Israel needs a strong America, but experts are divided over whether a Democrat or a Republican in the Oval Office will make that difference.

By Israel Kasnett, JNS

Tuesday’s presidential election in the United States comes as Israel is engaged in a war against Iran and its proxies in Gaza and Lebanon. While the Biden administration has been admirably supportive of Israel in certain ways, it has failed in others.

Israel needs a strong America, but experts are divided over whether a Democrat or a Republican in the Oval Office will make that difference.

With regard to the current administration, antisemitism is raging across the U.S. and the leadership has failed to vigorously enforce policies to stem the hatred.

Moreover, instead of full-throated support for Israel’s war against radical Islamic terrorism, the administration has doubled down on threatening to withhold military aid from Israel and sanction more right-wing activists and organizations.

According to Richard Goldberg, a senior adviser at the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, U.S. Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris “has obviously normalized the idea of withholding military assistance to Israel for political leverage, so we should expect to see periodic suspensions of aid during a Harris administration.”

This outcome is “highly unlikely” under a Trump administration, he told JNS.

Harris, he said, “will likely build on Biden’s executive order imposing sanctions on Jews and Jewish groups in Judea and Samaria, constructing a U.S. government BDS architecture that eventually threatens companies and banks doing business in those areas.”

In contrast, Republican candidate and former President Donald Trump “will likely repeal that executive order on day one, restore funding Biden-Harris ended for Jewish institutions in Judea and Samaria and undo the Biden-Harris policy of calling settlements inherently illegal,” he said.

Turning to Iran, Goldberg said a Trump administration “is likely to return to a maximum-pressure-like strategy toward Iran, squeezing Tehran of the resources it needs to fund terrorism and other malign activities.”

A Harris administration “likely continues the policy of seeking to negotiate a new and potentially worse version” of the 2015 Iran deal known as the JCPOA, said Goldberg, an extension of what he calls “the Biden maximum deference policy.”

Goldberg pointed to several other important differences between Harris and Trump.

“Trump obviously defunded UNRWA, while Harris appears eager to restart funding for UNRWA,” he said.

With regard to Jerusalem, he said Trump “famously moved the U.S. embassy there and downgraded the Palestinian consulate, while Biden and Harris have continued to find a way to upgrade Palestinian status in Jerusalem—something I expect she will continue trying if she wins.”

On the international level, Goldberg said Harris, like Biden, “would likely continue support for the anti-Israel Human Rights Council [HRC] at the United Nations, and block sanctions against the International Criminal Court, while Trump obviously pulled America out of the HRC once before and had sanctions in place on ICC officials when he left office.”

On the domestic front, Trump “has promised to deport foreign student visa holders behind antisemitic protests on campus and is likely to ramp up enforcement of his own antisemitism executive order, which could lead to a federal aid suspension for universities not taking action against Jew-hatred on their campuses,” said Goldberg.

“You might also see an expansion of sanctions and indictments of Hamas-connected networks inside the United States,” he added.

Harris, by contrast, “is unlikely to do any of that, having publicly expressed that she understands where the protesters are coming from,” he said.

On the Israeli-Palestinian front, Goldberg said Harris “will press for a two-state solution in the same way presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden did.”

Trump, by contrast, “has a vision that’s public and already outlined in the Middle East peace plan,” he said.

However, according to professor Eytan Gilboa, an expert on U.S.-Israeli relations at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan and a senior fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, neither candidate will be good for Israel, albeit for different reasons.

While during his first term Trump recognized the Golan Heights as part of Israel, moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and reversed the Hansell Memorandum, declaring instead that Israeli settlements do not violate international law, Israelis should not expect such magnanimity in a second Trump term, Gilboa warned.

Gilboa told JNS Trump would likely “act differently in a second term than he did in his first.”

Trump may want to expand the Abraham Accords, which will require that Israel makes concessions, Gilboa said.

Notably, the Saudis have said a normalization agreement with Israel cannot occur without movement toward Palestinian statehood.

Harris “is a different story,” said Gilboa. “We don’t know much about her foreign policy orientation,” he noted. “She hasn’t spoken about it.”

She “has no experience in foreign policy or military affairs” and as commander-in-chief “will need to depend on her Secretary of Defense,” he said.

The leading candidate for the position is Michèle Flournoy, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from Feb. 2009 to Feb. 2012, who Gilboa believes will be a good choice for Israel.

Less ideal would be if Harris appoints her current adviser Philip Gordon as National Security Advisor.

“His understanding and vision for the Middle East is very different from what should be done,” said Gilboa.

For instance, Gilboa said he believes Harris would rely on Gordon’s advice and “would not use American force against Iran” even if Iran goes nuclear.

Similarly, Gilboa said that since the United States has depleted its weapons stockpile by supplying Ukraine and Israel and must rebuild, the U.S. defense budget needs to be substantially increased.

“I don’t think she will do it,” he said.

“She would be more vulnerable to the progressive parts of the Democratic Party” if she did, he added.

Harris is also “closer to the Progressives” and will probably need to appoint one of them to a senior position such as U.N. ambassador, Gilboa told JNS.

If she does, he added, “we’re in trouble.”

Both candidates are problematic for Israel, according to Gilboa, since they both “would be looking at some kind of isolation,” which he said is “dangerous because we expect the United States to be the leader of the western world.”

However, Gilboa said that if the Republicans control the House in Congress, that “will be good for Israel since Republicans are more favorable toward Israel” and could limit what Harris is able to do.

In terms of foreign military aid, “military cooperation will be good no matter what, but foreign aid needs to be approved by Congress and a Republican Congress will be better for Israel,” he said.

Congress approved a $14.1 billion aid package for Israel earlier this year.

In September, Israel said it had secured an $8.7 billion aid package from the United States to support its ongoing military efforts and to maintain a qualitative military edge in the region.

The package includes $3.5 billion for essential wartime procurement, which has already been received and earmarked for critical military purchases, and $5.2 billion designated for air defense systems including the Iron Dome and David’s Sling anti-missile systems, as well as an advanced laser system.

Washington provides Israel with $3.8 billion in annual military aid under the terms of a 10-year memorandum of understanding that the two countries signed in 2016. In April, U.S. President Joe Biden signed into law a supplemental aid package that included $14.3 billion in direct military aid to Israel on top of the annual aid.

“Harris could withhold aid,” Gilboa said.

No matter who wins Tuesday’s election, Gilboa believes neither candidate is ideal from Israel’s perspective.