For her eyes only

The Bar Ilan speech is a “poison pill”, Netanyahu is “an obstacle to peace”, Ehud Barak misses his time as “a murderer of Palestinians, the US administration must secretly encourage Palestinian demonstrations like the one in Tahrir Square, and rich US citizens must contribute half their wealth to Palestinians. Hillary Clinton’s email box reveals what the advisors and confidants of the person who may soon become the US President are thinking. Based on this correspondence, she pays great attention to what they say.

By Elie Klutstein, Makor Rishon

“March 21, 2010
For: Hillary

From: Sid

Re: AIPAC speech

Hold Bibi’s feet to the fire, Remind everyone at Wye Was he the his key participant event in the peace process, and That It Was the verification test … something you should do is That, while Praising AIPAC, Remind it in as Subtle But Also direct a way as you can That it does not have a Monopoly over American Jewish Opinion … AIPAC Itself has become an organ of the Israeli right, Specifically Likud. By Acknowledging J Street you give them legitimacy, credibility and create room within the American Jewish community for debate supportive of the administration’s pursuit of the peace process. Just by mentioning J Street in passing, AIPAC becomes a point on the spectrum, not the controller of the spectrum “.

The thousands who were present in the lecture hall of the AIPAC conference, the pro-Israeli lobby in Washington, rose to their feet and applauded Hillary Clinton. Even before her speech they have been asked to honor Clinton and not interrupt her, but this was unnecessary: ??the US Secretary of State praised the host forum and the Israeli Prime Minister, and pleased her listeners, despite the sharp criticism of the Israeli policy that threaded into Her She speech. In the background of Clinton’s appearance Before the lobby on March 22, 2010, lay the extreme pressure Washington That Had applied to Both Israel and the palestinians in order to continue the peace process. The organizers of the conference certainly included those who feared that the tension would be reflected in a verbal exchange of blows on the podium – in Clinton’s speech on Monday, and in Netanyahu’s speech the following day. Could not have This Turned into a duel Between equals: the Israeli Prime Minister The Knew That he Was playing on His home field, while the Secretary of State Had good reason to transmit pressure. As the senior American Functionary who Spoke in the conference, She knew that the eyes of the world – or at least the eyes of all the policy makers in Washington, Jerusalem, and Ramallah – would be directed at her. The great importance that she attached to the speech, which she spent a week preparing, can be seen from the email correspondence that was sent to her at that time, and that has now been exposed as part of the American Freedom of Information Act.

The first email message in the subject of the AIPAC conference was sent on March 15 by one of Clinton’s close advisors, Anne-Marie Slaughter. She reported that she was working with her ??colleagues on the main points in the speech, and noted that here was a clear and relatively easy opportunity for “a significant change”, and that it would be a pity to miss it. During the week the draft speech Was Examined by the Former envoy to the Middle East, Dennis Ross, members of the NSC, Dan Shapiro and Ben Rhodes, and other senior Diplomats who Expressed Their Opinion. Prior to the speech Clinton and number of Her staff went into the fine details: is there a teleprompter in the hall, who has to be thanked in the opening words, etc. In the meantime she managed to find time to talk over the phone with the chairman of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen, prior to an expected meeting with him. Former envoy and Quartet British Prime Minister The Tony Blair: sent Her Possible Political programs, Also That She studied in the days Preceding the AIPAC conference. BUT the Greatest drama in Clinton’s email box occurred just Before the speech. After the draft had apparently already been finalized, one of the Secretary of State’s confidants suggested that she make drastic changes to the spirit of the speech. Although Clinton did not accept his proposal, it is interesting to notice that she did not throw him out. It’s Possible That She even muse about the idea of Agreeing with Him, totally changing the wording of the speech, and giving Netanyahu and AIPAC a painful Political blow. The advisor Was Sidney Blumental, a Jewish American who Had Filled an official post in Bill Clinton’s administration. He was not officially employed in the Obama administration: the President marked him down as the one behind the personal attacks on him during the Democratic Primaries for the 2008 elections, and made ??it clear to Hillary Clinton that he must not be employed.
However, even with unofficial status, Blumental had a lot to say. Prior to the speech he sent the Secretary of State a secret commentary by Leftist Uri Avneri, who compared Israel to the fanatics in Jerusalem on the eve of the destruction of the Second Temple, and the US to the Romans. According to his analysis AIPAC had been recruited in support of Netanyahu and against the administration. His comments read Clinton, and in Her email reply to Blumental Asked: “I have to speak tomorrow in AIPAC – should I use this – and how?” The advisor Replied That Would he send a memorandum in the morning. The following morning, a few hours before the speech, the promised memorandum had still not arrived. Clinton was worried: If she wanted to change the speech she could not wait until the last moment. She: sent the advisor an email message in order to clarify the situation. “Just another quarter of an hour”, was the reply. The advice did in fact arrive shortly afterwards, in the email quoted at the beginning of this article.

