Powered by WebAds

Sunday, April 19, 2015

Where is Hillary?

In a Wall Street Journal blog, former peace processor Aaron David Miller argues that Hillary Clinton will 're-set' US-Israel relations.
She’s too smart for anti-Israeli  tantrums: As secretary of state Hillary Clinton had tough moments with Mr. Netanyahu. In her memoir “Hard Choices,” she describes their relationship as partners and friends and opines that it was best not to corner Bibi or he would fight. She writes that she worried that President Obama’s decision to have it out with Israel on settlements would trigger a confrontation that would lock Jerusalem and Washington into an unproductive battle. Nor did she relish having to be the bad cop to Joe Biden’s good cop and delivering anti-settlement messages to the prime minister. It seems clear in light of the administration’s anti-Netanyahu  messaging after Israel’s elections last month that Mrs. Clinton perceives that kind of rhetoric as bad for her and the U.S.-Israel relationship. Last month, in a heavily publicized phone call to Malcom Hoenlein, executive director of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish-American organizations,  she called for a return to a constructive bilateral relationship.
Should Hillary Clinton win in 2016 her pragmatic pro-Israeli streak would no doubt set a different tone in U.S.-Israeli relations. That may well be true for a Republican president, too. Frustrations with Prime Minister Netanyahu will remain high. Mrs. Clinton will look for opportunities to revive prospects for a two-state solution, something she cares about. But as the Middle East implodes, she will also try to find a way to reset relations with Mr. Netanyahu. She knows to avoid unproductive fights with the Israelis, particularly ones you can’t win. That will disappoint  those who believe that more vinegar than honey is needed to get Israel to move. But that’s not Hillary Clinton’s style. She’d fight with the Israelis on peace  if she thought she could win and in the process do something that was good for the U.S., Israel and the Palestinians too.
But Caroline Glick does not cut Clinton so much slack, and believes that American Jewish donors to the Democratic party must force Clinton to take a stand in favor of Israel.
To date, Hillary, who was herself a full partner in Obama’s moves to marginalize Israel supporters during her stint as secretary of state, has said as little as possible about his foreign policy. As a result, she has given no reason for Democratic senators to consider parting ways with the president on Iran.

So far, Clinton’s only move to put distance between herself and her anti-Israel former boss was to allow Malcolm Hoenlein from the Conference of Presidents to issue a statement late last month in his name claiming that Clinton told him that she thinks the US and Israel should bury the hatchet. Clinton, for her part, neither confirmed nor denied Hoenlein’s statement.

Almost simultaneous with Clinton’s announcement Sunday that she is running for president, came a statement from her campaign that she seeks to raise the whopping sum of $2.5 billion in order to secure her election.

There is no way that Clinton can hope to raise that sum without securing the support of major Jewish donors. While some major Jewish donors do not care about whether or not the US supports Israel, as an unnamed Jewish Clinton supporter told JTA this week, Clinton will also need to win the support of donors who do support Israel.

In the source’s words, “Some of the most prominent Jewish Democratic donors are very concerned about the relationship the president has had with Netanyahu and the Iran deal.”

If these Jewish donors band together and condition their support for Clinton on her issuing a clear statement opposing Obama’s deal with Iran and opposing any plan to abandon US support for Israel at the UN Security Council, they will accomplish three vital things.

First, they will loosen Obama’s control over otherwise pro-Israel Democratic senators and other pro-Israel groups in the Democratic Party, including the NJDC. In so doing they will reopen the possibility that Congress will scuttle Obama’s deal with the mullahs.

Second, they will take a major step toward rebuilding Democratic support for Israel that Obama has worked so hard to diminish.

Finally, they will reestablish their political significance in American politics. By supporting Obama, even as he has abandoned the US alliance with Israel, Jewish Democrats have lost their political leverage and power. That power is contingent upon their refusal to abandon Israel.

