Israeli apartheid, American Muslims, and the 2016 Democratic primary

Over the last nine months, a number of my Muslim brothers and sisters have asked me why I’m supporting Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. Typically, I’ll explain why I’m convinced he’s not only a much better candidate than Hillary Clinton, but that I think she is actually a bad choice for a general election candidate — especially against Trump. (We’ll come back to that.) Anywhere between a quarter to half of the time, the response I’m met with is: “Yeah, but… Palestine.”

I have explained my position on this in bits and pieces in a number of places, but I’d like to briefly explain its most key elements all in once place. Needless to say, it’s a discussion not suited to 140 characters. There are a lot of elements at play, but I’ll boil it down to this:

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Bernie and Hillary are both equally bad on the issue of Israel/Palestine. Now, for reasons I’ve outlined elsewhere, I don’t believe that’s true even for a second, but again, let’s say for the sake of argument that’s the case. That leaves us with two choices:

A candidate who backs single-payer universal healthcare, tuition-free public colleges and universities, three months paid family and medical leave, quality, affordable childcare services, the expansion of Social Security, slashing pharmaceutical prices, reinstating Glass-Steagall and breaking up the banks that tanked the global economy, substantial reforms of a broken and racist criminal justice system including demilitarization of police forces and an end to Clintonian “tough on crime” legislation, strong environmental protections and a move to clean energy, correcting the massive upwards redistribution of wealth, an end to so-called “free trade” agreements that have destroyed this country and created a race to the bottom outside of it, is more often than not anti-war, supports creating a massive federal jobs program, backs a $15/hour federal minimum wage, and wants to overturn Citizens United and get big money and lobbying (which would presumably include AIPAC, by the way) out of our government. And that’s not even his whole platform.
A candidate who will not push for single-payer universal healthcare, who will not seek to reinstate Glass-Steagall or break up the big banks, who helped usher in “tough on crime” legislation and racist mandatory minimum sentencing (not to mention a massive expansion of policing), who helped rally votes for destructive free trade agreements, who will not back a $15/hour federal minimum wage, who believes that higher education is a commodity and not a public good, and who is inextricably connected to Wall St., the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, and a number of other lobbies. In other words, a candidate who is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the wealthy (and who is part 1% herself). Did I mention that candidate is also a hawk who wants to continue a foreign policy of regime changes?

Now, I don’t think anyone who cares about Palestine is backing Hillary Clinton to begin with. I’m merely laying out these differences to illustrate that the current primary race is highly unusual.

This brings me to my main point: if we assume that each candidate is equally bad on Palestine and you aren’t prepared to support Bernie Sanders in the primary in spite of his other positives, you are effectively doing the following, and then some:

Saying to the tens of millions of people who have no healthcare, as well as the many more who are under-insured, “I know it would be nice if you had access to quality medical care without needing to file for bankruptcy, but sorry: Palestine.”
Saying to the 22% of children living in the US who live below the federal poverty level, “I know this candidate would fight to improve your quality of life and enable your families to climb out of poverty, but sorry: Palestine.”
Saying to the millions of unemployed and underemployed, who struggle to make ends meet on a federal minimum wage that is in reality a starvation wage, “Bet you’d like to feed your family, but sorry: Palestine.”
Saying to every student who can’t afford a higher education without ending up in debt for the rest of their lives, “I know how much you’d like to be the first in your family to go to college, but sorry: Palestine.”
Saying to the massive portion of the US prison population who were put away for non-violent, low-level offenses (often because they happen to be the wrong color), “Yeah, I know there’s this candidate working to get you home to your families, but sorry: Palestine.”
Saying to an entire generation that will see its quality of living continue to slide because of an assault on the environment that has become nearly irreversible: “Sure, I know you’d the US to take the lead and stop killing our only planet, but sorry: Palestine.”
Saying to black and brown people around the US, “Listen, I know you’d like substantive police reform that might keep you or your kids from getting gunned down in the street, but sorry: Palestine.”
Saying to millions of elderly trying to get by on $11,000 or $12,000/year Social Security, “We know you have to decide between paying for your medication or paying for heat in the winter, we know you’re cutting your pills in half to make your prescriptions last a little longer, but sorry: Palestine.”
Saying to the millions of dead civilians — not to mention working-class kids in our military — killed in our next war (because let’s be real, with Clinton or Trump or Cruz there will be a next war), “I sure bet you’d like to still be alive with your families right now, but sorry: Palestine.”

