The presidential campaign lands in Washington this week as front-runners Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton join other White House contenders in addressing thousands of pro-Israel activists at the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference.
As the major presidential candidates speak at the gathering, they’ll be doing so at a historically low point in U.S.-Israel relations following a bitter dispute over the Iran nuclear deal, which AIPAC opposed.
Clinton, who served as secretary of state for many of the Obama administration’s clashes with Israel, has made continuing his policies a big part of her campaign, and that includes the policy on Iran. Meanwhile, Trump has unnerved many in the pro-Israel community by combining a lack of policy understanding with loose statements such as the idea that he would be “neutral” in Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians. His chief rival, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, has vowed to side with Israel.
The next president will enter office at a challenging time, both when it comes to relations with Israel and the broader Middle East. And the AIPAC conference will represent the most high-profile public effort by the candidates to make the case to the pro-Israel community. In 2008, within days of becoming the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama addressed the AIPAC conference in an effort to woo skeptics. It was in this speech that he infamously declared, “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided,” a position that his campaign promptly walked back a day later.
Obama entered office in 2009 vowing to end what he viewed as a too reflexively pro-Israel posture by his predecessor, George W. Bush, by creating more “daylight” between the historical allies. “When there is no daylight, Israel just sits on the sidelines, and that erodes our credibility with the Arab states,” Obama observed shortly after taking office, the Washington Post reported.
In his quest to gain Arab trust for the peace process, Obama turned against Israel and engaged in high-profile clashes with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama attacked Jewish housing construction surrounding Jerusalem and called for a return to indefensible borders.
In 2008, Barack Obama addressed the AIPAC conference in an effort to woo skeptics.(AP Photo)
When this strategy failed and only made Palestinians raise their asking price for entering negotiations, the administration blamed Israel for stalling the peace process. In Obama’s second term, administration officials have hinted at removing protection at the United Nations Security Council from anti-Israel resolutions and a Palestinian declaration of statehood.
More than anything, Obama antagonized Israel by engaging in an aggressive diplomatic effort with Iran. The ensuing deal gave $150 billion in sanctions relief to the largest state sponsor of terrorism. The deal also makes Iran a greater conventional threat in the near-term, and in the longer term, paves the way for Iran to obtain an arsenal of nuclear weapons.
Israel views a nuclear Iran as an existential threat, given that the regime’s leaders have called for the Jewish state’s destruction. In a further failure for Obama, the deal also alienated Arab nations that have reason to fear a nuclear Iran — nations whose trust Obama once thought he could win over by picking fights with Israel.
The strained relationship between the U.S. and Israel has created a special challenge for AIPAC, which exists to try to strengthen ties between the two countries and establish a bipartisan pro-Israel consensus. That’s much harder to do when the governments of both countries do not get along, and when both political parties are being torn in opposite directions.
Obama’s belligerence toward Israel comes at a time when the progressive left has become increasingly influential with the party. Progressives tend to identify more with the narrative of Palestinians as victims of Israeli oppression than with the reality of Israelis as the victims of terrorism. There is some residual support for Israel among older Democrats, but on college campuses throughout the country, younger liberals have pushed efforts to boycott Israeli products out of solidarity with Palestinians. It is no accident that out of all five active presidential candidates, the only one who did not accept the invitation to speak at AIPAC is Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, the socialist who is serving as a vehicle for disenchanted progressives.
Republicans are moving in the opposite direction, as support for Israel has become a core belief of conservatives, reflective of the influence of evangelicals within the party. The largest pro-Israel group in America actually isn’t AIPAC, but Christians United for Israel, which now boasts 2.8 million members nationwide. Vows to defend and support Israel are routinely the top applause lines at conservative conferences.
This is reflected in polling numbers. In the summer of 2014, as Israel was at war with Gaza terrorist groups heaving rockets toward its civilians, 73 percent of Republicans surveyed by the Pew Research Center said they sympathized more with Israel than the Palestinians, compared with just 44 percent of Democrats who sided with Israel.
A poll taken last year found Republicans had a favorable view of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (53 percent to 21 percent), representing a 32-point positive margin. (AP Photo)
Another poll taken last year found Republicans had a favorable view of Netanyahu — 53 percent to 21 percent — representing a 32-point positive margin. In contrast, just 28 percent of Democrats said they had a favorable view of Netanyahu, compared with 35 percent who had an unfavorable view.
For AIPAC, which exists to perpetuate the idea of bipartisan agreement on Israel, it’s become increasingly difficult to keep up the illusion. Throughout the Obama administration, as right-wing critics of Obama’s Israel policy urged AIPAC to take a stronger line with the administration, the group’s defenders often argued that it was important for the group to be seen as nonpartisan, keeping both parties in a big tent to maximize its influence.