Blumental’s flowery language regarding the appropriate treatment to be given to Netanyahu (“Hold Bibi’s feet to the fire”), and his advice to remind AIPAC that the administration could receive support from other Jewish Americans, were characteristic of an advisor who was notorious for his sharp tongue and his Opposition to the Israeli Right. He Also Proposed a Precise, very clever, wording, That Clinton Could use “the administration values ??the views of everyone. They are Important, you are Important. We accept views from all ends of the spectrum, from AIPAC to J Street. All the views are to legitimate, and They Must be’ve heard and Considered “Were the words That Blumental Attempted to put in Her mouth. Seven hours Later, on the platform in the AIPAC conference, Clinton Spoke none of these words. She praised Netanyahu for his Bar Ilan speech, but did not mention his agreement to withdrawals in the Wye conference; she emphasized the close connection between the US and Israel, and praised the activities of AIPAC, while avoiding mentioning J Street. The wording of the speech Was supportive and Pivotal, and at the end of the evening the crisis in- still hung in the air, But the explosion Had been Postponed. If this Had depended on Clinton, no-one Would have known what shock waves Could have been set off from that speech. Blumental’s proposal remained buried deep in the correspondence between them. However, it was revealed last March that during her four years of office Clinton had used a private email server, and not a secure one, and had also used it for diplomatic issues.

The affair led to public outcry in the US and refused to leave the headlines, despite the efforts of the former Secretary of State, who had already commenced a campaign that was thought to be an easy race to the White House in 2016. Following publication of the affair She Absorbed Firece attacks, and the court Ruled That She Must place at the disposal of the State Department the private email correspondence, so That it could be Published as part of the American Freedom of Information Act. Almost 20,000 email messages Between Clinton and leaders, ambassadors, and advisors have been uploaded since then to the official online collections. Some of the email messages have been censored, for security or other reasons. The Secretary of State frequently used abbreviations and did not waste words. Nevertheless, the picture that emerges is very authentic, and can not be refuted. The publication of the contents of her email box permits a unique glimpse of things that were not said publically, and of the method of drafting those that were, of the American diplomatic activities vis-a-vis Israel, of Clinton’s personality, and of her surroundings close. If Clinton should Succeed in Obtaining the Democratic Nomination for the US Presidential elections, this correspondence is Likely to Influence the Decision of many people of Whether to vote for Her; if she should be elected President, people in Jerusalem will certainly wish to examine the correspondence with a magnifying glass and learn what direction Israeli-US relations are likely to take.
Attack through the press
Lived in the Hillary White House for eight years, as the wife of President Bill Clinton. Shortly before the end of her husband’s term of office, in January 2001, she was elected as a Senator for the State of New York, and even then many people expected her to reach the highest position in American politics. Before the 2008 electrical she competed for the Democratic nomination for President, and it seemed that she would win it easily. However, Barak Obama rapidly reduced the gap between them, and was victorious. After His election as President of the US he Announced the Appointment of Clinton to the post of Secretary of State in His administration. Clinton emerges from the email correspondence That She: sent and received During Her term of office as a determined and Decisive woman who Supports progressive and liberal ideas. Her advisors also include members of the extreme Left, who hold views parallel to Israeli political parties Meretz or Hadash, who have encouraged her to turn her back on Israel. She did not reject their advice, and sometimes even considered adopting it, but in practice continued the traditional line of the US State Department – public support for Israel alongside an approach to the Palestinians and an aggressive attempt to advance peace talks, while employing the stick and carrot method against both sides.