Maybe you are prepared to go to each of these individuals — today or on Judgment Day — and do that: to say, “Sorry, but: Palestine.” I am not. That, to me, amounts to a dereliction of moral duty and a betrayal of our religion in both law and spirit. You may feel differently, and that’s fine. I won’t have to justify your actions to God, and you won’t have to justify mine. If you happen to disagree with me, I hope you can at least respect the line of reasoning I have provided and the motives beneath it.

In the end, though, the fight against apartheid in Palestine will continue regardless of which candidate is in office. The question right now is: what about everyone and everything else? To be clear, in the US, the richest country in the history of the world, people are dying from poverty. They are dying from lack of healthcare. They are dying from pollution and the consequences of environmental racism. They are dying from being unable to afford basic, lifesaving medications. They are dying from systemic racism. If you’re willing to effectively throw all of them under the bus in a symbolic act or principled gesture that will have zero influence on actual Palestine-related policy matters, then I guess that’s your choice. But don’t think you won’t be questioned about it by God.

Now, let’s say Bernie loses the primary. If the GOP runs anyone other than Trump,then it’s still in the realm of possibility for Hillary to pull out a win. We will never accomplish any of the other goals that Bernie has set, or even come close, but we might keep the status quo. If, on the other hand, Trump wins the GOP nomination, I have very little doubt that Hillary will lose the general election, and that she may even lose badly. As Nathan Robinson recently wrote,

One’s support for Sanders should increase in direct proportion to one’s fear of Trump. And if Trump is the nominee, Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race and throw her every ounce of energy into supporting Sanders. If this does not occur, the resulting consequences for Muslims and Mexican immigrants of a Trump presidency will be fully the responsibility of Clinton and the Democratic Party. To run a candidate who can’t win, or who is a very high-risk proposition, is to recklessly play with the lives of millions of people.

I don’t know about you, but a Clinton-Trump race is not a gamble I’m willing to take, both for the good of the Muslim community, as well as humanity in general. (For the reasons argued in the aforementioned article — see the link above the quote — I believe Bernie is probably our best and only chance to stop Trump.)

A couple of final thoughts:

First, one candidate in this primary is about movement-building: specifically, about constructing a broad coalition of progressive forces to continue functioning well after the general election, and to bring pressure to bear on the government to start representing the interests of working-class Americans. It is precisely that kind of movement — especially since it is already made up of enthusiastic youth — that will allow the space and provide the momentum necessary to take the anti-apartheid movement into prime time and flourish. I don’t think I need to tell you which candidate. The point is, tactical considerations matter. In a critique of leftist puritanism on Bernie, William Kaufman writes,

Blind to these tactical exigencies, Sanders’s far-left detractors merely reinforce the political isolation that they seem to brandish as a badge of virtue; in reality it is a symptom of political debility, a fatal estrangement from the tactical challenges and possibilities of the moment.

It’s worth noting that the anti-apartheid movement has a choice to collectively make that same mistake — or not.

Second, as I mentioned at the outset and as I’ve written about elsewhere, I believe Bernie will be better on the issue of Palestine than Hillary. In this, I share Norman Finkelstein’s view: he used to speak out a lot more on the issue, and because of political pressures at this point, he 1) can’t, and 2) is already preoccupied at this point with domestic concerns (Palestine is not the only thing he doesn’t talk much about anymore when it comes to international issues). Compared to where Hillary stands on Palestine, this is still loads better. Moreover, Bernie is not immovable, and out of all the major candidates running at this point, a Sanders administration is the only one that could actually create room to improve US foreign policy when it comes to addressing apartheid in Palestine. But as I said, let’s not get hung up on comparing the candidates. Just assume they’re both equally bad: one of them is building a movement to help millions of vulnerable people in profound ways. How willing are we to ignore that?