JULY 2000, pages 15, 77

Special Report

As Both Presidential Candidates Kowtow at AIPAC Conference, Only an Israeli Speaker Voices Doubts

By Jamie Terral

For the first time in the history of the annual American Israel Public Affairs Council policy conference, both presidential candidates appeared before the largely Jewish-American crowd proclaiming their unwavering and unconditional support for the state of Israel. Governor George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore believe that to win an American election, or at least the media support they need to win, they must first win AIPAC. Each candidate used his platform at the AIPAC policy conference to convince the audience that he would ensure a better friendship with Israel than the other. Bush took a shot at the Clinton-Gore administration when he said, “My support for Israel is not conditional on the outcome of the peace process.” Gore countered the next morning by saying, “We must not and would not in any way try to pressure Israel to agree to measures that they did not agree to,” as most of the AIPAC audience believes Bush’s father, President George H.W. Bush, did nine years ago at Madrid.

Governor Bush seemed to be promising to make the move of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem one of his top priorities, which brought thunderous applause from the AIPAC crowd. “Something will happen when I am president,” he announced. “As soon as I take office I will begin the process of moving the U.S. ambassador to the city Israel has chosen as its capital.”

In addition, Bush criticized the Clinton administration for meddling in Israeli elections, alluding to the Clinton-Gore administration’s obvious favoritism for Barak over Binyamin Netanyahu in Israel’s 1999 election. Governor Bush spent more time denigrating Clinton’s Mideast policies than putting forth a positive policy of his own.

“In recent times, Washington has tried to make Israel conform to its own plans and timetables,” Bush said. “But this is not the path to peace. A clear and bad example was the administration’s attempt to take sides in the most recent Israeli election. America should not interfere in Israel’s domestic process, and America will not interfere in Israeli elections when I’m president.”

Skillful Avoidance

Vice President Gore rejoined that he opposed efforts by the Republican administration of the senior Bush to pressure Israel to attend the Madrid negotiations in 1988 and to go to the Lisbon negotiations in 1991. Gore skillfully avoided mentioning anything about the timing of any move of the U.S. Embassy by his administration. Yet he still received a standing ovation accompanied by cheering, clapping and stomping feet which was far more enthusiastic than the reception for Governor Bush.

Perhaps it was because Gore spoke emotionally about his friendship with Israel, and his goal of ushering in a peace with security for Israel and the Middle East. Gore said his administration will “build peace with security” and that “true peace with security will be the work of generations.”

Gore indicated he intends to strengthen the security of Israel by increasing its military capability, but also stated, “I condemn violence.”

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who originally was scheduled to attend the convention, spoke instead via satellite after violence in the West Bank caused him to cancel his visit to Washington. He offered a sobering picture of Israeli relations with Lebanon and the Palestinians.

Regarding Lebanon, Barak said, “We are determined to pull out in the near future, to deploy ourselves along the border.” Less than 48 hours later Barak had fulfilled that promise.

However he blamed only the Palestinians for the recent violence in the West Bank and Gaza. “We called Chairman Arafat and made it clear to him that we cannot continue serious steps toward him when his people in uniform are shooting at Israelis,” Barak said. He urged the crowd of American supporters of Israel to remain steadfast in the midst of painful choices. “While the risks and price for peace will be high, the risks and cost of war, in life and resources, will be unthinkable,” Barak said.

Uri Savir, member of the Center Party in the Israeli Knesset, addressed several discussions at the convention on the final status issues facing the Israelis and Palestinians. Most questions asked of him were about settlements, alleged anti-Jewish statements in Palestinian textbooks, and the Israeli Knesset’s decision to support the Barak government’s withdrawal from Abu Dis, an Arab neighborhood adjacent to Jerusalem. Savir responded earnestly to each question, urging the AIPAC attendees to understand the Palestinian perspective, and to look at the internal problems within Israel, rather than making the Palestinians into scapegoats every time the peace process derails.

Shoshona Bryen, director of Americans for a Safe Israel, a lobby in Washington for the Israeli arms industry, asked about the Abu Dis withdrawal, questioning how Israel could allow a transfer of land which would not have secured Knesset approval without the votes of Arab members of the Knesset. She called this a “disgrace” for Israel.

Savir responded, “No offense intended, ma’am, but that is a racist statement.” His comment drew both applause and angry murmurs from the crowd.

Savir stated, however, that Israel is both a Jewish state and a democracy, and that all citizens, regardless of ethnicity, should have the same voting rights. He concluded by saying, “To be a Jewish state is not to be an apartheid state.”

Discussion from the floor was lively, with many persons attending the conference expressing highly individualistic opinions on each issue, many of which were undeniably racist at their core. “They should have just kicked out all the Arabs when they had the chance,” stated one delegate to his friends over lunch, as they nodded in agreement.

In another discussion a young man at Harvard School of Law and the Kennedy School of Government was encouraged to attend Harvard, “even though it is anti-Israel,” according to one AIPAC member, because there he would hear the best of the other side’s arguments and then be able to refute them. The person making the comment said he believed the only way for Israel to achieve security was for it to retain its domination over the Arab population. (The person making the comment about Harvard might have been surprised to learn that about half of the Harvard faculty either consider themselves Jewish in religion or are secular Jews.

A political comedian turned Israel advocate expounded at great length on the “moral corruption” of the Palestinian people. Palestinians will never be able to maintain a democracy, he told the convention audience, regardless of their leaders, unless Palestinian society is taught ethical and moral principles its members do not now possess. This particular individual said he translates Arabic media and educational materials into Hebrew or English to look for anti-Jewish statements and teachings.

Not only did delegates and speakers express a wide range of opinions, they also represented all stages of life. Of the 2,000 participants, 700 were students from universities around the country. They had been invited to learn from their elders how to lobby the U.S. government into supporting Israel. Most of the rest of the delegates were older, retired Americans, seemingly with a lot of money which they were prepared to invest in increasing Israel’s political clout.

This year’s conference proved that, regardless of whatever changes are taking place in American public opinion, AIPAC is just as influential and powerful as ever within its own constituency, and that it has the ability to bring to its audiences most candidates for elective office, including the presidential candidates of both parties. In addition, AIPAC is training a whole new generation of pro-Israel activists who are eager to keep Israel militarily dominant in the Middle East by keeping its lobby dominant in Washington. Judging by the AIPAC convention, Israeli dominance in both arenas remains unchallenged.

Jamie Terral is the program manager at the Council for the National Interest.