far as Humphrey, McCarthy and McGovern. These guys are just pawns of the Corporate Dems. Though I believe Sanders is a much more willing pawn than some of the others

    I find Sanders to be extremely distasteful. He’s a socialist in name only, and a disgusting hypocrite when it comes to Palestine and War. He’s been feeding at the public trough his entire career and has actually accomplished very little with the torrents of rhetoric he loves to spew.

  7. ritzl on August 4, 2015, 5:57 pm

    A candidate’s views on Palestine are the principle indicator of truth-telling and corruptibility.

    Fake and/or inconsistent on Palestine, fake and/or inconsistent (I.e. corruptible) on EVERYTHING. I think lefties and libertarians are clueing into that as measure of a candie.

    IOW Progressive (or Libertarian) Except for Whatever-Issue-Is-Hard. Kinda defeats their purpose as candidates-o-change, imho.

    • Citizen on August 5, 2015, 8:38 am

      @ ritzl
      I agree that parroting hasbara for foreign policy is a sure sign the US politician is either a Jewish or Christian Zionist, or that parrot is simply a goy opportunist, selfish to the core.

      • ritzl on August 6, 2015, 1:29 pm

        IDK, Citizen. To me it’s a broader indication an ability, or lack thereof, to tell the truth. Kinda soured on suspending my disbelief with Obama. Well actually WJC, but Obama with all his hopey-changey, limp-leg, ultimately center-right baloney hardened the perception into belief.

        The same would be true if Sanders was a declared “no more UN veto” Palestine supporter, but said the banks were doing a generally good job, they just needed some regulatory tweeks. What would one believe?

        It’s just gappy to me. Disconnected. Not worth a vote, imo, because one can never tell where the next policy fissure will appear.

  8. jenin on August 4, 2015, 6:28 pm

    While I am deeply disappointed by Sanders’ refusal to take a principled position on Palestine, I am strongly of the opinion that those on the left should support him. That is because first, everyone else is far worse and more importantly, because his goals — getting money out of politics, raising education standards for the poor and middle class, etc. — will ultimately benefit Palestine. So I think it would be very foolish for progressives to abandon or refuse to support Sanders because of his deplorable views on Palestine/Israel. It will only hurt Palestinians in the end because he needs every vote he can get — particularly in the primary.

    • Atlantaiconoclast on August 4, 2015, 9:00 pm

      raising educational standards? Do you really think that today’s students are underperforming due to a lack of funding, etc? It starts in the home. Till Democrats AND Republicans realize that, no progress will be made. See the DC schools for my proof.

      • Kris on August 4, 2015, 11:55 pm

        @Atlantaiconoclast: “Do you really think that today’s students are underperforming due to a lack of funding, etc? It starts in the home.”

        It is absolutely about lack of funding, starting at home. Poor children come to school hungry, and often ashamed because their clothes aren’t clean. Many suffer from high levels of anxiety because of disruptions in their families. Many can’t afford basic school supplies. Many are homeless. So what kind of schools do we provide for these children? Supportive environments run on well-established principles of evidence-based educational practice? Of course not.

        The schools that serve poor children are underfunded and are run like reform schools. The emphasis is on control and standardized testing.

        What DC schools prove is that lots of money can be made by destroying teachers’ unions, closing public schools, and diverting the money to charter school operators. Constant standardized testing and prepping is very profitable for the companies that provide the tests.

        DC schools are an effective part of the school-to-prison pipeline. Private prisons are extremely profitable, and they depend on a constant supply of prisoners.

        And the more schools become test-prep academies as opposed to communities committed to everyone’s success, the more hostile and regimented the atmosphere becomes—the more like prison. (This school-as-prison culture is considerably more common in schools populated by children of color in poor communities as opposed to majority-white, middle-class schools, creating what Jonathan Kozol calls “educational apartheid.”)

        The rigid focus on test prep and scripted curriculum means that teachers need students to be compliant, quiet, in their seats, and willing to learn by rote for long periods of time. Security guards, cops in the hall, and score-conscious administrations suspend and expel “problem learners.”

        Schools without compassion or understanding occupy communities instead of serve them. As our society accelerates punishment as a central paradigm—from death penalty executions to drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen—the regimentation and criminalization of our children, particularly children of color, can only be seen as training for the future.

        More on DC schools, here:

        Sanders hasn’t stood up for the Palestinians, but at least he is standing up for the dispossessed in this country. He reminds me of a time when Democrats were not just Republican-lite, like Clinton.

      • Citizen on August 5, 2015, 8:43 am

        @ Kris
        The US spends more per K-12 student than any country in the world, proportionate to funds available.

      • Kris on August 5, 2015, 11:36 am

        @Citizen: “The US spends more per K-12 student than any country in the world, proportionate to funds available.”

        I’m not sure what “funds available” means here, but when the spending is directed towards standardized testing and control, when teachers are required to use “scripts” instead of tailoring instruction to the students’ needs and interests, and when the majority of the kids live in poverty , it is dishonest to blame the families because the kids are struggling in school. From the article:

        The amount spent on each student can vary wildly from state to state. States with high student-poverty rates tend to spend less per student: Of the 27 states with the highest percentages of student poverty, all but five spent less than the national average of $10,938 per student.

