At the California Democratic Party’s fall convention on November 17, activists pushed a resolution that would have recognized the Palestinian right of return. Although the amendment ultimately failed to be voted into the platform, supporters point to the fact that no vote tally was actually taken and that the results could have been too close to call.
It's simple: Palestinians should be free. End US funding for Israeli injustices now.
Amazing to be at @CA_Dem Convention this weekend and see the waves of support for #PalestinianFreedom. The tides are turning. #CADEM19 #CADEM pic.twitter.com/WzXFFIuERU
— JVP Action (@JvpAction) November 18, 2019
Members of Jewish Voice for Peace Action, the party’s Arab Caucus, and other pro-Palestine advocates collected petition signatures on the convention floor throughout the previous evening and ended up getting over 400 delegates to back the amendment. Prior to the vote, Palestine American League co-founder Yassar Dahbour and Jewish Voice for Peace Action supporter David Mandel called on the 3,300 California delegates to include the amendment in the platform. The amendment read:
Proactively seek a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflicted negotiated by the parties that guarantees equality, security and democracy for all, no matter what the final settlement regarding states and borders. Israeli Jews and Palestinians alike deserve peace, dignity, self-determination, security and a normal life free from occupation, terror and incitement. Oppose any unilateral annexation of territory, and support the right of all those who were forced from their homes to return to their homelands and receive compensation for their losses.
Although other outlets have reported that roughly 65% of the delegates ultimately rejected the resolution, there was no actual vote tally and activists point to the fact that the chair quickly assessed a voice vote. A photo taken during the vote suggests that 65% could be a severe misinterpretation of the actual results. (My earlier account of this too; see endnote.)
Similar sentiments were expressed by Progressive Zionists of California (PZC) founding member Susan George. “We are pleased the party has once again rejected extremism, and decided to focus on unifying issues. 2020 is the election of a lifetime, and we must focus on keeping the tremendous gains California Democrats made in 2018, not get derailed by a divisive conversation,” said George.
Just one day after the convention, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the Trump administration now rejects a 1978 State Department legal opinion that classified Israeli settlements as illegal.
Correction: An earlier version of this article relied on inaccurate reporting from Jewish Telegraphic Agency on the platform battle. We cited incorrect vote totals and asserted that an anti-BDS amendment was included in the final version of the platform. That amendment was included in an earlier draft of the platform, but was removed as a result of effective activist pressure. We apologize for our report.
We’re immeasurably joyful, he added, that the Democratic Party’s Israel policy is overwhelmingly pro-Jewish / “Jewish State” supremacism and anti-justice, -accountability and -equality. We have no problem with extreme and one-sided, pro-Israel planks.
So Zionists dominate the full spectrum of U.S. politics: from the right wing of the GOP to the left wing of the Democrats. (At least, I’ve always perceived CA dems as among the most progressive.)
Someone is telling obvious lies. Proposed Amendment #41 states “and support the right of all those who were forced from their homes to return to their homelands and receive compensation for their losses”.
This is not the Palestinian RoR, which does not limit itself to “those who were forced”.
Major errors here to the point of being seriously misleading. The Palestinian rights contingent and many allies agitated to delete the anti-BDS plank that was in the September draft, and it was removed. So was a paragraph on affirming Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. We may have lost the floor vote on a radical human rights framework that included right of return (and some thought it was too close to call without actually counting the votes (shades of Villaragosa at the 2012 DNC), but this was the first time the issue was ever debated on the floor of the convention before 3,300 delegates. It had a lot of support and would have had more but not for some egregious manipulations by the establishment — e.g. an unusual call for unity by the party chair before the floor debate (implying that the proposed amendment was disunifying); keeping many delegates from actually seeing the amendment language; and getting a state senator from the Legislative Jewish Caucus to pull out the scare stops in opposition, lying that the proposal called for the destruction of Israel.
The struggle continues.
@mondonut
“@bcg And while you’re at it, could you state simply and directly what it is you want? Do you still think two states are possible? One state?
What I want is irrelevant, but for what its worth I want what most of the world wants and that is peace”
You have not answered the question which is 100% relevant if you want any credibility on this site. So I will ask again on behalf of BCG and myself:
Could you state simply and directly what it is you want. Do you think that two states are possible ? One state ?
The what I/we whoever classic way of dodging the question by producing the “want peace” card which is becoming as frayed and as tattered as the Holocaust card simply doesn`t wash any longer.
Straight forward two states or one state between the Jordan and the Med – which ?