It is nice to see that any dialog at all is happening within the party after the theft of the nomination. However, these positions involve differences in deep assumptions that move populations and centuries.
Clinton and camp do not favor Israel due to any attraction to Judaism or to democracy. Were that the case, Clinton would not have subverted the electoral process, and she would go to Temple, and people could be Jewish quite peacefully, as is done otherwise.
The conflict is about something else.
Clinton apparently assumes something like what was written by Thomas Hobbes ages ago in The Leviathan. She assumes that people are intrinsically evil or venal or of one character or another, that this is little changed or at least not conveniently changed by nurture, and so the actions of social harmony depend on violent coercion and top-down control. Because she and her cohorts (not necessarily her voters) assume something very broadly like this, their response to the obvious upcoming family of crises--peak oil, climate, ambient poisons, mass extinctions, mutually assured destruction, and the implosion of the current dominant religions of capital into various sorts of Ponzi fireworks--is very different than what many of us would call humane and reasonable.
You see, assuming intrinsic human misbehavior, it would do no good to technologically and philosophically and ecologically resolve a path without access to violent and draconian means of control to force people to carry this out--and to carry out the actions to maintain that control.
This is quite likely what Clinton means by phrases like "a progressive who gets things done." There's nothing terribly novel in any of this. These things were also believed by Marx and Hitler and Teddy Roosevelt and Dick Nixon and Barack Obama and so on--and their differences may have been important, but so were the similarities. These people imagine that despotism must be undertaken for practical and ultimately humane reasons, and that their personal sadisms and greed are universal or reasonable or valid or whatever.
All of that has been a recipe for perfidy and tragedy over millennia, and now it becomes a recipe for catastrophe on an unprecedented scale. The alternative theory, again very roughly, is that people may learn to act better if needs are supplied, so that the mechanisms of human life and civilization need to be designed and arranged in accordance with the need to take care of people, take care of the Earth that supports us, and to return surplus back into these natural systems so that we may continue to have that support.
Neither this nor its articulation is original with me, of course, but both sides and both bodies of assumption remain largely inarticulate within debates between and within political parties. The people involved in such things mostly imagine that philosophies and underlying assumptions are either useless or beyond the reach of discussion, and so they leave no little room for practical understandings among people of different camps. The Democratic party is now run by warmongering nut-jobs who imagine that they must monopolize oil and dictate to the world. There shall be little compromise with people who feel that childcare, education, and environment are important because they imagine that centralized dictatorship comes first because it is necessary to address any such problem.
There was a time when I imagined that the above meant that such people had to be removed from power by violent force. The trouble is, however, that violent force and much other force teaches people that Hobbesian assumptions are correct. One fights terrorists and gets more terrorists: more Clintons, more Bushes, even the occasional and extremely odd Donald Trump.
No, they need to be argued and voted against, disobeyed, and unpaid--but allowed to be, just not to be rich or otherwise influential.