On the heels of a disappointing presidential debate performance, much has been made of whether the Democratic Party will replace Joe Biden on the ticket this November. For what it is worth, the president has shot down any rumors that he will bow out. In a July 8 letter to his Democratic colleagues in Congress, Biden asserted that he is “firmly committed to staying in this race, to running this race to the end, and to beating Donald Trump.” The president delivered the same message in a rare solo press conference on July 11. Still, whether Biden is up for navigating the country through a host of domestic and foreign policy challenges for another four years remains to be seen. Further still, defeating Trump may prove to be an insurmountable challenge for any Democratic nominee, especially after the recent assassination attempt that has galvanized many of his supporters.
The current political moment represents a real inflection point for the Democratic Party. There remain important questions as to what a different Democratic presidential candidate might mean for American support for Israel’s war on Gaza. Should Biden choose to withdraw from the race, there would be an opportunity for the party to be responsive to the concerns of millions of voters who have grown disillusioned with the current administration’s policies. Of course, such an opportunity may never fully materialize. Biden continues to insist that he will not drop out, his potential replacements are not certain, and their positions on Israel (let alone foreign policy issues at large) are untested. Nevertheless, pressure on Biden to step aside builds every day, and with it there remain important questions as to what a different Democratic candidate might mean for US policy toward Israel and Palestine.
How Would Biden Be Replaced?
Replacing Biden as the Democrat’s choice for presidential candidate would be a process that would unfold throughout the summer and early fall. Even if they wanted to, procedurally, there is no one way for Democratic Party leaders to simply remove the president from the ticket. According to party rules, the Democratic presidential candidate is usually selected at the Democratic National Convention. However, this year’s process includes a virtual roll call that will precede the August event in Chicago. At the roll call, delegates will select their nominee for presidential candidate. While many have pledged to select Biden, they could choose another candidate, meaning that the process would lead to additional rounds of voting until a nominee is chosen. In another (and probably more likely) scenario, Biden could decide to withdraw from the election before the convention begins. This would create an open field where potential nominees would vie for support from Democratic delegates in order to serve as the party’s nominee.
Who Might Replace Biden?
Polling data shows that any alternative Democratic nominee may struggle in a matchup with Donald Trump. The most likely replacement for Biden in the event that he withdraws would be Vice President Kamala Harris, whose favorability compared to Trump ranges anywhere from +1 percent to -6 percent according to recent numbers from a Democratic pollster (Bendixen & Amandi) and Emerson College polling, respectively. A separate poll from CNN has Harris losing out to Trump by 2 percentage points among registered voters. The same polls also tested other prominent Democrats, all of whom fare worse than Harris. Bendixen & Amandi, Emerson College, and CNN all have California Governor Gavin Newsom losing to Trump by anywhere between 3 and 8 percent. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, another popular name among Democratic circles, was tested to lose by 4 to 10 percentage points. In the coming months, other potential nominees could enter the mix, such as Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, and former First Lady Michelle Obama. Still, data shows that any Biden replacement will have to make up significant ground ahead of November.
What Would a Replacement Nominee Mean for US-Israel Policy?
Kamala Harris
US-Israel policy under Kamala Harris would probably resemble that of the current administration. First thing’s first, Harris would have to decide whether to retain Biden’s trusted foreign policy advisors, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Keeping two of Biden’s key staffers would suggest a continuity in US foreign policy. That said, even if Harris decided to shake up her cabinet and introduce fresh faces, her policies are not likely to diverge from those of her would-be predecessor. Harris would likely continue Biden’s work to reach a hostage/ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas while maintaining ironclad support for Israel’s security, a position that she held even before the current war. During the 2020 election cycle, Harris promised that any administration she serves would continue unconditional security assistance to Israel despite disagreements with Israeli leaders.
Harris’s policies may resemble Biden’s substantively, but what might be different under a Harris presidency is a readiness to employ a harsher, more critical tone. Back in early March, Harris made headlines for publicly describing the conditions in Gaza as “inhumane” and declared that “the Israeli government must do more to significantly increase the flow of aid. No excuses.” At the time, Harris was the first senior Biden administration official to openly call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Although Biden officials have assured the public that Harris and the president saw eye-to-eye on the United States’ commitment to Israel, Harris’s comments represented a rare moment of public pressure.
Harris’s experience as a US Senator from California also offers a glimpse into what her policies toward Israel might hold. Speaking in front of the American Jewish Committee, then Senator Harris reflected on her time serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Homeland Security Committee, telling the crowd that she “will do everything in [her] power to ensure broad and bipartisan support for Israel’s security and right to self-defense.” Like many of her colleagues in Congress, Harris consistently rejected external efforts to apply pressure on Israel to reach a peace agreement. In 2017, Harris cosponsored a Senate resolution that objected to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, which condemned Israel for its expansion of settlements and disregard for a two-state solution based on the 1967 lines. While Harris said she opposed any Israeli effort to unilaterally annex the West Bank, the Senate resolution explicitly objected to the Security Council’s condemnation of Israel’s settlement policies in the occupied territory.
