The Biden administration's adversarial stance toward Israel, reminiscent of Obama's, which contrasts sharply with its more accommodating and favorable approach to Iran, is deeply rooted in a perception gaining increasing traction in the U.S. Democratic Party.
The interview appeared in issue 17 of the Sovereignty Journal, September 2024
For 16 years, researcher, journalist and author Caroline Glick has been closely monitoring the changes occurring in the U.S. Democratic Party. Her findings raise significant concerns, especially – but not exclusively – for Israel.
“The Democratic Party has been radicalized,” she states, describing how the party has become pro-Iranian, no less, while abandoning its values, friends and allies.
“Until the Obama era, perceptions in the Democratic Party were similar to those of the Republicans, and this facilitated bipartisan cooperation. Today, there is hardly any common ground between the parties on foreign and domestic policy due to that radicalization,” explains Glick, and to help us understand how this shift occurred, she provides some background.
The U.S. has always viewed itself as a second promised land. Abraham Lincoln spoke about this. They considered the Bible the founding fathers’ principal source of inspiration, and their common denominator with Israel and the free world is based on the Torah. As a result, the American alliance with Israel, as well as the alliance with other countries like England, in the Muslim context of the Middle East, is founded on the belief in the Torah’s message and the idea of the Jewish people being chosen by God. This is what led to American support for Jews even before the establishment of the state, the absence of institutional antisemitism in the U.S., institutional support for Israel and the fundamental insights most Americans possess about the Middle East. Belief in the Torah’s message meant that even if Israel were weak and even if supporting it strained relations with the Arabs, the U.S. continued to support us.”
To this was added the belief in American exceptionalism, that they too are a light unto the nations and that America is a divine tool designed to bring the message of freedom, including civil rights, to the world. But then Obama came along. “From the outset, he rejected the perception that sees the U.S. and Israel as a light unto the nations. He severed the link between American foreign policy and American values and rejected the view of America as a moral state, adopting instead the Soviet perspective, which sees America as a state born in the sin of black slavery, with a legacy of oppression, suffering and enslavement, both domestically and towards other countries.”
This approach views American power as a tool for oppressing others, and consequently, Obama believed, matters should be reorganized to ensure equality of outcomes rather than equality of opportunities. This was reflected in the suppression of those with economic, intellectual, physical and other capabilities in order to achieve results that would benefit those with fewer abilities, particularly non-whites. Jews were included among the oppressors. “As a result, for the first time, the door was opened to oppression and discrimination against Jews because they were considered part of a super-privileged and successful subgroup that required unique suppression."
We are guilty, so now we will grovel and correct
This perception also has consequences for U.S. foreign policy, suggesting that the regimes opposing America were correct in viewing it as an immoral nation, with Iran being the prime example. “The idea is that the problems in the Middle East result from U.S. efforts to oppress the Iranians and prevent them from asserting their rights to be anti-Western and anti-American. That’s why the flag of Obama’s foreign policy was the flag of reconciliation with Iran and the formation of a new axis of powers in the Middle East at the expense of Israel and the Sunni countries, led by Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The goal was to empower Iran, which American actions had supposedly harmed.
“The Palestinians are the other entity that had to be compensated due to the detrimental effects of oppressive American policy. That’s why Obama decided that his policy should be to empower these two parties at the expense of America's allies, and that's what they've been doing ever since.”
Initially, Glick notes, Obama's policy was met with opposition within the Democratic Party, but his actions managed to severely undermine the political power of the erstwhile majority in the party who held different views. As a result, Democrats who were pro-Israel, pro-Jewish and pro-American were pushed aside and supplanted by extremist elements who seriously damaged relations with Israel. In this context, she mentions people like Nancy Pelosi, who originally came from a very pro-Israel background – her father had been a donor to the Etzel and Lehi – but now finds herself in a completely different position, boycotting the speech of the Israeli Prime Minister.
The empowerment of extremists and the marginalization of pro-Israel elements in the party led many leading Democrats to be swept along with the current, causing the party to increasingly change its face. Glick explains: “In the midst of an Israeli war for survival, Chuck Schumer, the Democratic majority leader in the Senate, who calls himself a defender of Israel, takes the podium and calls for the overthrow of the Israeli government. He is concerned not with overthrowing the government in Iran or ousting Hezbollah, but with the Israeli government. This is the same Schumer who in 1996 acted to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, was once one of Israel’s most prominent supporters in the Senate, and is now facilitating a hostile policy towards Israel.”
Tell me who your advisors are and I'll tell you what your plans are
Glick views Kamala Harris’s appointment as a presidential candidate as the culmination of the process. And when she selects the radical Tim Walz as her running mate instead of the Jewish candidate Josh Shapiro, who could have secured a crucial victory in Pennsylvania, the process becomes clear and dramatic for Israel. If that’s not enough, Glick highlights the two leading figures in Harris’s inner circle, Philip Gordon and Ilan Goldenberg, as further indicators of her intentions.
