Howdy. Just made the leap to caucus99percent (not entirely voluntary, as I've been handed a long timeout at the big Orange). I have no clue what the audience is, but today was a busy day for me on the internet, responding to developments regarding the Democratic platform and the Israel/Palestinian question. I thought I might share some observations. I expect it'll go over better here, anyway.

I should probably start with last night, when the Sanders delegates for Bernie Sanders got together for the first time, in advance of a meeting/reception that the Maryland Democratic Party had for the entire delegation. Part of that meeting involved ratifying the nominations for honorary chair (Sen. Barb Mikulski) and another delegation leadership post that involved fundraising, which went to the party head. These were uncontroversial nominations by the Clinton camp. We also ratified the campaign appointees to the Platform, Rules and Credential committees. Here, we were on dicier ground, when I saw Lanny Davis (boo!!!) as he was being nominated to be one of the Clinton appointees (I think it was Credentials, but it might have been Rules). We'd agreed not to object, but I didn't know that Lanny Davis was in the offing and I wanted to object....

Anyway, stepping back a little, the Sanders' appointee to the Platform Committee is Ben Jealous, and he lead a spirited discussion in our Sanders delegation prep-meeting, during which we discussed what we hoped to come out of the convention, and the platform in particular.

One thing we didn't touch on was the Israel issue -- which was a bit of a relief. It was a problem for Sanders in NY, and I wouldn't want it to undermine an effort to put together a broader consensus on the platform -- one that most Sanders supporters could be pretty happy with. The Washington Post had run a story a couple of weeks ago that focused on the Israel/Palestine issue as real priority for the Sanders campaign. That concerns me, even if I do find myself in agreement with the Senator. I wondered if it wasn't just the Washington Post trying to be provocative and turn people against Sanders.

I'm still not clear whether this will be a big priority for Sanders, but his placing James Zogby and Dr. Cornel West on the platform committeee suggests it is definitely on his radar. A few events today may have raised the profile of this issue in terms of the platform, and I wanted to share my take. First, one of the other delegates shared someting on Facebook - an article in Washington Jewish Week, which focused on Clinton's own Platform Cmte appointee, former Dep. Under-Secretary of State, Amb. Wendy Sherman. According to the WJW piece:

"But political watchers both within and on the outside say that Democrats will emerge from their nominating convention this summer comfortably pro-Israel.

The party platform will reflect the United States’ “unbreakable bond” with Israel and Democratic presidential front runner Hillary Clinton’s support for a two-state solution, said Wendy Sherman, a former undersecretary of state for political affairs and one of 15 members of the platform-writing committee."

Unfortunately, Sherman went off in a direction that would almost certainly undermine efforts at unity. It's one thing to be pro-Israel and another to look at the peace question only from the Israeli side, which has been a problem for both major US parties in recent elections. Sherman said this:

“I think that sort of sentiment is widely held in the party, that a two-state solution is critical to ensure the security and recognize the borders of a Jewish state, Israel, free from terror, and that a Palestinian state can provide independent sovereignty where they can govern themselves in their own state,"

It's not a frame that is particularly appealing to Palestinians, as it doesn't really acknowledge their particular concerns other than some amorphous idea of "independent sovereignty," which is a redundancy and suggests it might be neither really independent nor sovereign.

The desire to mollify even those who are near the extremes of Israeli public opinion and those who support them here -- that's become a habit over the last decade or two. Take a look at the 2008 Democratic platform:

"For more than three decades, Israelis, Palestinians, Arab leaders, and the rest of the world have looked to America to lead the effort to build the road to a secure and lasting peace. Our starting point must always be our special relationship with Israel, grounded in shared interests and shared values, and a clear, strong, fundamental commitment to the security of Israel, our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That commitment, which requires us to ensure that Israel retains a qualitative edge for its national security and its right to self-defense, is all the more important as we contend with growing threats in the region–a strengthened Iran, a chaotic Iraq, the resurgence of Al Qaeda, the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah. We support the implementation of the memorandum of understanding that pledges $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade to enhance and ensure its security.

It is in the best interests of all parties, including the United States, that we take an active role to help secure a lasting settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with a democratic, viable Palestinian state dedicated to living in peace and security side by side with the Jewish State of Israel. To do so, we must help Israel identify and strengthen those partners who are truly committed to peace, while isolating those who seek conflict and instability, and stand with Israel against those who seek its destruction. The United States and its Quartet partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel's right to exist, and abides by past agreements. Sustained American leadership for peace and security will require patient efforts and the personal commitment of the President of the United States. The creation of a Palestinian state through final status negotiations, together with an international compensation mechanism, should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel. All understand that it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final status negotiations to be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths."

Even beyond stating our "special relationship" and our "clear, strong, fundamental commitment" to Israel's security, the "best interests of all parties" seem to reflect Israel's maximal negotiating stances. Wiping out Hamas, if it won't recognize Israel, the return of Palestinian refugees only in Palestinian territory (as opposed to allowing them to return to their family homes located within the lands now generally recognized as part of Israel), and the declaration that Jerusalem is the "capital of Israel" (Despite that the federal government has never recognized that) along with the idea that it should remain undivided, even as its final status is supposedly up for negotiation -- and, maybe the biggie, the idea that it is "unrealistic" to a expect a complete return to the 1949 armistice lines.

