Bernie Sanders is simply better for America, for Israel and the world

NEW YORK (JTA)—On April 19, in the New York Democratic primary, I voted for Bernie Sanders. I’ve got three good reasons for doing so. Sanders is incomparably better on fighting for social equality. He’s more pro-Israel than Clinton. And he’s more electable.

Since the late 1960s, the distances among the rich, middle class and poor have grown wider. The power of the small economic elite has also surged. And the growing gap has concentrated alarming levels of political influence and social isolation in the hands of the very few.

Senator Sanders has made closing these gaps—between rich and poor, powerful and powerless, mainstream and marginal—the centerpiece of his campaign. I have no doubt the election of a President Sanders will give impetus to efforts to return tax rates on the rich to where they were during the prolonged economic boom between World War II and the 1970s. He’ll take important steps to expand the social safety net, to rein in major corporations, to restore workers’ rights and to improve the health of all Americans—not just those like me who have access to the finest medical care that education, access, insurance and money can and do provide. Hillary Clinton is fine on these issues, but Bernie Sanders is much better, and his election as president in and of itself will send a powerful message.

I said that Sanders is more pro-Israel than Clinton. Not more pro-Likud, or pro-Bibi, or pro-settlements, or pro-occupation—but pro-Israel. I’ve been a Zionist since my undergraduate days when we fought the anti-Israel left. I made aliyah in 1992, and my wife and I maintain an apartment in Jerusalem, where we live a good part of the year. My parents are buried in Har Menuchot, my daughter and her husband live in Tel Aviv.

The current policies of my democratically elected government are not good for Israel. They’re dangerous to Israel’s security and corrupting to its morality—and Israel’s security and morality go hand in hand.

It’s no wonder that the vast majority of Israel’s processional security establishment—former leaders of the Shin Bet, heads of military intelligence and army generals—have publicly taken issue with the major policy directions and inclinations of the people who’ve been heading the only Jewish state we have and treasure. Now they and I are in the minority in Israel. But the 61-59 split in the Knesset at least indirectly testifies to the deep fissures in the Israeli body politic, and to the major part of the minority that deeply differs with the current leadership.

Over the past eight years, President Obama has crafted a supremely pro-Israel policy. It has married expansion of security cooperation and military assistance to the highest levels in history, with enormous (and eventually unsuccessful) investment in bridging Israeli-Palestinian differences along with pressure on the Israeli government to restrain settlement expansion (which actually had some effect). I call that “pro-Israel.”

Clinton as secretary of state was a key player in many of these policies. But as a candidate Clinton, who normally projects herself as building upon the Obama foundation, has signaled she’ll be far less inclined to challenge the Israeli government or make an assertive push for a resolution of the conflict. Sanders seems far better positioned to do both. That’s why I call the senator more pro-Israel than Hillary.

In the vast majority of polls, Sanders does better than Clinton against each of the Republican candidates. Now if Gov. John Kasich is nominated, Clinton stands a good chance of losing. Then there’s the matter of the FBI investigators looking into the Clinton email mess and the possibility of a criminal indictment somewhere between the Democratic National Convention and Election Day. Is that a risk, however slim, that Democrats want to take?

In sum, not only is a Sanders nomination a safer bet for the Democrats, Sanders is simply better for America, for Israel and the world. While Clinton would make history as the first woman president, which is no small thing, Sanders would make America more inclusive—for the poor, working class and struggling middle class. While Clinton may well harm Israel’s security by giving the current government free rein, Sanders is far more likely to pursue the only objective that ensures a Jewish democratic State of Israel—a two-state solution, with a Palestinian state living in peace alongside a secure Jewish state.

Steven M. Cohen is research professor of Jewish social policy at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.