“Philip Gordon is Harris's national security advisor and Ilan Goldenberg, who was Harris’s Middle East advisor and moved to the National Security Council as a senior director, was also appointed as her liaison to the Jewish community during the campaign,” says Glick, outlining some of their backgrounds. “Philip Gordon, according to all scenarios, is the leading candidate for Secretary of State if she is elected. He fully represents Obama's pro-Iranian, anti-Israeli, and pro-Palestinian stance, and he will advance this agenda with a mandate,” Glick is convinced. She notes that contrary to expectations and political logic, Harris is not trying to appeal to the center in order to win swing votes. On matters related to the Middle East, she prefers to appeal to the left, “So that everyone understands that if Biden has pro-Israeli sentiments, as seen at the beginning of the war, Harris does not share those sentiments. She wants it to be clear that if Biden’s policy is hostile to Israel, she will continue it without schmaltzy stories about Zionism or Golda.
“Ilan Goldenberg is even more extreme than Gordon in both rhetoric and his record where Israel is concerned” says Glick. “He is a central figure in the task force set up to impose sanctions on Israelis. The purpose of the sanctions is to undermine the right-wing government and bring about its collapse, and Goldenberg is the one leading this task force. He was born in Israel but grew up in the U.S. and renounced his Israeli citizenship to serve in the Obama administration. He is a very anti-Zionist person who defines himself as pro-Israel but opposes the right and its leadership, and consequently, criminalizes figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich and seeks to overthrow Netanyahu. This individual is expected to hold a very senior position in matters related to the Middle East.”
Caroline Glick provides several examples of problematic U.S. policies under the Democratic administration. One such example is the Lebanese army. “This army is effectively under Hezbollah's command, but is trained and armed by the U.S. This is an army that doesn’t move an inch without Nasrallah's approval, assists Hezbollah logistically and is filled with Shiites. Despite this, the U.S. finances it, even paying several months' salaries to officers and soldiers in cash. Outwardly the Americans claim that the Lebanese army is the entity that is responsible and that it opposes Hezbollah in order to justify their actions, but everyone knows it is completely under Nasrallah’s control. In practice, if we attack Hezbollah, they will use the Lebanese army as human shields, and if we harm them, the U.S. will intervene to stop us.”
She also mentions the American decision to lift the sanctions imposed on Saudi Arabia after it ceased fighting the Houthis. “The Democrats accused the Saudis of war crimes against the Houthis. And in the first month of his term, Biden removed the Houthis from the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. Arms sales from the U.S. will resume because the Saudis are no longer fighting the Houthis, even though the Houthis are terrorists who are attacking in Bab el-Mandeb, the strait critical to the world’s economy through which about forty percent of global oil exports pass.”
However, when asked whether she considers the U.S. a friend or foe in light of these issues, Caroline replies: “It’s hybrid and depends on the administration.” That is why, she believes Israel should establish a consistent policy that addresses the full range of issues and levels concerning Israel-U.S. relations, and especially “to loosen our strategic dependence on the U.S.”
Strategically preparing for true independence
“We saw how after October 7th we were unable to wage a war without American armaments, making us dependent on them from the start. If we hadn’t closed the factories that produced machine guns, tank and artillery shells, bullets for assault rifles, bombs, spare parts for tanks and more – if everything were manufactured in Israel – we would be in a different situation. We wouldn’t have to wait for an American green light or for weapon shipments. Even if Trump is elected, we won’t receive warships to help us, but he will give us political backing in the UN against the Europeans, Chinese, and others if we do the job ourselves. Our self-perception as America’s doormat needs to disappear. We need to be powerful regardless of whether the Republicans or Democrats are in power.”
Restoring Israel's strategic independence, Glick says, should begin with eliminating military dependence and not preparing military plans that are contingent on renewing the American aid package in 2027. Israel should work to wean itself off this aid and not renew it. “We must not perpetuate our dependence on the Americans, certainly not by purchasing two squadrons from them. The decisions we make today regarding future procurement will affect our ability to maneuver in the complex international arena.
"I don't call the U.S. an enemy because eighty percent of Americans strongly support Israel, despite the riots on campuses and the rhetoric in the White House, but this majority isn’t reflected in American policy. The Democratic Party doesn’t want Israel as a sovereign state but as a vassal state, and they masterfully use the Israeli left, which willingly cooperates with them, to achieve this. I can’t forget how in 2023, Asaf Zamir returned from his position as consul in New York, and in an interview with Channel 12 defined Israel as a vassal state that should behave accordingly. The same goes for generals who talk about a defense alliance with America as a necessity. They accept this anti-Zionist view, and whoever accepts it rejects the concept of a sovereign Jewish state. This perception needs to be completely eradicated. They turn this dependence into a value, while the Americans see the nullification of Israeli sovereignty as a key tool to toppling the right-wing government.”
Caroline Glick cautions against internal political instability that could lead to the government's collapse over disagreements. That would be absolutely disastrous, she asserts: “You don’t relinquish power, certainly not at a time like this.”