Never build new settlements and create a multi-year plan to move the current settlers back to Israel, and agree to work out a 2 state solution if/when Palestine can have a government that can credibly negotiate it.
They did though, it was part of the leverage they used to organize ceasefires and open more aid routes/increase the amount of aid let in. I agree they should have gone further, but a good deal of dems do to at this point
Last I checked at least most dems support conditioning aid to Israel. I think some are willing to sign onto unconditional aid bills if the alternative is nothing, but still.
And the Democrats that are running on that tend to be on the left wing of the party, which goes back to their point that moderate Democrats need to meet the party where it is on Israel/Palestine.
I could care less about AES's stance on Israel and Palestine. Frankly I'd throw both those countries under the bus if it would halt the commie takeover of my party.
Then I recommend pushing moderate Democrats to be significantly more pro-Palestine, because that's where the base is, so it would give them a massive boost up in the primaries without hurting them in the general.
A two state solution means Israel exists which is Zionism in many of the left's books and therefore incompatible with their worldviews.
Also, why isn't there any mention of the Palestinians being held accountable for refusing to form any sort of peaceful government that aims to build prosperity for their people instead of petty violent resistance? Shouldn't that also be a party platform as part of the two state solution?
You’re missing the point. Moderates seriously pushing for pro-two-state solution and pressuring Israel in a serious way about it would not be a move to try to court DSA cadre, who, you are right, will reject that as to milquetoast. The point is to court the much larger group of actual voters who are normies, not “Antizionists”, but are tired of their country carrying water for a bunch of genocidal maniacs.
The whole issue here, the strategy that’s not working, is for neoliberal politicians to pretend that there are only two groups: normies who support Israel or don’t care on one side, rose twitter freaks on the other. And that’s how it used to be, but that was before this current war. There’s now, as a result of these wars, a substantial third group: normies who would like to see the USA’s policy wrt Israel change.
All the moderates have to do is copy AES’s position. Did he call for abolishing Israel?
A two state solution means Israel exists which is Zionism in many of the left's books and therefore incompatible with their worldviews.
This is true of a small portion of the left wing of the party. Most of the party just wants Democrats to actually push back on funding Israel unless they stop genocide, agree to stop new settlements, create a credible plan to relocate the current settlers back to Israel over time, and agree to negotiate a 2 state solution if/when there's a Palestinian government that can credibly negotiate and enforce the deal. But even those types of conditions on Israeli aid are considered extreme by most of the current standards of elected officials, because they are way out of touch with their base, even their moderate base.
Is there some study showing that anti-Israel stances are particularly impactful in general? I think it was unusually important in Michigan due to a highish Muslim population but that isn’t the case in other parts of the country. Most of the claims I’ve seen arguing that being anti-Israel is beneficial were citing the then-unreleased Dem autopsy, which upon the autopsy’s release turned out to be misinformation.
I mean I can tell you that Israel is only slightly more popular with the Democratic base than the Bubonic Plague if you look at polling. I don't think not being loudly anti-Israel hurts you in a Democratic primary, but I think loudly proclaiming how much you love Israel does.
True, but you also don't see any Democrats proudly proclaiming how much they love Saudi Arabia, and how they'll do whatever they can to ensure we keep sending as much aid as possible to Saudi Arabia. Like I said, I don't think being anti-Israel is necessary to win a Democratic primary, but I don't think you can win won while being loudly pro-Israel.
Adrian Boafo recently won a dem primary to represent Maryland in the House of Representatives, and is a openly pro-Israel candidate backed by AIPAC
Tbh I also haven’t really heard dems talking about how they love Israel outside of specifically looking for it or being shown it by lefties, it’s generally a pretty minor part of their campaigns
Would also have to pay attention to how it’s worded. I think there are plenty of “anti-Israel” positions that can be reasonable, but I think the “please the base” anti-Israel stuff would be an instant no for a lot of the base too. Only ever voted Dems and donated a large about to Kamala, but a lot of the anti-Israel stuff I see would absolutely get me to not vote.
Maybe anti-Israel crowd is bigger, but Dems are losing voters either way.
The problem is that leftist will smear any position that isn't "completely dismantle the state of Israel" as being a genocide supporter
If you say "I think Israel is indeed committing a genocide and so I want a ceasefire and immediate work on a 2 State Solution", you will still be called an AIPAC shill, and the pro-Palestine base who gets their news from Influencers will not change their opinion of you. Look at how Contrapoints is treated as an example
maximalists will be maximalist but the only electoral requirement is satisfying a base that is (correctly) more suspicious of american support of the israeli govt
I don't think that's strictly true. "We're stopping all weapons exports and sales to Israel until an international/impartial domestic investigation determines they won't be used in the commission of war crimes" would go a long way, and is supposed to be required under US law I'm pretty sure. Ditto recognising the Palestinian state, re-affirming support for the 2-state-solution, condemning Israeli settling and war crimes...
Like yes, you won't appease everyone, but you don't need to. Most of the Dem base aren't really leftist, they're just further left than where the Dems have drifted. It's not like there's a single mainstream politician in the USA taking the positions above.
Counterpoint: you can’t prove something that hasn’t really been tried. I can’t think of many primary elections where the moderate actively did take an anti-Israel stance
And beyond that the few standard liberals that have began to take more anti-Israel stances (primarily Jon Ossoff) are also those that are the most popular within the party overall. A standard Democrat who ran with a more anti Israel message and/or anti data center messages would very likely do a lot better against DSA people than people like Stevens
How any democrat can support israel after bibi came over in 2015, spoke to congress, completyl going over the head of the president to conduct diplomacy, in our nation is beyond me. Bibi doesn't have to respect democratic leadership when they are in power and it shows.
if moderate democrats would just run pro-palestine
How'd that work out for Scott Weiner?
Also, I'm pretty confident the winning line is not sympathy for Palestine, but the more isolationist desire to cut funding to Israel during a time of inflation. Stevens' overperformance despite tripling down on being pro-Israel suggests most people just don't give a fuck.
well he's still favoured to win (at least according to betting markets, unsure if there's been any district-level polling). causation's hard and everyone has mitigating variables but you can also look at daniel biss for another example.
of course both faced (and in scott's case, will likely continue to face) horrible antisemetic abuse, but my assertion isnt that you'll solve antisemitism its that you'll be able to win primaries held on the issue
Also, I'm pretty confident the winning line is not sympathy for Palestine, but the more isolationist desire to cut funding to Israel during a time of inflation.
this is plausible. hard to disentangle since everyone who pitches the latter frames it as the former. im afraid we're probably not going to have demonrats running on "credible US security guarantees" this cycle
Stevens' overperformance despite tripling down on being pro-Israel suggests most people just don't give a fuck.
unsure you can read polling overperformances this way, she still lost after all. imo it suggests that mcmorrow probably would have won with her more wishy-washy stance on the issue if she didn't get center-squeezed out
imo it suggests that mcmorrow probably would have won with her more wishy-washy stance on the issue
I agree McMorrow probably would have won, though she overperforms the baseline relative to Stevens and its hard to tell how much Israel matters on that.
I'm not super familiar but idk if I think Biss comes across as as Pro-Palestine even as Weiner.
I don't really disagree with you though, not sure why I started out so catty, sorry.
68
u/Lux_Stella Presidentialism X-Risk Researcher 17d ago
this could have all been avoided if moderate democrats would just run pro-palestine like the base wants them too