No American president—Democratic or Republican—has pursued policies in the Middle East or espoused views on Israel that align perfectly with my own. Should Kamala Harris be elected president, I expect she would be no different. Throughout her tenure as senator and vice president, she has taken positions on Israel with which I broadly agree. Even where I disagree, I find that it’s entirely possible “to be pro-Israel and vote for Kamala Harris” (“Pledge Allegiance to America, Not to a Party Losing Its Way,” Mira Schreiber, August 29, 2024).
For example, the first resolution Harris co-sponsored as a senator was to condemn President Obama’s failure to veto the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 (regarding Israeli settlements).
She told AIPAC in 2017, “I stand with Israel because of our shared values which are so fundamental to the founding of both our nations. I believe the bonds between the United States and Israel are unbreakable.” And in 2018: “The vast majority of people understand the importance of the State of Israel. Both in terms of its history and its present in terms of being a source of inspiration on so many issues.”
After Palestinian Islamic Jihad launched hundreds of rockets in 2019, Harris affirmed Israel’s “right to defend itself from these horrific attacks. … I strongly support funding of the Iron Dome missile-defense system, which is, once again, saving countless Israeli lives.”
She opposes BDS, explaining that “we should not isolate Israel, the only democracy in the region.”
Following Hamas’ October 7 attack, she has reiterated on several occasions—including at the Democratic National Convention—her beliefs that: Israel must defend itself; Hamas is a terrorist organization that committed unspeakable atrocities, including sexual violence; and that Hamas must release all of the hostages. She has met with survivors, released hostages and hostage families, and hosted a screening of “Screams Before Silence.”
She opposes cutting or conditioning foreign aid to Israel, saying, “We are not going to create any conditions on the support that we are giving Israel to defend itself.”
She condemned “despicable acts by unpatriotic protesters” in Washington, D.C., saying, “Pro-Hamas graffiti and rhetoric is abhorrent and we must not tolerate it in our nation.”
After Hamas executed six hostages, Harris called the parents of American-Israeli citizen Hersh Goldberg-Polin, z”l, to mourn with them. She wrote in an official statement: “With these murders, Hamas has even more American blood on its hands. … Hamas’ depravity is evident and horrifying. The threat Hamas poses to the people of Israel—and American citizens in Israel—must be eliminated and Hamas cannot control Gaza.”
On the other side of the aisle, Donald Trump’s presidency was no exception to the trend mentioned above. He undeniably did some good things during his term: e.g., the Abraham Accords; establishing an American embassy in Jerusalem; and recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.
At the same time, he undeniably caused great harm: e.g., he endangered an Israeli spy by divulging top secret information to Russians. He allowed a Turkish bank to evade Iran sanctions. He betrayed our Kurdish allies, leading to a sense that Israel cannot rely on Trump. He withdrew from the JCPOA without a backup plan, allowing Iran to stockpile, by November 2020, 12 times more low-enriched uranium than the JCPOA limit. He negotiated a terrible deal with the Taliban where, according to his national security adviser H.R. McMaster, Trump “forced [the Afghans] to release 5,000 of some of the most heinous people on the earth.” After he left office Trump showed two journalists highly confidential military plans to attack Iran.
Even those who emphasize Trump’s good policies cannot necessarily count on his continued support. As John Bolton, another of Trump’s national security advisers, noted, “Trump’s support for Israel in the first term is not guaranteed in the second term because Trump’s positions are made on the basis of what’s good for Donald Trump, not on some coherent theory of national security.” Mr. Bolton elaborated, “He doesn’t understand how alliances work. … He doesn’t think in policy terms—he thinks in ad hoc, transactional terms.”
Ms. Schreiber claims that the Democratic Party has changed. She might consider assessing the state of the Republican Party. The current GOP is not the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower, Regan or Bush. The GOP’s nominee is a convicted felon, has been found liable by a jury for sexual assault, engaged in a monthslong effort to overturn an election he lost, has a soft spot for dictators, and threatens to withdraw from NATO. He said he would consider pardoning January 6 rioters—whom he perversely calls “hostages”—convicted of violent crimes.
It is telling that only one living Republican presidential or vice presidential nominee (Sarah Palin) is supporting Trump in this election. Not Quayle, Bush, Cheney, Romney, Ryan or Pence. Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz Cheney endorsed Harris last week, as did John McCain’s son Jim McCain..
Indeed, some of the people who worked closest with Trump—including his vice president, two defense secretaries, two national security advisers, his chief of staff, homeland security adviser, director of national intelligence, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, secretary of the Navy, and the DHS chief of staff—have all raised alarm bells about the dangers of Trump and are declining to support him in this election. These people are trying to salvage a once Grand Old Party that has gone astray.
As Geoff Duncan, Republican former Georgia Lt. Governor, said, “Let me be clear to my Republican friends at home: If you vote for Kamala Harris in 2024 you’re not a Democrat, you’re a patriot.”