Harris also gained attention for her stance on Israel in the lead up to the 2020 presidential election when she came out in opposition of S.1, otherwise known as the “Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act of 2019.” The bill provided for security assistance to strengthen Israel’s military, among several other provisions. Notably, Harris was one of 22 Democrats who voted against the bill “out of concern that it could limit Americans’ First Amendment rights.” Though not a supporter of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement targeting Israel, Harris expressed concern over S.1’s authorization to state and local governments to demand that contractors declare that they do not support BDS or settlements in the West Bank.
A review of her previous positions on Israel and Palestine suggests that a Harris presidency would likely spell a continuation of Biden-era policies. Harris has shown a commitment to support Israel while exhibiting a willingness to use a more critical tone in public on occasion. For a Harris presidency to offer a radically different policy approach would be quite a surprise, and it is more than likely that there would be few substantive policy changes under her leadership.
The Rest of the Field
Having mostly made a name in state or local politics, other potential replacements for Joe Biden have limited experience in foreign policy, making it challenging to forecast what their positions on Israel and Gaza may be. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has been one of the more active potential replacements on the issue considering Michigan’s sizable Jewish and Arab constituencies. Governor Whitmer gained attention in the immediate aftermath of October 7 after she posted a message on X, which was later deleted, that did not mention Israel by name, and was later replaced by a message that outlined the governor’s “steadfast” support for Israel. Since then, Whitmer has been “unequivocally supportive of Israel” and has spoken critically of those who refer to Israel’s current military campaign as a “genocide.” Speaking to NBC’s Meet the Press in April, Whitmer declined to use the word, saying “I’m not going to weigh in where I know that a lot of these terms are used to inflame and divide us…I’m going to stay focused on…being productive and hoping that we can have some peace very soon.” Should she be the Democrats’ nominee, Whitmer would have to decide how this type of messaging would play out on the national stage. Given her adamant opposition to Michigan’s “Uncommitted” campaign to pressure Biden to demand a ceasefire in Gaza, Whitmer has not yet shown the political tact or courage to steer the Democratic Party in a different direction on Israel and Palestine.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has been another popular name that has been tested as a possible Biden replacement. The governor traveled to Israel shortly after October 7 to meet with victims, soldiers, and their families. In an official release on October 20, 2023, Newsom stated that Israel and California are “bound by more than those who live one place or another, or who have family here or there.” Since his visit, Newsom has pushed for a ceasefire in Gaza. In a March letter to California’s Muslim and Arab residents, Newsom wrote that “None of us should be able to witness the deaths of thousands upon thousands of civilians in Gaza without our hearts breaking. The scale of suffering in Gaza is so vast that it seems few Palestinians across the world have been spared personal loss.”
Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg is another favored name to enter the race in the event of a Biden withdrawal. As a former presidential candidate, Buttigieg has stood out from his peers in the Democratic Party for his measured willingness to speak critically of Israel. In 2020, he was consistently vocal about his opposition to Israel annexing settlements in the West Bank, referring to Israel’s relationship with Palestine as an “occupation.” In other cases, Buttigieg signaled that he would support further scrutiny and conditions for US aid to Israel and expressed support for new mechanisms to ensure that US funds do not go toward the promotion of settlement construction or activities that are otherwise incompatible with human rights. Buttigieg told the New York Times in a candidate interview that he found Israel’s human rights record to be “problematic and moving in the wrong direction.” Elsewhere, he has stated that despite his “support for the security of Israel,” he disagrees with many Israeli policies that include “overreach in the West Bank and Gaza and short-sighted focus on military responses,” adding that “the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza has gone on far too long and provides a ripe environment for the very extremist violence that threatens Israel.” Buttigieg’s comments from four years ago certainly hold up in today’s context, and the seriousness of his stance on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza would quickly be tested if he were to assume the role of president.
Conclusion
With growing uncertainty surrounding President Biden’s candidacy for the 2024 presidential election, Democrats are scrambling to figure out how to move forward. Whether the party wants to admit it or not, the war on Gaza has become a significant electoral issue. To ignore its prominence in national discourse would be as arrogant as it would be unwise. As this is the case, will Democrats double down on the Biden administration’s approach, continuing to alienate millions of Americans who are horrified by the ongoing genocide? Or will they take seriously the urgency of adopting a more transformative party platform on Israel-Palestine that reckons with the exigencies of finding a diplomatic solution? In earnest, expectations for any meaningful systemic reform to the party should be tempered. After months of bipartisan attacks on pro-Palestine protests and international legal investigations into Israel’s war crimes, it seems doubtful that the party will move in a new direction.
The views expressed in this publication are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the position of Arab Center Washington DC, its staff, or its Board of Directors.
Featured image: The White House
