The Democratic presidential primary is over. Bernie Sanders will appear at a campaign event with Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire on Tuesday, where he is expected to finally endorse Clinton.
But behind this belated pageantry of unity, the last few weeks of intra-Democratic fights provide an interesting window into the state of liberal politics — particularly on Israel and Palestine. By withholding his endorsement until the party platform negotiations were finished, Sanders obtained several important concessions, on health care, a $15 minimum wage, financial regulation, and more. But despite fighting hard for it, he got nothing on Palestine.
So once again, the official line from both American parties is that Israel should receive automatic, cringing deference in every circumstance. Seemingly nothing — not blowing up several children in full view of the international press, not overtly committing to apartheid policy, not even grievously insulting the American president — can threaten the flow of huge military subsidies to Israel or the use of America's Security Council veto at the U.N.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Latest Videos FromThe Week
But 2016 may mark the last time Israel will get such a strong defense from the Democrats.
The Clinton and Sanders factions have been fighting about Palestine for months, as Molly O'Toole details in Foreign Policy. The argument recently came to a head with the final set of committee votes, during which the Sanders team — notably Cornel West — argued forcefully for the dignity of Palestinians and the basic injustice of the occupation, while the Clinton side argued that such a view was unfairly biased against Israel.
In the end, the Sanders faction got nothing, not even a simple statement that Palestinians deserve an end to the occupation at some point. It's the usual Democratic posture: a tepid endorsement of a theoretical two-state solution covering a tacit endorsement of endless Israeli occupation. Given that Clinton is as flagrant a partisan of Israel as can be found in Washington (an achievement for which the bar is high indeed), this is not particularly surprising.
But despite the fact that Clinton won this round on Israel, Sanders' unexpected electoral success has demonstrated that there is a sizable constituency for a more even-handed approach. Foreign policy is probably the area of largest disagreement between the dovish Democratic Party base and its generally hawkish leadership. Palestine is one of the few areas where Sanders chose to attack Clinton on foreign policy, and he probably would have done even better had he pressed the issue even harder.
And while Sanders did lose the primary, he won young voters by eye-popping margins. As millennials reach political maturity and become the center of gravity of Democratic politics, traditional deference to Israel is going to become more and more politically toxic.
That political reality should be coupled with the obvious fact that reflexive Israel partisanship is a large strategic liability for the United States. The 50-year occupation is effectively backed by America — which seriously inflames Muslim opinion around the globe. Even simple association with increasingly extremist and racist Israeli politics — their defense minister is a man who wants to ethnically cleanse Arab Israeli citizens — damages America's reputation practically everywhere.
But even aside from that, Israel has taken to directly meddling in American politics and trying to undermine U.S. foreign policy goals. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu all but stumped for Mitt Romney in 2012, and worked against the nuclear deal with Iran for President Obama's entire second term — including an unprecedented step of delivering a speech to Congress without informing the president first, an act of gross diplomatic discourtesy. The speech failed — but it sowed much bitterness and resentment among rank-and-file Democrats.
These are not the actions of a loyal ally of the United States. It's a lot more akin to a petulant rich teenager who knows that mom will never take away the credit card, no matter how many BMWs he wrecks.
Indeed, continuing to enable the occupation is arguably against the long-term interests of Israel itself. Historically, a system of apartheid ends one of two ways: as in Rhodesia, with endless war, an ever-tightening net of international sanctions, and eventual economic devastation; or as in South Africa, where a negotiated end preserves some semblance of the existing political and economic order. On its current path, Israel may well destroy itself.
At any rate, the above developments — the increasing Republican tilt and incompetence of the Israeli leadership, the maturation of young Democrats who are skeptical of Israel, and the sheer injustice of the occupation — will make reflexive Israel partisanship a political loser. Hillary Clinton, as president, will be able to paper over the cracks for awhile. But real change is inevitable.
