Trump's Error Could Jeopardize His Presidential Bid
Despite his stance as an anti-war and anti-interventionist candidate, Trump continues to make a notable exception for Israel. This contradiction may have significant implications for his election prospects. Read Full Article at RT.com.
TroibNews 
The Republican Party is traditionally characterized by its anti-war and anti-interventionist stance, yet it continuously makes an exception for Israel.
When Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky recently sought Trump's support against Russia while standing next to him, the interaction resembled a student being scolded by a principal. Trump reminded Zelensky that “it takes two to tango,” but his approach to Israel presents a stark contrast. In Trump’s view, Israel is portrayed as a solitary figure wrongfully attacked by its neighbors, a narrative he cannot stop discussing.
This perspective does not align with the expectations of his supporters.
On the anniversary of the October 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas on Israeli civilians near a music festival, Trump had various options to address the situation. His base wants him to focus on issues affecting American lives—not all of whom reside in Israel, despite popular assumptions.
Trump positions himself as a peacemaker regarding Ukraine, claiming he could resolve that conflict promptly. However, he shows no similar ambition for the Middle East. Instead, he donned a yarmulke and stood next to large tablets inscribed with Hebrew, declaring he would “remove the Jew haters” if elected and that the “bond between the United States and Israel is strong and enduring,” promising to make it “closer than it ever was before.”
Trump has urged Israel to target Iran’s nuclear sites, stating, “Isn’t that what you’re supposed to hit? I mean, it’s the biggest risk we have, nuclear weapons,” disregarding the notion that nuclear armaments often foster deterrence rather than aggression, akin to the way the Second Amendment operates in the U.S.
This position marks Trump as more supportive of Israel and militaristic than the Biden administration, which has cautioned against Israeli attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. He is also more vocally pro-Israel than his Democratic opponent, Vice-President Kamala Harris, who at least acknowledges the necessity of protecting Palestinian civilians amid Israeli assaults and dodged inquiries regarding whether Israel qualifies as an ally.
Who, then, is Trump attempting to attract? The establishment? That pursuit seems futile, as he has alienated their support on numerous fronts, and such rhetoric is unlikely to win them back. The same is true for Republican neocons.
He definitely is not catering to his “MAGA” base, which advocates for a non-interventionist approach and prefers to avoid entanglement in foreign disputes. Many of his supporters perceived Trump's remarks on October 7 as pandering and expressed their disapproval on social media, vowing to disengage.
Perhaps he aims to appeal to the broader American electorate. A recent Pew Research survey indicates that only 31% of Americans express confidence in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and 75% are worried about U.S. forces becoming embroiled in the conflict. A YouGov poll revealed merely 33% of Americans sympathize with Israel over the Palestinians in the ongoing Gaza conflict, while a Gallup poll from March found a majority opposed Israel’s actions in Gaza—even before the escalation of conflict involving Syria, Lebanon, and Hezbollah activities near civilians.
What does Trump think American voters prioritize: funding foreign conflicts through their tax dollars or combatting antisemitism? According to a Pew study from April, many Americans are more concerned about anti-Muslim bias. Yet, Trump emphasized his intent to “remove the Jew haters” if elected. Who does he mean by that? Does he consider advocates for Israel’s autonomy—those who believe Israel should manage its own affairs without risking a global conflict—as individuals to be vilified?
The crux of the issue lies with Trump’s supporters, who are struggling to reconcile his current stance with their anti-war beliefs. An anti-war position cannot selectively exclude Israel from its scope. The fervor with which Trump addresses this issue starkly contrasts with Harris’s more ambivalent tone, potentially offering her a wedge issue to attract disillusioned Republican or Independent voters, particularly those questioning Trump’s motives. While Harris maintains a typical establishment position, Trump seems inexplicably enthusiastic about Israeli military actions.
One plausible explanation may be found in examining Trump’s financial backers. The late mogul Sheldon Adelson was recognized as a significant force behind the GOP's pro-Israel shift, and his widow, Miriam, has pursued aggressive funding routes aimed at electing Trump. Trump fulfilled one of Adelson’s long-standing desires by relocating the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, an act that raised eyebrows due to its perceived provocations. It raises the question of how much additional funding might be waiting in the wings in anticipation of Trump’s potential return to power.
NBC News highlighted the “Adelson primary,” where GOP contenders sought to curry favor with the billionaire for financial support. Earlier this year, the New York Times mentioned Miriam’s proposed “$100 million plan to elect Trump” via PACs. Trump's awarding her the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2018 raises further questions about the influence of such monetary support on his policy positions.
During a summer campaign event, Trump introduced Miriam Adelson and lauded the medal he conferred upon her, comparing its significance to the Congressional Medal of Honor but suggesting hers was superior because “she’s a healthy, beautiful woman.” Such remarks can hardly be seen as mere flattery—particularly given the substantial financial backing she provided to his previous campaign.
Israeli media has reported that Trump became frustrated over the summer when he perceived he was not receiving sufficient contributions from Adelson's widow, with his assistant allegedly labeling her aides as “Republicans in name only.”
This context may explain why Trump has amplified his pro-Israel rhetoric as the campaign intensifies, coinciding with the influx of funding that contributed to his first electoral victory.
Ultimately, Trump’s stance presents an unsettling image. The disconnect between his rhetoric and the views of his base raises questions about transparency regarding the motivations fueling it. While establishment figures like Harris are often assumed to support the military-industrial complex, Trump’s actions raise the possibility of ulterior motives behind his overtures, risking alienation of voters who might then choose to abstain from voting or opt for a candidate they perceive as more trustworthy.
