fbpx

Why Clinton’s criticism of Israel is much better than Sanders’

[additional-authors]
April 12, 2016

Having written with some skepticism about Bernie Sanders and Israel twice in the past week on my blog, it is only fair that I also write about Hillary Clinton and Israel. It is fair, even though I’m afraid some of the readers who urged me to write about her might be disappointed. At least two of the letter writers took a tone suggesting Clinton deserves the same criticism to which I subjected Sanders’ positions. I do not think she does.

Clinton defended Israel’s actions of self-defense in Gaza. And she did not use the word “but,” as Sanders did, as she was making her argument. “Hamas provokes Israel. They often pretend to have people in civilian garb acting as though they are civilians who are Hamas fighters,” Clinton said. “It’s a very different undertaking for Israel to target those who are targeting them. And I think Israel has had to defend itself, has a right to defend itself.”

Does Clinton believe Israel acted with proper “proportionality”? Maybe she does, maybe she doesn’t. If she doesn’t — if she believes Israel was too aggressive — she doesn’t say as much. This is because Clinton, unlike Sanders, does not believe that trashing Israel makes for good policy (as we will soon demonstrate). And it is because she did not choose to trash Israel as her political tactic (as her comments clearly demonstrate).

This does not mean that she will never criticize Israel or that she believes everything Israel is doing is right. As the Jewish Insider has reported, Clinton recently criticized Israel’s settlement policies: “Administrations — both Democrat and Republican — have all adopted the same position that settlement expansion is not helpful. In the context of the continuing American interest in helping to bring the parties together to try to achieve a two-state solution to the conflict, I am in line with prior Republicans and Democrats.”

Interestingly, in continuing this statement, she did use a “but.” Yet unlike Sanders, she used it to mitigate her criticism, not to mitigate her expression of support: “But I also have a long history and a personal commitment to Israel’s security and to its future that I have been outspoken about, that I have been stalwart and strong in every way.”

So Sanders supports Israel’s right to self-defense but wants to make sure the Palestinians aren’t forgotten. Clinton criticizes Israel’s decision to expand settlements but wants to make sure that her comments aren’t perceived as weakening her general stance of support for Israel.

Clinton did not just criticize Israel (for settlements). She did not just criticize Sanders (for Hamas). In her meeting with the Daily News editorial board, she also criticized President Barack Obama (and Sanders, again) for not handling Israel as discreetly as necessary. She said: “Any disputes or disagreements should be handled in a respectfully and preferably private way, so we don’t give any aid and comfort to Israel’s adversaries or drive any wedges between us.”

“In a private way” was not the Obama way. “In a private way” — as has been proved in recent days — is not the Sanders way.

What Clinton seems to understand much better than Sanders concerns not only the issue of “wedges” — whether to give Israel’s enemies the joy of seeing wedges driven between the two countries. She seems to understand much better than Sanders that criticism of Israel is not all made of the same cloth.

It is one thing to oppose settlement activities and suggest that such activity complicates any future attempt of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. As Clinton remarked, this has been the United States’ position for many years — and it is, in fact, the position of many Israelis. It is also one thing to suggest that settlement activity is “not helpful.”

It is quite another thing to call settlement activities “illegal,” as Sanders did — maybe because he does not understand the difference, or maybe because that is what he believes (“I think that’s based on previous treaties and ideas. I happen to think that those expansions were illegal”). And it is quite another thing to criticize an Israeli act of self-defense as “indiscriminate,” to subscribe to allegations that aim to rob Israel’s ability to guard itself from attacks by tying its hands.

In other words: Sanders criminalizes Israel’s (illegal, indiscriminate) actions. He gives “aid and comfort to Israel’s adversaries” by buying into their language of delegitimization. 

Clinton criticizes Israel’s policies. Even those who do not agree with her should have no extraordinary problem with her statements. 

 

Did you enjoy this article?
You'll love our roundtable.

Editor's Picks

Latest Articles

Difficult Choices

Jews have always believed in the importance of higher education. Today, with the rise in antisemitism across many college campuses, Jewish high school seniors are facing difficult choices.

All Aboard the Lifeboat

These are excruciating times for Israel, and for the Jewish people.  It is so tempting to succumb to despair. That is why we must keep our eyes open and revel in any blessing we can find.  

More news and opinions than at a
Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.

More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.

More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.