Frankly, none of that would be unexpected in a final agreement -- Israel might accept a very limited number of Palestinian refugees, but the Arab population within israel is already at 20% and the Israeli gov't is never going to agree to anything that would bring it beyond 25%. They would much rather compensate refugees than allow them (or their descendants) back in. And the 1949 lines aren't magic. In fact, there are great reasons on both sides to want something different -- so, there will likely be swaps of land that will redraw the map, if an agreement is ever reached.

But, the framing is problem -- because it doesn't reference the Palestinian concerns. No mention of what's to become of Jewish settlements -- and not even a recognition that ongoing settlement expansion practices and policies are a huge obstacle to peace. There's a great deal of focus on the recognition of Israel's right to exist as a precondition to negotiations at least for some groups, but nothing about Israel recognizing that the occupation itself is a problem, and that they ought to conduct themselves in ways that instill confidence in the peace process for Palestinians.

That's basically the same problem we should have with Sherman's framing of the question -- but she also frames the political questions in a way that is seems calculated to upset Sanders' supporters. To wit:

Sherman said she thinks despite the presence of fiery pro-Palestinian figures like West, the party will unify around Clinton’s views on the Middle East.

“I know [Cornel West], and I think we will have a very good discussion,” she said. “But I think that the principles that I outlined are in the mainstream of Democratic Party politics and certainly the views of Secretary Clinton, and I expect it will be those values that go into” the platform.

It isn't the values that are in question, but it is the way they will be expressed, because that can make all the difference. Because the question of what it means to be "pro-Israel" is one of real debate, at least in terms of actual policy, even if there is wide agreement in the Democratic Party about what that means. For Democrats, there is no inherent contradiction between being "pro-Israel" and also deeply committed to a real peace process aimed at viable two-state solution. That's no longer true for some in Israel, who view talk about a two-state solution as "anti-Israel." Unfortunately, people with that view are now in ascendancy in Israel -- some may give lip service to the idea of a two-state solution, but it's like the Republicans and support for the working class. Republicans say they support the working class, but every policy they propose seems calculated to sabotage the working class. For Likudniks, any criticism of Israeli policy is deemed to be anti-Israel.

That divide has been expressed in recent years in this country with the AIPAC lobby becoming the foot soldiers for the Likud government (and for the Republicans here), rather than the non-partisan group it once was. AIPAC's move wildly right led unhappy Jewish American liberals to create an organization called J Street which would advocate for policies that were more inline with their own more nuanced views of the situtation in Israel. J Street has been a magnificent addition to the political landscape here. As one panelist noted in a recent J Street-hosted discussion in DC, just one look at he reent Maryland Senate primary should give real hope to Jewish progressives. The Jewish vote is pretty significant in Maryland with strong, politically active communites around both Washington DC and Baltimore. In past years, candidates for statewide office might have been running to the right on Israel, to gain the support of AIPAC. But, in the recent hotly contested race bethween Rep. Chris Van Hollen and Rep. Donna Edwards, both candidates articulated the progressive argument on Israel and seemed to be competing for J Street's endorsement.

So, it's especially notable that J Street came out with a statement on the Democratic Party platform that they've been circulating to Platform Committee members, as reported today in Politico.

J Street noted that tone is important:

"The overall tone of the document should establish the Party’s deep commitment to meeting the essential needs of both Israelis and Palestinians."

More than just tone, though, the memo/statement called on the Platform Commmittee to affirm American opposition to settlements -- American policy, but always conveniently ignored in the platform:

"The Democratic Party should reaffirm its support for the policy of all eight American administrations since 1967 – both Democratic and Republican – opposing settlement construction and expansion over the Green Line in the territory Israel has occupied since the Six Day War."

On Jerusalem's status, J Street again recommended a tweak that would be more solitious of Palestinian concerns, calling for:

"American recognition of the Jewish areas of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel andPalestinian areas of East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state, with precise arrangementsto be reached in negotiations."

I think that J Street's move into Presidential politics is a good one, that can help produce the kind of statement that Democrats can be proud of and one that might make a difference in the real world.

The J Street platform statement/memo was joined today with a petition for the Democratic National Convention:

"TELL THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM COMMITTEE:

Members of the Democratic Platform Committee have an opportunity this year to show support for Israeli security AND Palestinian rights.

Support for the two-state solution has been a staple of the party's platform for years. It's time to add language noting concern about the relentless expansion of settlements, which entrench the occupation and endanger peace.

Some have warned that adding language about Palestinian rights and the importance of ending the occupation will spark intraparty battles. But Hillary Clinton championed these issues as Secretary of State and Senator Bernie Sanders has raised them again and again during this campaign. Moreover, such views are completely in line with those of an overwhelming majority of American Jews and Democrats more broadly.

You and your fellow committee members have an opportunity to update the party's platform to bring it into line with this new consensus -- I sincerely hope you'll seize it."

The references to both Clinton and Sanders is a smart calculation that can help move the committee members to embrace these new ideas for the platform. Notwithstanding Amb. Sherman's notion that the platform will embody Clinton's values, we have a chance for it to embrace the values of the vast majority of Democrats and other progressives.

You can add your name to the petition here:

http://act.jstreet.org/sign/2016-democratic-platform/

That's it from me.... Gotta watch some Copa America soccer....