The Trump and Clinton vice-presidential choices provide a mirror into the divide between AIPAC and J Street, Jewish organizations offering competing notions of what it means to be “pro-Israel.”
For AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), support for Israel is fundamentally a one-dimensional thing – that is, support for the policies of the elected government of Israel, with little or no public displays of independence.
During the course of his career in the Congress and later as governor of Indiana, Donald Trump’s vice-presidential pick, Mike Pence, has steered an unwavering course that has been consistent with Israeli government policies. Indeed, he has maintained a close relationship with AIPAC.
On the other hand, J Street asserts the right to lecture to Israel as to what J Streeters believe to be Israel’s best interests. Thus, contrary to AIPAC – and the Israeli government – J Street publicly opposes retention by Israel of land seized in the Six-Day War, claiming that Israel’s settlement policy makes it a pariah in the Middle East and internationally.
At bottom, J Street believes the Palestinians are fundamentally right in asserting entitlement to most of the land Israel conquered in 1967; that their cause is therefore a just one; and that they will not and cannot be expected to abandon their claims in any significant way.
The onus, then, is on Israel to accept as a reasonable compromise whatever bits and pieces the Palestinians deign to throw their way. And of course any Israeli resistance to such an approach is ipso facto illegitimate and the root cause of the stalemate. Thus it is in Israel’s interest to accede to Palestinian demands if Israel is ever to make peace with the Palestinians.
During the course of President Obama’s two terms, he has nurtured J Street thinking, doubtless because it fits with his own policy calculations. This is the way he once put it during the 2008 presidential campaign:
I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a [sic] unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel, and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel. If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how we achieve these goals, then we’re not going to make progress. And frankly some of the commentary that I’ve seen which suggests guilt by association or the notion that unless we are never ever going to ask any difficult questions about how we move peace forward or secure Israel that is non-military or non-belligerent or doesn’t talk about just crushing the opposition, that that somehow is being soft or anti-Israel, I think we’re going to have problems moving forward. And that I think is something we have to have an honest dialogue about.
Notice that Mr. Obama was talking about what was good for Israel despite what its own leaders say or feel.
Hillary Clinton’s VP choice, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, has said:
Our party has a long tradition of being pro-Israel, and being pro-Israel doesn’t mean we agree on everything, but we’re friends, we’re allies, we’re partners, and to the extent we have disagreements we try to work them out productively.
I want Israel to be safe and secure in the future and I worry that some of the activities vis-à-vis Palestine have weakened Israel’s future security, not strengthened it.
There are some who are critical of Sen. Kaine’s selection on the grounds that he was one of the strongest advocates for the Iran nuclear deal and one of the few senators who chose not to sign a letter to President Obama calling for substantially increased aid for Israel over the next decade. He was also one of the leaders in the Senate urging a boycott of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech before Congress on the Iran deal.