In spite of the huge Bernie Sanders win in New Hampshire yesterday, we still expect Hillary Clinton to end up as her party’s candidate for POTUS.
It goes without saying that Sanders, a knuckle-dragging Socialist, would be a disaster for Israel.
But do not fool yourselves, Hillary is no better. Hillary has veered hard left in her radical ideology, and leftists—which is to say the postmodern Democrat-Socialists of America—hate Israel.
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach analyzes Hillary and Israel.
While Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem scandalously urge young women to vote for Hillary Clinton just because she’s a woman, I have not seen anything similar in the Jewish community. No one is saying we should feel for “the Bern” just because Sanders is a member of the tribe. And no Jewish leader is condemning those Jews who do not vote for Sanders to hell the way that Albright is doing to women who will not vote for Hillary.
And it’s to our credit that this is so. You vote for the most qualified candidate, not the candidate who best matches your ethnicity or gender. You vote for a candidate who respects and represents your values, whatever their identity.
With Israel facing yet another horrible terror wave, and with its very existence threatened by the international legitimacy given to it by the catastrophic Iran deal, I believe the question that has to be asked by the pro-Israel community is which candidate will be the best defender of Israel.
Last week, I wrote about the State Department’s email dump of Hillary’s communications from her private server. The former secretary of state received a veritable trove of advice and information about Israel from her closest advisers. Curiously, it’s almost all hostile.
It behooves the candidate to explain the emails and why they are nearly all of such a negative nature.
This week I enclose some more gems.
Martin Indyk was advising Hillary during her time as secretary of state. In 2007, Indyk’s Brooking’s Institute, a purported objective non-partisan government think tank, opened up a branch in Qatar, a country that is virulently anti-Israel and serves as Hamas’ main financial backer. Seven years later it was revealed that Indyk’s relationship with Qatar had progressed to the point that Qatar had given $14.8 million dollars to Indyk’s institute. This phenomenon of foreign governments purchasing political influence using corrupted think tanks in Washington has been well attested to in the past.
Keep in mind that in the background of this concealed, blatant conflict of interest, Indyk was one of the top diplomats assigned to formulating Mideast policy and negotiating a two-state solution in Israel. The bombshell revelations of these Qatar donations compromised Indyk immensely and Netanyahu’s government responded by saying that Indyk could not be trusted.
Nonetheless, during Hillary’s time at State, Indyk had Hillary’s ear when it came to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Indyk’s emails to Hillary show an anti-Israel bias. He talks about the need to look not at Bibi’s politics, but at his “psychology.” He writes to Hillary how he thinks Netanyahu “at heart … seems to lack a generosity of spirit.” He attacks Netanyahu over and over as having “inflated demands” and lacking the willingness to risk Israel’s security with a West Bank that we all know would likely become yet another Hamastan. He writes nothing of Abbas’ continual incitement and calls for murder against Israelis, nor the need to outlaw terrorist groups.
Indyk also describes how world opinion can be used against Netanyahu, writing, “If Israel doesn’t make a serious move, it will further delegitimize its standing internationally.” He also incredulously describes how the US can use the fear of a potential nuclear Iran to force Israel to sign a deal with the Palestinians, because “Bibi needs President Obama in his corner to deal with the threat from Iran.”
Then there is Jake Sullivan, Hillary’s deputy chief of staff, who has also been revealed to harbor anti-Israel views. In one heavily redacted email to Hillary regarding talks with Netanyahu, Sullivan’s subject line reads: “dealing with Netanyahu.” This is the cavalier way by which many of Hillary’s subordinates refer to the prime minister of Israel. His name rarely comes with titles. It’s just “Netanyahu.
But I digress.
Sullivan has been shown to be a big fan of Peter Beinart, the man whom I recently debated in Tel Aviv and who justified terror attacks against Israelis and demanded that America punish Israel for electing Netanyahu. Beinart, in our debate, compared the world’s foremost Jewish philanthropist and principal sponsor of Birthright, Sheldon Adelson, to the terrorist leaders of Iran.
Beinart’s writings are blatantly anti-Israel and he has become infamous in the Jewish community for his calls for a complete boycott of Judea and Samaria in the hopes of forcing Israel to withdraw. The fact that Hamas or ISIS would inevitably overthrow Abbas’ weak government, as happened in Gaza, does not weigh in Beinart’s demands that Israel be punished if it does not accede to his demands.
Unfortunately, it isn’t just Sullivan, but Hillary herself who has also been revealed as a fan of Beinart’s.
After Sid Blumenthal sent Hillary an anti-Israel column from Beinart, Hillary forwarded it to Sullivan, writing, “Pls read so we can discuss.” Sullivan responds to the article, “Fascinating.”
When Blumenthal sent Hillary an article from his son, Max, filled with his usual anti-Israel drivel, Hillary forwarded the article to Sullivan with the message, “Interesting reading.”
Sullivan responds to her,”This is really fascinating. Does Beinart get into all of this?”
Hillary responds, “Yes.”
In other words, Sullivan’s response to another Israel-hating Max Blumenthal article is to call it “fascinating” and to try and compare the ideas it contains with the writings of Israel critic Peter Beinart. Furthermore when he asks Hillary if Beinart “gets into all this” he is implying that Hillary is well read up on Beinart’s ideas and works, and Hillary confirms this when she responds “yes”. Let’s also not forget that Bill Clinton wrote a wild endorsement of Beinart’s book The Crisis of Zionism, where Beinart disgustingly charges Israel with everything from racism to apartheid-like conditions against Palestinians.
Beinart’s writings are completely in the acceptable spectrum of legitimate approaches towards Israel in Hillary’s world.
The truth is, my article could have been many pages longer. The accumulated evidence regarding Hillary Clinton’s views on Israel is too much for one column, and this is only a sampling. It’s important to note that when former senior adviser to Obama Dennis Ross wrote his tell-all book, Doomed to Succeed: The U.S.-Israel Relationship from Truman to Obama, he described a faction within the White House that saw Israel as “more of a problem” than a partner.
Since Hillary describes herself as someone who was a great friend to Israel in the Obama administration, it becomes downright scary to imagine what the anti-Israel camp in the administration must have looked like.
Source: The Algemeiner