Over the past 48 hours, we’ve been inundated by the news that Hillary Clinton would give a “major” foreign policy speech in California where, according to the latest polls, the Democratic primary race is running neck-and-neck. The truth is, despite a strong and well-carried-out performance, you could only look at her speech in two ways: It was an exemplary exercise of circumlocution, delivering vague and not-so-major remarks; or it was a major speech because of the things downplayed. Palestine was nonexistent in the address, but Israel’s place in the speech was pretty narrow, in a possible acknowledgement that the Israel brand isn’t one anyone wants to be associated with these days.

Wendy Sherman, Mel Levine, Howard Berman, and Chemi Shalev all say that Hillary Clinton will not or should not compromise with Bernie Sanders on support for Israel in the Democratic platform, lest it hurt her among Jewish voters in the general election.

The Center for a New American Security, a Clintonite thinktank, has issued a new report aimed at reviving the two-state solution that emphasizes Israelis’ need for “security,” obtainable it says by collecting lots of “biometric” data on Palestinians so they can be monitored when crossing borders. Creepy.

Haim Saban, whose only issue is Israel, is the top donor to Hillary Clinton’s superPAC in the first quarter of 2016, which shows that her hawkish stances on foreign policy, including support for regime change in Syria, is born out of dependence on Israel lobby donors.

‘NYT’ puts Dems’ battle over Israel platform on the front page. The exposure signifies that the Democratic Party is lost to Israel forever, as the progressive grassroots assert themselves, through the Sanders campaign, against a reactionary corrupt establishment that depends on pro-Israel money.

Advocates for the rights of Palestinians will join Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in Philadelphia this July for the Democratic National convention, part of his five selections for the fifteen member Executive Committee drafting the Democrats’ 2016 platform. Three of the five selected have expressed skepticism about Israel. According to The Washington Post, they are James Zogby, the head of the Arab American Institute; Cornel West, a social justice activist and author critical of Israel, and Minn. Rep. Keith Ellison, one of only two Muslims in congress. “Our lives depend on the outcome of this election. The stakes are much higher for us,” said Linda Sarsour, co-founder of the Muslim Democratic Club of New York, a Palestinian-American born in Brooklyn who has been a vocal surrogate for Sanders during his campaign.

A NYT article by Ronen Bergman says Israel’s top military leaders regard Benjamin Netanyahu as a religious, ideological ambitious man who seeks “belligerent” solutions to problems. Then why is Hillary Clinton saying she wants to invite this “dangerous” man to the White House in her first month as president?

The DNC may give Bernie Sanders seats on a key platform committee to try and keep him on board with the Clinton campaign, but he is likely to push more equitable US policy in the Israel/Palestine issue, and Clinton campaign is “nervous” that this would be divisive, the Washington Post reports.

Another neoconservative says nice things about Hillary Clinton, even as the Democratic left signals its opposition to her foreign policy. Ralph Nader says “she scares the generals” and Oliver Stone slams the “viciousness” of her speech to the Israel lobby group AIPAC.

Chris Matthews says that Hillary Clinton was “concerned about Israel” when she voted for the Iraq war in 2002, and Mark Landler, NYT reporter who has authored a new book on her foreign policy, echoes him: “Precisely.” Now we know.