Harris admin would be 'most hostile' to Israel since Eisenhower, expert says

By

(JNS) — Israel today finds itself standing increasingly alone as the world rejects its right to defend itself against genocidal enemies.

And as the United States heads to elections in November, Israelis are worried that Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris is demonstrating less support for Israel and more sympathy for Palestinians and their supporters. 

For instance, she has consistently tried to tie Israel’s hands, calling for the Jewish state to end its war against Hamas, and refused to attend Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress in July.

According to Michael Rubin, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, an administration led by Harris “is likely to be the most hostile U.S. administration to Israel” since U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower’s first term in 1953.

“Even if Harris is neutral on Israel, her progressive base is out for blood and, specifically, Israeli blood,” he told JNS.

As the Biden administration appeases Iran, the Islamic regime attacks Israel directly and through proxies in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and Gaza. 

Every time Israel went to war against Hamas in Gaza, in 2008-09, 2012, 2014 and 2021, the international community, including the Obama administration, forced Israel to stop fighting. After the horrific Oct. 7 massacre, Israel now aims to destroy Hamas, and yet again, the international community, including the Biden administration, is trying to save Hamas.  

Likewise, when Hezbollah launched an unprovoked war against Israel in 2006, the international community forced a ceasefire after Israel attacked. 

Even before Israel assassinated Hezbollah leader and arch-terrorist Hassan Nasrallah on Friday, the international community, including the Biden administration, was working hard to achieve a ceasefire to save Hezbollah. 

Israel is never allowed to win.

So when Harris was asked how she would broker a deal to end the war between Israel and Hamas, she said she would continue to work on a two-state solution “around the clock.”

This is a major red flag. The Palestinians have made it clear numerous times since 1947 that they are not interested in a two-state solution and prefer to destroy Israel instead.

What Harris means then is that she does not want Israel to achieve victory. Instead, she wants to give Palestinians a state as a prize for launching endless terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians for decades instead of pursuing the establishment of their own state through peaceful means.

While Harris appears to be making an effort to toe the line set by President Joe Biden, she has deviated from it somewhat to appease the more leftist elements in the Democratic Party, with which she is closely affiliated.

Harris said she will “always give Israel the ability to defend itself and in particular, as it relates to Iran and any threat that Iran and its proxies pose to Israel.”

But Harris herself has admitted that she is the “last person in the room” when President Biden makes decisions. This means she is directly involved in the administration’s decision to halt crucial weapons deliveries to Israel in wartime. 

Her words don’t match her administration’s actions.

After the Biden administration intentionally delayed weapons shipments to Israel while the Jewish state is fighting on several fronts against enemies sworn to its destruction, the United States may no longer be the reliable friend and ally it claims to be.

In June, Netanyahu released a video on social media saying that “in the past few months, the administration has been withholding weapons and ammunition to Israel.”

His words were backed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.).

The White House insisted that it had only paused a single shipment of 2,000-pound bombs over concerns that they could cause civilian casualties. 

“Congress can promise weaponry, but the White House has shown a willingness to slow deliveries or use the existential threat Hamas and Iran poses as a means of leverage,” said Rubin.

Israel is also worried about Iran obtaining nuclear capability, a dangerous scenario made even more likely by both the Obama and Biden administrations, which gave Iran hundreds of billions of dollars to appease the Islamist regime.

According to Iranian-American political scientist Majid Rafizadeh, president of the International American Council, “Iran’s runaway strides in its nuclear program have taken place largely under the watch of the Biden-Harris administration.”

Writing for the Gatestone Institute, Rafizadeh said it is “perplexing-verging-on-treasonous that the Biden-Harris administration has not taken any decisive action to prevent Iran from going nuclear, or even causing any less devastation in the Middle East.”

Rafizadeh lamented the Biden-Harris administration’s “lack of a clear plan, let alone any desire, to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”

What this means is that a Harris administration will almost certainly continue to finance Iran, appease its murderous regime and allow it to acquire nuclear weapons.

Irina Tsukerman, a fellow at the Arabian Peninsula Institute and at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, has a different understanding of Israel’s relationship with the United States.

She told JNS that “the United States, for all the shortcomings of its political leadership, still remains the single greatest ally Israel has, and is actually the main reason why the embargoes against the sales of weapons to Israel by other countries are not worse than what they already are.”

That being said, Tsukerman recommended that Israel “diversify its sources of weapons by developing its own defense industry and by cooperating with other advanced arms producers, such as South Korea.”

According to Tsukerman, Israeli cooperation with the United States “is a benefit for both countries,” especially since in terms of diplomatic support, “there is no full substitute for the importance of the U.S. support and leadership in the Middle East.”

However, she said, Israel “should not be limited to only having one leading ally” and should develop “both pragmatic alliances of convenience and long-term relationships with other countries, based on mutual interests and values.”

For instance, she told JNS, Israel could build a coalition with its Abraham Accords partners to counter the Muslim Brotherhood threat to the region.

She pointed to Ukraine as a potential ally since it views Russia, Iran and possibly even China “as a direct threat to its own interests” and would be willing to cooperate with Israel.

Tsukerman also suggested India and Japan as additional allies since both countries “are increasingly flexing their ‘smart power’ muscle in developing countries,” adding that improved relations with these countries could aid Israel in “forging support in the ‘Global South.’”

Israel already has a positive relationship with India, “which has proved to be a surprisingly resilient ally despite international pressure,” according to Tsukerman.

While Japan has traditionally been Arabist and is still reluctant to confront Iran, “The political mindset in the Japanese government circles is shifting, and the people of Japan are not specifically anti-Israel,” she said.

Given the changing international order and the political shifts taking place in America, Tsukerman said she believes Israel’s realpolitik “needs to be informed by the realities, needs and vulnerabilities of its prospective partners and would-be-friends and not just by wishful thinking and the outdated hasbara approach.”

Rubin told JNS that Israel “must recognize that U.S. support, at least for the next four years, will be fleeting” if Harris wins the presidential election on Nov. 5.