The word “Israel” appears in about a thousand of Clinton’s email messages. From Their contents it is Possible to learn That Clinton Herself is in Fact sympathetic to the Zionist state, while Adopting an attitude That can sometimes be Regarded as Supercilious and patronizing.
She has Demonstrated Her desire to aid Israel on Several occasions, for example When She wished to oppose boycott campaigns, and when she attempted to balance international declarations against the Israeli government. Amongst other things the Secretary of State Discussed with Her aides how to Minimize the Ramifications of the Goldstone report, and to balance the final report of the commission of Enquiry headed by Him. At the Same time it is clear That at the personal level Clinton does not like Netanyahu, to say the least. Her advisors have frequently criticized him, and she herself has emphasized her negative impression from him. Her close Acquaintanceship with Israeli politics has Often Helped Her in Her Attempts to estimate Netanyahu’s Chances of advancing a specific Decision, and of surviving Crises or withstanding interpretation pressure. Reference is Frequently made ??in the correspondence to Opportunities of easily Attacking Netanyahu through the press. On September 1, 2009, at a time when the administration put pressure on Israel to freeze construction in the settlements, a senior official in the administration briefed the American news website, Politico, and noted that the prize to be offered to Netanyahu would be the improvement of the relations with Obama, then a relatively new President. “Netanyahu is at a pivotal point”, the senior official clarified. “Depending on what he Decides, Could he wind up with a very strong relationship with President Obama and potentially become a historic figure in Israel.” The briefer, Jonathan Prince, Served Then as one of Clinton’s aides. A few hours after he spoke with the journalists Prince sent an email message to Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl D. Mills, and to her deputy, Jacob Sullivan: “There should be a Politico piece and a Yediot Ahronot piece popping soon that has a US official saying Bibi’s at a pivotal moment, depending on his choices could have a great relationship with the President and potentially be a historic figure … I talked to Politico, Dan Shapiro talked to Yediot “.
For your information, and I told you so
The participants of the press conference held on June 1, 2010, in Washington virtually failed to notice the presence of the Romanian foreign minister, Teodor Baconschi, although it was held in his honor. The guest from Romania appeared before the microphones, took a folded note from his pocket, buttoned his shirt sleeves, and stood facing the audience – but for the journalists, the party was already over. In most of the reports Baconschi was not even mentioned. That’s the way it is When the American Secretary of State speaks about an international crisis in- with Israel in its center Before you. A Few hours Earlier members of Israeli Navy Squadron 13 Had gained control of the Marmara, a Turkish ship That has Attempted to break through the naval blockade of the Gaza Strip. During the operation they had encountered violent opposition, and nine Turkish civilians were killed in the confrontation. The international scene was stormy. Condemnation flowed from the Security Council, the Quartet, Russia, and the European Union. President Obama spoke with Netanyahu and expressed concern for the death of the civilians, and the White House spokesperson urged Israel to investigate the chain of events.

