Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumAbsent from AIPAC, Sanders slams Israeli occupation, ‘disproportionate’ use of force
Source: Times of Israel
Democratic underdog offers scathing criticism of settlements, Netanyahu government, insists one can be pro-Israel while supporting Iran deal
WASHINGTON While declaring his commitment to Israels security, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) accused Israel of using disproportionate force in its military operations and pilloried the settlement policies of the Netanyahu government, in a speech released Monday while the candidate campaigned in Salt Lake City, Utah.
After raising eyebrows by choosing to campaign in the mountain West rather than attend AIPACs annual Policy Conference in Washington the four other candidates for president all visited the pro-Israel confab Sanderss undelivered address, which he had previously offered to deliver before AIPAC via video link, discussed the topics he would likely have raised there.
I have a deep personal connection to Israel, Sanders said in the text, quipping that he was fairly certain I am the only US presidential candidate to have ever lived on a kibbutz.
Sanders is Americas first Jewish candidate for the presidency from a major political party. Although he lost to frontrunner Hillary Clinton in five of the six most recent primary contests, Sanders resoundingly defeated the former secretary of state in the primary held among Democrats abroad. The results of that poll were revealed on Monday, hours before his campaign posted the foreign policy speech on its official website.
Read more: http://www.timesofisrael.com/absent-from-aipac-sanders-slams-israeli-occupation-disproportionate-use-of-force/
Akamai
(1,779 posts)excruciatingly difficult decision.
Not easy but I think your mind is thoughtful, you are compassionate, and you are the best hope we have.
As an Atheist I tell you, God bless you, Bernie Sanders and your wonderful wife, Jane.
Go Bernie!!
Akamai
(1,779 posts)Go Bernie!!!
Israeli
(4,249 posts)...Go Bernie!!
Iwillnevergiveup
(9,298 posts)Fortunately, Bernie's (corrected) vision is 20/20.
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)Meanwhile Hillary and Trump were acting like enlisted foot soldiers to Bibi Netanyahu.
Israeli
(4,249 posts)Ben Harris Mar 22, 2016
JTA - In the text of the speech Bernie Sanders would have delivered to the AIPAC conference, the Vermont senator laid out his vision for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In a rare foray into foreign policy, Sanders said peace would require recognition of Israels right to exist and the end of threats to its security. But it would also require the end of the Israeli occupation and pulling back settlements in the West Bank.
It is absurd for elements within the [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu government to suggest that building more settlements in the West Bank is the appropriate response to the most recent violence, Sanders said. It is also not acceptable that the Netanyahu government decided to withhold hundreds of millions of Shekels in tax revenue from the Palestinians, which it is supposed to collect on their behalf. But, by the same token, it is unacceptable for President [Mahmoud] Abbas to call for the abrogation of the Oslo Agreement when the goal should be ending the violence.
Sanders is the only major party presidential candidate not to appear in person at the American Israel Public Affairs Committees policy conference this week in Washington, D.C.. Citing the demands of his campaign schedule, Sanders sought to address the conference remotely, but was turned down by AIPAC, though the organization had made that accommodation to other presidential candidates in years past.
The speech Sanders released Monday in lieu of a personal appearance dealt at length with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sanders noted his personal ties to Israel, including the time he had lived on a kibbutz, and committed to assuring Israels survival and security. Sanders also condemned Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians.
But he reiterated his criticism of Israels 2014 military campaign in the Gaza Strip and said peace would require ending the blockade of the coastal strip and ensuring Palestinian self-determination and control of their natural resources, especially water.
Turning to other regional challenges, Sanders repeated his past support for the Iran nuclear deal, insisting that for all its flaws it represents the best hope of denying Iran a nuclear weapon.
I do not accept the idea that the pro-Israel position was to oppose the deal, Sanders said. Preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon will strengthen not only Americas security, but Israels security as well. And I am not alone in that idea. While Prime Minister Netanyahu is vocally opposed to the accord, his is hardly a consensus opinion in Israel. Dozens of former security officials, including retired Army generals and chiefs of the Shin Bet and Mossad intelligence agencies support the agreement.
Sanders said if Iran did not abide by the agreement, sanctions should be reimposed and all options are back on the table.
Sanders said countering the Islamic State group would require establishing a stable government in Iraq. In Syria, Sanders said the fight against the Islamic State had been diluted by the civil war and said turning back the Islamist group would require ensuring that groups that take territory from the Islamic State can responsibly govern the areas they take back. Ending the Syrian civil war, Sanders said, would require a negotiated settlement and pushed back against calls for greater American military involvement in the country.
Repeating an idea he has expressed in debates with Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, Sanders said that countries in the region had to take the lead in countering the Islamic State:
Now, I am not suggesting that Saudi Arabia or other states in the region invade other countries, nor unilaterally intervene in conflicts driven in part by sectarian tensions, Sanders said. What I am saying is that the major powers in the region especially the Gulf States have to take greater responsibility for the future of the Middle East. What I am saying is that countries like Qatar which intends to spend up to $200 billion to host the 2022 World Cup can do more to contribute to the fight Against ISIS. They have $200 billion to host a soccer event, yet have done very little to fight ISIS.
