Did Israel determine the US presidential election?
Part 6: Prioritizing Jewish vs Arab American Voters
By Bonnie K. Goodman, BA, MLIS
Despite courting Arab voters, Israeli media concludes that “Neither Harris nor Trump would upend US Israel policy.” Millions of Americans cast their votes to determine whether Kamala Harris or Donald Trump would ascend to the presidency of the United States. The results carry considerable weight for the future of both the United States and the Middle East, particularly concerning Israel. Jacob Magid, writing in the Times of Israel, observes that both candidates share a similar policy approach, eager for the conflict in Gaza to conclude before their inauguration in January. They anticipate that Biden’s final significant action in public office will involve facilitating a resolution to Israel’s operations against Hamas and securing the release of hostages. Both candidates aim to finalize an agreement that establishes normalized relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, enabling US influence to concentrate on the Asia-Pacific region and the competition with China. [1]
Harris appointed Ilan Goldenberg to serve as her Jewish outreach director, providing guidance to the campaign on matters related to Israel and the Middle East. Goldenberg has openly condemned Netanyahu and played a prominent role in the Obama administration’s negotiating team for Israeli-Palestinian discussions. During Biden’s administration, there have been indications of potential actions to restrict security assistance and arms deliveries. As Biden positions her to adopt the necessary political and legal stance to halt arms sales once she assumes office, Harris has the potential to advance this policy and exert pressure on Netanyahu. Harris is expected to persist in the stance she sought to uphold during the campaign, tailoring her messages to appeal to both supporters of Israel and those critical of the Jewish state and its conflict with Hamas. Gabriel Noronha of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America analyzed, “The Harris approach is rather similar to the Biden approach, but could be heavier handed in its pressure toward Israel, particularly on threatening a limitation of arms transfers if Israel chooses not to accept a deal agreed to by Hamas.”
The potential ramifications of Trump’s isolationist tendencies may emerge as a significant concern, coinciding with the expiration of the 10-year security assistance Memorandum of Understanding. Trump shows little regard for humanitarian concerns or Israel’s measured application of power. He has not issued comparable requests regarding Lebanon, and Israel may be optimistic about Trump’s potential to secure additional normalization agreements with Arab nations. Nonetheless, any defense treaty that Riyadh seeks will require the support of more than a dozen Democratic senators. Regarding Iran, Trump would refrain from launching a direct assault on its nuclear installations. Danielle Pletka, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, finds in contrast, “On balance, Trump’s record as president — and not his record since — is more reassuring than Harris’s. But that’s not saying much.”[2]
Even a feature story in the New York Times, whose coverage is usually unsympathetic to Israel, acknowledged, “Why Harris Remains Unlikely to Break From Biden on Israel and Gaza.” Katie Rogers and Erica L. Green argued Harris’s “advisers say the empathy she has expressed for Palestinians as vice president should not be confused with any willingness to break from U.S. foreign policy toward Israel as a presidential candidate.” Harris has shown more empathy for Palestinians in Gaza than for Israel, seeking to represent a vision for the future instead of the ongoing conflict. While she maintains an empathetic stance, she remained steadfast in her commitment to uphold American foreign policy regarding Israel as a candidate for the presidency. The death of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar has opened a potential pathway to cease hostilities, with Harris reiterating the importance of a “day after” strategy while refraining from calling for a unilateral withdrawal by Israel. The communication conveys a sense of understanding, yet it lacks any meaningful distinction from existing policies or concepts regarding future directions. [3]
Even in October, Harris campaign officials were already convinced that the harm inflicted on a small yet potentially pivotal group of voters, particularly in Michigan, was irreversible. Regrettably, the Harris campaign held the view that Michigan was a more crucial battleground state than Pennsylvania. Victory in Michigan hinges on suburban counties, where a significant number of college-educated and white voters reside. This includes a portion of the over 296,000 individuals who backed Nikki Haley in the state’s Republican presidential primary. Nonetheless, the rising frustration surrounding Gaza and the growing support for Jill Stein, a candidate from a third party, concerned the Democratic Party that the ongoing conflict might jeopardize Ms. Harris’s chances in the election, especially with the state’s Arab population.
