ANALYSIS: WHERE DOES THE 2020 DEMOCRATIC FIELD STAND ON SECURITY AID TO ISRAEL?
November 8, 2019
Spurred on by a contingent of youth activists and progressives agitating for change to the US-Israel relationship, a recent conference provided an opportunity for the 2020 democratic field to articulate their positions on US aid to Israel. We at the American Jewish Congress are deeply concerned about the idea of using “leverage” when deciding to give aid. Any precondition for aid with our ally Israel ignores the reality on the ground and only serves to weaken Israel with no discernible gain.
Security aid to our staunchest Middle Eastern ally ensures democratic stability in a sea of tyranny. To undermine that stability for the laudable goal of humanitarian work without proper perspective on the nature of either Gaza or the responsibility the Palestinian Authority and Hamas have, is ill-conceived and ill-advised.
The 2020 presidential race is rapidly shifting the dialogue on the US-Israel relationship. The American Jewish Congress welcomes the attention to our core issue, while also cautioning candidates to temper their rhetoric with facts and throttle passion with prudence.
We stand against the race to the progressive left in the Democratic primary that places the blame of a stalled peace process solely on Israel’s shoulders and seeks to provide financial assistance to a regime bent on Israel’s annihilation. We stand with the American people and the bipartisan bicameral consensus that favors dedicated military aid to Israel. The movement on this core issue reflects acquiescence to a small vocal contingent rather than to the current consensus – it is our hope that candidates pause and reflect rather than go along and react.
Below are the positions of each candidate regarding military aid to Israel articulated at the J Street Conference or in other media:
Vice President Biden’s position on using military aid as ‘leverage’ is unequivocal: He believes it would be a “giant mistake.”
Senator Warren’s position on military aid is that “everything is on the table.” She believes that any aid used by Israel towards annexation should be held. She holds that the US should “create pressure and create consequences for problematic behavior.”
Senator Sanders led the charge to use ‘leverage’ when applying the 3.8 billion in aid to Israel, arguing it cannot be given “carte blanche to the Israeli government.”
Senator Harris has stated in the past that she “strongly supports security assistance to strengthen Israel’s ability to defend itself.”
Senator Booker has been unequivocal on security aid to Israel, stating last year that “ending security assistance to our closest ally in the Middle East at a time when Israel faces new threats emanating from Syria and continued aggression from Iran and its proxies would undermine stability in the region and harm our own national security.”
Mayor Buttigieg believes that US aid should not assist Israel with the annexation of the West Bank. He argued that we have a “responsibility” and “mechanisms” to ensure that “US taxpayer support to Israel does not get turned into US taxpayer support for a move like annexation.”
Senator Klobuchar supports continuing aid to Israel. “I am so wedded right now to make sure we are actually continuing the aid.”
Yang has yet to publicly comment on this.
Secretary Castro’s position did not rule out tying military aid to US objectives, but stated that it “wouldn’t be [his] first move.”
Congresswoman Gabbard has yet to publicly comment on this.
Former Rep. Delaney states in his website that he strongly supports continued foreign aid to Israel. He says that he will “continue to fight against efforts to cut foreign aid, including assistance we have agreed under our 10-year Memorandum of Understanding with Israel.”
Governor Bullock opposes conditioning US aid to Israel, stating that “we can have serious discussions about domestic and foreign policy, but not politicize efforts that would undermine our commitment to Israeli security.”
Senator Bennet is concerned about tying aid to politics and not policy. He is opposed to a mechanism that ties military aid to political and not strategic objectives.
Williamson has yet to publicly comment on this.
Mayor Messam has yet to publicly comment on this.
Former Congressman Sestak has yet to publicly comment on this.
Steyer has yet to publicly comment on this.
ANALYSIS: WHICH OF THE 2020 CANDIDATES WOULD RETURN TO THE 2015 IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL?
September 25, 2019
As world leaders descend on New York for the 74th session of the UN General Assembly this week, one of the main topics of discussion will surely revolve around Iran’s continued aggression in the Middle East and the future of the Iranian nuclear deal. With the Trump administration looking to the world to help ramp up the pressure on Tehran and possibly seek a Security Council resolution, the topic will certainly dominate the discussion
While the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JPCOA) was drafted with good intentions, it had two key shortcomings that drew strong opposition, including from Israel, and ultimately caused the Trump Administration to withdraw from it: It did not address Iran’s malign actions in the region, including sponsorship of global terror and its ballistic missile program; and the existence of a “sunset” provision which only pauses Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon for a period of 10 years instead of disbanding it altogether.
The vast majority of 2020 Democratic candidates have stated that, as Presidents, they would ensure that the United States would return to the same deal if Iran was back in compliance with the agreement’s terms. Others have said they would rejoin the existing deal but seek to add or expand to it going forward “from within,” and some stated they would negotiate an entirely new deal.