Source: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.710219
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)he sent them a transcript of his intended speech and said he would do it via a video conference as Netanyahu will be be and as both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich were allowed to do in the past-AIPAC said no
Israeli
(4,249 posts)Asher Schechter Mar 22, 2016
Heres a fun game. Which of these statements made at the AIPAC conference in Washington yesterday, were said by Donald Trump, and which by Hillary Clinton?
Quote 1: Palestinian leaders need to stop inciting violence and stop celebrating terrorists as martyrs and stop paying rewards to their families.
Quote 2: "Children are being taught to hate the Jews, it has to stop. You cannot achieve peace if terrorists are treated as martyrs.
Need a little assistance? Well, here are two more:
Quote 1: And let me be clearI would vigorously oppose any attempt by outside parties to impose a solution, including by the U.N. Security Council.
Quote 2: "An agreement imposed by the UN would be a total and complete disaster .It's not up the United Nations to impose a solution. The parties must negotiate a resolution themselves.
No? Lets make the game more interesting:
Quote 1: Iran is a problem in Iraq, a problem in Syria, a problem in Lebanon, a problem in Yemen, and will be a very major problem for Saudi Arabia. Literally every day, Iran provides more and better weapons to their puppet states . Now they're in Syria trying to establish another front against Israel from the Syrian side of the Golan Heights
Quote 2: We cannot forget that Tehrans fingerprints are on nearly every conflict across the Middle East, from Syria to Lebanon to Yemen. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its proxies are attempting to establish a position on the Golan from which to threaten Israel, and they continue to fund Palestinian terrorists.
Technically, the correct answers are: Clinton, Trump; Clinton, Trump; and Trump, Clinton.
Really, though, all are re-purposed talking points borrowed from the oeuvre of Benjamin Netanyahu.
The AIPAC conference that wound up yesterday was sad, in that nothing substantive whatsoever was said by any of the presidential hopefuls. Moreover, the platitudes they offered sounded eerily similar.
Ted Cruz attacked Trump over his earlier promise to remain neutral between Israelis and Palestinians by saying: Let me be very, very clear: As president, I will not be neutral. America will stand unapologetically with the nation of Israel. Clinton, too emphasized her non-neutrality when it comes to Israel. America cant ever be neutral when it comes to Israels security or survival, she said, before pulling an Elie Wiesel quote on the harms of neutrality.
Trump, of course, didnt exactly espouse neutrality, saying: The Palestinians must come to the table knowing that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable.
And the crowd goes wild
If only the similarities ended with non-neutrality. But the conference revealed just how indistinguishable American politicians are when it comes to Israel.
Trump says unbreakable, and Clinton replies non-negotiable. Clinton says Israel is a light unto the nations, and Ted Cruz calls it a beacon of light unto the world. Trump talks about his daughters beautiful Jewish baby, Clinton spoke at length about Purim (implying than in a real-life version of the story, she would, presumably, be cast as Esther), and Ted Cruz (in what was surely the most shameful moment of the night) came out with Am Yisrael chai! as if his life depended on it.
The word pandering doesnt even begin to describe it. Throughout the night, all four candidates courted applause by prating of sanctions on Iran even Clinton, who had been forced to embrace the Iran deal by virtue of her affiliation with Obama, all but shied away from it.
All the candidates admonished the Palestinians for fostering a culture of hatred and death, but not one mentioned the occupation of the West Bank, or the unremitting humanitarian crisis that is Gaza. It was Jewish pandering by numbers, and it won them all uproarious applause and standing ovations.
Remind you of somebody?
In the process of sounding like each other, though, all four sounded like Netanyahu, who was truly the winner of the evening.
After the Iran deal, some depicted Netanyahu as a loser who gambled on the Republicans' ability to stop the deal, and came up short. With the rise of Donald Trump, some shrugged that Netanyahu had bet on the wrong horse again.
Not so. Once again, Bibi is the unheralded winner. If the four near-identical speeches given by four very different presidential candidates yesterday proved anything, it is the enormous level to which Netanyahu (aided by lobby groups like AIPAC, of course, not to mention big-time donors like Sheldon Adelson) has shaped the limits of American discourse on Israel.
Clinton and Cruz both rebuked the BDS movement, one of Netanyahus pet nemeses, which happens to be a completely made-up threat that in more than a decade, hasn't even dented Israels economy. Clinton spoke at length about anti-Semitism and efforts to malign, isolate and undermine Israel and the Jewish people. Cruz went off on another tack, comparing the Iran deal to Munich, 1938. Both sounded as if they shared a speechwriter with Netanyahu. Or a mouth.
There was one presidential candidate, of course, who chose to skip the AIPAC conference in favor of a Salt Lake City high school. Ironically enough, it was the only Jewish candidate currently running for president.
Opting for Utah instead of Washington, Bernie Sanders managed to make a substantive, thoughtful speech about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that was anything but pandering. He was the only one to acknowledge the occupation, and Palestinian suffering. Instead of pandering to AIPACs right-leaning crowd by promising to invite Benjamin Netanyahu to the
White House on his first day in office, Sanders heavily criticized the Netanyahu government for its policies in the West Bank and Gaza.
Sanders speech, of course, drew about 0.01% of the coverage devoted to Trumps and Clintons statements at AIPAC. Maybe if he had just talked a bit about Purim.
Source: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.710290
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Here's the actual speech:
https://berniesanders.com/sanders-outlines-middle-east-policy/