Power Suits 24 May 2021
Over 11 days, more than 240 Palestinians were killed in Gaza, including more than 60 children, and 2,000 others were injured.
In the occupied West Bank, almost 30 families are mourning loved ones killed by occupation forces just during the past two weeks. And within Israel, Palestinian citizens faced organized pogroms by Jewish Israeli mobs backed by authorities.
Meanwhile, Israel continues its assaults on Palestinians throughout historic Palestine, particularly in occupied Jerusalem.
Raw numbers cannot capture the scale of the terror and trauma Israel continues to inflict.
Decades after Palestinians first accurately described Israel as an apartheid state, such mainstream human rights organizations as Israel’s B’Tselem and New York-based Human Rights Watch have in recent months reached the same conclusion.
“Tone down the rhetoric”
On Sunday, Sanders was asked about the use of this term on CBS’ Face The Nation.
Host John Dickerson – who sounded like a defense attorney for Israel throughout the interview – told Sanders that “there are a number of liberals who use the word apartheid to describe Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.”
Citing an Israel lobby group, Dickerson claimed such criticism was fueling an upsurge in anti-Jewish bigotry.
He then put it to Sanders that using the word apartheid “has increased the level of vitriol that has contributed to this anti-Semitism.”
Rather than affirm that Israel indeed practices apartheid and reject the equation between criticism of Israel’s crimes and anti-Semitism, Sanders agreed with his host.
“Well, I think we should tone down the rhetoric,” Sanders said, before serving up a word salad that concluded, “the job of the United States is to bring people together.”
Mohammed El-Kurd, a Palestinian poet and activist against ethnic cleansing in occupied East Jerusalem’s Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, called Sanders’ answer “a disgrace.”
There was a torrent of similar criticism of Sanders from Palestinians and their supporters.
Sadly, it was not the only disgraceful thing Sanders said in the 8-minute segment on Palestine that you can watch at the top of this article.
As the world recoils at the brazenness of Israel’s colonial war crimes, Sanders still insisted that “We have to be pro-Israel, but we have to be pro-Palestinian” – adamantly sticking to a false balance that equates the perpetrator with the victim.
As significant as what Sanders said is what he failed to say.
Nowhere did he criticize Zionism, Israel’s racist state ideology.
Nor did he call for effective, popular solidarity with Palestinians by endorsing and promoting BDS – the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement modeled on the global campaign that helped end apartheid in South Africa.
Indeed, Sanders is on record opposing BDS.
Sanders failed to call for Israeli leaders to be held to account for war crimes.
He did not demand that the Biden administration drop its opposition to the International Criminal Court’s investigation of war crimes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Instead, the senator sought to shield Israel from criticism by deflecting the blame on to its current government.
“Over the years, the Netanyahu government has become extremely right wing,” Sanders asserted, and “there are people in the Israeli government now who are overt racists.”
Every Israeli government of every political stripe from Zionist “left” to Zionist right has been racist since the state was founded by ethnic cleansing in 1948.
But just as many liberals think that America’s problems started with the election of Donald Trump in 2016, Sanders apparently believes that Benjamin Netanyahu invented racism in Israel.
“White moderate”
None of this should be surprising.
It is all in keeping with Sanders’ long record of support for Zionism, not to mention his staunch record of support for US imperialism.
However his latest comments should put to rest any hope that Sanders can fundamentally change or be a real ally to Palestinians.
Sanders’ efforts to police and “tone down” the language that accurately describes Israel’s crimes brings to mind the archetypal “white moderate” so eloquently described by Martin Luther King, Jr. in his 1963 Letter from a Birmingham Jail:
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
So it is with Sanders’ lukewarm support for Palestinians.
Just like the white moderate who condemned segregation, Sanders does acknowledge some of the wrongs perpetrated by Israel.
On Face the Nation, for example, he stated that in the recent attack on Gaza, Israel “killed 64 children and destroyed a large part of the infrastructure of Gaza in a community that has already been one of the most uninhabitable territories in the world.”
“The United States of America has got to be leading the world in bringing people together, not simply supplying weapons to kill children in Gaza,” he added.
Ineffective measures
Sanders has put forward a Senate resolution to block $735 million in further sales of precision-guided bombs from the US to Israel.
Given that as recently 2014, Sanders was angrily berating and silencing his constituents for objecting to Israel’s massacre of Palestinians in Gaza that year, this could be seen as “progress.”
But what it really is, is a distraction.
If Sanders put forward the Senate resolution while supporting the Palestinian people’s struggle and legitimate resistance, particularly BDS, it might be seen as a building block.
But he is offering a resolution that has no chance of passage while opposing and condemning all forms of Palestinian resistance – even using the Israel lobby’s demonizing terminology of “terrorism.”
Even with all his criticism of Israeli leaders – the worst he will call Netanyahu is “right wing” and a “racist” – Sanders is still harsher in his denunciation of Palestinians.
At best Sanders provides rhetorical support to Palestinians, at worst he is undermining their struggle for liberation by defusing anger and demands for action by channeling them into a dead end.
Just as he twice sheepdogged left-wing voters into the corporate, warmongering Democratic Party, Sanders seeks to channel supporters of Palestinian rights away from clear diagnosis and effective solidarity, into his moribund liberal Zionism.
At a moment when support for Israel is collapsing within the base of the Democratic Party, here comes Bernie Sanders to the rescue, with soft criticism of Israel and ineffective measures.
Writing from his jail cell, King rejected the “moderate” criticism that nonviolent direct action was generating crisis and tension and that he needed, so to speak, to tone it down.
“We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with,” King countered.
“Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed.”
That is as true today of Israel’s regime of occupation, apartheid and settler-colonialism, as it was of the American apartheid King was fighting, and which sadly persists to this day.
