There was little that surprised us in the speeches of the Republican and Democratic front-runners at the AIPAC convention.
Mr. Trump’s message, boiled down to its basics, was that given his history of identifying with Jewish and Israeli causes, he can be trusted to do the right thing. Indeed, he used the phrase “believe me” no fewer than fourteen times in the course of his 20-minute speech.
So he was short on specifics – although he railed against the Iran nuclear agreement and vowed to “dismantle” it (a shift from his position earlier in the campaign when he criticized it but said it was, after all, a contract and as president he would seek to improve it) – and thus there is little of substance to his presentation to pursue. You either trust him or you don’t.
Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, was far more substantive and thus open to more scrutiny.
On the issue of the U.S. position in the world, she said:
Candidates for president who think the United States can outsource Middle East security to dictators, or that America no longer has vital national interests at stake in this region, are dangerously wrong. It would be a serious mistake for the United States to abandon our responsibilities, or cede the mantle of leadership for global peace and security to anyone else.
But this seems to fly directly in the face of the administration’s approach to the Arab Spring (which blossomed while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state) and its disastrous consequences for Libya, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq.
And she said this about the U.S.-Israel relationship:
As we gather here, three evolving threats – Iran’s continued aggression, a rising tide of extremism across a wide arc of instability, and the growing effort to delegitimize Israel on the world stage – are converging to make the U.S. – Israel alliance more indispensable than ever…. This is especially true at a time when Israel faces brutal terrorist stabbings, shootings, and vehicle attacks at home…. These attacks must end immediately.… And Palestinian leaders need to stop inciting violence, stop celebrating terrorists as martyrs, and stop paying rewards to their families….Today, Americans and Israelis face momentous choices that will shape the future of our relationship and of both our nations…. Are we prepared to take this relationship to the next level?
…. [I]f I’m fortunate enough to be elected president, the United States will reaffirm we have a strong and enduring national interest in Israel’s security. And we will never allow Israel’s adversaries to think to think a wedge can be driven between us.
These are encouraging words, given the difficulties of the Obama years, but the proof of the pudding, as they say, will be in the eating.
Mrs. Clinton also said:
We will also be clear that the United States has an enduring interest in and commitment to a more peaceful, more stable, more secure Middle East. And we will step up our efforts to achieve that outcome….The United States should provide Israel with the most sophisticated defense technology so it can deter and stop any threats….
Is this a replay of the Obama formula of providing Israel with substantial military aid while pressuring it to adhere to the administration’s foreign policy diktats?
Concerning the Iran nuclear agreement, she said:
[It] must come with vigorous enforcement, strong monitoring, clear consequences for any violations, and a broader strategy to confront Iran’s aggression across the region. We cannot forget that Tehran’s fingerprints are on nearly every conflict across the Middle East, from Syria to Lebanon to Yemen….
But in a seeming wave to the Obama mantra, she also said:
Despite many setbacks, I remain convinced that peace with security is possible and that it is the only way to guarantee Israel’s long-term survival as a strong Jewish and democratic state it may be difficult to imagine progress in this current climate when many Israelis doubt that a willing and capable partner for peace even exists. But inaction cannot be an option. Israelis deserve a secure homeland for the Jewish people. Palestinian should be able to govern themselves in their own state, in peace and dignity. And only a negotiated two state agreement can survive those outcomes….
Advertisement