#WTH On Israel: Harris v Trump

There are multiple reports from the Middle East suggesting Iran is preparing another major attack on Israel, perhaps from Iraqi territory. No matter who wins on November 5, this issue isn’t going away.

When I was growing up, I would hear my parents and their friends jokingly ask if an event was “good for the Jews.” It was a bit tongue in cheek, but then again, so often things are not “good for the Jews,” small wonder it’s on the community’s mind. The example that I heard more than once was the JFK assassination. Bad for the world, neutral for the Jews. But then Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald, and oy, that was not good for the Jews.

I begin with this shot at framing the discussion to come because we’re talking about the election, and who will be better for Israel, Kamala Harris or Donald Trump. This is not the slam dunk partisans of either side believe it to be. So let’s review the bidding, and see who comes out with the edge.

Kamala Harris

I’ve made no secret of the fact that I am not a fan. Far from partisan hostility, my view is that of a Washington denizen who’s had a bird’s eye view of the Biden-Harris White House for almost four years. Start with the fact that Harris was widely viewed in Washington as a dim bulb who had risen through the ranks based on her California paramour, her savvy exploitation of racial and gender preferences, and… there must be something else. Honestly, I have no idea what it is. Then again, who cares? In the olden days, men got places by being rich (JFK again), clubbable (George H. W. Bush), and in the right place at the right time (Gerald Ford). So why not Kamala? But that doesn’t go to the Middle East question.

Prior to her election as Veep, Senator Harris had a far-left voting record on most matters (Green New Deal!), and a thin and vaguely lefty record on Israel. Early on, she opposed a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements, then went on to support an aid package to Israel early in her tenure, only to oppose future such packages, as well as opposing an anti-BDS bill along with Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, and Elizabeth Warren. All told, she wasn’t a senator much interested in foreign policy, and that’s fine too.

In a Q&A done in the brief shining moment she was a candidate for the presidency in 2019, she told the Council on Foreign Relations that, “Based on where things stand now, I would plan to rejoin the JCPOA so long as Iran also returned to verifiable compliance. At the same time, I would seek negotiations with Iran to extend and supplement some of the nuclear deal’s existing provisions, and work with our partners ….” yadda yadda. So her staff that filled out the CFR’s form was able to parrot standard issue D talking points on that, if not on other issues. More on Iran in a bit.

Since becoming Veep, her thin record has diminished to transparency, and her most important task — border czar regional migration queen — was a monstrous bust. Of course, the main reason why is because a) she was tasked with doing something about the border; and b) if it’s open, people come. Anyway, the job didn’t do much to burnish Harris’s national security chops, if one can burnish a chop, and her silly attempts to fob off any connection to the actual border just made her look… silly.

Since the outbreak of Hamas’s war on Israel, Harris has been slightly more present on the question, and she has repeatedly trumpeted her hostility to the waves of antisemitism now emanating from elite college campuses. She has also turned her husband’s Jewish faith to political purpose, particularly when being criticized for the Biden-Harris record. She has made clear that she is a supporter of Israel, and will be a supporter of Israel if elected.

Here’s the thing: When the Biden Administration began turning away from Israel, they trotted out Harris with the hardline “ceasefire” demands. When confronted by hecklers accusing her and Biden of “genocide,” she has responded in ways that are, off the cuff, less than encouraging to pro-Israel stalwarts. “Listen,” she said recently of a keffiyeh-clad jerk, “what he’s talking about, it’s real. It’s real. That’s not the subject that I came to discuss today, but it’s real and I respect his voice.” During the Democratic Convention, Harris’s campaign met with the “Uncommitted” movement that opposed both candidates for their support for Israel. But after the two “Uncommitted” founders waited in line for a photo, and raised the issue of an arms embargo of Israel, Harris reportedly “expressed openness to discussing their call for an Israel arms embargo and directed her staff to be in touch with the pair.”

Perhaps the Uncommitted pair were lying. The campaign denied Harris had said any such thing. Perhaps in responding to the person accusing her of “genocide” that “it’s real,” she was just being polite, and didn’t mean the “genocide” was real. The problem is that Harris appears to have few convictions beyond the far-left ecosphere of California politics, appears to be easily led, and more troubling still, will doubtless feel the need to cater to the increasingly antisemitic far left of the Democratic Party.

Back to Iran. In a recent interview, Harris said Iran was the greatest national security threat to the United States. Not China. Not Russia. Which begs the question, why has the administration of which she has been a part continued to employ known Iranian collaborators, and given up entirely — and I mean entirely — on ending Iran’s nuclear weapons program, going so far as to beg the Israelis not to hit elements of that program in its recent strike? Iran is the biggest threat, and for the last three years, the Biden-Harris administration has done nothing about it? Nothing?