On the other hand, Trump emphasized the importance of the Jewish vote. Trump, who was an ally of PM Netanyahu and relocated the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, claims to have accomplished more for Israel than any other president in history. He vowed to be Israel’s “protector,” blamed Jewish voters if he lost the election, and predicted that Israel would cease to exist under a Harris presidency. In September, Trump tried to scare Jewish voters to support him at the Israeli-American Council summit: “It’s total annihilation — that’s what you’re talking about. You have a big protector in me. You don’t have a protector on the other side.”[4]
Trump also actively sought to engage disenchanted Muslim and Arab voters in Michigan, which includes his daughter’s Lebanese American father-in-law. Trump’s running mate, Senator JD Vance of Ohio, tried to appeal to both voting groups while campaigning in Michigan, saying, “Obviously, Arab Americans often have different views than Jewish Americans on what’s going on in Israel and what’s going on in Palestine. But I think most Jewish Americans and Arab Americans recognize that what’s in the best interest of Israel and Palestine is peace, and Donald J. Trump is the president of peace.” While American Jews preferred the Democrats, a significant number defected to Trump and the Republicans in Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, in Israel, Israeli Jews overwhelmingly supported Trump’s victory, to the extent that many celebrated his victory the following day. However, Israeli officials were less worried than the average Israeli on the street. An Israeli official told the Times of Israel on Election Day, “The foundations of the relationship will remain strong. The relationship will continue to be intimate on so many levels, and the countries will remain the closest of allies.” [5]
[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/neither-harris-or-trump-will-upend-us-israel-policy-but-there-are-key-differences/
[2] https://www.timesofisrael.com/neither-harris-or-trump-will-upend-us-israel-policy-but-there-are-key-differences/
[3] https://www.timesofisrael.com/neither-harris-or-trump-will-upend-us-israel-policy-but-there-are-key-differences/
[4] https://www.timesofisrael.com/neither-harris-or-trump-will-upend-us-israel-policy-but-there-are-key-differences/
[5] https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-donald-trump-and-kamala-harris-differ-and-agree-on-middle-east-policy/
Bonnie K. Goodman, BA, MLIS, is a historian, librarian, journalist, and artist. She is pursuing an MA in Jewish Education at the Melton Centre of Jewish Education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. She is the author of the recently released “On This Day in History…: Significant Events in the American Year,” and “A Constant Battle: McGill University’s Complicated History of Antisemitism and Now anti-Zionism.” She has a BA in History and Art History and a Masters in Library and Information Studies from McGill University. She has done graduate work in Jewish history at Concordia University as part of the MA in Judaic Studies, where she focused on Medieval and Modern Judaism. Her research area is North American Jewish history, and her thesis was entitled “Unconditional Loyalty to the Cause: Southern Whiteness, Jewish Women, and Antisemitism, 1860–1913.” Ms. Goodman has been researching and writing about antisemitism in North American Jewish History, and she has reported on the current antisemitic climate and anti-Zionism on campus for over fifteen years.
She is also the author of among others, “Silver Boom! The Rise and Decline of Leadville, Colorado as the United States Silver Capital, 1860–1896” (2008), “On This Day in the History… Of American Independence Significant Events in the Revolutionary Era, 1754–1812” (2020), and “We Used to be Friends? The Long Complicated History of Jews, Blacks, and Antisemitism” (2020). She contributed the overviews and chronologies to the “History of American Presidential Elections, 1789–2008,” edited by Gil Troy, Arthur M. Schlesinger, and Fred L. Israel (2012). She is the former Features Editor at the History News Network and reporter at Examiner.com, where she covered politics, universities, religion, and news. She currently blogs at Medium, where she was a top writer in history, and regularly writes an “On This Day in History (#OTD in #History)” Feature. Her scholarly articles can be found on Academia.edu.
