Why Hillary Clinton's hawkish pro-Israel stance won't hurt her, even with the Democratic Party base

[wyldwolf]

Hillary, Elizabeth Warren, and Israel

Why Hillary Clinton's hawkish pro-Israel stance won't hurt her, even with the Democratic Party base

JEFFREY GOLDBERG

Shortly after I posted my interview with Hillary Clinton last month, I began hearing from liberal Democrats who were worried that her hawkish comments—on Syria, but especially on the Gaza war—would somehow provoke a primary challenge from her left (these conversations proceeded from the assumption that Clinton is running for president, which is a reasonable assumption). The Democratic Party base, the theory went, would be so offended by Clinton’s vociferous pro-Netanyahu positioning that it would agitate on behalf of a primary challenge. Elizabeth Warren, the populist Massachusetts senator, was the most likely candidate for the role.

I’m now glad to report—only because I’d rather be right than wrong, all things being equal—that Elizabeth Warren has confirmed for us that, on questions related to Israel, Clinton has nothing to fear from her, at least.

At a town-hall meeting on Cape Cod last month, Warren answered critics of her vote in favor of a Senate measure to send an additional $225 million in military funding to Israel during the war. Here is a report on the town-hall meeting from the Cape Cod Times:

“I think the vote was right, and I'll tell you why I think the vote was right," [Warren] said. "America has a very special relationship with Israel. Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and a part of the world where there aren't many liberal democracies and democracies that are controlled by the rule of law. And we very much need an ally in that part of the world.”

Warren said Hamas has attacked Israel ‘indiscriminately,’ but with the Iron Dome defense system, the missiles have "not had the terrorist effect Hamas hoped for." When pressed by another member of the crowd about civilian casualties from Israel's attacks, Warren said she believes those casualties are the "last thing Israel wants.”

“But when Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals, next to schools, they're using their civilian population to protect their military assets. And I believe Israel has a right, at that point, to defend itself," Warren said, drawing applause.

Even if Elizabeth Warren chooses to run (unlikely), she won’t run as a tough-on-Israel liberal. There's just no percentage in it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/09/hillary-elizabeth-warren-and-israel/379721/

[hack89]

1. Is there's any evidence that the party base is offended?

There certainly does not seem to be a push for a primary challenge from the left.

[leftstreet]

4. Well, the base rejected her once

They probably still don't want her, so what's the point getting worked up over her policy positions?

[Cali_Democrat]

2. Elizabeth Warren is also hawkish and pro-Israel

Hell, even Bernie Sanders is staunchly pro-Israel and he supporters sending them advanced weapons . He also supported funding Israel's Iron Dome with US taxpayer money.

[MineralMan]

3. What's Bernie Sanders Position on Those Things,

do you think?

[PADemD]

5. On the Issues - Bernie Sanders

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Bernie_Sanders.htm

[MineralMan]

7. Nothing after 2012 there.

Useless on today's issues.

[L0oniX]

6. Good luck.

[Capt. Obvious]

8. Convuluted

[NightWatcher]

9. Because we're called assholes if we don't blindly support the candidate

But they are allowed to run around and act as un-democratic as they want. She can run around and cozy up with Kissinger but if we threaten to not vote, midterm election losses are put completely on our shoulders.