Emails show Hillary Clinton's hostility toward Israel

Jerusalem Post:

Clandestinely stirring up potentially violent protests in an attempt to try and force Israel to go against its best interests? Advice like this was par for the course with Clinton’s advisers.
...
In the entire forced dump of Clinton’s emails, you will be hard pressed to find a single one sympathetic toward the Jewish state from any of the people she relied on. The negative, poisonous approach to Israel throughout this email expose shows the atmosphere that she had established around herself. These emails seem to demonstrate that a huge segment of her close advisers and confidantes were attacking Israel, condemning Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and strategizing how to force Israel to withdraw from Judea and Samaria at all costs.

This was occurring against the backdrop of Israel’s recent Gaza withdrawal, which led to the takeover of Gaza by Hamas. There is almost zero mention of the huge risks to Israel’s security in withdrawing as Clinton and the Obama administration did everything they could to pressure Israel to capitulate to their demands.

Take a look at a sampling of the advice being sent to Clinton from her many advisers that we have now become privy to.

Sandy Berger was Clinton’s foreign policy adviser during her 2008 presidential campaign. In September of 2010 he sent her ideas on how to pressure Israel to make concessions for peace. Berger acknowledged “how fragile is Abbas’s political position,” and how “Palestinians are in disarray,” and that “failure is a real possibility.” Berger was well aware of, and informed Hillary 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 Berger felt the risks to Israeli lives were worth it.

He advised the need to make Netanyahu feel “uneasy about incurring our displeasure....”

Berger emphasizes the need “to convince the prime minister – through various forms of overt persuasion and implicit pressure – to make the necessary compromises” and talks of the “possibility – to turn his position against him.”

Astoundingly, Berger seems to accuse the Jews in America of racism toward Obama. He writes, “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 then adds, “Domestically, he faces a reservoir of skepticism on this issue which reflects many factors, including inexcusable prejudice.”

Anne Marie Slaughter was Clinton’s director of policy planning from 2009-2011. She wrote to Clinton in September of 2010 and devised a scheme to encourage wealthy philanthropists to pledge millions to the Palestinians (which no doubt would have been embezzled by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his cronies as were other funds).
...

There is more.

I have always felt the Democrats' approach to Israel made no sense and seeing it in stark black and white makes it look even more unrealistic.  It is as though they did not care that the Palestinians had nothing of value that could give Israel in return for a deal.  Nothing.  When it came to stopping the killing of Israelis, their word was no good.  Even if they committed to do it, they were not committing to stopping groups within the Palestinian community from doing it. 

So Clinton and Obama both thought that resorting to inflicting pain on Israel would make a deal more acceptable?  That is just nuts.  What the Democrats were doing was ceding their role as an honest broker to that of a dishonest one.