Olivia Brown contributed to this report for TROIB News
When Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky recently sought Trump's support against Russia while standing next to him, the interaction resembled a student being scolded by a principal. Trump reminded Zelensky that “it takes two to tango,” but his approach to Israel presents a stark contrast. In Trump’s view, Israel is portrayed as a solitary figure wrongfully attacked by its neighbors, a narrative he cannot stop discussing.
This perspective does not align with the expectations of his supporters.
On the anniversary of the October 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas on Israeli civilians near a music festival, Trump had various options to address the situation. His base wants him to focus on issues affecting American lives—not all of whom reside in Israel, despite popular assumptions.
Trump positions himself as a peacemaker regarding Ukraine, claiming he could resolve that conflict promptly. However, he shows no similar ambition for the Middle East. Instead, he donned a yarmulke and stood next to large tablets inscribed with Hebrew, declaring he would “remove the Jew haters” if elected and that the “bond between the United States and Israel is strong and enduring,” promising to make it “closer than it ever was before.”
Trump has urged Israel to target Iran’s nuclear sites, stating, “Isn’t that what you’re supposed to hit? I mean, it’s the biggest risk we have, nuclear weapons,” disregarding the notion that nuclear armaments often foster deterrence rather than aggression, akin to the way the Second Amendment operates in the U.S.
This position marks Trump as more supportive of Israel and militaristic than the Biden administration, which has cautioned against Israeli attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. He is also more vocally pro-Israel than his Democratic opponent, Vice-President Kamala Harris, who at least acknowledges the necessity of protecting Palestinian civilians amid Israeli assaults and dodged inquiries regarding whether Israel qualifies as an ally.
Who, then, is Trump attempting to attract? The establishment? That pursuit seems futile, as he has alienated their support on numerous fronts, and such rhetoric is unlikely to win them back. The same is true for Republican neocons.
He definitely is not catering to his “MAGA” base, which advocates for a non-interventionist approach and prefers to avoid entanglement in foreign disputes. Many of his supporters perceived Trump's remarks on October 7 as pandering and expressed their disapproval on social media, vowing to disengage.
Perhaps he aims to appeal to the broader American electorate. A recent Pew Research survey indicates that only 31% of Americans express confidence in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and 75% are worried about U.S. forces becoming embroiled in the conflict. A YouGov poll revealed merely 33% of Americans sympathize with Israel over the Palestinians in the ongoing Gaza conflict, while a Gallup poll from March found a majority opposed Israel’s actions in Gaza—even before the escalation of conflict involving Syria, Lebanon, and Hezbollah activities near civilians.
What does Trump think American voters prioritize: funding foreign conflicts through their tax dollars or combatting antisemitism? According to a Pew study from April, many Americans are more concerned about anti-Muslim bias. Yet, Trump emphasized his intent to “remove the Jew haters” if elected. Who does he mean by that? Does he consider advocates for Israel’s autonomy—those who believe Israel should manage its own affairs without risking a global conflict—as individuals to be vilified?
The crux of the issue lies with Trump’s supporters, who are struggling to reconcile his current stance with their anti-war beliefs. An anti-war position cannot selectively exclude Israel from its scope. The fervor with which Trump addresses this issue starkly contrasts with Harris’s more ambivalent tone, potentially offering her a wedge issue to attract disillusioned Republican or Independent voters, particularly those questioning Trump’s motives. While Harris maintains a typical establishment position, Trump seems inexplicably enthusiastic about Israeli military actions.
One plausible explanation may be found in examining Trump’s financial backers. The late mogul Sheldon Adelson was recognized as a significant force behind the GOP's pro-Israel shift, and his widow, Miriam, has pursued aggressive funding routes aimed at electing Trump. Trump fulfilled one of Adelson’s long-standing desires by relocating the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, an act that raised eyebrows due to its perceived provocations. It raises the question of how much additional funding might be waiting in the wings in anticipation of Trump’s potential return to power.
NBC News highlighted the “Adelson primary,” where GOP contenders sought to curry favor with the billionaire for financial support. Earlier this year, the New York Times mentioned Miriam’s proposed “$100 million plan to elect Trump” via PACs. Trump's awarding her the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2018 raises further questions about the influence of such monetary support on his policy positions.
During a summer campaign event, Trump introduced Miriam Adelson and lauded the medal he conferred upon her, comparing its significance to the Congressional Medal of Honor but suggesting hers was superior because “she’s a healthy, beautiful woman.” Such remarks can hardly be seen as mere flattery—particularly given the substantial financial backing she provided to his previous campaign.
Israeli media has reported that Trump became frustrated over the summer when he perceived he was not receiving sufficient contributions from Adelson's widow, with his assistant allegedly labeling her aides as “Republicans in name only.”
This context may explain why Trump has amplified his pro-Israel rhetoric as the campaign intensifies, coinciding with the influx of funding that contributed to his first electoral victory.
Ultimately, Trump’s stance presents an unsettling image. The disconnect between his rhetoric and the views of his base raises questions about transparency regarding the motivations fueling it. While establishment figures like Harris are often assumed to support the military-industrial complex, Trump’s actions raise the possibility of ulterior motives behind his overtures, risking alienation of voters who might then choose to abstain from voting or opt for a candidate they perceive as more trustworthy.
Olivia Brown contributed to this report for TROIB News
