Democrats Reject Platform Proposal Calling for 'End to Occupation and Illegal Settlements' read more

[ericson00]

http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election-2016/1.727025

Democrats on Friday voted down an amendment to the party's platform that would have called for providing Palestinians with "an end to occupation and illegal settlements" and urged an international effort to rebuild Gaza.
Members of a Democratic National Convention drafting committee considered the amendment pushed by James Zogby, a supporter of presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, before voting it down. Zogby said Sanders helped craft the language of the amendment.


The current platform draft advocates working toward a "two-state solution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict" that guarantees Israel's security with recognized borders "and provides the Palestinians with independence, sovereignty, and dignity."

[floriduck]

1. I thought they crapcanned the $15 minimum wage?! Did I read this wrong?

[Ken Burch]

2. Why would you applaud a refusal to oppose the settlements?

The settlements have no redeeming value whatsoever, and simply make it harder to ever end the conflict.

It's right-wing to defend anything Netanyahu does.

[ericson00]

3. because settlements are an issue for Israel and Palestinians, not the DNC.

and they're a bargaining chip, like with Egypt (Israel once had settlements in Egypt's Sinai). Egypt made peace, Israel removed the settlements. The Palestinians ought to learn from the Egyptians.

If the last 8 years have taught us anything, its that publicly calling out settlements doesn't do anything useful.

[Ken Burch]

9. Keeping public silence(which is the same thing as endorsing everything Netanyahu does)

Doesn't exactly work wonders.

It just emboldens Netanyahu and Bennett to keep building more settlements and continue punishing all Palestinians for the actions of the worst.

Why should we give a blank check to a government that doesn't ever want the war to end?

Why should we enable a man who has written at least two books opposing the creation of a Palestinian state to keep on making it harder and harder for that state ever to be created?

We all know that there is no way that any of the current Israeli policies can ever cause the current Palestinian leadership to be removed and replaced by a better leadership. And we know that it is unreasonable to expect the Palestinian people to rise against Fatah and Hamas because the Israeli government doesn't like those organizations.

So what possible reason is there for the Democratic Party to endorse the status quo and cheer on Likud, a party that needs the conflict to go on forever just to stay in existence?

It is nor "pro-Israel" to defend the policies of this Israeli government, when the interests of that government clearly run counter to the interests of the people of Israel.

[King_David]

12. Hillary Clinton

Is very pro Israel , the platform will also be.

[Ken Burch]

15. You don't have to defend the settlements and the occupation to be "Pro-Israel"

It's enough to defend Israel's right to exist.

[FBaggins]

16. You don't think that providing the Palestinians "with independence, sovereignty, and dignity"

includes an end to "occupation"?

Far better this language than a rhetorical lie that pretends the "occupation" is the source of the conflict rather than one symptom.

[leveymg]

29. It's an issue for the U.S. because the Occupation largely gets funded here.

[deathrind]

30. This...

Which seems to be conveniently forgotten.

This disconnect on this issue is remarkable. We continue to send $ and arms to Isreal and condem Palastinians for not sitting zen like while their land is taken yet southern border towns here in the US demand more security and politicians want to "build the damn wall" along the border with Mexico because of immigrants...I can only imagine what their response would be if the Mexican Army showed up in the early hours of the morning evicting them from their homes / bulldozing them down and taking their land...I have a feeling a military response would be shortly followed.

[King_David]

4. Bernie:

Meanwhile, Sanders – who has yet to concede defeat to Clinton – appears to have dropped his demand for changes to the Democratic platform on Israel.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=130242

[bluestateguy]

5. The Sanders people got to speak their piece. They just didn't have the votes on this issue.

Though they did get the $15 minimum wage.

Win some, lose some. That's called politics for grown-ups.

[ericson00]

6. not to mention, shouldn't the $15 min wage be more important

to them than a fringe view (anti-Israel)?

BTW I'm all for a double digit min wage, at least for public companies. Anyone who won't vote for Hillary because her platform reflects the majority of the country doesn't belong in the electorate.

[bluestateguy]

7. Yes

I'm basically in favor of a $15 wage, with maybe some limited exceptions.

[ericson00]

8. agreed on the $15, but during the primary, I wasn't quite on board with $15

I am now, tho it should start with public companies (big enough to be guaranteed to afford it) and then work on the mom and pop shops, etc.

[Ken Burch]

10. Opposing the settlements(Ben-Gurion opposed the idea of settling the West Bank from the get-go)

is not "anti-Israel".

Opposing the occupation is not "anti-Israel".

The only effective way to be "pro-Israel" is to be anti-Netanyahu and pro-peace and justice.

Nothing in the status quo is good for the Israeli people.

[leftynyc]

11. And who was it that elected

YOU to decide what is and what is not pro-Israel?

[King_David]

13. I'm not sure Israels best interests are at heart there at all.

[leftynyc]

14. Ain't that the truth

Israel is just supposed to forget the decades of terrorist attacks and broken promises and reward terrorism and bad behavior because.......well, I'm not really sure why they should behave like utter morons according to some here.

