Emails show what Hillary has in mind for Israel

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, writing in the Observer*, says that having examined Hillary Clinton’s emails, he is “hard-pressed to find a single note that is sympathetic toward the Jewish state from any of the people she trusted.” He reminds us that Sid Blumenthal, one of Hillary’s most trusted advisers, sent Clinton dozens of anti-Israel articles written by Sid’s rabidly anti-Israel son Max. Hillary responded favorably to them.

But, says Boteach, “the stream of anti-Israel advice received by Ms. Clinton was much more comprehensive” than just the Blumenthal missives, and “emails between Ms. Clinton and other advisrrs. . .are equally appalling.” According to Boteach, “the negative, poisonous approach Ms. Clinton established demonstrates that a huge segment of her close advisers and confidants were attacking Israel, condemning Prime Minister Netanyahu, and strategizing how to force Israel to withdraw from Judea and Samaria at all costs.”

Consider long-time Clintonite Sandy Berger:

[In] September 2010 [Berger] sent Ms. Clinton ideas on how to pressure Israel to make concessions for peace. Mr. Berger acknowledged “how fragile Abbas’ political position [is],” and how “Palestinians are in disarray” and that “[f]ailure is a real possibility.” Mr. Berger was well aware, and informed Ms. Clinton, of the very real possibility that Israel would be placing its national security at grave risk in a deal that would very likely fail and lead to a Hamas takeover. But Mr. Berger felt the risks to Israeli lives were worth it. He advised making Mr. Netanyahu feel “uneasy about incurring our displeasure.”. . .

Astoundingly, Mr. Berger seemed to accuse the Jews in America of racism toward Obama. “At a political level, the past year has clearly demonstrated the degree to which the U.S. has been hamstrung by its low ratings in Israel and among important segments of the domestic Jewish constituency,” he writes. “Domestically, he faces a reservoir of skepticism on this issue which reflects many factors, including inexcusable prejudice.”

Now consider Anne Marie Slaughter, Clinton’s director of policy planning from 2009 to 2011:

She wrote Ms. Clinton in September 2010, devising a scheme to encourage wealthy philanthropists to pledge millions to the Palestinians (which no doubt would have been embezzled by Abbas and his cronies, as were other funds). Ms. Slaughter writes, “This may be a crazy idea… Suppose we launched a ‘Pledge for Palestine’ campaign… Such a campaign among billionaires/multimillionaires around the world would reflect a strong vote of confidence in the building of a Palestinian state.”

She adds, “There would also be a certain shaming effect re Israelis, who would be building settlements in the face of a pledge for peace.”

Here’s how Clinton responded to this call for aiding “Palestine” and “shaming Israelis”: “I am very interested-pls flesh out. Thx.”

Then there is Thomas Pickering, he of the infamous review board that cleared Clinton of culpability regarding Benghazi without even interviewing her:

Pickering wrote Ms. Clinton on December 18, 2011, suggesting a secret plan to stir up major Palestinian protests in an attempt to force the Israeli government into peace negotiations. He stated that the protests “must be all and only women. Why? On the Palestinian side the male culture is to use force.”

Mr. Pickering’s goal was to ignite protests that would engulf the West Bank, “just like Tahrir Square.” He adds that the Palestinian “leadership has shied away from this idea because they can’t control it,” and they are “afraid of being replaced.”. . .

The idea was as dangerous for the Palestinians as it was for Israel. As Mr. Pickering admits, widespread protests could overthrow Abbas’ government, and if Palestinian men joined in, widespread violence would inevitably break out.

It would obviously be impossible to prevent men from participating in these demonstrations, yet Mr. Pickering felt this extreme risk was worth taking, even if it meant the replacement of Abbas with another Hamas-styled government—even if it meant violence breaking out across the West Bank, leading to a third intifada and the murder of countless Jews. He emphasized the need to hide all U.S. involvement in this plot. Ms. Clinton forwarded the email to Monica Hanley and asked her to “pls print.”

Clandestinely stirring up potentially violent protests in an attempt to force Israel to go against its best interests? Advice like this was par for the course when it came to Ms. Clinton’s advisers.

These emails make it clear that, as Boteach says, key Clinton advisers were looking for ways, including manifestly irresponsible ones, to coerce Israel into making dangerous concessions to the Palestinians in exchange (from all that appears) for nothing.

These folks wouldn’t have sent such ideas to Clinton if they didn’t understand that she was looking for ways to accomplish the same goal.

I do not want a president who would entertain the kind of proposals Blumenthal, Berger, Slaughter, and Pickering put forth. Clinton entertained them and said she was “very interested” in at least one.

Shouldn’t the neo-conservatives/Reagan interventionists who plan to vote for Hillary Clinton rethink their stance?

* The Observer is owned by Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law. I understand Kushner to be a close adviser to the Trump campaign.

These facts raise the possibility of bias in the Observer’s reporting. However, Boteach’s piece is built on quotations from emails. Unless he’s inventing the content, the only bias I detect is Boteach’s strong sense that the ideas presented to Clinton by her trusted advisers were outrageous. I share that bias.

We can be confident that Trump won’t receive advice like this from Kushner, an Orthodox Jew with strong ties to Israel, and I doubt he’ll receive, much less entertain it from any other trusted adviser.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.