On Friday, Adam Kredo of the Washington Free Beacon broke a remarkable story about how AIPAC worked behind the scenes to water down the GOP platform’s language on Israel in 2012. For those who keep close tabs on AIPAC, this is curious but actually makes a lot of sense upon really thinking about it: AIPAC has a bipartisan donor base, but is heavy on many older pro-Israel Democratic donors who are frankly out of step with how rabidly
pro-jihadi anti-Israel the younger “progressive” grassroots have gotten. As such, AIPAC has to work diligently to maintain the facade—wholly unsustainable in the aftermath of the catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal—that the two parties are somehow more or less identical when it comes to promoting and protecting U.S.-Israel relations in our joint fight against the global jihad.
As part of that AIPAC effort, Kredo noted how, whereas the GOP’s 2008 platform included language affirming Jerusalem as the eternal and undivided capital of the State of Israel, the 2012 platform rebuffed that language and instead substituted milquetoast language espousing support for the chimera of the two-state solution: “[W]e envision two democratic states—Israel with Jerusalem as its capital and Palestine—living in peace and security.” So bland.
Shame on AIPAC, if the story is true. (In fairness, AIPAC denied the story to Kredo.) It is one of the many reasons why I think the best pro-Israel lobbying group in America is actually not the better-known AIPAC, but is instead Christians United for Israel (“CUFI”).
In any event, 2016 GOP delegate Alan Clemmons of South Carolina has led the charge to re-insert better pro-Israel language into the party platform and, if Monday’s 14-2 subcommittee vote is any indication, he is well in line to succeed in that endeavor.
“We reject the false notion that Israel is an occupier,” the platform’s language on Israel…reads. “Support for Israel is an expression of Americanism, and it is the responsibility of our government to advance policies that reflect Americans’ strong desire for a relationship with no daylight between America and Israel.”
The platform draft makes no mention of the two-state solution or reference to the creation of a Palestinian state in a possible peace settlement.
The platform also recognizes that “the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement (“BDS”) is anti-Semitic in nature and seeks to destroy Israel” and calls for federal legislation “to thwart actions that are intended to limit commercial relations with Israel, or persons or entities doing business in Israel or in Israeli-controlled territories, in a discriminatory manner.”
The same subcommittee, earlier in the day, also reintroduced the 2008 language affirming Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel.
“We recognize Jerusalem as the eternal and indivisible capital of the Jewish state, and call for the American embassy to be moved there in fulfillment of U.S. law.”
Kudos to Clemmons and all his fellow delegates on the subcommittee. With any luck, the entire Platform Committee will ultimately adopt the language The groundbreaking nature of the specific language, though, is actually worth further contextualizing. For better or for worse, the two-state solution with the Palestinians has been bipartisan U.S. policy for decades. Yet while most grassroots conservatives prudently recognize that Israel has no negotiating partner at present, many prominent Republicans, such as Republican National Convention Chairman Paul Ryan himself, still routinely pay lip service to the two-state solution. The Clemmons-led language thus moves away from longstanding bipartisan U.S. policy and moves more closely toward “reflect[ing] the opinion of a majority of Israel’s cabinet and the basic guidelines of [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu’s coalition.”
Bravo, I say. There is no point in presently chasing a (jihadi-tainted, brutally corrupt, kleptocratic, Jew-hating) unicorn of a permanent two-state solution with the Palestinians. And the GOP’s strongly pro-Israel language favorably contrasts with the Democrats’ far more tepid language.
From a Trump perspective, what is interesting is just how far removed the orange-hued clown is from the grassroots’ strongly pro-Israel sentiment. While Trump has tried hard to backtrack from it, the reality is that, during the Republican presidential primary, Trump committed himself to strict “neutrality” between the Israelis and the Palestinians. At the time, I noted how, in addition to the egregious moral equivalence embedded therein, such a vow of neutrality actually evinces that Trump shares the same abominable theory on dealmaking as John Kerry:
Trump’s candidacy is based, in part, on his purported dealmaking mastery. (“Omg, he wrote The Art of the Deal!,” and all that.) But his entire approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict proves all that to be a smokescreen and, indeed, a farce. Last night, Trump repeatedly said that his top goal was to get a deal—any deal. Forget about the terms! Forget about Israel’s wholly legitimate security concerns! It is the very concept of The Deal™ that proves itself the shiny object of his true desire.
Note that this is precisely the same as Barack Obama and John Kerry’s approach when they kowtowed to the forces of fundamentalist jihadist evil in the self-flaggelatingly humiliating capitulation known as the Iran nuclear deal. All Kerry’s State Department minions wanted was a legacy-defining deal—any deal! Forget about the terms! And thus, we ended up where we are today, with the Islamic Republic of Iran getting hundreds of billions of dollars in immediate sanctions relief and a situation where the mullahs already openly flout the accord’s (non-binding!) terms.
So while the grassroots conservative activists who comprise GOP delegates want the U.S. to unapologetically stand firmly with Israel and resist the siren song of an exceeding sycophancy toward the jihad-suporting Palestinian Authority, the GOP’s non-conservative would-be nominee is too busy praising an untenable “neutral” stance and shilling for Palestinian intifada-funding Saddam Hussein. Or, to be more precise, I suppose, he is only shilling for Saddam Hussein when he is not defending his tweet that he got from a neo-Nazi website.
The whole thing would just be a complete joke were it not so deadly serious. This is far from the only issue that reveals a massive dissonance between the GOP’s conservative grassroots and its non-conservative nominee, but it is a salient example nonetheless.
Republican delegates, you are not bound. Spare us of the orange man, stand in line with your actual conservative convictions, and free yourselves.