Why are Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and the rest of the US Democratic Party reluctant to stop delivering weapons to Israel?

This text is the response to reader questions sent to the American Election Courier team. To subscribe, click here.

Even if, in the United States, “sympathy towards Israel is crumbling a little due to tensions with Palestine”, the “historic commitment” of Americans towards the Jewish state continues to dominate the sphere politics, Karine Prémont, professor of applied politics at the University of Sherbrooke, immediately tells us.

This “historical affinity” dates back to World War II, when the United States defended [les Juifs] during the Holocaust. Since then, the United States has seen it as “the idea of ​​a chosen people who face adversity,” according to Mr.me Premont. “Americans consider themselves a chosen people who are here to enlighten the world with their values. And that’s a bit like how Israel presents itself too. »

According to Rachad Antonius, Middle East expert, the main reason for this support is that “the American elite has completely internalized the Israeli version of the conflict”. Result ? “She sees the conflict through Israeli eyes” and “only deplores the violence without naming its cause – the policy of occupation which has lasted for 57 years, even before Hamas launched its attacks on October 7,” adds the one who, in the past, has publicly committed himself to the Palestinian cause.

Continuity and inconsistency

The question therefore does not arise only for Democrats, but for the entire American political sphere. But since they currently hold power, they are the ones who handle relations with Israel, and thus continue to supply it with weapons, although “the youngest and most progressive” deny any form of support.

Support which is still provided “quite timidly” among the Democrats, notes Christophe Cloutier-Roy, deputy director of the Observatory on the United States of the Raoul-Dandurand Chair. “They will demand a cease-fire, but will still vote for arms shipments to Israel. The Democratic Party tries to hide the inconsistency in these policies as much as possible because it knows that it divides its own electoral base,” indicates the political scientist.

Furthermore, in the United States, “there is a very vocal Zionist lobby, but there is no effective Palestinian lobby to speak of,” making any decision that goes against Israel’s wishes difficult, explains Élisabeth Vallet, director of the Geopolitics Observatory of the same chair.

The columnist at Le Devoir also underlines that, despite an “evolution in the discourse of the Democratic Party” during its convention last summer — where “the demands for a ceasefire became much clearer” — , the distribution of weapons to Israeli forces remains “a component which is part of the classic diplomacy of the United States in the Middle East”… and which will not change soon.

Could Harris force an end to the conflict?

Asked whether the Democratic presidential candidate could threaten Benjamin Netanyahu with stopping his military aid, Mr. Antonius replied that “like most politicians, especially those in the United States, Kamala Harris does not establish her positions on principles nor on the number of people who can approve them. She establishes them according to their consequences on the financing of her campaign.”

The Zionist — or Israeli — lobby, which is “very powerful” in the United States, “operates through the American Israel Public Action Committee [AIPAC] », dissects the professor in the Department of Sociology at UQAM. “AIPAC individually follows all elected officials and finances them (or finances their opponents), depending on whether or not they support the current Israeli government. This is why Kamala Harris has repeatedly shown her support for Israel. »

Even if this support “can influence the vote a little”, “it is above all the advertising campaigns, the effectiveness of which is defined by financing, which will determine the vote”, indicates Rachad Antonius. The financial support of the Israeli lobby in the United States is therefore much more important for the candidate’s campaign than a message against the Jewish state would be.

Do you have questions about the US elections or the United States?

Write to us!

To watch on video

source site-46

Latest