THE DEMOCRATS’ ISRAEL PROBLEM

Sanders would be the first Jewish president, and the most hostile to the Jewish state

by William McGurn

The Wall Street Journal
March 2, 2020

Bernie Sanders would be the first Jewish president. He would also be the president most hostile to Israel.

Two big events this week are bringing this curious dynamic into focus. The first is that the Vermont senator heads into the Super Tuesday primaries leading in the most delegate-rich states. The second is the Israeli election.

In the run-up to these votes, Mr. Sanders has treated us to the full Bernie. At the last Democratic debate, he was asked about a tweet accusing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee of providing a platform for leaders “who express bigotry.” Mr. Sanders responded by calling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a “reactionary racist.”

But for all the fretting about Mr. Sanders, pro-Israel Democrats have a much larger problem. At home, their wing of the party is aging out. Abroad, the Israeli people have reached a post-Oslo consensus about their security that puts them increasingly in conflict with the more dovish preferences of American Democrats.

Let’s start with age. Of the most pro-Israel Democratic leaders, Joe Biden is 77. Rep. Nita Lowey is 82 and retiring. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is 79; Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is 80; Rep. Eliot Engel is 73. At 69, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is the baby of the group.

Now look at the alternatives to Mr. Sanders. Plainly Mr. Biden is more pro-Israel. But he also has a history of shedding principles when they become inconvenient.

In this run for president, he’s already apologized for his own crime bill and his previous votes to ban federal funding of abortion. He even apologized for calling Vice President Mike Pence a “decent guy” after actress Cynthia Nixon complained. The question is whether such a man is someone the Israelis could count on in a pinch.

There’s also his role as Barack Obama’s loyal vice president. Mr. Biden invokes this loyalty often, but it raises its own questions. For though Mr. Obama shunned the incendiary language employed by Mr. Sanders, his White House bristled with disdain for Israel.

Substantively, the lowest point was not so much the constant slights toward Israel’s duly elected prime minister but the nuclear deal with Iran, concluded over Jerusalem’s objections. Symbolically, there’s no question: The worst was President Obama’s lame-duck order in December 2016 for the U.S. to abstain from, rather than veto, a malicious U.N. Security Council resolution against Israel, which allowed it to pass.

Then there’s Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who boycotted the Aipac gathering and has said she would consider using aid to pressure Jerusalem. Her most significant advantage over Mr. Sanders on Israel is her vagueness.

As for the others, when asked in the Feb. 8 debate whether it was right for President Trump to order Iran’s Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani killed, not one Democratic candidate answered yes. If as candidates these men and women can’t even endorse the killing of a terrorist who murdered Americans, would they really stand with the Israelis when they defend themselves?

Now, Michael Bloomberg wasn’t at the debate where the Soleimani question was asked. But he issued a statement acknowledging the American blood on Soleimani’s hands while saying he was “deeply concerned” about what he implied was a “reckless” act. Still, Mr. Bloomberg was the one Democrat willing to appear at Aipac, where he delivered a robust speech repeating his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, attacking the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and vowing never to impose conditions on military aid.

Unfortunately, he still has to do extraordinarily well on Super Tuesday to have any real path to the nomination. And at 78 he’s part of the aging pro-Israel cohort.

The Democratic future, by contrast, appears to belong to the anti-Israel brigade. Politicians like New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for example, speak to young people who have spent years on college campuses teeming with anti-Israel agitation. And a March 2019 Gallup survey found that although most Americans have favorable views of Israel, “liberal Democrats” were the only group more sympathetic to the Palestinians than to the Israelis.

In 2012 delegates at the Democratic National Convention booed mention of Jerusalem. In 2016 Mr. Sanders forced a platform fight over Israel—and lost. No doubt there will be another fight at this year’s convention whether Mr. Sanders is the nominee or not.

The Democratic old guard is trapped. Some are hoping Mr. Netanyahu will lose Monday’s election, producing an Israeli government liberal American Democrats can finally get behind. Others are betting on Mr. Biden to change the party’s direction.

Both are dreaming. Mr. Netanyahu was winning at press time, and his policies will continue regardless because this is what Israelis want. And while defeating Mr. Sanders would remove the Democratic candidate most hostile to Israel, the growing progressive distaste for the Jewish state within the party that Mr. Sanders both fed and benefited from isn’t going anywhere.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Not to worry. Biden scored a big victory on Super Tuesday and is well on his way to getting the Democratic nomination.