Why Hillary Clinton Is Moving Left On Every issue EXCEPT ISRAEL

[Segami]

The Obama administration, by signaling that it may support such a UN framework this fall, is pursuing the best alternative to BDS that exists today. If Hillary helps torpedo that UN initiative, Haim Saban should look forward to more letters from her about BDS in the future. Because the Democratic presidential frontrunner will have done her part to help it grow.

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. 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.” 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. 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.”




cont'

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

[WillyT]

1. K & R !!! - Tried To Post That Earlier But It Kept Linking To The Subcription Page...

[hrmjustin]

2. What is Sanders position on Israel?

[leveymg]

7. He isn't exactly dancing cheek-to-cheek with Bibi like Hillary. Literally.

He's rather conventional on the subject, but not known as a guy who goes to AIPAC dinners and sits at the Big Donors table.

[hrmjustin]

9. Yet he is a supporter of Israel?

[leveymg]

11. Who isn't?

The only one I can think of in recent American elected office is Cynthia McKinney. Look at what happened to her.

[hrmjustin]

12. The point is he is a supporter of Israel.

If he wins the nomination you will see him at AIPAC.

[leveymg]

13. Not sure dinner with AIPAC is absolutely mandatory

Obama hasn't been there since 2013. Actually, 2012. Biden was there in '13. Bernie would probably feel more comfortable at J-Street, and vis-a-versa.

[hrmjustin]

14. But he was there during the campaign.

Don't kid yourself. He will be there is nominated and perhaps before.

[leveymg]

16. So, you think Bernie might get nominated? Interesting.

I believe that if Bernie wants that to happen he has to run away from those who Hillary embraces. Or dances with, here.

[hrmjustin]

17. Yes Sanders may win.

And don't expect him to be even handed with Israel.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

36. Yes Bernie will be nominated as our Democratic candidate

Bernie is Jewish and I think he would like an Israel without Bibi! I also would like to see Bibi gone for good.

[hrmjustin]

38. I think we all want Bibi gone.

[JI7]

15. So you don't mind support of israel as long as they don't have dinner with aipac ?

[leveymg]

19. Here's something in The Forward on Bernie's aversion from AIPAC

It doesn't matter what I think about it, so much as what Sanders' take is on Israeli actions.

Pro-Israel lobbyists have been among those to find Sanders elusive. “He’s someone who’s sort of avoided everyone,” said Ben Chouake, who leads the hawkish pro-Israel group NORPAC. “He’s one of the few offices that, when we try to get an appointment to come talk to him, we just can’t get in… I don’t think he’s antagonistic or anything like that.”

In Vermont, a small group of AIPAC-linked Jewish activists do have Sanders’ ear on Israel-related matters. Yoram Samets, a Burlington businessman and a member of AIPAC’s national council, said that he has been in touch with Sanders for the past decade, but that Sanders does not sign any AIPAC-backed letters. His Vermont colleague Senator Patrick Leahy does not, either.

This relative silence on Israel-related issues, however, seems to have broken during and after the 2014 Gaza conflict, during which 72 Israelis and over 2,100 Palestinians were killed, the majority of them civilians. In an undated statement on his Senate website , Sanders decried “the Israeli attacks that killed hundreds of innocent people – including many women and children,” calling the bombings “disproportionate” and “completely unacceptable.”

In mid-July 2014, Sanders was one of just 21 Senators not to co-sponsor a resolution expressing support for Israel in the conflict with Hamas. The resolution passed on July 17 by unanimous consent, meaning that no roll call vote was taken on the measure.

Read more: http://forward.com/news/national/310087/is-bernie-sanders-a-lefty-except-for-israel/#ixzz3fWwkN3dl

[JI7]

20. still no difference

He may not have cosponsored but he didn't object since it passed eith unanimous consent.