During the next two months, Obama will be focused on closing his deal with Iran, and Clinton will be avidly seeking to lock up the Democratic nomination for president by building an impregnable fortress of campaign funds. If the American Jewish community uses this critical period to leverage Clinton’s financial requirements to convince her to oppose Obama’s deal that paves the way for a nuclear armed Iran, then they will reassert their relevance in American politics and they will restore support for Israel to its pre-Obama position as a bipartisan position.

If they fail to do so, then Obama’s bid to transform Israel into a partisan issue will succeed. If a Republican wins the White House in 2016, he will face an anti-Israel Democratic opposition. And if Clinton wins the White House, she will have no reason to support Israel.
I'm with Caroline. I'm not a big fan of Bill Clinton, but Bill's affection for Israel is genuine albeit misguided with respect to his views of what's in our interest. Hillary, on the other hand, has a long history of being anti-Israel.
It seems that in the Obama White House, the boss may not be the biggest Israel hater. That title may well belong to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Hat Tip: Shy Guy).
In his book American Evita, Christopher Anderson writes.
At a time when elements of the American Left embraced the Palestinian cause and condemned Israel, Hillary was telling friends that she was "sympathetic" to the terrorist organization and admired its flamboyant leader, Yasser Arafat. When Arafat made his famous appearance before the UN General Assembly in November 1974 wearing his revolutionary uniform and his holster on his hip, Bill "was outraged like everybody else," said a Yale Law School classmate. But not Hillary, who tried to convince Bill that Arafat was a "freedom fighter" trying to free his people from their Israeli "oppressors." (1)
Of course Hillary's feelings about the PLO and Israel are only one aspect of her character, often a person's true nature is more closely revealed in a more intimate setting. In an early showcase of Hillary's diplomatic skills Christopher Anderson relates an experience that she and her future husband had during a trip to Arkansas in 1973.
It was during this trip to his home state that Bill took Hillary to meet a politically well connected friend. When they drove up to the house, Bill and Hillary noticed that a menorah-the seven branched Hebrew candelabrum (not to be confused with the more common and subtler mezuzah)-has been affixed to the front door.

"My daddy was half Jewish," explained Bill's friend. "One day when he came to visit , my daddy placed the menorah on my door because he wanted me to be proud that we were part Jewish. And I wasn't about to say no to my daddy."

To his astonishment, as soon as Hillary saw the menorah, she refused to get out of the car. "Bill walked up to me and said that she was hot and tired, but later he explained the real reason." According to the friend and another eyewitness, Bill said, "I'm sorry, but Hillary's really tight with the people in the PLO in New York. They're friends of hers, and she just doesn't feel right about the menorah." (2)
Read the whole thing. After that second story, anyone want to try to convince me that she 'only' hates Israel and not Jews?
The only time in her adult life that Hillary Clinton was pro-Israel was when it was necessary to be elected as US Senator from the heavily Jewish state of New York. I don't believe that Hillary Clinton is worthy of Jewish support at all, but if American Jews are going to donate to her campaign they should at least condition their support on a clear and irreparable break with President Hussein Obama's policies on both the Iranian nuclear file and the so-called 'peace process.'

Read the whole thing.

PS to Aaron David Miller: The Rabins are not exactly lionized in Israel today.

Labels: , , , , , , ,


At 3:48 PM, Blogger Mordechai Y. Scher said...

"Conditions" and "positions" don't matter a wit. That's exactly the problem. Too many voters believed her whenever she was campaigning for something; rather than see her for who she is. The same with Obama. Obama hasn't really changed since college or attending Jeremiah Wright's church - but pitiful American Jewish voters desperately wanted to believe he had. Same thing for all those Jews who have and do support Hillary.

At 3:48 PM, Blogger Mordechai Y. Scher said...

"Conditions" and "positions" don't matter a wit. That's exactly the problem. Too many voters believed her whenever she was campaigning for something; rather than see her for who she is. The same with Obama. Obama hasn't really changed since college or attending Jeremiah Wright's church - but pitiful American Jewish voters desperately wanted to believe he had. Same thing for all those Jews who have and do support Hillary.


Post a Comment

<< Home