No one should listen to Bernie Sanders’ advice. Do not tone it down. Tone it up.
Comments
Who is Bernie Sanders?
Permalink Arifa replied on
I've been an avid Bernie supporter for many years and continue to be. When I read this article and how Ali described the interview, I was heartbroken over Bernie's failures. Then I watched the interview. And I felt somewhat relieved. True, he called Hamas terrorists, not recognizing them as freedom fighters (I honestly don't know whether or not they are corrupt and authoritarian). True, he said "we" need to tone down our rhetoric about apartheid. (Doesn't he get it?) My semi-relief was due to the fact that, while being consistently baited by this interviewer, who kept reading statements from the ADL and other Israeli-supremacist groups, he never backed down from shifting the narrative of this interviewer by highlighting the atrocities of the Israeli occupation and its toll on Gazans and the plight of Palestinians in general (this was the "word salad" that Ali mentions). Bernie never caved in to the Israeli-centric grilling of the interviewer. While he still apparently believes in the myth of a two state solution, and while he hasn't yet endorsed BDS (I believe he will, maybe with Rashida's prodding), still Bernie is who he is: a genuinely good and honest human being who is trying his best to win over the generally backward and ignorant population to see, recognize, feel and embrace goodness. He does not falter in upholding ideals of equality, justice, fairness and the well-being for the whole human family. In his policies and proposals he is not as revolutionary as the "centrists" think he is. He tries to stay viable as an elected official in this extremely reactionary time. I genuinely believe, though, that his heart is with all the oppressed and marginalized peoples of the world, including Palestinians. I myself want to give him a bit of slack in how he goes about his work of convincing the majority of Americans to join together to create a more just, equitable world. However, I agree with you, Ali: let's tone it up, not down! Bernie's good, not always right.
"a genuinely good and honest human being"
Permalink Eric replied on
Maybe, but like nearly all 'Democrats' he tends to moderate rather than oppose imperial directives.
For example, he called the late Hugo Chavez "a dead Communist dictator"
and as far as I know has never retracted this lying vicious calumny,
which played into the hands of Trump/Pompouseo/Bolton/Abrams.
Israel Apartheid
Permalink Bernie replied on
It is a strange thing that the reality of Israel Apartheid actually continues to be treated as something debatable or even questionable? Among those many having documenting it, include John Dugard of the UN way back in 2004. Also, Nobel Peace Prize Winners Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu and former President Jimmy Carter - plus just about every investigative legal and social affairs team sent by South Africa have documented it.
Victims of Israel Apartheid also include Black Jews and genuinely indigenous middle-eastern Jews.
Google the 'Yemenite Childrens Affair' and you'll find Yemeni Jews subjected to eugenics human experimentation by Israel. Similarly Black Jews have been subjected to eugenics forced contraception injections suppressing their reproduction by up to 50%. There are neighborhoods practicing whites only housing polices and Tel Aviv has racially segregated kindergartens.
Ugandan Jews are not even let into the country. See link - https://mronline.org/2020/12/0...
“the job of the United States is to bring people together.”
Permalink tom hall replied on
And kill them.
Riposte to Bernie
Permalink Stephen Shenfield replied on
When Bernie (or anyone else) says that it's the job of the US to "bring people together" the best riposte is to ask him who is responsible for keeping people apart, drawing his attitude to some of the ways in which Israel keeps people apart -- allowing almost no one into or out of Gaza, the separation wall, all the restrictions on Palestinian movement in the West Bank, denying entry visas to critics, doing its best to silence critics everywhere, segregation in schooling, the whole system of Israeli apartheid.
Gaza
Permalink Frank Dallas replied on
Archbishop Makarios was a terrorist. Mandela was a terrorist. Martin McGuiness was a terrorist. Hamas won a general election in January 2006. Response? Israel imposed the siege of Gaza. The US plotted to overthrow the elected government (they've had lots of practice). The EU withdrew funding. Blair said Hamas should not have been allowed to stand. On 7th December 1987 the UN GA passed Res 159 which made terrorism illegal. Quite right. But the proviso was that any people forcibly deprived of their self-determination, freedom or independence had to a right to fight for those aims. That is the position of the Palestinians. How shall they fight? When they use democracy they are called terrorists. Shall they use their army? Their air force? Their navy? MLK is right and Sanders mealy-mouthed. We must be forthright and bold in our condemnation of Israeli racism. Anything else is complicity. You can't bring two sides together when one of them is a colonial, racist oppressor. That would have been like asking for reconciliation between the Jews and the Nazis in 1935. Israeli was founded by terrorism in defence of racism. Racism is at the core of its ideology, constitution and ambitions. Israel must be condemned for its oppression and racism in the most uncompromising terms. There can be no compromise with moral degradation. Israel is totemic. What it stands for is racism and brutality backed by enormous power (the US). It says to the world: "Do what we say or you will suffer the fate of the Palestinians". That's why it has to be faced down. Biden is too cowardly and Sanders is a bit better but not much. Nothing less that withdrawal from the occupied territories, the 4th June 1967 borders, the end of Gaza's siege and an autonomous Palestinian society is acceptable. Humanitarianism is fine, but this is a political matter. The politics is racism, apartheid, oppression, colonialism. Never stop saying it and refuse all compromise with "lukewarm acceptance". Free Palestine.
Using the word apartheid
Permalink Rachel Port replied on
When I get questions like that I simply describe the situation in the OT. "What would you call a place where there are two groups of people living segreated from each other and under two sets of laws - the Israeli settlers are Israeli citizens, and live under Israeli civil law. The Palestinians are under militray occupation, and are tried in military courts (and that includes children). Palestinians carry ID cards that are color-coded by where they live. There are roads that Palestinians are not allowed to use. I leave them to think about the word.