Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumPeter Beinart: Why Hillary Clinton is moving left on every issue except Israel
Source: Haaretz
In a letter to hawkish donor Haim Saban, she hints she may oppose a two-state resolution at the UN.
From immigration to campaign finance reform to criminal justice, Hillary Clintons campaign strategy is clear: Move to Barack Obamas left, to energize liberal voters. Except on Israel, where shes moving to Barack Obamas right, to energize hawkish donors.
The latest example is a just-released letter about her opposition to the movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel (BDS). Among the most significant things about the letter is one of the people to whom its addressed: Haim Saban. (Hillary sent similar letters to at least two other Jewish organizational officials, Malcolm Hoenlein and Jack Rosen). Saban is neither an expert on the Middle East nor on Jewish law or culture. Hes a guy who writes large checks. These days, if Joseph Ber Soleveitchik or Abraham Joshua Heschel wanted to correspond with a presidential candidate, theyd first be asked to donate to his Super PAC.
And Saban isnt just any mega-donor. Hes a mega-donor who thinks Barack Obama has been bad for Israel. As Connie Bruck reported a few years ago in The New Yorker, Saban was so suspicious of Obamas views on Iran in 2008 that he considered backing John McCain. Sabans preferred approach: I would bomb the daylight out of these sons of bitches. Not surprisingly, one Saban advisor told Bruck, I dont think Haim feels particularly positive about Bibis performance. But he certainly isnt happy about Obamas.
Read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.665148
Note: Premium article, I hope you know what to do.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)More from linked Haaretz article (behind the paywall). Note, that even without getting past the paywall, the link in the OP gives you access to reading the comments in Haaretz - many of which are scathingly critical of HRC.
Headline: Why Hillary Clinton is moving left on every issue except Israel
Subheadline: In a letter to hawkish donor Haim Saban, she hints she may oppose a two-state resolution at the UN.
By Peter Beinart | Jul. 9, 2015 | 4:29 PM | 27
Photo Caption: Hillary Clinton and Benjamin Netanyahu
Then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton laughs as she meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, September 27, 2012. Photo by Reuters
Reading Hillarys letter in light of its recipient, a few things become clear. First, dont expect her to express much concern for Palestinians. In his campaign book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama emphasized the common humanity of Palestinians and Israeli Jews. Traveling through Israel and the West Bank, he wrote. I talked to Jews whod lost parents in the Holocaust and brothers in suicide bombings; I heard Palestinians talk of the indignities of checkpoints and reminisce about the land they had lost. I flew by helicopter across the line separating the two peoples and found myself unable to distinguish Jewish towns from Arab towns, all of them like fragile outposts against the green and stony hills.
Compare that to Hillarys letter. Yes, she reaffirms her support for two states. But only because Israels long-term security and future as a Jewish state depends on having two states for two peoples. Not because Palestinians have legitimate grievances or aspirations. And Hillary reaffirms that support in a letter to Saban, a man who, like her, supports Palestinian statehood because it preserves Israels Jewish majority but has so little regard for Palestinians that at an event last November, he endorsed Sheldon Adelsons contention that they are an invented people.
Second, Hillary isnt serious about combatting BDS. In her letter, she asks Sabans advice on how we can work together across party lines and with a diverse array of voices to oppose BDS(boycott, divest, sanction). But Saban has already publicly offered that advice, and its disastrous. Last month, he co-sponsored an anti-BDS Summit with Adelson whose diverse array of voices ranged from establishment Jewish groups that defend Israeli policy in the West Bank to right-wing Jewish groups that muse about whether Barack Obama is Muslim.
Left out were those American Jewish organizations, like J Street and Americans for Peace Now, which think Israels undemocratic control of millions of stateless Palestinians constitutes a moral problem. Left out, in other words, were the only American Jewish groups that enjoy any credibility among the progressives to whom the BDS movement appeals. If Hillary really wanted to combat BDS as opposed to raising money by pretending to combat it Saban is among the last people whose advice shed seek.
Thirdly, and most intriguingly, Hillary is signaling that she may oppose Obama if he backs a two-state resolution at the UN this fall. In her letter, she goes out of her way to equate the BDS movement with Palestinian initiatives at the UN. Weve seen this sort of attack before at the UN and elsewhere, writes Hillary. As senator and secretary of state, I saw how crucial it is for America to defend Israel at every turn. I have opposed dozens of anti-Israel resolutions at the UN ... And I made sure the United States blocked Palestinian attempts at the UN to unilaterally declare statehood. "Made sure". The implication is that left to their own devices, others in the Obama administration might not have come to Israels aid. It all adds up to a hint that if the White House backs a two-state resolution at the Security Council this fall, the woman who says America must defend Israel at every turn at the UN will make her opposition known.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Obama is the high water mark as far as that's concerned in the US.
Clinton, or the Republican, or Bernie, would have the same I/P policy as Bush: lip service on two states, indifference and disengagement on the so-called peace process, no meaningful pressure on Israel, and continued reflexive support of Israel at the UN.
50/50 on the US recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
The US hasn't had a productive role to play in that dispute since 1995, and quite frankly is not likely to have a productive role ever again.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)here is a snip from his interview with Diane Rehm, unfortunately the content got lost in the up roar over her outragous antisemitic contention that Sanders was an Israeli citizen, howevr Sanders sayingg that the Palestinians should have economic support from the US is a surprise as it is less than popular these days on Capital hill
SANDERS: Absolutely. What you have in that part of the world is an unspeakable tragedy. And it seems like its never-ending and it seems like it every year gets worse and worse and more killing and more bombings and everything else. And again, Diane, if I had the magical solution to that problem I would be in the presidents office today giving it. I dont have it. But clearly the goals are two-fold: number one the Palestinian people, in my view, deserve a state of their own, they deserve an economy of their own, they deserve economic support from the people of this country. And Israel needs to be able to live in security without terrorist attacks. Those are the goals of I think any sensible foreign policy in that region.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/16/1393386/-BNR-Sanders-Im-Not-A-Great-Fan-Of-Netanyahu#
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Bernie Sanders seems to be able to fathom the moral aspects of the I/P conflict, and sympathizes with both sides. I don't want to
criticize HRC too much, but Bernie Sanders would be a good president.