Worried about Hillary as president #2

Within hours after I posted "Worried about Hillary," I ran across an article in the liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz by Peter Beinart, who is a liberal, American Jew who teaches journalism at CUNY.  A former editor of The New Republic, he currently writes for several liberal journals and in 2012 published The Crisis of Zionism.  

Beinart's position is similar to what I have tried to articulate here -- pro-Israeli people;  not so sympathetic to the right-wing movement that supports current policies toward the Palestinians.  His book so angered many in the Jewish community, that his scheduled lecture here at the Jewish Community Center was cancelled.   Another venue was found and he spoke to an overflow crowd.

The title of his current Haaretz article is:  "Israel's new lawyer:  Hillary Clinton."

"Who’s the Israeli government’s best spokesperson? Ron Dermer? Michael Oren? Bibi himself? Nope. It’s Hillary Clinton. In her interview on Sunday with Jeffrey Goldberg, Clinton offered the most articulate, sophisticated, passionate defense of Netanyahu’s conduct I’ve heard from a government official on either side of the Atlantic. Unfortunately, important chunks of it aren’t true."

Beinart takes up each of her claims and shows how she follows the same pattern as Netanyahu and his spokespersons:    Take a grain of truth that favors Israel or Bibi himself and leave out any truths that present the other side of the picture.

A recent example, from her time as Secretary of State, is her claim that:

"'I got Netanyahu to agree to the unprecedented settlement freeze… It took me nine months to get Abbas into the negotiations even after we delivered on the settlement freeze.'

"What’s striking, again, is what Clinton leaves out. The settlement freeze was indeed, unprecedented. Unfortunately, it didn’t actually freeze settlement growth.  . . . the 'freeze' exempted East Jerusalem [and] . . . .  buildings on which construction had all ready begun . . .  settlers spent the months preceding the “freeze” feverishly breaking ground on new construction, on which they continued to build during the ten month 'freeze' . . . .  As a result, according to Peace Now, there was more new settlement construction in 2010 -- the year of the freeze -- than in 2008.  As the Obama administration envoy George Mitchell admitted . . . the Obama administration had wanted a freeze that truly stopped settlement growth but 'we failed'."

Beinart also disputes the claim that Abbas refused to negotiate and offers evidence that Palestinian representatives tried repeatedly to submit official documents detailing key negotiating proposals, which the Israelis were unwilling to even read.   Clinton does not mention this in her interview, even though she claims to have been intimately involved in the process.

After refuting other claims about the negotiations, Beinart writes:

"Why does Clinton again and again endorse Netanyahu’s view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict even when it contradicts long-standing American positions? Because she’s so willing to see the world through his eyes. . . .  U.S. officials should understand, and empathize with, Israeli leaders, even right-wing ones. But what’s missing from Clinton’s interview is any willingness to do the same for Palestinians. If it’s so easy to understand why some Israelis might want perpetual military control of the West Bank, why can’t Clinton understand why Palestinians - after living for almost fifty years under a foreign army - might not want it to indefinitely patrol their supposedly independent state?

"One of the hallmarks of Barack Obama . . . has been his insistence on giving voice to the fears and aspirations of both sides. . . .  In Jerusalem last March, he spoke movingly, and in detail about the Jewish story, but also asked Israelis to “put yourself in their [the Palestinians] shoes. Look at the world through their eyes.” In her interview with Goldberg, that’s exactly what Clinton does not do. Her interpretations of recent Israeli-Palestinian history reflect from a deep imbalance: a willingness to see reality through Israeli eyes and an almost total refusal to do the same for Palestinians. . . . 

"“For far too long,” wrote Aaron Miller in 2005, “many American officials involved in Arab-Israeli peacemaking, myself included, have acted as Israel's attorney, catering and coordinating with the Israelis at the expense of successful peace negotiations.” From the beginning, Barack Obama has tried to avoid that. 

Although [Obama] hasn’t brokered Israeli-Palestinian peace, he has tried to make good on his campaign promise to 'hold up a mirror' to both sides.   In Hillary Clinton, by contrast, at least judging from her interview on Sunday, Israel has yet another lawyer. And a very good one at that."

Exactly.  And that is what worries me about Hillary.   Is she just making tactical political decision to distance herself from Obama?    Or is this evidence of her inability or unwillingness to consider both sides of such important matters?

Ralph