What became apparent at the AIPAC Policy Conference is that Donald Trump is light years ahead of AIPAC on the issue of stopping radical jihadist Islam. Despite being short on details, Trump’s visceral understanding of Islamism’s collective power and the malevolent course it has taken throughout its fourteen hundred-year history is not off the mark. Although crudely crafted, his statement that “Islam hates us” embodied a fundamental recognition of Islamism’s voracious appetite.
Trump paints with a broad brush but he has obviously read some history. Through his simplistic prism, he observes that the butchery and cruelty committed by Islamists is no less heinous than the crimes committed by Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao, or Pol Pot. And reflexively he has rejected the layer upon layer of muddled nuance, innuendo, and culturally relativistic rationalization that have been used to bury this truth. He is painfully aware that the blurry line between Islam and political Islam (Islamism) presents a complicated demographic challenge to all open, non-Islamist cultures.
AIPAC, in order to avoid the Obama administration’s allegations of promoting Islamophobia, has worked meticulously to honor this “hands off Islam” mandate, and through a subtle policy of omission, has diligently supported de-linking the obvious connection between the religion of Islam and thousands of acts of terror committed globally to the cry of “Allahu Akbar!” The problem is that omitting Islamism relative to the mounting death and destruction left in Islamism’s path creates a vast strategic abyss. It shields our security needs from rational analysis. As Islamism’s influence continues to mushroom globally, AIPAC’s unhelpful aversion will serve only to make AIPAC’s present task of swimming upstream even more difficult.
You only have to look as far as AIPAC’s failure to block the Iran deal to see evidence of this unraveling. Iran’s ability to have outmaneuvered AIPAC was solely and exclusively the result of AIPAC’s failure to frame the argument against the Iran deal within the historical context of Islamist expansionism. Omitting this context invalidated a well-established historical record. AIPAC effectively chose not to use prima facie evidence. AIPAC over the previous ten year period worked diligently to isolate Iran. But AIPAC turned away from creating a task force fluent in explaining Iran’s place within Islamism’s drive toward hegemony.
AIPAC’s mission is that of stalwart protector of Israel’s flank. By refusing to connect the dots between Israel’s strategic challenges and Islamist expansionism, AIPAC is by default diminishing the perceived gravity of the Islamist threat impacting all non-Islamist nations globally.
It has been reported by the Investigative Project on Terrorism that Ahmed Shedeed, president of the Islamic Center of Jersey City attended the January 2015 State of the Union address as the guest of Senator Cory Booker. Shedeed is a known American operative of the Muslim Brotherhood, designated as a terrorist organization by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UK, and numerous other foreign governments.
How is it that Senator Booker, after failing to vote against the Iran deal and who accordingly is working overtime to rectify his blemished pro-Israel credential, could possibly have stepped into this bear trap? By not advising Booker against such indiscretion, AIPAC makes it obvious that similarly to the Administration, AIPAC views the Muslim Brotherhood in a more benign light. Or perhaps AIPAC viewed the political cost of opening a new front with the Administration over the Muslim Brotherhood’s status as being too high.
Either way, AIPAC’s failure to call out Sen. Booker underscores the huge doctrinal deficit that is waiting to be addressed within the ranks of AIPAC leadership. Despite his coarse manners, Donald Trump should not be harangued for making this obvious.