Let us play the Trump-AIPAC game. Let us look seriously at the question of whether AIPAC should have – or should not have – invited Donald Trump to speak at its policy conference next week. As you might know, the invitation prompted a healthy volume of response. The leaders of the Jewish Reform movement understand the invitation but promise protests. Rob Eshman, my editor, believes AIPAC made a misjudgment. Both the statement by the Reform movement and the article by Eshman present a nuanced case. Clearly, the authors understand that Trump could be the next President of the United States, and that for AIPAC to decide in advance that it is not to have good relations with a potential President of the United States is not a wise policy.
I will offer a somewhat different analysis by looking at AIPAC's options and examining the upside and downside to having Trump as a speaker. Full disclosure: I will be a speaker at next week's conference.
The four options
AIPAC had four options to consider as it was thinking about the speakers at this year's conference:
1. Invite all Presidential candidates: that is what the organization decided to do – as it did in previous rounds of elections. Advantage: it makes the conference relevant, and could potentially make the candidates commit to the US-Israel alliance. Disadvantage: you might have on stage a candidate, or two, or three, with which the AIPAC crowd disagrees.
2. Invite no Presidential candidates. Advantage: no polarizing figure speaking. Disadvantage: a boring and much less relevant conference in an election year.
3. Invite all candidates with conditions: for example, tell them that they can only come if they say this or do not say that, apologize for this or promise that.
4. Invite some of the candidates. Advantage: no troubles on stage with candidates with which the AIPAC crowd disagrees. Disadvantage: a lot of trouble off stage with the candidates that were not invited – one of which could be the next president of the United States.
Applying the options
Option number 2 is not really an option for an organization such as AIPAC. Having a policy extravaganza in Washington in an election year with no presidential candidates would be almost unthinkable. In all previous elections cycles that I can remember – and I attended the conferences in the last 3 cycles – the candidates were invited, and their speeches were the highlight of the week. Some of you might remember Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on stage the day after Obama clinched the nomination. Some of you might remember a line of GOP candidates harshly criticizing President Obama over Israel at the 2012 AIPAC conference.
So AIPAC was left with three options: invite all, invite some, or invite with pre-conditions.
Is it conceivable to invite only some of the candidates?
Could AIPAC say it will only invite the two leading candidates – the way they do in early presidential debates? In such case, the other candidates would say that AIPAC is taking sides in internal political battles within the parties. In such case, Bernie Sanders supporters would cry that AIPAC is deliberately eliminating him because of his political tendencies. In such case, Trump would still be invited. He is – you know – the leading candidate.
Could AIPAC say it will only invite the candidates whose views it agrees with? In such case, criticism would be much more severe. And besides, which “views” would be counted in and which “views” would be counted out? If a candidate is a supporter of the Iran nuclear deal, which AIPAC opposed, should she not be invited? If a candidate is an opponent of the two-state solution, of which AIPAC is a supporter, should he not be invited?
Could AIPAC say it will only invite the candidates of one party? I think it's obvious that it could not. AIPAC is bi-partisan. It is supposed to remain bi-partisan. A bi-partisan organization cannot invite the leading candidate of one party and not the leading candidate of another party.
Is it conceivable to invite only the candidates that agree to certain preconditions?
Let us imagine it: an AIPAC representative calls Bernie Sanders. He tells him: we invite you, but you can only come if you promise not to say that socialism is what America needs. And then he calls Hillary Clinton and tells her: you are invited, but only if you say that the agreement with Iran is dangerous for Israel. And then he calls Donald Trump and tells him: you are invited, but only if you agree to revoke your policy concerning Muslim immigrants. And then he calls Ted Cruz and tells him: you are invited, but only if you say that you did not really mean it when you suggested carpet bombing in Syria.
Do you believe any of these candidates would accept the invitation? Do you believe that these candidates would not tell the press that AIPAC was trying to blackmail them? Do you believe that such a strategy would not backfire? And in case any of these candidates say yes – would there be a way for AIPAC to stop them from saying whatever they want when they get on stage? I think the answers to all of these questions are obvious.
The Trump exception
All of these arguments are known to the critics of the Trump invitation – but their counter-argument is, to put it somewhat simplistically: Trump is an exceptional case, and hence the regular rules do not apply to him. Eshman put it this way:
Bigotry is bigotry. Racism is racism. A demagogue willing to defame or threaten an entire religion or nationality just to rile up voters could easily redirect his venom to some other group when the time is ripe. That’s the line Trump crossed.
And indeed, Trump is not a traditional candidate. His rhetoric is more blunt, his manner is more aggressive, his proposed policies are more radical than those of all others. He has certainly crossed some lines.
So the question for AIPAC is as follows:
1. Should the organization be an enforcer of lines of any kind?
2. If it should, has Trump crossed the lines that AIPAC should be guarding?
AIPAC and the lines
There are three possibilities here that make sense:
A. AIPAC should not be dealing with lines – it should deal with viable candidates. If Trump is a serious contender for the presidency, he should get an invitation to speak before AIPAC.
B. AIPAC should consider lines – but only lines that are directly connected to its core business. For example: If a candidate says that Israel has no right to exist, he should not be invited to an AIPAC conference, no matter how politically strong he becomes.
C. AIPAC should concern itself with general lines of morality. If a candidate is a racist, even in case his racism does not extend itself to Jews, he should not get an invitation to an AIPAC conference. If a candidate endorses political violence, he should not get an invitation to an AIPAC conference.
Naturally, option C is the most appealing. An organization of volunteers that is invested in promoting an alliance based on shared values has to retain its own morality.
Alas, drawing lines of morality in a political minefield is not always easy.
Take, for example, “bigotry”: Where could AIPAC draw the line on bigotry? In many instances, progressive commentators describe the opposition to abortion rights as bigotry against women. But when Andrew Cuomo hinted that pro-life conservatives have “no place in the state of New York,” he was called a bigot by conservatives. “Bigotry” is used by both factions of the abortion debate. Or take “racism”: Where could AIPAC draw the line on racism? three years ago, John McCain was called a racist following a tweet comparing the president of Iran to a monkey. Seven years ago, Bill Clinton had to defend himself against accusations that he was a racist. “Racism” is a common cry in the political field, one that is used by all political factions.
If lines should be drawn for AIPAC appearance, the next question should be: by whom and by what criteria?
Let us presume we can all agree that a “racist” should not get an invitation to an AIPAC conference. But then – who decides if Trump is truly a racist? He certainly does not call himself a racist. In fact, he believes that he is the “least racist person.” And, true, his opponents call him a racist, but, as we have seen, some of Barack Obama's supporters called Bill Clinton a racist back in 2008, and as far as I remember, no one was suggesting at the time that AIPAC should no longer welcome Bill Clinton to their events.
Bottom line
The more you think about the Trump-AIPAC question, the more it gets confusing and complicated. The more you read about it, the more you realize that one's position on this question can hardly be separated from one's general political tendencies (and as an Israeli, I should be aware of the fact that my viewpoint is also tainted by the goals I value).
Does this mean that all candidates, no matter who they are and what they say, should be invited to an AIPAC conference? It certainly does not.
But it does mean that as AIPAC ponders its own mission and its own responsibilities it should be very careful not to offend a man who might be the next president of the United States; it should be very careful not to offend the many supporters of the man who might be the next president of the United States; it should be very careful not to confuse political rhetoric with substantive positions; it should be very careful not to get confused by highly partisan political discourse.
Making Trump an enemy is probably easy. Making him an attentive friend is hard – and that is AIPAC's mission. I would let them do their job.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.