GOP jumps on Democratic platform feud over Israel

posted on: Jun 21, 2016

By KATIE GLUECK

Politico

Republicans are seeking to drive a wedge into an issue that’s already emerging as a highly sensitive one in the Democratic platform: Israel.

The latest salvo will come from the Republican Jewish Coalition this week, as the group — which is home to some of the biggest donors in GOP politics — launches an online advertising campaign attacking members of the Democratic National Committee’s platform drafting committee.

The RJC plan, first shared with Politico, comes as Democrats are already grappling with the possibility that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will emerge as a major flash point at their national convention next month, given the sharp disagreements some on the platform drafting committee have with one another on the issue.

The RJC ads will target Arab-American activist James Zogby, public intellectual Cornel West and Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress. The RJC’s five-figure social media campaign characterizes the three platform committee members as “radical” Democrats who are “stridently anti-Israel,” “hand-selected member[s] of the Democratic platform committee.” All three were selected by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

“Sadly, this isn’t the old Democratic Party,” each spot intones, as an image of the late President John F. Kennedy splashes across the screen. Switching to an image of Hillary Clinton, the voice-over continues, “It’s today’s Democratic Party.”

Clinton herself is generally considered — especially in Democratic circles — a staunch supporter of Israel, as are a number of her allies on the platform drafting committee. But even as Republicans face a much bigger fight over party unity than Democrats do, the RJC and others in the GOP see the potential Democratic platform fight over Israel language as an opportunity to highlight divisions on the other side.

The issue of Israel is a touchy one in Democratic circles: There was a public and embarrassing flare-up over Israel in the 2012 platform, when language declaring Jerusalem Israel’s capital was removed and then reinstated into the platform, engendering some boos. Some attendees maintain that those in the room were booing procedural methods, not the substance of the language, but the moment — and the larger back-and-forth over the language — sparked controversy nonetheless.

This time around, Democrats desperately want to avoid anything that detracts from Clinton’s efforts to project unity. But there are significant differences between the party establishment, starting with Clinton herself, and the more progressive grass roots, led by Sanders, with regard to posture toward Israel, leaving open the possibility for conflict on the issue.

Sanders and some of his supporters, including those on the platform committee, are eager for what many refer to as a more “even-handed” approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even as Sanders has also said he believes in Israel’s security.

The RJC is hoping to force those Democratic disagreements into the open.

“As we’ve seen over the last couple months, the Democratic Party is getting nervous about the amount of real estate these voices are taking up,” said Mark McNulty, a spokesman for the RJC, of the Sanders picks. He went on to add, “From 2012 on, and sometimes before that, we have seen divisions within the Democratic Party when it comes to Israel and pertinent Jewish issues. This is just another time for us to make the case to Jewish voters that their interests are better served by Republicans.”

Those disagreements within the Democratic Party were highlighted last week, when, during a DNC platform hearing in Washington, West and Zogby clashed with former Rep. Robert Wexler, a Clinton supporter (though not on the committee this year), over whether the word “occupation” should be used to describe Israel’s control of Palestinian territories, a word that makes staunch Israel supporters cringe, but that more progressive voices — as well as the State Department — consider an accurate description.

At the meeting, Wexler said that it isn’t the party’s place to call Israel an occupier, while West and Zogby maintained it is essential for Democrats to use the term.

That debate underscored the sharp disagreements in the party on the issue, tensions Democrats acknowledge.

Asked whether the issue of Middle East peace could be a key flash point, Dwight Bullard, the Democratic chairman of heavily Jewish Miami-Dade County replied, “Politically speaking this could be it. I think there’s enough red meat out there of issues that [it] could be contentious.”

Added Dennis Ross, a veteran of Middle Eastern policy who served as a special adviser to Clinton at the State Department, “I think there are some divisions within the Democratic Party on the issue. Clearly I think the more mainstream, centrist part of the party tends to believe support for Israel is the kind of standard of principle by which it wants to be identified. Looking at what might be described as the more Sanders wing, [they] are ready to raise questions about that.”

The committee is set to continue hammering out language at a draft committee meeting this weekend in St. Louis. Clinton has six allies on the committee, to Sanders’ five, along with four other members selected by the DNC.

“We’re still in the process of creating the platform,” said Dana Vickers Shelley, a spokeswoman for the DNC platform committee. “I’m comfortable that the party’s words and actions will be consistent in support of Israel’s security and safety.”

Ross and other Clinton allies downplayed the notion that that debate will unfold via the platform committee at the convention, noting that Sanders has spent much more time prioritizing economic issues than he has the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“Sen. Sanders and the vast majority of his delegates, his strongest supporters, are rightfully most concerned about economic justice, about income inequality, and the many economic issues, domestic issues that Sen. Sanders based his presidential campaign on,” Wexler said. “Foreign policy was not Sen. Sanders’ focus. And while he did make a statement or two regarding Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it’s not the focus of his campaign, nor do I think it will be the focus of the convention.”

Matt Duss, a Middle East expert who testified last week at the behest of the Sanders campaign, said the Clinton camp’s more centrist approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would likely prevail at the convention — but that won’t paper over the significant areas of disagreement that remain on the issue.

“I’m happy to have been asked by the Sanders campaign to share my views, but at the end of the day, Clinton is the nominee, so her choices are probably going to carry the day,” Duss said. “But I just hope there’s an understanding that this is a debate that’s not going to go away.”

Source: www.politico.com