The quadrennial process of US party platform writing is more of a political exercise than a policy deliberation. When party leaders sit down to debate what will or will not go into their platform, their eyes are less focused on what will constitute sound policy. Instead they consider the politics involved in the positions they want in the document: will they cause concern with important constituencies; will they result in negative press; and will they provoke donors?
Given this, I feel good about what we accomplished with this year’s Democratic Party’s platform. I say this not only as a proud member of the five- person team Bernie Sanders picked to serve on the Platform Drafting Committee, but also as the first Arab American to have served in that capacity.
Much has been written about the planks we lost or how the platform didn’t go far enough, but what shouldn’t be dismissed is that the Democratic Party is now on record embracing some of our positions and adopting some of our goals. All this is a clear recognition of the power of the progressive movement that was galvanised by the Sanders campaign and the role that Arab Americans played in that effort.
What didn’t receive coverage, but should also be noted, are the many “little victories” we won during the platform deliberations.
For example, we were able to add language condemning the rise of “Islamophobia”. And we were able to insure the absence of any terms disparaging of Islam. We also included the protection of civil liberties as a priority concern and expanded on the definition of “racial profiling” to include “religion, ethnicity, or national origin” thereby making the called for ban on “un-American and unproductive” profiling, the most comprehensive ever.
The platform also proposes a way forward to defeat ISIL and Al Qaeda and end the wars in Syria and Iraq without seeing American forces mired in prolonged conflict in the Middle East. The document recognises that there must be “more inclusive governance in Iraq and Syria that respects the rights of all citizens”. And calls for “providing more support and security assistance for Lebanon and Jordan, two countries that are hosting a disproportionate number of refugees; and recognises the importance of “maintaining our robust security cooperation with Gulf countries”.
On the matter of refugees, the platform explicitly supports “President Obama’s call for an international summit to address this crisis so that every country assumes its responsibility to meet this humanitarian challenge” and pledges to “look for ways to help innocent people who are fleeing persecution”.
There was, to be sure, great disappointment in our failure to change the language on Israel/Palestine. We wanted to have the platform clearly state that the occupation and construction of settlements must end, that the suffering of Palestinians must be acknowledged, and that excessive language on the movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel (BDS) and Jerusalem should be removed.
We argued that it was commendable to call for two states, but the refusal to note that the major impediments to the realisation of that goal are the occupation and settlements calls into question the commitment to achieving a two state solution.
We also argued that our reading of the proposed language on BDS denied Palestinians the right to peacefully protest occupation and the language on Jerusalem was contradictory since, on the one hand, the platform states that “Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations” and then says that “it should remain the capital of Israel, an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths”.
Since our Sanders’ team was outnumbered, we did not win, but from our lengthy debate on these issues (a small victory, in itself), several observations can be made. This is the first platform in history to speak of the recognition of Palestinians as having rights not merely, as Peter Beinart has noted, “as a matter of Israeli self-interest”. The platform calls for providing “Palestinians with independence, sovereignty, and dignity”. And, in another place, says that “Palestinians should be free to govern themselves in their own viable state, in peace and dignity”. On this subject, earlier platforms were confused, at best, insulting, at worst.
Finally, on the issues of BDS and Jerusalem, the Clinton campaign sought to explain their language by noting that they “were very careful not to say outright that we oppose BDS”, but rather to oppose it only if it delegitimised Israel. And one Clinton supporter offered a caveat regarding Jerusalem, noting that nothing in their formulation would preclude Jerusalem from also being the capital of a future Palestinian state.
As a reflection of the state of play of US politics, we should see this platform not a defeat but an acknowledgement that there has been a change. Change we made possible.
Dr James Zogby is the president of the Arab American Institute
On Twitter: @aaiusa
