sure.
would clinton's proposal have been in the self-interest of most "palestinians"?
yes.
but they didn't support it. and by standing in front of an audience and repeating support for clintonian proposals in historical israel in 2026, you are not standing in solidarity with any muslim group in the region, you are articulating a now very dated american policy proposal that they have firmly and repeatedly rejected.
conversely, if you are standing in front of an audience and legitimately standing in solidarity with the muslim political entities in historical israel, you are necessarily calling for the end of israel. that's what they are fighting for. that's what solidarity means.
which is it?
it's the former, in 99% of situations, and the actual issue is that the performer doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about, not that they're politically aligned with hamas. they're not politically aligned or in solidarity with anybody except themselves, and the irony would be that they'd be enforcing a colonial model on a muslim population that is resistant to it, and is only really supported by liberal jews.
they're in solidarity with noam chomsky and norman finkelstein and naomi klein (abstractly if not actually), not with any contemporary muslim entity in historical israel.