The Republican party has long attempted to position itself as the primary supporter of Israel in U.S. politics, asserting that the Democrats do not share this stance. This was again evident during the first 2024 presidential debate on September 10.
During the debate, Donald Trump made forceful assertions about Vice President Kamala Harris’ viewpoint on Israel. He accused her hating Israel, predicting that if she ascends to the presidency, “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.”
These comments from Trump were made during a heated discussion on Middle East policy. Trump utilized this opportunity to draw a contrast between his approach towards Middle East tensions, particularly with respect to Iran, and the current administration’s policy. He suggested that the Israel-Hamas war would not have occurred if he had remained in office.
Moreover, Trump attributed the “appeasement of Iran” to the Biden administration, alleging that their policies had given a boost to 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 stated.
The crux of Trump’s argument was that the Biden administration’s decision to relax sanctions on Iran provided the country with billions of dollars, which were subsequently channelled to terrorist organizations. During Trump’s tenure, rigorous sanctions were imposed on Iran as part of his “maximum pressure” campaign. These sanctions, primarily targeting Iran’s oil sales, were designed to debilitate Iran’s economy. According to Trump’s debate statements, these sanctions had curbed Iran’s capability to fund groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.
Trump asserted that following the inauguration of President Biden and Vice President Harris, many of these sanctions were reversed, granting Iran access to substantial funds. The exaggerated figure Trump mentioned—$300 billion—is not widely corroborated, and independent analysts have doubted the veracity of this claim. A report from The Jerusalem Post indicated that Iran’s economic recovery, although improved, has not reached the level Trump suggested, and the lifting of sanctions has been more modest than he implied.
It is accurate that the Biden administration has adopted a different strategy towards Iran, in contrast to Trump’s more assertive policies. Biden intended to reinstate the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, officially referred to as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which Trump had exited in 2018. The JCPOA imposed restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for relief from sanctions. As of now, negotiations to re-enter the deal have come to a standstill, and relief from sanctions has not been fully administered.
Nonetheless, Trump’s exaggerated assertion that Iran, with access to $300 billion, is funding Hamas is not entirely substantiated by available data. While Iran’s role in financing terrorist groups is not a new phenomenon, the extent of this support under the Biden administration is less significant than Trump suggests.
Harris vehemently denied Trump’s allegations during the debate. She reiterated her commitment to Israel and its right to self-defense, particularly 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 said during the debate.
She also denounced Trump’s remarks, labelling them as divisive and false. Harris highlighted her lifelong commitment to Israel’s safety and called for a ceasefire in Gaza.
“We need to end this war, and that starts with securing the release of hostages,” Harris stated. Her emphasis on diplomacy sharply contrasted with Trump’s more assertive stance, as she reiterated the importance of the U.S. collaborating with international partners to ensure peace in the region. She underscored the ultimate need for a two-state solution, aiming to secure peace and dignity for both Israelis and Palestinians.
The debate highlighted the stark differences in their foreign policy perspectives, particularly on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Trump’s approach centered on taking severe actions against “terror-infested areas,” while Harris advocated for diplomatic solutions.
Both candidates received mixed reactions from political figures and analysts following the debate. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo echoed Trump’s criticism, accusing the Biden-Harris administration of emboldening Iran through appeasement policies. “This administration’s approach to Iran has led to war, terrorism, and put Americans at risk,” Pompeo said in support of Trump’s stance.
On the contrary, Harris’ remarks were met with approval from several Jewish organizations and political figures who praised her stance on Israel’s security and the ongoing conflict in Gaza. The Democratic Majority for Israel expressed its support, stating, “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) wrote during the debate, “I appreciate her commitment to making sure Israel has the tools to defend itself.” Harris’ supporters also commended her for advocating a peaceful resolution to the ongoing conflict while affirming Israel’s right to protect its citizens.
Dr. Amnon Cavari, who leads the research group American Public Opinion toward Israel and serves as 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 remarks about Israel’s future under Harris. He called them “irresponsible” and “a ridiculous thing to say by a presidential candidate.”
Dr. Cavari believes Trump’s comments aren’t really aimed at the Jewish population, but rather an attempt to project strength in foreign policy, an area in which Trump doesn’t have a particularly strong hand. According to Cavari, the broader message Trump is sending is that “if Harris is elected, the world is going to collapse,” with Israel serving as a prime example.
Cavari pointed out that Trump never talked about forming alliances or coalitions like Biden has, 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 emphasized, 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 pushing this narrative hard, turning Israel into a polarizing issue. However, Cavari warned that making Israel a focus of U.S. elections is detrimental, as Israel benefits from bipartisan support, something it should continue to strive for.
The debate made clear the contrasting foreign policies that both candidates would pursue if elected. While Trump emphasized 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 draws near.