For a considerable time, Republicans have been striving to position themselves as the party that supports Israel, suggesting Democrats do not. This narrative was evident during the first 2024 presidential debate on September 10.
Former President Donald Trump, during the debate, made bold assertions about Vice President Kamala Harris’ views on Israel. He accused her of despising Israel, predicting that if she won the election, “Israel will not exist within two years. At the same time, in her own way, she hates the Arab population, because the whole place is going to get blown up. Arabs, Jewish people, Israel. Israel will be gone.”
Trump’s comments came amid a tense conversation about Middle East policy. He seized this opportunity to draw a distinction between his approach to Middle East tensions, especially with regard to Iran, and Harris’. He implied that the Israel-Hamas conflict would not have occurred if he was still in office.
He also held the Biden administration responsible for what he termed the “appeasement of Iran,” contending that their policies had strengthened Hamas. “Iran had no money for Hamas or Hezbollah under my administration. Now Iran has $300 billion because they took off all the sanctions that I had,” he asserted.
Trump’s accusation hinged on the argument that the Biden administration’s decision to ease sanctions on Iran granted the country access to billions of dollars, which was then directed to terrorist organizations. During his presidency, stringent sanctions were imposed on Iran as part of his “maximum pressure” campaign, aimed at debilitating Iran’s economy, particularly by limiting oil sales, a vital source of revenue for the country. As per Trump’s debate statements, these sanctions had severed Iran’s capacity to finance groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.
Trump stated that when President Biden and Vice President Harris assumed office, they relaxed many of those sanctions, granting Iran access to significant funds. The figure Trump referred to—$300 billion—is not widely confirmed, and independent analysts have cast doubt on the accuracy of this claim. According to a report from The Jerusalem Post, Iran’s economic recovery has not met the scale Trump suggested, and the lifting of sanctions has been more limited than he implied.
The Biden administration has indeed adopted a different approach toward Iran in contrast to Trump’s more aggressive policies. Biden aimed to reinstate the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which Trump had abandoned in 2018. The JCPOA placed curbs on Iran’s nuclear activities in return for sanctions relief. Currently, discussions to re-join the deal have reached a standstill, and sanctions relief has not been fully effected.
However, Trump’s claim about Iran having access to $300 billion and utilizing it to fund Hamas is not entirely supported by available evidence. While Iran’s involvement in financing terrorist groups is not a new phenomenon, the extent of this support under the Biden administration is less pronounced than Trump suggests. Independent analysts and fact-checking sources have questioned the accuracy of the $300 billion figure, as Iran’s economy, although recovering, has not witnessed such a drastic influx of funds.
Harris promptly refuted Trump’s allegations during the debate. She reiterated her support for Israel and its right to self-defense, especially against threats from Iran and its proxies. “I will always give Israel the ability to defend itself, in particular as it relates to Iran,” Harris declared during the debate.
She also denounced Trump’s remarks, labeling them as divisive and false. Harris underscored her lifelong commitment to Israel’s security and called for a ceasefire in Gaza.
Harris touched on the violence arising from the Israel-Hamas conflict during the debate. “We need to end this war, and that starts with securing the release of hostages,” Harris stated. Her focus on diplomacy contrasted starkly with Trump’s more aggressive stance, as she reiterated the importance of the U.S. collaborating with international partners to ensure peace in the region. She emphasized the ultimate need for a two-state solution, seeking to ensure peace and dignity for both Israelis and Palestinians.
The debate underscored the marked differences in their foreign policy perspectives, particularly regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. Trump’s approach focused on taking harsh actions against “terror-infested areas,” while Harris advocated for diplomatic solutions.
Following the debate, both contenders received a mixed bag of reactions from political figures and analysts. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo echoed Trump’s criticism, accusing the Biden-Harris administration of empowering Iran through appeasement policies. “This administration’s approach to Iran has led to war, terrorism, and put Americans at risk,” Pompeo said, supporting Trump’s stance.
Conversely, several Jewish organizations and political figures approved of Harris’ comments, praising her stance on Israel’s security and the ongoing conflict in Gaza. The Democratic Majority for Israel voiced its support, declaring, “Kamala Harris has always been a steadfast supporter of Israel. She made that very clear tonight, and we are proud to stand by her.”
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) tweeted during the debate, “I appreciate her commitment to making sure Israel has the tools to defend itself.” Supporters of Harris also lauded her for advocating a peaceful resolution to the ongoing conflict while affirming Israel’s right to safeguard its citizens.
Dr. Amnon Cavari, who heads the research group American Public Opinion toward Israel and is the head of the Institute for Liberty and Responsibility at the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy, and Strategy at Reichman University in Herzliya, Israel, criticized Trump’s comments about Israel’s future under Harris. He labeled them “irresponsible” and “a ridiculous thing to say by a presidential candidate.”
Dr. Cavari believes Trump’s comments are not genuinely targeted at the Jewish population, but rather an attempt to portray strength in foreign policy, an area where Trump doesn’t have a particularly strong hand. According to Cavari, the broader message Trump is conveying is that “if Harris is elected, the world is going to collapse,” with Israel serving as an example.
Cavari pointed out that unlike Biden, Trump never discussed forming alliances or coalitions, which have been instrumental in protecting Israel. Instead, Trump has stuck to the assertion that no one would challenge the U.S. once he’s back in office.
Cavari contrasted this with the Biden-Harris position, which emphasizes that the U.S., along with other nations, stands united in supporting Israel. He commended Harris for starting the debate by acknowledging the October 7 attacks and presenting a strong stance on Israel.
Cavari also noted that Trump didn’t offer concrete plans to prevent future conflicts, and even some of his Israeli supporters weren’t entirely impressed. Israelis, Cavari stressed, want to hear solutions, not apocalyptic rhetoric.
Cavari added that Republicans have long tried to position themselves as the party that supports Israel, but with limited success. Trump is aggressively pushing this narrative, turning Israel into a polarizing issue. However, Cavari warned that making Israel a focus of U.S. elections is harmful, as Israel benefits from bipartisan support, something it should continue to strive for.
The debate clearly laid out the contrasting foreign policies that both candidates would pursue if elected. While Trump stressed military action and sanctions, Harris focused on diplomacy and long-term solutions to conflicts in the Middle East. Both candidates’ views on the Israel-Hamas war have become central to their foreign policy platforms as the 2024 election approaches.
