AIPAC, Trump, Clinton and what it all means for Israel

A.

On Monday evening, when Donald Trump was speaking at the AIPAC policy conference, I was trying to imagine what would have happened had the exact same speech been made by Hillary Clinton.

Is that impossible to imagine? In some ways it is. In some ways it’s not as impossible as you might think.

Of course, Clinton would not repeat the word “horrible” as many times as Trump did (strangely, if predictably, the official transcript of the speech only includes one “horrible” and no “terrible” – two words that were mentioned more than once). She would not ridiculously boast that she studied the Iran deal “in greater detail than almost anybody.” She would not use the same body language and tone when mentioning that this year is Obama’s last in office (“yeahh”). She would not use similarly harsh terms as she criticizes Obama’s treatment of Israel (“… he may be the worst thing that ever happened to Israel, and you know it”).

So no, it couldn’t be the exact same speech. But what about the substance – how different were these two candidates on Israel when it comes to substance?

Trump made a promise to move the American embassy to Jerusalem. Clinton did not. That is a difference between a leader (Clinton) who knows not to commit herself to policies she would not want to execute, and a candidate who doesn’t much care about promising things that he will not be able to execute (will he move the embassy before or after getting the funds from Mexico for building the great wall?). Trump made a broader promise to veto UN resolutions concerning “the terms of an eventual agreement” between Israel and the Palestinians, while Clinton was parsing her words more carefully and only said that she would “oppose any attempt by outside parties to impose a solution, including by the U.N. Security Council” – a statement that does not preclude support for a resolution condemning the settlements.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at AIPAC. Photo by Reuters

Yet, generally speaking, there was also much commonality between these two speeches – by Clinton and by Trump. Meet Hillary Trump – an Israel-supportive candidate. Hillary Trump promised he\she will go back to a no daylight policy. Hillary Trump condemned Palestinian incitement. Hillary Trump spoke harshly about Iran and its actions in the Middle East – Clinton could not criticize the agreement with Iran that she supported but promised “vigorous enforcement, strong monitoring, clear consequences for any violations and a broader strategy to confront Iran’s aggression across the region.” Hillary Trump said He\she will invite the Israeli PM to Washington. Hillary Trump spoke about the need to confront BDS. Hillary Trump distanced himself\herself – in a different manner – from the Obama Doctrine. In short: Trump and Clinton did their homework (not surprising from Clinton; somewhat surprising from Trump). They both hit all the right buttons. They both gave speeches that a supporter of Israel should easily consider as good enough. Thus, both were cheered at AIPAC.

Both they also made a similar move against one another. Clinton by saying “we need steady hands, not a president who says he’s neutral on Monday, pro-Israel on Tuesday, and who knows what on Wednesday, because everything’s negotiable.” Trump by talking about a “pattern, practiced by the President and his administration, including former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has repeated itself over and over and has done nothing but embolden those who hate America.”

Different words, but the exact same message. You cannot trust this guy\gal. She says: no matter what he says today, you cannot trust him to say the same thing tomorrow. He says: no matter what she says today, you have to remember what she did yesterday. And they are both right in raising these suspicions. Since they hit similar buttons, and vowed to pursue somewhat similar policies, the decision the crowd at AIPAC and all other pro-Israel observers have to make is simple to understand yet complicated to execute. They – we – need to decide which one of the two is more (and which one of the two is less) trustworthy.

B.

A reason to trust Clinton on Israel: She is a middle of the road candidate, one that is not likely to stray away from mainstream policies toward Israel. Yes, she will have many fights with Prime Minister Netanyahu over the peace process. But she is not likely to behave unpredictably and is not likely to completely alter the course of US-Israel relations.

A reason to trust Trump on Israel: His message was somewhat stronger, and his promises were more specific. He opposes the nuclear deal with Iran. He will move the embassy. Yes, he is not a typical candidate and could surprise Israel in ways that would make it uneasy. But his heart seems to be in the right place. And, as David Suissa noted, “he, too, can play politician.”

There are, of course, many issues other than Israel that an American voter – great love for Israel notwithstanding – would and should consider.

C.

There was a lot of talk in AIPAC this year about the need for bi-partisan support for Israel. And of course, there is nothing new about that – the message from AIPAC on bi-partisanship is constant and consistent.

And yet, something was different this year: in most previous years, the message of bi-partisanship seemed to be directed at those people who argue that the Democratic leadership and party are not supportive enough of Israel. This year the message was sent, at least initially,  to the opposite direction: at those people who argued that Donald Trump should not get invited to the conference or were threatening to make a scene when he speaks. In other words: in previous years the emphasis was on hawkish AIPAC members who were urged to respect Democratic speakers – while this year the emphasis was on dovish AIPAC members were urged to respect Republican speakers (that emphasis changed on Tuesday morning, when the AIPAC leadership went on stage to strongly condemn the ad hominem Trump attacks directed at President Obama – and express their displeasure with the fact that these attacks were cheered by the crowd).

In this context it is interesting to ponder the meaning of bi-partisanship and its hurdles.

Some groups and delegates announced their intention to stage a protest against Trump when he arrives. And I assume some of them indeed did that and left when Trump began to speak, but, in truth, their protest went almost unnoticed and was quickly forgotten as the crowd cheered Trump.

I was of two minds when I first heard about the planned protest. That is, because on one hand it is easy to understand the motivation behind it. And on the other hand, the question about the protest is not if it’s warranted – the question is whether AIPAC should be the venue for such a protest.

Surely, the sentiment is appreciated, and the impulse well understood. Yet the result could be problematic. AIPAC’s policy conference is a conference whose aim is clear: to strengthen the US-Israel alliance. The delegates didn’t gather in Washington for a routine election rally, they gathered to boost an already solid relationship and make it even stronger.

A protest against Trump might be justified for many reasons. A protest against Trump might be necessary, even urgent. But a protest against Trump at AIPAC does not strengthen the US-Israel alliance – it weakens it. Trump has voters, and these voters are not likely to be appreciative of the protest at AIPAC. Trump could be the next US President, and he might not be appreciative of the protest against him at AIPAC.

If people truly mean it when they say that AIPAC should be “bi-partisan” in its support of the US-Israel alliance, they should realize that bi-partisanship has many rewards but also has a price. To have support as broad as possible for the alliance – that’s the reward. To include candidates as infuriating as Trump in the conversation about the alliance – that’s the price.

D.

Two weeks ago I wrote here based on a survey by Menachem Lazar that “more Israelis would vote for Clinton ‘as Americans’ compared to Trump, but less of them think of her as ‘good for Israel.’” That is to say: Jewish Israelis recognize that Clinton might be better for America but are suspicious of her when they think about US policy toward Israel.

Earlier this week, Politico reported on a similar survey – this time by pollster Camil Fuchs – with a similar outcome: Jewish Israelis “prefer” Clinton as the next American President, but they believe that Trump is better “for Israel’s interests.”

That is strange and unusual. For many years the assumption was that Jewish Israelis prefer an American president based on his, or her, level of support for Israel. If the candidate is seen as the one most supportive, he will also be the one favored by Jewish Israelis (Arab Israelis tend to prefer a candidate that is likely to clash with the Israeli government).

Trump – a candidate like never before – is able to confuse not just Americans. He also confuses Israel and makes it less confident as it ponders its preference in the next presidential elections.

*

Full disclosure: I'm attending the 2016 policy conference in Washington as a speaker and as AIPAC's guest.