Sanders has emerged as a legitimate contender using a message that concentrates almost exclusively on domestic issues. He openly claims the label of socialism, and speaks passionately on conventional progressive issues--unions, income inequality, college affordability, poverty, climate change, etc. But Sanders has stayed largely silent on the subject of foreign policy. And in some ways this is surprising. His primary opponent, Hillary Clinton, is very hawkish on foreign policy issues. She voted for the Iraq War in 2003 as a Senator, and as Secretary of State, she was a strong advocate of intervention in Libya in 2011 (which remains a disaster) and in Syria starting in 2012 (which also remains a disaster). This is just to name a few of highlights. Given that hardcore progressives tend to oppose armed conflict and he has a far more peaceful recordy comparison, one would imagine that this could be a real edge for him. And yet, it hasn't been a big focus.
The reason for this silence may be that his views aren't quite what his base is looking for. This question is now in the news after Bernie's campaign kicked out a group of activists from a major campaign rally in Boston. The activists, who were with the group Boston Students for Justice in Palestine, brought a sign that read "Will ya #FeelTheBern for Palestine?" and said afterwards that they genuinely wanted to know more about Bernie's stance on the Israel-Palestine issue. Unfortunately, they didn't get to ask. In fact, they were threatened with being arrested if they didn't leave. Murtaza Hussain has an excellent write-up on this story over at The Intercept:
We won't attempt to dissect the Israel-Palestine issue in this post, but it suffices to say that Bernie's stance is very much in line with the mainstream US position. And as such, it consists largely of platitudes and sound bytes that sound nice. So Bernie has supported a two-state solution for a long time, says that Israel has a right to self-defense, and thinks Israel "overreacted" in the most recent war on Gaza in 2014. These all sound like reasonable positions, but they convey little in the way of policy. After all, Israel itself has also ostensibly supported a two-state solution since the passage of the Oslo Accords in 1993, but it hasn't happened yet. And what exactly does overreacted mean? Does it mean Israel used excessive force and violated international law? It may imply this, but you still won't hear Sanders or anyone in the Obama Administration pushing for a war crimes investigation any time soon.
In reality, these positions are the same defense of the status quo that's offered by every other major US politician. And that's why you're not likely to hear Bernie talk about this issue. The status quo on Israel-Palestine isn't good enough for his supporters and he knows it.
*I should note that Bernie's campaign has since called the activists to apologize for how they were treated. They blamed the campaign staffer involved for being "over-eager." But is that really credible? A random staffer just decided on a whim to kick out a group of enthusiastic activists with a polite sign? No, it seems more likely that she was instructed to keep these ideas out, and now that it became a news story, the campaign is trying to distance itself from its mistake. Here's a quick story on the apology from the campaign so you can decide for yourself.