        Rethinking Schools is an excellent source of information about the situation in U.S. public schools.

      • jenin on August 24, 2015, 5:49 pm

        sorry, I’m a bit late with this reply. I don’t know if it’s necessarily only about lack of funding, but something is awry with our education system. Perhaps it also has to do with the fact teachers are paid so little — drawing maybe not the best of the bunch to the profession or overworking them so they can’t perform as well. However, having a Swiss husband and spending a lot of time in that country and other parts of Europe, I am firmly of the opinion that the majority of at least western Europeans get a far, far better education than the average American, at earlier levels. I am in awe of the level of education someone without even a university degree has — and that is an education that was public, available to anyone. I would also like to point out that the mere fact that we spend more than other countries per student does not mean we provide a better education. We also spend way more on health care than any other country but our citizens receive worse health care than those of most other developed countries. We also spend more on defense than most other developed countries combined, but we aren’t really safer, mostly because of our insane foreign policy decisions like supporting Israel and creating horrible situations in countries like Iraq. In other words, it takes more than simply spending the money to be effective in any area.

  9. Bandolero on August 4, 2015, 6:43 pm

    I’m not sure what the Post means by a “flare-up,” but remember that Sanders became stiffnecked last summer on the Gaza slaughter, standing by Israel at a town meeting as folks shouted Bullshit.

    I’m quite sure what it means. If Sanders manages to get close to Israel’s buddy Clinton in the primaries, Bibi will launch another massacre on Gaza. Sanders will then have an ugly choice: either support Bibis massacre on Gaza and lose his electoral base or to oppose Bibis massacre and lose influential Zionist sponsors – who are likely the reason why he is so stiff-necked when speech comes on Israel’s crimes. However his decision will be then, Sanders will be toast then. So he’s in Bibi’s hand, Bibi can kill Sanders’ presidential candidature by massacring a thousand or so Palestinians. I have no doubt Bibi will do that if he thinks it will do his darlings bidding for the US presidency a favor.

    So, WaPo has just shown Bibi a way to kill Sanders’ presidential bid at will if he feels disturbed by Sanders.

  10. JLewisDickerson on August 4, 2015, 7:55 pm

    RE: “Dave Weigel in the Washington Post reports that Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who spent time as a youth on a kibbutz before moving to Vermont, has been remarkably consistent in his answers on the conflict over the last 27 years, but as the left moves on the question, he could get marooned . . .” ~ Weiss

    MY QUESTIONS: Straight from Hillary Clinton’s opposition research team to David Weigel? Or through an intermediary?

    • Rusty Pipes on August 4, 2015, 8:20 pm

      This might as well be Clintonites’ talking points. Just as right after the BlackLivesMatter protest at Netroots (which Hillary didn’t bother to attend, so she was not challenged to respond impromptu to the issue in that forum), the Clintonites put out the talking point that Sanders was insensitive to Black people.

      As is clear from articles on Counterpunch, much of the far Left is not planning to vote in the Democratic primary anyway. For the growing numbers of Democrats who are concerned about Palestinian human rights, Sanders is better on the subject than any other primary candidate running (although that is not stiff competition). The real question is whether Sanders can ATTRACT independents who do not usually vote for the Democratic Party’s candidate.

      • JLewisDickerson on August 4, 2015, 10:45 pm

        The Clintonistas would love to force Sanders to do something to placate his pro-BDS supporters that would also have the effect of alienating a lot of the Jewish donors in the Democratic Party. I assume he knows better than to fall for it.
        Unfortunately, sad as it is, that’s the current state of politics here in the U.S.
        Meanwhile, back at “comb-over central” . . .

      • Mooser on August 5, 2015, 11:55 am

        Exactly, Dickerson. I, too, have a hard time seeing the Washington Post as a font of well-meant advice for Bernie Sanders.

  11. Steve771 on August 4, 2015, 11:13 pm

    who is more progressive than Sanders? He believes in a 2 state resolution. Name anyone in Politics who is more progressive than Bernie on any issue. If the people wanted our relationship to change about Israel he would listen to the people on this.

    • W.Jones on August 5, 2015, 12:20 am

      The Green Party candidates and Ralph Nader are in Politics and are more progressive than Sanders on Palestine.

      Fat chance Green Party will win? You might as well say the same about BS.

      • Citizen on August 5, 2015, 8:47 am

        The difference is Jill S will not get lucrative comfort stuff like Bernie will. Bernie knows what he’s doing. He plays at socialism but says he will support for Hillary. Lady’s choice.

    • German Lefty on August 5, 2015, 3:53 am

      “Name anyone in Politics who is more progressive than Bernie on any issue.”

      The Green Party supported a non-Zionist one-state solution during the last presidential campaign.
      I just had a look at their present platform. Apparently, they changed their position to a non-Zionist two-state solution. They explicitly state that they support BDS and ALL of its goals.
      Read here:
      Here’s one sentence that I really dislike: “We recognize that Jewish insecurity and fear of non-Jews is understandable in light of Jewish history of horrific oppression in Europe.”
      As if paranoia were a rational thing. Fearing present-day non-Jews because of crimes committed by previous generations of non-Jews is pure racism and not understandable at all.