Is Harris tough on Iran? Clearly not. Does she oppose BDS? Well, she says so, but voted the other way. Does she support Israel? Well, she says so, but has hinted she has doubts. Will she back an arms embargo of Israel? Maybe.

The last issue that to my mind casts a shadow over the Harris question is her choice of Tim Walz as her running mate. Every possible indicator suggested Josh Shapiro was the right call: Popular governor of a must-win state. Young Democrat, up and coming. Great campaigner. Why didn’t she pick him? Two possible reasons: He’s a Jew, and he’s smarter than she is. Neither bodes well for her long-term and consistent support for the State of Israel.

Donald Trump

As our readers know all too well, I am a so-called “double hater” — against both Trump and Harris. (Don’t tell me I have to choose one; that’s Marc’s job.) But that doesn’t mean I don’t see differences between the candidates, and Israel is one of them. Up to a point.

If we had only Trump's first term to go on, we could safely announce that on the question of Israel, Donald Trump is the better candidate. But we don’t have only the first term to go on. Yes, it’s great that Trump ordered Qassem Soleimani killed. Great that he had the vision that resulted in the Abraham Accords, the most important change in Arab Israeli relations in history. Yep, he was good on Iran, and the maximum pressure campaign was effective in denying Iran funds to continue its nefarious activities. He moved the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. He hit the Assad regime. OK, this is great stuff.

And then there’s the post-White House Trump. First, there was the ridiculous contretemps with Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump reportedly said, “F*ck him,” for calling to congratulate Joe Biden on his election, and accused the Israeli PM of “disloyalty” for doing so. Then there was the bizarre flirtation with two rabid antisemites, Kanye West and Nick Fuentes. No, no, Trump apologists insisted, Trump just didn’t know who the guy was. Give me a break, I don’t care. You’re the former President of the United States. Ask.

Substantively, he has said on more than one occasion that the war in Gaza is a bad look and must soon be wrapped up. Additionally, more recent reporting has suggested that Trump asked Netanyahu to make sure the war is officially ended by the time he takes office. What does this bode for future support of Israel’s self-defense? Unclear. On Israel’s right to protect its people, Trump appears reasonably solid. On Israel’s branding problems after October 7th, incredibly, less so.

Then, there has been a litany of other problems, but let’s just pick a few. This line, for one: “Anybody who’s Jewish and loves being Jewish and loves Israel is a fool if they vote for a Democrat,” Trump said, “You should have your head examined.” I know Trump’s defenders will say that he’s right, and that it’s certainly no worse than Joe Biden’s pronouncement that Black voters “ain’t Black” if they don’t support him. That’s true, but Joe Biden is non compos mentis. Is Trump?

Even that line and the thinking behind it, however, pales when we consider the choice of J.D. Vance as his running mate. Vance has been careful to appear to be a friend to Israel, but his track record suggests that his real friendship is to the isolationist wing of the Republican Party that houses the likes of Rand Paul and Marjorie “Jewish Space Lasers” Taylor Green. Is Vance smarter than these tools? For sure. But he’s smart enough to understand that younger Republicans (like younger Democrats) are less supportive of Israel, and to have an eye on his future.

The isolationists start with dismissing Ukraine, but it is only a matter of time before they betray Taiwan, and then Israel. Or as Vance put it recently, “Obviously, Israel has the right to defend itself, but America’s interest is sometimes going to be distinct, like sometimes we’re going to have overlapping interests, and sometimes we’re going to have distinct interests. Our interest, I think very much, is in not going to war with Iran, right? It would be a huge distraction of resources. It would be massively expensive to our country.”

And now to the trump card, slight pun intended. Why did J.D. Vance make the cut where Doug Burgum and Marco Rubio failed? Because JD was the candidate that Don Jr. and Tucker Carlson thrust upon the elder Trump. And it is the presence — the continued presence — of the execrable Carlson, a man who has given a platform to a rabid antisemite and Holocaust denier, a man who has allowed the vile Candace Owens time on his show, that troubles the most.

Does Donald Trump sign up to the antisemitic ideas of the people around him? Maybe not. Does he think Kanye West is 18 bulbs short of a chandelier? Probably. So what? Much as I condemn Kamala Harris for her “it’s real, and I respect his voice” line, I must condemn Donald Trump for sharing the stage with Tucker Carlson, a proven antisemite.

SO?

Ideally, we wouldn’t have to make this choice. Neither is optimal. On balance, Trump’s record as president — and not his record since — is more reassuring than Harris’s. But that’s not saying much. The next president is going to have to face up to the ongoing war in the Middle East, the return of al Qaeda and ISIS, a possible Iranian nuclear weapon, the growing power of the Houthis, and more. There will be no pivot, no 24-hour peace, no ceasefire-on-demand. So where does that leave us? Praying that the House and Senate leadership will defend the interests of the United States and our allies against the rising tide of the axis of evil.