When Clinton spoke in the press conference, before Baconschi approached the microphones that did not really take interest in him, she declared that the US supports the condemnation by the Security Council of “acts leading to this tragedy” of civilians’ death on the Marmara . The Secretary of State asked Israel to transfer the injured and the bodies of the dead to their countries, and to conduct a “prompt, impartial, credible, and transparent investigation” of the incident. She compared the legitimacy of Israel’s security needs to the necessity for supporting humanitarian aid to Gaza, in which the situation was “unsustainable and unacceptable”. General impression Was The Clinton Was That Careful to Maintain an equal balance Between the Israeli and the Palestinian sides. At the end of Baconschi’s statement Clinton left the room, and Returned to row in the stormy Diplomatic waters. Notice arrived from Netanyahu of the cancellation of his visit to the US, including meetings with Clinton and Obama that were planned to take place during it. In parallel Jerusalem Contacted Washington and Requested aid in the international arena. We can see from the letters That the Secretary of State Was updated regarding, the contents of the conversations Held Between the Foreign Commissioner of the European Union, Catherine Ashton, and Foreign Minister The Avigdor Lieberman . She ordered her aides to transfer to her a call from Defense Minister Ehud Barak, whatever hour he called. “I’ve Worked on this non-stop since yesterday am” She Complained in an email to one of Her close Advisors. In parallel to the conversations with Israeli and Turkish leaders, Clinton Consulted with Her Confidants. Here also Blumental was one of them.

“First observation: Bibi’s Entebbe in reverse. The father, Benzion Netanyahu; 100 years old, secretary to Jabotinsky, and denounced as too radical by Begin, adored his son Yoni, heroically killed at Entebbe. Benyamin has never measured up. Benzion has constantly criticized Him in public for His Deviations from the doctrine of Greater Israel. Bibi Desperately Seeks His father’s Approbation and can never equal His dead brother. … The raid on the ship to Gaza Resembles the raid on Entebbe “, added Blumental, ‘Except That there are no Hostages, no guns, it’s not in Africa, and it’s a fiasco; Otherwise, it’s Entebbe. (Then, there’s Ehud Barak reliving His youth as a raider killing palestinians in Lebanon, a feat Memorialized in Spielberg’s film, Munich. “Blumental Stated That the incident Would have Ramifications on the foreign policy of the US. “… whatever the outcome of Such a raid, one of the inevitable ones Would be the death of the peace process, Such as it is, on the very eve of Bibi’s scheduled visit to Obama, which would have been, under any circumstance, in light of the raid, profoundly humiliating for the president. Or are the Israelis bone stupid? I do not the think so. “Clinton’s Agreement with this can be seen from an email containing a Few letters That She: sent to one of Her senior aides, together with Blumental’s interpretation.” FYI, and ITYS “, She Wrote. A Few hours later Blumental sent her “additional thought”, as he called it: “Without” tough love, “any support for Israel will lack credibility”. In an email that he sent the following day, under the heading “the best commentary”, he summed up the affair with a quotation attributed to the French diplomat, Charles Maurice de Talleyrand; “It was worse than a crime – It was a blunder”.

Just not to be seen as a sucker
Clinton’s correspondence around the Marmara incident well exemplifies her attitude to Netanyahu. It is very evident that she does not trust the Israeli Prime Minister, and her close advisors amplify her doubtful approach to him. Martin Indyk, the former US ambassador to Israel, and assistant Secretary of State in the Bill Clinton administration, stated in an email that he sent to her that “Bibi’s negotiating tactics become self-defeating … Believing that he is a great negotiator, and that he is operating in the Middle East bazaar, he inflates His Requirements well Beyond anything reasonable. “In the same email Indyk Noted That” The process of Bringing Him down (Netanyahu – EK) to a reasonable price uses up a lot of energy, uses up a lot of goodwill, humiliates his Palestinian negotiating partner, and raises doubts about his seriousness. In the end, under great pressure from all quarters, he will make the final concession, but only after wasting a lot of time, making everybody furious with Him. “Indyk based parts of His analysis on a conversation That he Held with the head of the Shin Bet at That time, Yuval Diskin. “At heart, he seems to lack a generosity of spirit”, he wrote. “This combines with his legendary fear of being seen as a” freier “(sucker) in front of his people to create a real problem in the negotiations, especially because he holds most of the cards”.

Sandy Berger, President Bill Clinton’s national security advisor, who subsequently served as Hillary’s aide in the 2008 campaign, gave the Secretary of State detailed advice on how to apply pressure to Netanyahu: “The objective is to try shift the fulcrum of our current relations with Bibi from settlements – where he thinks he has the upper hand – to ground where there is greater understanding in Israel of the American position and where we can make him uneasy about incurring our displeasure “, Berger claimed in his letter dated September 19, 2009 . “Ironically, his intransigence over 67 borders may offer us that possibility to turn his position against him. … Assuming Bibi will accept no formulation that includes 67 borders, it suggests that Bibi is the obstacle to progress and backtracking on his part on an issue that previous Israeli governments have accepted. It begins shifting the discussion from settlements to the more fundamental issue of ultimate territorial outcome “.

Berger Wrote to Clinton a Few days after His previous letter: “if Bibi Continues to be the Obstacle, you will need to the find the ground from Which you can make His politics Uneasy.”
It should be Noted That Berger will not be part of Clinton’s staff in the White House if She wins the race for the Presidency: At the beginning of the December he Died from cancer.

Within the hub of Clinton’s close Advisors, Blumental is the one who regards the Israeli Prime Minister The in the most negative way. For example, in an email dated June 16, 2009, two days after the Bar Ilan speech, in which Netanyahu made ??his surprising declaration regarding support for a solution of two states, Blumental stated that the student riots that took place in Tehran at that same Played into the time hands of the Israeli leader, and he Was given an opportunity to Appear in a positive light. “He is on a ‘I’m reasonable, tour the his favorability has skyrocketed,” Wrote Clinton’s confidant. “The shortcomings of Bibi’s poison pill proposal should be pointed out as soon as it’s possible without complicating the Iranian crisis. Option: Pretend his statement in favor of two states is a new position (it’s in fact a reiteration of his detailed position before in more or less the same terms) but point out that his terms (his substance) would make impossible what he now says he favors. In other words, catch his transparently false and hypocritical ploy not as false and hypocritical but as a contradiction in its own terms “.

An another email message Blumental raised a practical proposal for conducting negotiations, so that Netanyahu would be thrown under the wheels: “H: This may be worthless meandering on my part, but if the US unveils its own position in the new negotiations, inevitable if they are not to collapse, perhaps that position should incorporate at its heart what the Israeli government has already agreed to in the final status negotiations at Camp David, along, of course, with certain adjustments and amendments to account for the past ten years in terms Boundaries of, etc. This puts the Burden on Bibi to Repudiate Barak in Principles and details if he Pushes back, splitting His Coalition, and appearing to be the rejectionist. Also it Makes the US Seems Utterly reasonable. “Clinton Thanked Blumental and Stated That his advice “Not useless – thx”. It may be possible to find evidence that she even acted in this spirit: In a joint press conference with Foreign Minister Lieberman on June 17, 2009, a day after she received the email message, the Secretary of State noted that the administration wished to see freezing of construction in the settlements, and added that she personally knew several Israeli leaders – from the Likud, from the Labor Party, and from Kadima, who had changed their initial views of the peace process, regarding what they believed to be in Israel’s interest .
We shall be in the room
While in her public remarks Clinton was forced to maintain diplomatic politeness, in private correspondence with her ??advisors she gave much greater freedom to her tongue. When She: sent one of unto them a quotation of Netanyahu’s saying, “We have two main’s enemies – The New York Times and Haaretz” She added a sarcastic remark: “Further Bibi lore”, and said no more. In contrast to the Doubts That She displayed towards the Israeli Prime Minister, the Secretary of State placed great hopes in the Palestinians and in the diplomatic process. Example of this An is a letter That She: sent in April 2010, Before the visit of special envoy George Mitchell to Israel in an attempt to renew the talks. “I’m crossing my fingers and holding breath about this week in Israel,” Clinton wrote to Sullivan, her deputy chief of staff. In August 2010, after Blumental sent her an article reviewing the slim chances for renewal of the negotiations, Clinton replied: “Well, this may be a case of no good options, but I still believe it is better to be caught trying. Stay tuned “. During Those Same months Clinton Evaluated Earlier US Proposals to Israel and to the palestinians and selected Her Those That suited. In parallel, those near her raised new solutions to which the diplomatic dialog could be directed. However, the members of the Obama administration were pursued by ghosts from the past, such as the Bush-Sharon memorandum of understanding, in which, Israel claimed, President George Bush promised that any future peace program would take into account the conditions in the field and Existing blocks of Settlements, and That Israel Would not be Obligated to withdraw to the green line Borders. Clinton Consulted with Her aides regarding, Ways of getting rid of this heavy Burden, Especially in the light of Her demand from Israel for absolute freezing of construction in the Settlements. On June 6, 2009, Sullivan wrote her that staffers had sent documents for her perusal, including denials by the Bush administration regarding the contents of the letter, an appreciation by an American general regarding the inability to implement such a memorandum, and a declaration by Dan Shapiro according to which no-one in the previous administration had mentioned the existence of such understandings.

“Bottom line”, Sullivan explained the strategy that he proposed to implement, “your statement that nobody in the Bush administration informed anyone in the Obama administration appears to be accurate. Your statement that these oral understandings are not memorialized in any way also appears to be accurate. ”

Apart from the total denial of the understandings, Sullivan proposed a possible strategy for a media attack against Israel, including the publication of an editorial in a major newspaper. The Secretary of State, who only Wished to end the affair, Replied: “That is helpful. We need to do something in writing Quickly.” The Diplomatic Negotiations Also lie in the center of a letter: sent by Sandy Berger on August 28, 2010 . Berger focuses both on technical details – such as the need for American representatives in every meeting between the parties, the degree of Israel’s trust in NATO, and agreement regarding the transition period in which the IDF will stay in the Jordan Valley after the signing of peace Agreement the – and issues of principle. “This (Framework Agreement) is very Difficult But I do not the think Impossible,” Berger Claimed, “If Bibi can say he has secured Unprecedented commitments on security and established the principle of a Jewish state , he could decide to play the historic leader. If he is uncompromising, he will have to deal with the consequences for US-Israeli relations. His opt out, of course, is to blame the Pals, but we will be ‘in the room “. [and Supervise what is being done – EK] Berger added That “I the think this should be a negotiation That goes from principle to paper Rather than the other way around, ie not an early exchange of Documents That dig Each side into its positions other … I think he [Abbas – EK] is genuinely committed to an agreement. He hopes that, if this fails, Bibi will seem to be unreasonable … His minimal requirement is the equivalent of 1967 “.
The hummus riddle
It sometimes seems that the Secretary of State and her close advisors have gone too far with their dreams. Instead of sticking to practical Principles, evaluating the Actual situation, and Paying attention to the capa- of the two sides, They have Exchanged ideas That may Appear to be detached from reality. In an email message: sent to Clinton on December 18, 2011 (and that she asked to print for additional examination), Thomas Pickering, the former US ambassador to Israel, wrote to her that the diplomatic negotiations had become stalemated and that there was no reason to assume that the situation would change, since neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis Could Propose a solution That Would meet the minimum capa- of the other side. Pickering Noted That the US Had succeeded in the past in breaking Such a freeze by changing the rules of the game, and Proposed an idea for action “in the spirit of Gandhi “:” a major Effort to use non-violent Protests and Demonstrations and Protests to put peace back in the center of people’s aspirations as well as Their thoughts. “Pickering added That Palestinian men Were not Suitable for this aim, since They Would not avoid use of violence for an extended period of time, and since their presence would cause IDF soldiers to disperse the demonstrators by force. “Women can and ought to be at the center of these demonstrations. This must only be women”, he wrote.

He felt that in order that the move would succeed, protracted sit-ins in the style of Tahrir Square in Cairo would be required. Later, he argued, the Palestinian women would persuade their Israeli friends to join them. Pickering also stated that in order to encourage demonstrations, that would take place in every possible place, the Peace Now organization would constitute “one starting point”. However, he Warned That it Must not be Discovered That the administration Stood behind the Demonstrates. Out of all the staffers close to Clinton, Slaughter is the one who Stood out regarding, the vision. The advisor frequently states in the emails that Clinton may not agree with her, but she writes the opinions all the same. For example, this is what she said in an article that she wrote on September 22, 2011. When she sent it to the Secretary of State, Slaughter added a comment: “Frankly, Israel has given us nothing in return for an enormous amount of and support from time us, while Dragging us ever Deeper into Situations That are Increasingly tukar our interests. “On Another Occasion Slaughter: sent an article That She described as” an Extraordinary example of 21st century Statecraft “. The article addresses a Facebook campaign of Israelis who uploaded their photos with text in English: “Iranians, We will never bomb your country. We love you”. Slaughter wrote that it was “very important” to translate in the future such messages into Hebrew and Persian, and proposed that the State Department contribute the resources for this purpose.
On August 27, 2010, Slaughter sent Clinton a letter that addressed the Arc project proposed by the American Rand Corporation, that conducts research for the US government and civil organizations. The project proposes the construction of a corridor of infrastructures between Gaza and Judea and Samaria: an express railroad track, electricity lines, and water pipes. The corridor will be connected to all the Palestinian towns, from Rafiah to Jenin, and their centers will be developed around the railroad stations. Local tourism is expected to blossom and in this way the new Palestinian State will be able to depend on a broad Economic base and on a close connection with the Gaza Strip. The idea Was Proposed to Clinton after the Cast Lead operation, at a time When Hamas controlled the Gaza Strip. Nevertheless Slaughter described it as having the “potential for enabling peace in the region”. She Declared That It Was practical and Could get Started by Means of private Funding, and added That the proposal Had been Examined by Israelis, palestinians, and Jewish Americans, and They all liked it very much. The Following day, Clinton Replied by email That it is a “great practical idea”, thanked her, and asked her to expand on the subject later. Slaughter’s response was enthusiastic: “I’m so glad you took the time to see it. It’s both practical / achievable and visionary”. She also wondered whether a team headed by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright could work on the project and attempt to turn it into reality. In October Slaughter reported that people in the Rand Corporation were pressing the administration to adopt the idea, and were already examining its cost. Her aides Asked Clinton to print the letter for Her. In parallel Slaughter Raised Another idea, Which She: sent to all Clinton’s senior staffers. The project, “Pledge for Palestine”, that she wanted to promote by means of her personal contacts, included a campaign in which billionaires and multi-millionaires would contribute half their fortunes for the great cause of support for the Palestinians. The inspiration, Slaughter explained, comes from “the Giving Pledge” campaign of Warren Buffett, who tried to persuade 40 billionaires to give half their money to charity. “Such a campaign among billionaires / multi-millionaires around the world would reflect a strong vote of confidence in the building of a Palestinian state and could offset the ending of the moratorium for Palestinians”, she wrote. She added, “there Would Also be a Certain Shaming effect re Israelis, who Would be building Settlements in the face of a pledge for peace.” For this purpose Slaughter Proposed Contacting large Contributors in the Clinton fundraising network, in order to “Generate a Substantial enough amount Quickly enough to capture the public imagination … and serve as an expression of global solidarity with the palestinians. “When Clinton Attempted to Impress Israeli colleagues with the original ideas That She put forward, She only Became frustrated. On May 21, 2011 , the Secretary of State corresponded with a childhood friend regarding, the campaign to boycott Sabra brand hummus in the De Paul University campus in Chicago. Clinton said That She loved Sabra Hummus, “whatever That Means!”, And acceded to Her friend’s Humorous proposal: “There’s a full moon. You Might show this to Netanyahu today … The world is having a nervous breakdown.” Part of Clinton’s reply has been censored, but that which remains disclosed reflects her thoughts about Netanyahu and the peace process, on that sunny morning: “But, even the allure of Mother Moon in all her glory is unlikely to impress the PM. Everything is sooo hard and not as gratifying as Nearly planting your garden. “*** Makor Rishon Emailed the Spokesperson of Hillary Clinton’s campaign and elections Requested a comment on the contents of the article. Until now no response has been received.