By Sen. Bernie Sanders snagged New Hampshire from Hillary Clinton last Tuesday, winning by a wide margin of 21.4 percent and becoming the first Jewish candidate to win a presidential primary in U.S. history. But the democratic socialist who has recently won the vote of various demographics across the states is considered to be elusive by some when it comes to his views on foreign policy.
However, Sanders has been clear and consistent in his view on one of the key international issues that could make or break his popularity among many: the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
Since he held the mayor’s office of Burlington, Vt., Sanders has stood by a two-state solution. He expressed his disapproval of Israel’s actions during a press conference in 1988, saying, “The sight of Israeli soldiers breaking the arms and legs of Arabs is reprehensible. The idea of Israel closing down towns and sealing them off is unacceptable.”
He confirmed his view later in 2014 during an interview with Rolling Stone when asked how he would tackle the issue if elected president. “I believe in a two-state solution,” he said, “where Israel has security and the Palestinians have a state of their own.”
As the 2016 race for presidency gathers momentum and the poll numbers tighten for both candidates, Israel’s large role in U.S. foreign policy may be the deal-breaker that both candidates need to win the ballots.
The statement corroborated a decision he had made earlier that year to abstain from a vote on Senate Resolution 498, which would provide American support for Israel in the face of “unprovoked racket attacks” by Hamas.
Now, in the 2016 presidential race, Sanders continues to advocate for an “even-handed approach.” If elected, he hopes to cut back on military support for Israel, investing instead in economic assistance to improve the quality of life the surrounding area.
His rival, however, has condemned Palestine and supported Israeli efforts since her time as senator of New York and throughout her term as Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton opposed four United Nations’ resolutions calling for Israel to stop its occupation in Gaza and visited an Israeli settlement in 2005 to show her support.
According to CNN, she was “an outspoken defender of Israel and representative for American Jews.” In the same interview she said, “We will stand with Israel because Israel is standing for American values as well as Israeli ones.”
Clinton acknowledged Israel’s right to self-defense and said in reference to the resulting death of Palestinian civilians by Israeli militants that “the ultimate responsibility has to rest on Hamas and the decisions it made.”
Some say that Clinton’s resolute voice and experience as Secretary of State will benefit the U.S. in the international forum and may ultimately win her the ticket to the White House.
While President Barack Obama maintained what some may call a critical relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu, the current Prime Minister of Israel, Clinton wrote in her book Hard Choices, that she will work hand in hand with the prime minister as “partners and friends.”
Later in 2015 she promised to invite him to the White House within one month of her entering the office. In contrast, Sanders has openly said that he is “not a big fan” of Netanyahu.
Part of Clinton’s support for Israel may be related to her top donor and Israeli hawk, Haim Saban, who recently invested $6.4 million in her campaign.
After publicly confirming the value of his donation, Saban said, “I want my number to be out there so others will be inspired to do the same.” In doing so, the pro-Israeli may have also inspired Clinton to strengthen her support for Israel.
In any case, Clinton’s defense of Israel and friendship with Netanyahu won her the vote of many Jewish democrats in her 2008 run for presidency and has certainly not hurt her this time around.
Some say that Clinton’s resolute voice and experience as Secretary of State will benefit the U.S. in the international forum and may ultimately win her the ticket to the White House. Sanders, on the other hand, has been criticized for his foreign policy gap and seems to be treading on thin ice.
As the 2016 race for presidency gathers momentum and the poll numbers tighten for both candidates, Israel’s large role in U.S. foreign policy may be the deal-breaker that both candidates need to win the ballots.
—
Written By Naaz Modan.
This article is BS, and you should be ashamed of yourself for publishing such tripe. Bernie Sanders has NOT been a consistent critic of Israel. It doesn’t really matter what he said in 1988 if he supported Israel’s 2014 massacre of Gazans, which he did. And in all his claims to be against the US giving military support to Israel, he has never actually voted against it. Basically, he’s a hypocrite.
So maybe he’s not as bad as Hillary or any of the Republicans on this subject, but he’s far from good, and you do a disservice to American Muslims to gloss over these relevant and non-minor details.