[leveymg]

21. Maybe not enough, but different from Hillary. n/t

[still_one]

37. Here is something in the forward also

"In Vermont, a small group of AIPAC-linked Jewish activists do have Sanders’ ear on Israel-related matters. Yoram Samets, a Burlington businessman and a member of AIPAC’s national council, said that he has been in touch with Sanders for the past decade, but that Sanders does not sign any AIPAC-backed letters. His Vermont colleague Senator Patrick Leahy does not, either.
This relative silence on Israel-related issues, however, seems to have broken during and after the 2014 Gaza conflict, during which 72 Israelis and over 2,100 Palestinians were killed, the majority of them civilians. In an undated statement on his Senate website , Sanders decried “the Israeli attacks that killed hundreds of innocent people – including many women and children,” calling the bombings “disproportionate” and “completely unacceptable.”
In mid-July 2014, Sanders was one of just 21 Senators not to co-sponsor a resolution expressing support for Israel in the conflict with Hamas. The resolution passed on July 17 by unanimous consent, meaning that no roll call vote was taken on the measure.
In the video of the August 2014 town hall, recorded while the conflict was still ongoing, Sanders was more equivocal than in the statement now on his website. While asserting that Israel had “overreacted,” and that the bombing of UN facilities was “terribly, terribly wrong,” he also noted that Hamas was launching rockets from populated areas.


http://forward.com/news/national/310087/is-bernie-sanders-a-lefty-except-for-israel/

[Scootaloo]

41. It's unavoidable.

There's not a single Democratic candidate who i can actually say gives two skinny shits about the Palestinians. Not one.

So, it becomes a matter of degrees.

Which of the Democratic candidates is more likely to give us more rational policy on this subject? I believe that is Bernie Sanders.

[BrotherIvan]

25. Do you agree with Hillary's letter?

Her signature is on it.

[hrmjustin]

26. I am not commenting on the merits of the Israel/Palestine issue.

[BrotherIvan]

27. But you asked about Sanders position

So maybe you care a little.

[hrmjustin]

29. Oh i care but i am not going to comment on the validity of Israel or Palestine.

Last time i got into it here it did not end well.

[BrotherIvan]

30. That's fine, the article isn't totally about that

[hrmjustin]

32. I belie e in freedom of speech and if people want to boycott then that is right.

[BrotherIvan]

33. Agreed

[leveymg]

3. It isn't just campaign posturing. We'll be at war with Iran within a year of her Inauguration.

She's consistent and doesn't play 8-D chess. She's telling us exactly what she intends to do.

[SusanaMontana41]

5. Yep.

Hilary's foreign policy is Bush on steroids.

[Metric System]

35. Hillary's foreign policy is Bush on steroids?!? NOW I've read everything on DU. Ugh.

[SusanaMontana41]

51. Hate to burst your bubble. Look 'em up.

Other than that, I'm sure we agree on everything.

[SusanaMontana41]

52. Here you go. It's from one of those publications you probably used to read.

http://original.antiwar.com/charles-davis-ips/2015/04/22/hillary-the-hawk/

[still_one]

39. Really? That has been the talking point since GWB, and back then it was supposed to happen within a

couple of years after the Iraq invasion. Then the same DU talking point came forth again when President Obama was elected, but something strange happen, President Obama engaged Iran in negotiations and dialog, and suddenly, silence from those on DU who said the invasion was imminent.

I doubt it matters, but Hillary supports the negotiations with Iran also, and is NOT, and has NOT advocated attacking Iran, but since that doesn't fit intuit your fear mongering, it is better to misrepresent it

[SusanaMontana41]

4. If Hilary is moving left

it's because left is the only direction she can go.

Any candidate who didn't slam TPP immediately and forcefully doesn't deserve my vote.

[Segami]

6. 'Moving Left'.....is an invented illusion..

....The magician's greatest weapon........'misdirection'


In some furture, abstract op-ed, we will be reminded that everyone knew when they cast their vote for her that she was a HAWK & CORPORATIST.........so suck it up and stop our whining.

[leveymg]

10. Her election will be proclaimed as an endorsement of the most extreme neocon/neoliberal policies

rather than as the zero-option desperate avoidance of GOP slash and burn rule, which is what it will actually be.

