Why does it not surprise me that Hillary Clinton’s Israel policy paper reads like something Benjamin Netanyahu wrote? As Ezra notes, it calls explicitly for a unified Jerusalem, and as Ezra’s commenter Adrian notes, it supports not only Israel having “defensible borders”, obvious code for “broader than pre-1967”, but also Israel’s “right to exist as a Jewish state”, an oblique way of ruling out Palestinian right of return. The only viable peace proposal, the only one acceptable to both Israel and the Palestinian authority, is one where Palestine includes East Jerusalem (without which any Palestinian state is crippled) and more or less the entirety of the West Bank and Gaza, and where Palestinians have some kind of limited right of return. Hillary pre-emptively rules out all of these conditions. I don’t think it’s reaching to say that she’d be considerably worse for the peace process than the current president.