The “Better for Israel” Thing

These are days of trepidation, and tests. A new president is elected, and the world wonders about the future of the U.S., about the future of U.S.’ policies, about the future of U.S.’ involvement in international affairs. Americans go to the polls thinking about the economy, immigration, abortion. The world watches with other things on its mind.

Every new president is a black box. Yes, he was the president some four years ago. Yes, she is still the VP. And yet, and yet – a new president is a reason to wonder about plans, tendencies, appointments, priorities, pressures. We know – and by “we” I’m narrowing the scope to talking about Israelis – that a new president is tasked with the command to be “good” for America. We wish to think that “good” for America doesn’t mean “less good” for us, Israelis, who have no real say in the choice of a new American leader, but are highly impacted by the outcome.

Last week, we asked Israelis two questions about Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. We asked which of these two is “better” for the U.S., and which is “better” for Israel. We did not define what “better” means, and better could mean many things. And yet, we got a response that seems sensible: By and large, the share of Israelis who see Trump and Harris as better for America is about the same size. Right-wingers say Trump, center-left voters say Harris. But when the perspective changes, when Israelis are asked about the candidates and Israel, the response changes too — to 56% for Trump 20% for Harris (61%-20% among Jews).

What causes the variation? It is mostly Israelis on the center and the left who change their view. Here’s an example how: 75% of self-defined “center-left” Israelis say Harris is better for America. It is easy to understand why. These Israelis have views quite similar to the views of the Democratic party on things such as abortion, democracy, respect for the rights of minorities. But when we asked them about the candidates and Israel, only 46% of them choose Harris as better, while the others shift to either Trump (10%), or “no one” (22%) or “don’t know” (22%). Center-left Israelis have a hard time explicitly pointing at Trump — Trump! — as their preferred choice. Still, they make their choice clear by refraining from sticking with Harris when the question changes.

You might find it strange. “Better” must reflect an ideology. So, you’d expect that Israelis who want a “two-state solution” and Israelis who want an “annexation” would not point at the same person as “better” for Israel. And yet, a clear majority of Israelis do. Why? Because there are some things on which most Israelis agree, and these are the exact issues on which Trump seemed to them like the “better” choice.

A clear majority of Israelis think Trump would be “better” for Israel. Why? Because there are some things on which most Israelis agree, and these are the exact issues on which Trump seemed to them like the “better” choice.

Let me give you one clear and recent example: the status of UNRWA (The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East). After many years in which this supposedly humanitarian organization served mainly one purpose – to keep the Palestinian refugee problem as a problem and prevent any hope for ever finding it a solution that does not involve damage to Israel’s security and future – Israel had had enough. Involvement of UNRWA workers in acts of terrorism on Oct. 7 and after, pushed the Knesset to make a move. It decided that Israel is going to cut ties with the agency, and thus make it much more complicated for UNRWA to operate.

The U.N. reacted as you’d expect it to react. The U.S. reacted – well, here’s where the “good for Israel” becomes an issue – by saying it is “deeply troubled.” The U.S. called Unrwa “a key partner.” That’s an agency that 92 Members of Knesset voted against. The only MK’s opposing it were Arab MK’s – all 10 of them. There’s no more consensus than that. There’s no clear sign that for a clear majority of Israelis “better for Israel” means accepting the idea that UNRWA isn’t a solution to anything, it is a problem.

What is Harris’ position on UNRWA? Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley described the situation aptly: “the U.S.stopped giving them hundreds of millions of dollars … Biden-Harris gave the money back.” So, the position of the Biden administration (and there’s no hint that Harris was an objector on this issue) is one that Israelis reject. It is not the right-wing coalition rejecting it. It is not “Netanyahu.” It is not the “pro anexation camp.” It is the representatives of all Jewish Israelis. It is 80% of the country. It is a rare consensus on what needs to be done, on what’s better for Israel.

You can call it a litmus test. You can call it a case with which to reject the often-repeated truism that “better” is always in the eye of the beholder and a matter for debate between two or three Israeli camps – and thus that the mere question of who’s better for Israel is unanswerable.

But it is answerable. UNRWA is an answer.

Shmuel Rosner is senior political editor. For more analysis of Israeli and international politics, visit Rosner’s Domain at jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain.