Jim Lobe offers a look at what it means for a politician to be a neoconservative:
"I agree with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who has sometimes observed that when neoconservatives talk about democratization, they usually mean destabilization.
"Now I believe some neocons, notably Bob Kagan, are indeed -- I believe -- sincerely committed to democracy promotion and human rights, but I think his is a minority view, as demonstrated most recently in the case of Egypt, where, like Netanyahu, most influential neocons deeply appreciate President Sisi and want Washington to do more to help him.
"And like Bibi, most neocons think a de facto alliance between Israel and the region's Sunni autocrats who have led the counter-revolution against the Arab Spring would just be the cat's pajamas. Indeed, most neocons have historically always had a soft spot for what they used to refer to as friendly authoritarians.
"When was the last time you heard neoconservatives advocate for full human rights for Palestinians, let alone their right to national self-determination, unless they want to exercise it in Jordan? In any event, their record over the past 40 years suggests that their devotion to democracy depends entirely on the circumstances."
This is the world view Clinton employs as she signs on with the anti-BDS forces who are currently seeking to squash support for a non-violent Palestinian effort to overthrow its decades-long occupation.
In her letter, Clinton attacks BDS by describing the modern state of Israel as "the miracle in the desert."
"Miracle in the desert" is a Zionist propaganda trope designed to serve as a wall of deceit to the world.
When Arab Palestinians were invaded by Zionist forces, Palestine was not a desert. It was a thriving farming culture of Arabs, both Christian and Muslims, and indigenous Jews.
For an American candidate to use a propagandist phrase like "miracle in the desert" is an insult.
That Zionist influence in her campaign which led her to make the dumb mistake of employing the "miracle in the desert" trope, did not just offend her potential progressive supporters.
It was also a display of bad judgment, the sort of bad judgment she cannot afford when she answers that same "2 a.m telephone call," the phrase her campaign used against State Senator Barack Obama during the 2008 primary elections.
Clinton is virtually certain to win the Democratic nomination. She certainly has made her case for her support for Israel to her Jewish funders and voters for the general election. That box has been checked many times.
So why make this mistake?
The only possible answer is a lack of judgment, a sign of an uncertain leader. We had that in George W. Bush, who was pushed into the Iraq war by the same neoconservative forces who now are eager for another Clinton in the White House.
Clinton or Trump? Clinton has far more experience and is no stranger to how Washington and the world work. She is the clear choice. But we have to encourage her to stop with the bad judgment calls.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
