Aruna Miller's Curious Blindspot on Palestinian Rights

As we approach the primary election day for Congressional District 6, I have been closely tracking the Democratic candidates' statements on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Some people think that this shouldn't be an important factor in deciding who to vote for. But on almost all other issues, the Democratic candidates are virtually indistinguishable. So, on Israel/Palestine -- where there is wide divergence amongst the candidates -- people should pay close attention.

In the past I have discussed David Trone's anti-Palestinian extremism. Today I want to focus on Delegate Aruna Miller. She has a limited track record on Israel/Palestine. But even though her rhetoric is much less incendiary than David Trone's, what few statements she has made are also very troubling. Delegate Miller's affability and genial tone should not cause us to overlook her problematic positions on this important foreign policy issue.

Moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem:
Recently Donald Trump moved the US Embassy from Tel-Aviv to West Jerusalem. In doing so, he alarmed many national security experts, world leaders and prominent Democrats like Bernie Sanders.

When asked by Our Revolution if she supported Trump's embassy move, Delegate Miller said she did. She gave this explanation:

The United States has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel since the mid-1990s and as a sovereign country, Israel has every right to determine where it wants it capital and to have that choice respected. I believe that as with most things, President Trump made his announcement without thought to consequences or perceptions and that we should have gone about the process in a less reckless manner. I also believe we must reach a two state solution where both Palestine and Israel can co-exist, thrive, and choose their own capitals, and this announcement does put those discussions on shakier ground. 

Unfortunately however, Delegate Miller has her facts wrong and totally misses the point.

The United States did not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in the 1990s. Congress did. But Congress doesn't represent America in foreign affairs. Only the President does. Before Donald Trump, all presidents were withholding this recognition from Israel as a bargaining chip to get them to free the Palestinians. Trump gave up that bargaining chip for nothing in return. Aruna Miller supports that. Now there is one less incentive for Israel to free Palestinians. It was a bad move.

Boycotting Israel and the Negotiating an End to the Conflict:

On May 22, Aruna attended a forum where she was asked about the Israel/Palestinian conflict and the validity of boycotting Israel due to their treatment of Palestinians. Watch for yourself what she had to say:

(Video Credit: Harry Appleman)

Aruna seems to be following the standard Democratic Party Establishment playbook from 15 years ago: Toe the AIPAC line by mouthing empty platitudes about peace and the Two State Solution while actually opposing and deflecting any real pressure or criticism of Israel that would make that solution more likely. Lets take a look at her arguments one by one:

1. Boycotts of Israel are discriminatory and intended to delegitimize Israel. Israel's own conduct like murdering a young female medic delegitimizes itself. Boycotts of Israel are a response to the cruel and racist occupation. They are no more discriminatory than the boycott of South Africa, or the current boycott of Iran or the 1980 boycott of the Russian Olympics. In recent weeks celebrities like Lorde, Natalie Portman and Lionel Messi have boycotted Israel. This movement is growing because of widespread revulsion to Israel's conduct and it's tight relationship with the thuggish and racist Trump administration (whose decision Aruna Miller supports).
2. The conflict should be resolved by negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians only.  This is actually a very well known euphemism for arguing against pressuring Israel to give up land for peace like Obama and Kerry did. Netanyahu and his supporters chafed at such pressure and demanded that the conflict be regarded only as a bilateral issue instead of one where other countries get involved. Of course doing so is a recipe for perpetuating Israel's occupation of Palestine since the Palestinians are the weaker party and have no leverage in such negotiations. In fact, there are no negotiations!
3. Arabs in Israel are doing great and are well integrated into Israeli society. This is yet another smokescreen. Arabs who live in Israel proper (actually referred to as "Palestinian Citizens of Israel") are not the main issue. The main issue are the 4 million Palestinians living in the occupied territories of West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem who are stateless and live without basic human rights under Apartheid-like conditions. Those people are not doing great at all.
4. Israelis and Palestinians are working together. Anyone who has been following the news knows this obviously isn't the case. Over the past few weeks Israeli snipers have killed more than 100 Gazan civilians. Aruna's statement just seems out of touch and insensitive. 

Aruna is clearly being coached by supporters of Israel. She probably thinks that taking Israel's side will help her win the election. But she may not realize that attitudes in the Democratic party have shifted momentously towards the Palestinians. Being Republican-lite no longer cuts it with the activist base of the Democratic party. Take a look at these polls by Pew Research below. These results were measured more than two years ago, before the move of the embassy and before the recent mayhem in Gaza. So it is reasonable to assume that Democrats' sentiments have shifted even further in favor of the Palestinians since.

Voters who want a Congressperson who will stand up for Palestinian rights should be very leery of Aruna Miller. And they should let her know of their concerns by tweeting her.