[Ken Burch]

18. The Palestinians have suffered just as many wrongs in this conflict as the Israelis.

There is parity of pain between the two sides.

Both will have apologies to make and to accept.

[leftynyc]

20. But ONLY Israel

has EVER been asked to give up their security on the hopes that the Palestinians MAY give up violence and want to live in peace. I've never seen evidence of that desire at all. Meanwhile, Israel has an actual history of sticking to peace agreements (Egypt and Jordan). But yet too many here just expect Israel to lay down their arms and trust those who have never shown themselves to be trustworthy. Perhaps you're okay with trusting the thoroughly corrupt abbas and the terrorist hamas - the currently sterling leaders of the Palestinians but I don't blame Israel at all for not committing suicide.

[Ken Burch]

22. Palestinians have never had any security TO give up.

And nothing experienced by Israelis DURING the years of Israel's existence compares to what Palestinians have been subjected to during the Occupation.

BTW, Palestinians, if a peace agreement is ever to be reached, are going to be asked to trust that the IDF will never occupy any of the territory in which a Palestinian state would exist, AND that the Israeli government will never try to undermine the leadership of that state...things they have every reason to be distrustful about. And that the Israeli government will never be led in the future by a supporter of the concept of Eretz Yisroel, as it currently is.

Both sides have reason to be wary of the other. Both can legitimately claim to have been betrayed by the other.

[leftynyc]

23. Perhaps they should have taken the state

offered to them in 1947. I know it's inconvenient to actually acknowledge history - as you also seem to want to do by ONLY referring to what Jews and early Israeli's had to overcome since 1947, but that's completely ridiculous. THIS is what the Israeli's are up against and THIS is what you want them to ignore:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134130312

Such a partner for peace. Let's just forget what so many in power in Palestine think and say every single day. What could possibly go wrong?

Edited to add:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134130223

That's the LEADER of the Palestinians in the West Bank. The LEADER. And you continue to complain about bibi.

[Ken Burch]

24. I talk about Netanyahu because he is the one the US contunues to arm and enable.

There is no excuse for backing him up while he still works to prevent a Palestinian state from ever being created.

[leftynyc]

25. But nothing to say about

ALL the Palestinian aid - not just from the US - but from all over the world. Aid that has been stolen by their vile leaders, first arafat and today abbas and hamas - so they can continue with their dream of pushing the Jews into the sea. Instead of building hospitals, homes, schools - they buy weapons and build tunnels. But I've never seen you even mention that. In fact, you want Israel to forget all that and work with the corrupt Palestinian leadership and reward their terrorism. Let me repeat that - you want to reward terrorism...and then you probably wonder why the vast majority of Americans disagree with your position.

[Ken Burch]

26. The only alternative is to work with that leadership?

They're the ones with the weaponry.

It would be pointless to work with anyone else. Any agreement made with anyone else would be useless.

And it's pointless to try to change the Palestinian leadership.

The last time the Israeli government tried that(in the Eighties, when the Likud regime of that era put removing Arafat and the PLO from that position, the only thing that came of it was the rise of Hamas, which the Israelis had inadvertently triggered by encouraging and financially supporting the Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas' predecessor organization-to challenge the PLO's leadership status. There was never a single moment in that era when it was ever possible that an alternative Palestinian leadership could possibly have emerged that would both have met Likud's demands that Palestinians forever give up on statehood AND been accepted as legitimate by the Palestinian people themselves(or, more importantly, could ever have gained the allegiance of those engaged in the armed struggle).

This is why, bad as the current Palestinian leadership is, it is both arrogant and futile to insist that Palestinians remove that leadership from power before the Israeli side will ease its repressive measures in the West Bank or its siege in Gaza at all.

Both sides have horrible leadership...but it is the leadership on the Israeli side that holds all the power in this situation.

[leftynyc]

28. Rewarding terrorism is not going to happen

The signal it would send all over the world is indescribably repulsive. The demands from the Israeli's, while far from perfect, are heads and shoulders above those of the people who you claim have no power - perhaps you should tell them that it's in their best interests to lay down their arms and stop breaking bread with terrorists. It's certainly something they haven't tried yet.

[shira]

27. Right, still nothing to say about arming & funding the PA. n/t

[Ken Burch]

17. For that matter, who elected you?

You're just an individual American.

We both have a legitimate right to express our views on this or any other issue.

I'm not an anti-Zionist.

[Israeli]

19. :)......

For Netanyahu, every peace initiative is an anti-Zionist plot

What kind of hope does the prime minister offer us when every attempt to bring about peace is rejected as a plot to destroy Israel?

By Yossi Dahan

Yossi Dahan is a law professor, the head of the Human Rights Division at the College of Law and Business and the co-founder of Haokets. This article was first published in Hebrew in Yedioth Ahronoth and Haokets.

Source : http://972mag.com/for-netanyahu-every-peace-initiative-is-an-anti-zionist-plot/120219/

[leftynyc]

21. I'm not the one making

proclamations about how you HAVE to believe in order to be pro-Israel. That's all you. Nobody elected me - that's the whole freeking point.