Below are the positions of each candidate regarding the Iran nuclear deal as they appear in the Jewish Guide to U.S. Politics. Click on the candidate’s name to view his/her profile.
Vice president Biden’s position on the nuclear deal is complicated as Biden was Vice President during the negotiations with Iran. He is a supporter of the deal and he criticized President Trump for pulling out of it. While he believes Iran must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, Biden had said he would re-enter the JCPOA as a starting point to work alongside US allies to extend the deal’s nuclear constraints. Most recently, though, at an event with American Jewish Congress President Jack Rosen, Biden said he would “… try to pull back together the international community to … insist that we keep the second part of the agreement, which is enforce—by military means if necessary—actions against the destabilizing force of the Quds force of Iran in the Gulf.”
Senator Warren believes that if Iran returns to compliance with its obligations under the nuclear deal, the United States should return as well. If Iran were not in compliance, she would pursue strong and principled diplomacy in concert with US allies to bring both the United States and Iran back into the deal. She sees the JCPOA as the beginning and would thus negotiate a follow-on to the agreement that continues to constrain Iran’s nuclear program past the “sunset” of some of its original terms.
Senator Sanders said he would re-enter the existing agreement and work with the P5+1 and Iran to build upon it with additional measures to further block any path to a nuclear weapon, restrain Iran’s offensive actions in the region and forge a new strategic balance in the Middle East.
Senator Harris said she would plan to rejoin the JCPOA so long as Iran also returned to verifiable compliance. She would also seek negotiations with Iran to extend and supplement some of the nuclear deal’s existing provisions, and work with US’s partners to counter Iran’s destabilizing behavior in the region, including with regard to its ballistic missile program.
While Senator Booker strongly supports the nuclear deal with Iran, he believes that it’s impossible to turn back the clock and pretend the damage done by Trump hasn’t happened.During the first Democratic debate on June 26, Senator Booker stated that he did not support the idea of unilaterally rejoining the deal. He argued that he wanted to make sure that if he had the opportunity to leverage a better deal, he would do it.
Mayor Buttigieg said would rejoin the JCPOA if Iran resumed implementing its commitments, but he would take the agreement as a floor, not a ceiling. He would revive P5+1 diplomacy and direct US-Iran dialogue at the appropriate levels and would want to pursue follow-on agreements that extend the timeframe of certain nuclear restrictions, cover Iran’s missile program, and address its role in regional conflicts, all in return for targeted sanctions relief.
Former Congressman O’Rourke said he would rejoin the JCPOA, conditioned on Iran’s compliance with its commitments under the agreement. He would use the agreement as a starting point for future negotiations, aimed at reigning in Iran’s most destabilizing behavior in the region, limiting Iran’s ballistic missile capability, and ensuring that Iran never becomes a nuclear weapon state.
Senator Klobuchar said she supports rejoining the existing nuclear agreement and she “would work to renegotiate ourselves back into that agreement.”
Yang said he would work with US allies to negotiate a new JCPOA, with longer terms and delayed deadlines to reflect the time wasted with Trump and Bolton’s posturing. He believes that the US needs to get Iran back in compliance with the limitations placed on them under the agreement on nuclear materials and enrichment capabilities, and to build on the agreement to get Iran to stop destabilizing the region, attacking US allies, funding terrorist organizations, and causing conflict in the Strait of Hormuz.
Secretary Castro said he would re-enter the US into the JCPOA if Iran complied with the terms of the agreement as determined by the intelligence community.
Congresswoman Gabbard said she would re-enter the agreement but not support Iran reparations. She has called the deal “imperfect” and said that “we need to negotiate how we can improve (the deal).”
Former Congressman Delaney said he would rejoin the JCPOA but insist on a longer duration. He would seek a longer term – 20 years – as a condition for rejoining the agreement. Additionally, he would make clear to the Iranians that, while the JCPOA does not address Iranian ICBM developments or Iranian complicity in terrorist activities, the United States will independently of the nuclear deal take strong measures to respond to any such conduct.
Governor Bullock said he would rejoin the JCPOA, as a nuclear Iran would further destabilize the entire Middle East. He would work closely with European allies to achieve the common goal of a non-nuclear Iran and a Middle East that can work toward peace and prosperity without the constant threat of nuclear conflict. However, he said he wouldn’t seek to reenter the deal “word for word” and advocates for changes.
Congressman Ryan thinks it would be impossible to rejoin the JCPOA as it was written in 2015. He would support entering a new version of the agreement that extends restrictions even further into the future, but I would not compensate the Iranians for economic losses suffered after the U.S. left the agreement
Senator Bennet said he would rejoin the agreement if all parties were in compliance.
Williamson said she would rejoin the JCPOA. She would increase diplomacy, decrease tensions, and transform relations to create a context to address human rights and other issues.
Mayor Messam said that returning to the treaty would be a priority for him.
Former Congressman Sestak said he would rejoin the JCPOA without demanding changes to the agreement.
Steyer has yet to publicly comment on the issue.