Haaretz headline: Why Hillary Clinton is moving left on every issue except Israel

[Divernan]

Cross-posting this from the Israel/Palestine group because it is about HRC's fundraising attempts for the primary. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134108564#post1
Peter Beinart: Why Hillary Clinton is moving left on every issue except Israel
Source: Haaretz
(Subheadline)
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 Clinton’s campaign strategy is clear: Move to Barack Obama’s left, to energize liberal voters. Except on Israel, where she’s moving to Barack Obama’s 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 it’s 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. He’s a guy who writes large checks. These days, if Joseph Ber Soleveitchik or Abraham Joshua Heschel wanted to correspond with a presidential candidate, they’d first be asked to donate to his Super PAC.

And Saban isn’t just any mega-donor. He’s 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 Obama’s views on Iran in 2008 that he considered backing John McCain. [b]Saban’s preferred approach: “I would bomb the daylight out of these sons of bitches.” Not surprisingly, one Saban advisor told Bruck, “I don’t think Haim feels particularly positive about Bibi’s performance. But he certainly isn’t happy about Obama’s.”

Read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.665148

Note: Premium article, I hope you know what to do.

[Divernan]

1. HRC boasts:as SoS I made sure US blocked Palestinian attempts at statehood.

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 Israe
l
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 Hillary’s letter in light of its recipient, a few things become clear. First, don’t 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 who’d 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 Hillary’s letter. Yes, she reaffirms her support for two states. But only because “Israel’s 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 Israel’s Jewish majority but has so little regard for Palestinians that at an event last November, he endorsed Sheldon Adelson’s contention that they are an “invented people.”


Second, Hillary isn’t serious about combatting BDS. In her letter, she asks Saban’s “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 it’s 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 Israel’s 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 she’d 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. “We’ve 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 Israel’s 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.

[Scuba]

2. Warhawks hate peaceful solutions.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. I dunno, there might be a simpler explanation.

Which is that Bernie is also pro-Israel, so there really isn't a lot of pressure on her to pretend to move left. He's the only real threat to her from the left, so while she might try to pretend to be more to the left on other issues, she simply doesn't feel the need to talk left on Israel.