Hmm. I'm not sure what Christopher is getting at, exactly, with this post on Hillary Clinton's speech yesterday on Israel and Palestine. Here's Michelle Goldberg, who supports Clinton, writing in Slate:

Any presidential candidate speaking to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, during an election year is going to bow to the hawkish elements of the Israel lobby. Hillary Clinton’s keynote speech at AIPAC’s annual meeting Monday, however, was more debased than it needed to be, promising that under her administration, Israel will be spared even the mild rebukes it has suffered under President Obama. A symphony of pandering, it attempted to outflank Donald Trump on the right and will end up outraging a large chunk of the left.

Clinton hardly mentioned, and didn't condemn, Israel's illegal settlements or the occupation of the West Bank.

Sanders, meanwhile, has finally outlined his Middle East policy by saying some reasonable non-neocon things. He called on the Palestinians, including Hamas, to accept Israel's existence and respect its security. He also said that as a friend of Israel, the United States is "obligated to speak the truth as we see it." Sanders said continued settlement expansion is "absurd" and argued that Palestinian suffering under occupation cannot be ignored if there is to be a solution to the conflict. He condemned Israel's bombing of "hospitals, schools and refugee camps" in Gaza.

Even if you're a big fan of Clinton, it's hard to imagine how bellicose support (and not a smidgen of criticism) for the more powerful entity in the conflict will bring peace. Sanders' rhetoric is much more even-handed.

The Washington Democratic caucuses are this Saturday.