Sanders' Non-conformist Israel Message Casts Him as Boy in Emperor’s New Clothes

[Israeli]

Times are changing: When candidate Howard Dean called for 'even handed' U.S. policy in 2003, Democrats unanimously slammed him silent.

Chemi Shalev Apr 16, 2016

University of Wisconsin Professors Vernon Allen and John Levine conducted a series of experiments in the late 1960s to examine psychologist Solomon Asch’s theories about conformity and the influence of social forces on individual opinions. They found that even one dissenter from supposedly unanimous views enables others to express their opinions more freely. Liberals and leftists hope Bernie Sanders’ statements at Thursday’s Democratic debate will have a similar effect and will pave the way for greater dissent from America’s “automatic support” for Israel.

Sanders’ words, it should be noted, would hardly merit a yawn in Israel’s Knesset, at least in years past: Israel used too much force in Gaza, the Palestinians deserve justice and dignity, Benjamin Netanyahu isn’t always right - these statements are rather mundane in Jerusalem. But in a U.S. election campaign, a few days before primaries are held in New York with its multitudes of Jews, Sanders was seen as the boy in the Emperor’s New Clothes. “Sanders broke the status quo” one headline blared; history, it seems, would never be the same.

Sanders’ words may have been courageous, but they were hardly unprecedented: in 2003, another Democratic candidate, Howard Dean - also a liberal from Vermont - deviated slightly from the acceptable party line on Israel. At the height of the second intifada and the suicide bombings in Israeli cities, Dean said Washington needed to be even-handed and shouldn’t take sides. He was overwhelmed by a tsunami of criticism from the Democratic Party and from rival presidential contenders John Kerry and Joe Lieberman. Many observers believe that this was one of the reasons for Dean’s rapid fall from front-runner status to oblivion. Since then, presidential candidates have been careful to sympathize with Palestinians only after they enter the White House.

Until the campaign moved to New York, Sanders had also avoided talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: he seemed to view the topic as a minefield from which he would not escape unscathed. But his miserable interview to the Daily News, in which he erroneously said that 10,000 Palestinians had been killed in the 2014 war in Gaza, brought the issue to the fore and turned Sanders into a punching bag for right wing politicians in the Israel and the United States. Sanders must have expected the issue to be raised in Thursday’s debate, but unlike Dean, who had tried to extricate himself from his mess by depicting himself as an Israel right-or-wrong super-hawk, Sanders decided not only to stick to his guns, but to open fire on Clinton for her AIPAC speech and her blind support for Israel.

Continued: http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election-2016/1.714741

[glowing]

1. I don't think it was necessarily avoided like a minefield...

If the media covered him at all, they would know his views. Shoot I knew his views before he ran... Of course I'm an ex-VT gal who still has family and pride in its people... My own FL reps are not something I'm proud of... I'm terrified of most of them.

Anyway, I thought the idea of the two states was something they brokered deals with back years and years ago.. This isn't some new idea. I think holding Israel to the agreements a bit more might be the talk, but no one is alienating them from essentially being our 51st state.

I think foreign policy is really on the back burner for many Americans this election cycle. The world sees our economy as "recovered" because of the GDP and the wealth created, of course, that wealth is only going in one direction. I think most Americans would like to stop spending time, money, and human lives in the ME... But it's taking a back burner in a sense to the economy. When Obama was running in 2008, it was against the Bush Admin. Te war and the fact that avg Americans were falling behind. At that point over the last 10 yrs, families were averaging $2000 or less in economic growth in and economy the wealthy were doing so well. 8 years ago people were struggling. And then the economy crashed. And Main St issues were thrown under the bus just the save the world's economy. Which was needed because we were hemorrhaging jobs. After that purge of jobs, the new shitty wages and crappy work conditions hit everyone because you were lucky if you had a job with a pay cut and were doing the work of 3 people. And you still are, even though the wealthier have recovered.

[oberliner]

2. Bernie basically articulated the Obama administration position

I mentioned this in response to another similar post.

Bernie said that of course Israel has the right to defend itself and to live in peace and security without fear of terrorist attacks (He said this was not even up for debate). He repeated that Israel has "every right in the world to destroy terrorism." He said that he was "100 percent pro-Israel" and that the Palestinian people need to be treated with respect and dignity. He said that the US should work together with the rest of the world to help the Palestinian people.

Obama has made these same points and raised the same sorts of criticism and called for the same sort of assistance.

[EdwardBernays]

3. Shhhh

This is a Bernie Bashing thread... Logic is not welcome.

:p