Decryption | Israel, new Democratic test

(New York) Each of the major American parties has its sidelines, these questions that their candidates for the presidency must answer in a certain way to remain viable. Abortion is one for the Republicans, whose presidential chairmen have no choice but to oppose it.

The same question imposes on the presidentable Democrats the opposite position, a phenomenon which is not limited to abortion. But a new touchstone has just disted in the party of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, two former presidents who embody on this question specifically an era probably over.

It is Israel, the unconditional support of which has long been a decisive test for the presidents of the Democratic Party as for those of the Republican Party.

Pete Buttigieg has recently been able to measure the importance of the change that took place among the Democrats on this issue.

During an episode of the Broomo Pod Save Americathe former transport secretary was invited to say how he would have voted on two resolutions presented by Bernie Sanders in the Senate.

These resolutions aimed to block the sale of tens of thousands of assault rifles and 5,000 heavy bombs in Israel. According to the independent senator of Vermont, Washington cannot continue to provide weapons to the “racist government” of Israel whose war in the Gaza Strip made innocent victims.

“Netanyahu is a repugnant liar. Children die of hunger, “wrote Senator Sanders on X, referring to the Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu.

The Republican senators, who form the majority in the upper chamber of the congress, opposed the resolutions as a whole, refusing to question the methods of Israel to exercise his right to defend themselves. But more than half of the Democratic senators approved them, unheard of in the Senate on texts of the genre.

Change of course

Never mind. As a presidential, Pete Buttigieg believed that he could procrastinate on the issue. During his long response to the host of Pod Save Americahe spoke of “the images that shock conscience” from Gaza, as well as his support “to the right of Israel to exist” and to respond “to the incredible cruelty and terrorism of October 7”. But he never answered the question.

On social networks, the reaction to his non-response was one of fierce contempt. So much so that Pete Buttigieg thought it necessary to rectify the shot.

A few days later, he entrusted to the Politico information site that he would have voted in favor of the arms embargo proposed by Bernie Sanders, that he would recognize Palestine as part of a solution to two states and that he was opposed to another ten-year agreement between the United States and Israel on foreign military assorted with a carte blanche.

This episode represents a turning point whose other presidential workers have obviously taken note. In fact, some of them, including the Democratic Senator of Minnesota Amy Klobuchar, preceded Pete Buttigieg by voting for the resolutions of Bernie Sanders.

The vote of senator Klobuchar was all the more surprised that she had participated a few days earlier in a meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Meeting to which she alluded during a speech in the hemicycle of the Senate, where she claimed to have pleaded before the Israeli Prime Minister “in favor of increased humanitarian aid in Gaza and the cessation of the movements of Palestinians”.

“I have never obtained a satisfactory response,” she deplored. The situation is getting worse day by day. Lives are lost every day – children, innocent people. The Israeli government must change course. »»

The new deal has not escaped the Jewish Confession Democrats, known for their firm support in Israel.

Illinois Democratic Governor JB Pritzker said that the arms embargo “was the right kind of message” to send to the Jewish state.

Inevitable

His counterpart in Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, called “odious” and “erroneous” the rejection by Benyamin Netanyahu on international reports on the Gaza Strip as “erroneous” rejection. The former mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel attributed responsibility for the situation to Gaza to Israel.

To a certain extent, this new approach was inevitable.

After all, only 8 % of democratic voters support Israel’s military action in the Gaza Strip, compared to 25 % of independent voters and 71 % of republican voters, according to a Gallup survey published in late July.

And only 33 % of democratic voters had a favorable opinion from Israel, compared to 48 % of independent voters and 83 % of republican voters, according to another Gallup poll published last February.

Democrats’ presidents know that most of the activists of their party, and especially the youngest, will never accept their presidential candidate an unconditional support in Israel as that manifested by Joe Biden, whose hug in Benyamin Netanyahu after October 7 was a memorable illustration.

They also probably know that they would expose themselves to criticism by following the example of Barack Obama who presented himself before the AIPAC, influence Lobby pro-Israel, before the presidential elections of 2008 and 2012, to say and repeat that the security of the Jewish state was a subject “sacro-saint” and “non-negotiable”.

Israel’s security may remain a subject “sacrosanct” and “non-negotiable” for the next presidential candidate of the Democratic Party, but the latter will probably avoid proclaiming him before this lobby which embodies this unconditional support for Israel or his current government that most Democrats no longer accept.