But the strategy of courting Democratic lawmakers was put to the test with the Iran deal, which AIPAC opposed, and the group failed to stop it. Despite their multimillion dollar lobbying and advertising effort, AIPAC couldn’t garner more than four Democratic votes in the Senate against the deal, when six were needed to avert a filibuster and send a bill of disapproval to Obama’s desk. All 54 Republican senators voted to reject the deal. Despite his support for the Iran deal, House Democratic whip Rep. Steny Hoyer will be welcomed at AIPAC, as will Vice President Joe Biden.
Defenders of AIPAC would argue that the group is stronger than ever. It’s a fundraising behemoth, reporting total revenue of nearly $200 million between 2011 and 2013. And this year’s conference is expected to attract a record 18,000 attendees, forcing the group to move part of the gathering to the Verizon Center, home to the Washington Wizards and Capitals. It still attracts a large contingent of Congress (including leadership from both parties) and counts as success the maintenance of U.S. military aid to Israel. And on Monday, attendees will hear from four of the five remaining presidential candidates.
Clinton is a relatively known quantity among the AIPAC crowd, which skews Democratic, and she is well-versed on the issues of concern to the audience. But she also will face her share of skeptics. Those with a long enough memory recall that in 1999 as first lady, she kissed Suha Arafat, the wife of the Palestinian terrorist, and was slow to issue a condemnation when Suha claimed that Israel was poisoning Palestinian water. Clinton was secretary of state during Obama’s pursuit of the “daylight” policy, and has defended the Iran nuclear deal. In addition, emails released by the State Department show that she was regularly soliciting advice on Middle East policy from anti-Israel operative Sid Blumenthal.
But Trump is causing the biggest stir going into the conference, because he is such a wildcard. AIPAC has come under criticism for giving the bombastic candidate a platform, but a source at AIPAC insists that it merely wanted to invite all of the active presidential candidates. Trump used the invitation as a pretext to avoid going to a GOP debate scheduled for Monday night, which has since been canceled for lack of participation.
The big question mark is whether he’ll take advantage of the chance to appear presidential by delivering a prepared speech laying out details and trying to show a grasp of the issues. Up until now, when asked about Israel, he has said he’s the most pro-Israel candidate, that Obama treated Israel poorly, and that the Iran deal is a disaster. He boasted that he served as the grand marshal of the Israeli Day Parade.
Republican front-runner Donald Trump is causing the biggest stir going into the conference, because he is such a wildcard. (AP Photo)
Beyond displaying a lack of understanding or seriousness about the Middle East, what makes a number of supporters of Israel nervous is Trump’s contention that he would be “neutral” in the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians to be a better broker of a peace agreement. His GOP rivals charge that this is an anti-Israel position because it creates a false equivalence between a democratic ally and Palestinian leaders who have embraced terrorism.
For Jewish conservatives, Cruz has been the most steadfast in his support for Israel. Among his first campaigns as an elected senator was to oppose Obama’s nomination of Chuck Hagel, who had decried the nefarious influence of the Jewish lobby, as defense secretary. During Israel’s 2014 war with Hamas, Cruz pressured the administration into lifting an FAA ban on flights to Israel. And he has been a forceful opponent of the Iran deal.
Cruz has even integrated Israel into his regular stump speech, in which he talks about his first five acts as president. One of those acts would be to rescind the Iran deal, and another would be to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. (I saw him make these two points at a campaign stop in the remote farm town of Hubbard, Iowa, in late January.) He has also attacked Trump’s stance of “neutrality” on Israel.
“As president, America will stand unapologetically with the nation of Israel — if I am president — because I am not neutral between terrorists who are blowing up and murdering women and children, and the people of Israel who are trying to defend their nation,” Cruz said in response to Trump.
Despite his track record, Cruz will face skepticism from Jewish Democrats in the AIPAC audience who disagree with him on other issues.
Optimistic supporters of Israel will argue that the fundamentals of the Middle East are such that the U.S. will always end up having close ties to Israel, as the most stable and reliable player in the region. Under this line of thinking, Iran’s belligerence, uncertainty in Jordan and Turkey, bloodshed in Syria, and Russian involvement in the region, will all draw clear lines that put Israel and the U.S. on the same side.
But there’s also plenty of reason for pessimism. The Iran deal has put Israel’s greatest enemy in a much stronger position, and the agreement will be difficult to unravel, even by a new president dedicated to doing so. Obama has turned Democrats further away from support of Israel while also proving there aren’t any real consequences from taking a combative stance toward the traditional U.S. ally. Furthermore, Obama still has time to put the screws into Israel at the U.N. before he leaves office. And the two front-runners — Clinton and Trump — don’t offer much reassurance that things are going to substantially improve.
