Last week, I submitted testimony on the Palestine-Israel issue to the Democratic Party’s Platform Committee, which is responsible for issuing statements during the party’s convention on where it stands on key issues of the day.
This year’s convention will be my 11th and the ninth time I have been engaged in discussions regarding the platform, either as a member of the drafting committee, negotiating language with the campaigns, or simply presenting testimony, as I am doing this year.
During these many interventions, some changes have been made, but all too few on how the platforms address the issue of Palestinian rights. Friends often ask why this is an issue that needs to be raised year after year.
There are broadly two reasons.
In the first place, it is because Palestinian rights continue to be ignored. Despite the language in the last platform regarding the equal worth of Israeli and Palestinian lives, the Democratic Party appears to be demonstrating that it does not see them as equal at all – and so their suffering continues.
Second, it is because this is an issue that can help Democrats actually win this year’s presidential election. And unless the party changes direction in the way it deals with Palestinian rights, it risks losing a sufficient enough number of its voters that this could cost it victory in November.
It is important to consider today’s fraught political environment. The magnitude of the suffering Israel has inflicted on Gaza is horrifying: almost 40,000 dead, according to local health authorities, 70 per cent of buildings demolished, infrastructure and medical facilities gone, famine looming, and an entire generation of children traumatised.
It is quite evident that today, there is mass intersectional mobilisation of what are largely Democratic voters who are deeply opposed to US President Joe Biden’s policies on this issue – this includes a substantial number of Arab Americans and a consequential number of young people, as well as progressive Jewish, black, Asian and Latino voters.
Most Americans, and actually most Democrats, never read the platform. However, this year the constituent groups noted above will be watching what language the party puts forward in the platform. In this context, it is vitally important to consider their concerns and the consequences of failing to do so.
With this as a backdrop and knowing the process as I do, I offered a few recommendations for language changes as guidance for the platform drafters.
There is little doubt that the platform will speak about the party’s ironclad commitment to Israel’s security and will be passionate in its condemnation of Hamas. But the Democrats will fail if they do not passionately acknowledge the immense suffering experienced by Palestinians and the party’s role in fostering Israel’s sense of impunity as they continue to grind up Palestinian hopes and lives and property.
It is important to recognise the urgency of the moment and the rawness of the feelings of those deeply pained by this tragedy. Therefore, one should avoid language that seeks to placate without substance – in other words, party members shouldn’t say things they don’t mean, as they did in 2020 when they included the quotes in the platform, such as “Democrats recognise the worth of every Israeli and Palestinian”, or “We support a negotiated two-state solution”, or “We oppose any unilateral steps by either side”, which includes annexation and settlement expansion.
The same platform that said these things went on to support Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel (when it has been annexed and is a unilateral action; is home to more than 200,000 settlers; and is the site in which there continues to be confiscation and demolition, and blocks the creation of a viable Palestinian state).
If the party opposes something, it’s important that it means it. And if it states that something mustn’t be done, there should be consequences when it happens. When red lines are crossed, settlements get built, hospitals get bombed, humanitarian aid is blocked, and the party’s response is nil, it looks weak and insincere.
And if Democrats say they want aid to reach Palestinians but then block aid to UNRWA – the only entity that can efficiently administer, protect and deliver the aid – then the party has failed.
With all this in mind, some suggestions have been made.
It is important to be firm in calling for an immediate permanent ceasefire, but add real consequences if either side violates its terms. The party should demand the unimpeded delivery of aid to Gaza, and demand an end to settlement expansion, and an immediate end to settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, with consequences if they continue. If the party is going to condemn Palestinian incitement and terror, it must also condemn Israeli incitement and terror – whether perpetrated by individuals or the state.
I first engaged in these platform discussions 40 years ago. At that time, I was warned that the “P” word (meaning Palestinians) couldn’t be in the platform. During the next three decades, I tried to get opposition to settlements in the platform. Well, the “P” word made it a decade later, and the 2020 platform for the first time mentioned the party’s opposition to settlements.
So here’s my challenge for this year’s platform: call for an end to the occupation; for the adoption of former US president Bill Clinton’s language about “the right of the Palestinian people to live free and independent on their own land”; and make clear that there will be consequences for Israel’s continued violations of Palestinian human rights and international law and conventions.
The ball is now in the Democratic Party’s court.
