The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is a must stop for any serious candidate running for president of the United States. And from Democrats to Republicans, the message at AIPAC's recent gala in Washington was the same. A stronger relationship between Israel and the US, more arms for Israel, no mention of Palestinian rights, almost no mention of the peace process or a two-state solution, and certainly no acknowledgement of Israel as a state predicated on maintaining rule by military occupation. While past statements by the Republican frontrunner Donald Trump had caused concern among pro-Israel activists, he offered promises to AIPAC very much in line with what the audience had hoped to hear. His pledge to relocate the US Embassy in Israel to the "eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem" would break standing US policy which does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. His promise that in any negotiation, "we will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable ally, the state of Israel" conveniently papered over his past statements about neutrality. Not everything Trump said was in line with current US policies but by making it clear that he saw Israel as the aggrieved party, they were acceptable to most prominent pro-Israel advocates. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, touted her "deep, personal commitment" to the "Jewish state," and doubled down on her previous pledge to dismantle the growing international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, linking the campaign against Palestinian apartheid to anti-Semitism. However, BDS is a global campaign attempting to increase economic and political pressure on Israel to end Israel's occupation. Still, her speech was filled with red meat thrown to Israel supporters which contained scant reference to the peace process. Bernie Sanders' chance at the Democratic nomination has become increasingly less likely as the delegate math looks less favorable but he was the only candidate courageous enough to criticize Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's right-wing prime minister, and to show any understanding of Palestinian needs, this coming from the only Jewish candidate in the race who once spent several months living on an Israeli kibbutz. He declined an invitation to attend the AIPAC conference, giving his comments on the campaign trail. He most certainly knew that relatively pro-Palestinian comments - he pledged that, if elected president, he would be "a friend not only to Israel but to the Palestinian people" - would not go down well with many at AIPAC, and maybe that's why he stayed away. The two other Republican presidential candidates — Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Gov. John Kasich of Ohio —made their support for Israel a centerpiece of their remarks. Any candidate who wants to become president of the US must have the backing of AIPAC, the most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel. It is an extension of the Israeli government and with its power and influence has a stranglehold on the US Congress. It is strongly allied with Israel's Likud Party and the Republican Party in the US. Though no one was surprised by the candidates' vigorous support for the policies and tactics of the Israeli state, the remarks were a frightening indicator of what at least some of these candidates could mean for the Middle East. For now, Palestinian-Israeli peace efforts are frozen and will be so for President Obama's remaining eight months. Judging by what the current frontrunners wanting to succeed Obama had to say to an audience of 18,000 AIPAC supporters, it is not certain what the next year holds for the talks or for the eventual fate of the peace process. But they were a reminder of the current mainstream discourse on Israel which relies on racism and Islamophobia to justify unquestioning support for Israel.