      By the way, I also want to point out that I can’t stand Dave Weigel.

      • Citizen on August 5, 2015, 7:12 am

        @German Lefty

        Green Party Platform context:

        b. We recognize that Jewish insecurity and fear of non-Jews is understandable in light of Jewish history of horrific oppression in Europe. However, we oppose as both discriminatory and ultimately self-defeating the position that Jews would be fundamentally threatened by the implementation of full rights to Palestinian-Israelis and Palestinian refugees who wish to return to their homes. As U.S. Greens, we refuse to impose our views on the people of the region. Still, we would turn the U.S. government towards a new policy, which itself recognizes the equality, humanity, and civil rights of Jews, Muslims, Christians, and all others who live in the region, and which seeks to build confidence in prospects for secular democracy.

        c. We reaffirm the right and feasibility of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in Israel. We acknowledge the significant challenges of equity and restitution this policy would encounter and call on the U.S. government to make resolution of these challenges a central goal of our diplomacy in the region.

        d. We reject U.S. unbalanced financial and military support of Israel while Israel occupies Palestinian lands and maintains an apartheid-like system in both the Occupied Palestinian Territories and in Israel toward its non-Jewish citizens. Therefore, we call on the U.S. President and Congress to suspend all military and foreign aid, including loans and grants, to Israel until Israel withdraws from the Occupied Territories, dismantles the separation wall in the Occupied West Bank including East Jerusalem, ends its siege of Gaza and its apart­heid-like system both within the Occupied Palestinian Territories and in Israel toward its non-Jewish citizens.

        e. We also reject U.S. political support for Israel and demand that the U.S. government end its veto of Security Council resolutions pertaining to Israel. We urge our government to join with the U.N. to secure Israel’s complete withdrawal to the 1967 boundaries and its compliance with international law.

      • hophmi on August 5, 2015, 8:32 am

        Jews don’t “fear” non-Jews. What patronizing nonsense.

      • Mooser on August 5, 2015, 11:58 am

        “Jews don’t “fear” non-Jews. What patronizing nonsense.”

        Ah, so all that nonsense about Israel’s “security” is bullshit. Thanks for admitting it.

        And, BTW, I congratulate you for getting over the Holocaust so well. It still bother’s me.

      • German Lefty on August 5, 2015, 12:14 pm

        Hophmi – “Jews don’t fear non-Jews. What patronizing nonsense.”

        Great! Then you should also agree with us that a Jewish state is superfluous.

      • W.Jones on August 5, 2015, 1:03 pm

        ^Look, Hophmi is right about something.

  12. Linda J on August 5, 2015, 12:03 am

    Someone way more progressive than Bernie:

    • Citizen on August 5, 2015, 7:49 am

      Thanks, Linda J. Yes, she’s way more progressive than Bernie. She’s got a lawsuit on, trying to get included in main media coverage, debates, etc. She’s right that half the US population is looking for something other than what the two main parties offer.

  13. just on August 5, 2015, 6:12 am

    “Democrats Come Out Against Iran Deal
    Reps. Nita Lowey and Steve Israel, both of New York, and Ted Deutch of Florida announced their opposition on Tuesday afternoon.”

    read more:

    • bintbiba on August 5, 2015, 9:10 am

      ‘just’ oh dear ‘just’

      Thank you for this wonderful blast from the past !

      The incredible Linda Ronstadt and her “Desperado’ accompanied me for many days and nights during a very , very bad time !

      And thank you for ALL your amazing comments … your presence is so essential .

      ( I think that you and I were on the very talented Taxi’s blog pretty much simultaneously) !

      • just on August 5, 2015, 10:02 am

        Linda’s voice continues to accompany me during dark days and nights!

        Thank you very much for your kind words, bintbiba. Your unique voice, and the voices of so many from all points, are absolutely essential to MW. Without them and you, I really don’t think I’d have much to say! I’d probably just go around mumbling to myself in public, and yelling and stomping around in private.


    • lysias on August 5, 2015, 10:20 am

      The Dem leadership is probably allowing members of the House a free vote, as it will be enough if the motion is stopped in the Senate (either by successfully mounting a filibuster or by upholding Obama’s veto). That would mean any Dem members of the House whose re-election would be threatened by voting for the Iran deal can vote against it.

  14. Citizen on August 5, 2015, 7:55 am

    If the Iran Deal goes through with Obama veto, it changes everything regarding the Middle East, the economies of all players, the power of Israel Lobby, the hegemony of Israel in Middle East. If the Iran Deal is killed by AIPAC orchestration + Zionist billionaires, the impact will not be as immediate, but it will eventually put a target on the back of Jewish Americans despite the fact more of them favor the deal than Gentile Americans.

    • Mooser on August 5, 2015, 12:04 pm

      “but it will eventually put a target on the back of Jewish Americans despite the fact more of them favor the deal than Gentile Americans.”

      Nah, I don’t think there will be much gunplay (this is the US, there’s always some!). Just a big demotion from elite to ordinary. Ouch!

Leave a Reply