[HFRN]

8. ^^ yup nt

[tritsofme]

18. Premise rejected, being pro-Israel and supporting the Jewish state

is not a "left" or "right" issue in the U.S.

[HFRN]

22. may I answer that with photos?

[cascadiance]

31. She's with Chuck Norris...

[BrotherIvan]

23. Does she really believe any of it or does she just want the $$$$ ?

That is the two billion dollar question.

[Jefferson23]

24. No worries, the Palestinians hear you..you're very clear. n/t

[Cheese Sandwich]

28. what da...

[DonCoquixote]

34. transalation

One of the few big checked groups that is NOT GOP are Zionists. Note I did NOT say Jews, but Zionists do not speak for all jews, as Noam Chomsky can tell you. The GOP has been aggressively trying to woo the Zionists, but the Zionists know that the GOP will try to use l;everage top make their children write essays in school on "why jests loves me." (which actually happens.)

[still_one]

40. and Noam Chomsky doesn't speak for all Jews either, but the majority of Jews in America do believe

in a two state solution, and that Israel should exist, unlike some here who believe Israel doesn't have a right to exist

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. Precisely. And that's where DemocratSinceBirth, BHO and HRC are.

“Do you think that Israel has a right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people, and are you aware of the particular circumstances of Jewish history that might prompt that need and desire?” he said, in defining the questions that he believes should be asked. “And if your answer is no, if your notion is somehow that that history doesn’t matter, then that’s a problem, in my mind. If, on the other hand, you acknowledge the justness of the Jewish homeland, you acknowledge the active presence of anti-Semitism—that it’s not just something in the past, but it is current—if you acknowledge that there are people and nations that, if convenient, would do the Jewish people harm because of a warped ideology. If you acknowledge those things, then you should be able to align yourself with Israel where its security is at stake, you should be able to align yourself with Israel when it comes to making sure that it is not held to a double standard in international fora, you should align yourself with Israel when it comes to making sure that it is not isolated.”

-Barack Obama

[Jefferson23]

43. Noam Chomsky has not ever claimed to speak for all Jews:

Netanyahu: I will go to Congress like I went to Paris – to speak for all Jews

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.641515

A two state solution with a viable state for the Palestinians...big difference.

[still_one]

45. And Netanyahu doesn't speak for all Jews either. I didn't

catch the context before obviously

Of course it means a viable state for the Palestinians, just as it means a viable state for Isreal, both with secure borders. The right to return isn't that solution,

If you turn the clock back the Ottomann empire controlled the whole area, that isn't viable either.

[Jefferson23]

46. Netanyahu does state he does, that is the difference..that he does not have that

support literally has never stopped him.

Of course it means a viable state to you, that is not what Bibi is talking about.

Israel already has a viable state, the focus needs to be on the Palestinians state.

But I did not intend to begin a conversation about this issue, more about who
tries to speak for all Jews and that would be Netanyahu...not Chomsky.

[still_one]

48. understood

[DonCoquixote]

49. some zionists do

but even those folks get shouted down by Bibi who has pushed things well past the point that many Zionists themselves would have imagined.

[BillZBubb]

44. Disgusting letter. Shows ZERO will to solve the problem.

Essentially, it is a "I'll give Israel a free pass" statement.

She is a real threat to get us involved in a shooting war with Iran at Israel's insistence.

[HFRN]

47. Robert McNamera's 'Fog of War' is a must see for all citizens

i really think this was an effort by a man trying to atone for his actions on this earth, by passing along what he had learned

and one of these points was you must empathize with the enemy - he didnt say 'sympathize', but just try to appreaciate what the other party is going through - he used the example of the cuban missile crisis, and his and JFK's seeing Kruchev as a human being rather than a monster is part of what spared us a nuclear war

the threat of nuclear war is still very much with us - particularly with those who see one side as saints and the other as 'monsters'

it's on youtube