Let’s do a little experiment. Now I realize that what people most remember
about the recent Republican presidential debates is the vulgarity, the inanity,
and the name-calling, but there have been a few moments of lucidity when history
has been made, precedents have been set, and – yes – even reasons for optimism
have been highlighted, although these may have been lost amid all the brouhaha.
So on to our experiment. Which candidate said the following?
“As president … there’s nothing that I would rather do to bring peace to
Israel and its neighbors generally. And I think it serves no purpose to say
that you have a good guy and a bad guy.
“Now, I may not be successful in doing it. It’s probably the toughest negotiation
anywhere in the world of any kind. OK? But it doesn’t help if I start saying,
“I am very pro-Israel, very pro, more than anybody on this stage.” But it doesn’t
do any good to start demeaning the neighbors, because I would love to do something
with regard to negotiating peace, finally, for Israel and for their neighbors.
“And I can’t do that as well – as a negotiator, I cannot do that as well
if I’m taking … sides.”
Okay, I’m going to give you a few moments to contemplate
the answer. I mean, here is a rare example of a Republican candidate speaking
reasonably, rationally, in a statesman-like manner about one of the most controversial
issues in American politics. Here is someone who is defying the bipartisan consensus
on Israeli-American relations, which is that we must always give unstinting
and unconditional support to the Jewish state. Here is an outright abrogation
of the conditions of the so-called “special relationship,” that one-sided love
affair that dictates Washington must kowtow to Tel Aviv and ignore the horrific
conditions under which Palestinians have been condemned live.
Okay, you’ve had enough time. So what’s the answer?
Who would dare to step on the third rail of American politics and defy the Israel
lobby?
The answer has to be Donald Trump – doesn’t it? And
indeed it is.