No Holds Barred: Should we vote for Hillary simply because she’s a woman?

With all the threats facing the Jewish State, the question that has to be asked by the pro-Israel community is which candidate will be the best defender of Israel.

By SHMULEY BOTEACH
Updated: FEBRUARY 8, 2016 21:28
Hillary Clinton (photo credit: REUTERS)
Hillary Clinton
(photo credit: REUTERS)
While Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem scandalously scold 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 the Bern” just because Senator Bernie 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 Clinton.
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 that respects and represents your values, whatever their identity.
With Israel facing yet another horrible terrorism wave, and with its very existence threatened by the catastrophic Iran deal, 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 Clinton’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 negative and hostile to Israel.
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 Clinton during her time as secretary of state. In 2007, Indyk’s Brookings Institution, a purportedly objective non-partisan government think tank, opened up a branch in Qatar, a country that is virulently anti-Israel and which currently 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 via 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 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 Clinton’s time as secretary of state, Indyk had her ear when it came to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Indyk’s emails to Clinton show a Qatari-inspired anti-Israel bias. He talks about the need to look, not at Netanyahu’s politics, but his “psychology.” He writes to Clinton of Netanyahu: “[A]t heart, he 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 Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s continual incitement and calls for murder of Israelis, or 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 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, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, who has also been revealed to harbor anti-Israel views. In one heavily redacted email to Clinton regarding talks with Netanyahu, Sullivan’s subject line reads “dealing with Netanyahu.” This is the cavalier way in which many of Clinton’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 terrorist attacks against Israelis and demanded that America punish Israel for electing Netanyahu. Beinart, in our debate, compared the world’s foremost Jewish philanthropist and the 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 Islamic State would inevitably overthrow Abbas’s 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 – Clinton herself is a fan of Beinart.
After Sid Blumenthal sent Clinton an anti-Israel column by Beinart, Clinton forwarded it to Sullivan, writing, “Pls read so we can discuss.” In response, Sullivan writes “Fascinating.”
When Blumenthal sent Clinton an article by his son Max filled with his usual anti-Israel drivel, Clinton forwarded the article to Sullivan with the message, “Interesting reading.”
Sullivan responds, “This is really fascinating. Does Beinart get into all of this?” Clinton responds, “Yes.”
In other words, Sullivan’s response to another Israel- hating Max Blumenthal article is to call it “fascinating” and try and compare the ideas it contains with the writings of Israel critic Peter Beinart. Furthermore when he asks Clinton if Beinart “gets into all this” he is implying that Clinton is read up on Beinart’s ideas and works, and Clinton confirms this. Let’s also not forget that Bill Clinton wrote a wild endorsement of Beinart’s book The Crisis of Zionism, in which Beinart disgustingly charges Israel with everything from racism to apartheid-like conditions.
Beinart’s writings are completely within the acceptable spectrum of legitimate approaches toward Israel in Clinton’s world.
The truth is, this 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 President Barack 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 Clinton 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 must have looked like.
The author, “America’s rabbi,” is the international bestselling author of 30 books, including his upcoming The Israel Warrior. Follow him on Twitter @RabbiShmuley.