It's not hard to pick out the best events of the Republican Jewish Coalition candidate appearances. Those would have been the compelling speeches by Ted Cruz and Rick Santorum.
Ted Cruz spoke of how proud he was to have voted against Kerry's appointment as Secretary of State, of apologizing to the families of the Fort Hood dead for it having taken so long to receive what was due to them and framed the deciding issue as a wartime presidency while making a credible case for being a wartime presidential candidate. He went through an extensive look at the disasters caused by Obama including the Arab Spring.
Rick Santorum had a barnburner of a speech on the question of Islamic terrorism. He spoke of taking on the Bush administration and the Democrats in the Senate over Iran sanctions.
Jeb Bush delivered a surprisingly capable speech touching on a lot of pro-Israel policy priorities, including a day 1 move of the embassy to Jerusalem. Arguably he was the best prepared candidate when it came to promising specifics. But then again he also claimed that he would follow his brother's lead on Israel and the PLO which is not remotely promising. And raises questions about the embassy promise.
Marco Rubio also had a good prepared speech that was also solidly pro-Israel
There were some good lines in there.
"And today, Israel stands on the front lines of our civilizational struggle against radical, apocalyptic Islam. That term, Apocalyptic Islam, is not an attempt at being provocative; it is rather a description of the true beliefs of the leaders of both Iran and the Islamic State: that they are living in the end times and that mass genocide is their way to honor God."
I take issue with the term "radical", but the formulation is still neatly said. It's a Reaganesque framing. He also showed that he was able to call out Abbas, something few politicians have done.
Consider this: Just weeks ago, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas began a speech to a UN body by asking, quote, “For how long will this protracted Israeli occupation of our land last? After 67 years, how long?”
As we all know, sixty-seven years ago was 1948, the year of Israel’s creation. So the man who is supposed to be Israel’s “partner for peace” has just said that all of Israel is illegitimate and that the Jewish state is an “occupation” of someone else’s land.
Now, this isn’t unusual rhetoric from a Palestinian leader – but what matters is that it should have provoked a harsh condemnation from the United States. But our president said nothing. By his silence, our government emboldened those who seek Israel’s destruction and made itself a bystander to a poisonous lie.
It's, as I said, a good speech. I don't know how much of it reflects Rubio's actual views, but its positions are the product of someone who gets it.
In fact, the “partner” that this administration claims is interested in peace rewards Palestinian terrorists up to $3,500 for every month they spend in an Israeli prison, which is more than five times as much as the average Palestinian in the West Bank makes per month. They get tens of thousands more upon their release from prison, and the entire level of payment is tied to the number of Israelis they have killed. Does this sound like a group interested in peace?
Some in our own party actually question Israel’s commitment to peace. Some in our own party actually call for more sacrifice from the Israeli people. They are dead wrong, and don’t understand the enduring bond between Israel and America.
On the worst side, there was Lindsey Graham. This is a rare area where his positions are actually mainstream. He could have delivered a convincing speech, instead he delivered a rambling rant about the wonders of illegal immigration and abortion. He slurred words and predicted the Republican Party's oblivion. It was a strange and terrible speech.
But Trump outdid Graham when it came to terrible speeches.
Trump's speeches usually consist of talking about how great he is, his poll numbers and his properties. And this was no different. His pro-Israel pitch usually consists of talking about what terrible negotiators Kerry and co. are. That's also his general foreign policy pitch. The trouble there is that you also have to know what you want to achieve in negotiations. What's your endgame?
Where other candidates had talked about the problems with the whole PLO process, Trump signed on to it saying that he would work toward a final deal. He refused to endorse a united Jerusalem making his position worse than that of Obama when he was first campaigning. That's pretty terrible. He did say that Israel doesn't get enough credit for its concessions, but then spoke of a blank slate, starting from scratch, which would imply that he doesn't want to give Israel credit for them either.
At best Trump doesn't get it. At worst much of his grasp of policy is just an echo of conventional wisdom. There's more than a little evidence to suggest that is so.
