What the Election Results Mean for Israel and the Jewish People

What do the results of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, a sweeping victory for President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance, mean for the U.S. Jewish community and Israel? How did the Jewish community vote? What are the top takeaways from the Senate and the House elections? Get caught up on all the latest election data points and analysis in this week’s episode, featuring Ron Kampeas, JTA's Washington Bureau Chief and guest hosted by Julie Fishman Rayman, AJC’s Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs.

AJC is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization. AJC neither supports nor opposes candidates for elective office. The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC.

AJC’s Policy Priorities:

• AJC Congratulates President-Elect Donald J. Trump

Listen – AJC Podcasts:

• The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more.

• People of the Pod: 

• The Jewish Vote in Pennsylvania: What You Need to Know

• Sinwar Eliminated: What Does This Mean for the 101 Hostages Still Held by Hamas?

• From Doña Gracia to Deborah Lipstadt: What Iconic Jewish Women Can Teach Us Today

Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod

You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org

If you’ve appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

Transcript:

Julie Fishman Rayman: 

Hello, I'm Julie Fishman Rayman, AJC’s Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs. Today, I have the pleasure of guest hosting People of the Pod and speaking with Ron Kampeas, JTA’s Washington Bureau Chief, to discuss the results and the implications of the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

As the nonpartisan global advocacy organization for the Jewish people, AJC congratulates Donald J. Trump on his election as the 47th President of the United States, and Senator JD Vance as Vice President. AJC looks forward to working with the President-elect and his administration on the domestic and foreign policy concerns that are AJC advocacy priorities to learn more about our policy priorities for the incoming administration. Head to the link in our show notes.

As a reminder, AJC is a 501(c)3 non-partisan, not for profit organization. AJC neither supports nor opposes candidates for elected office. 

Ron, welcome to People of the Pod. Thank you for being here.

Ron Kampeas: 

Of course.

Julie Fishman Rayman: 

Well, I'd like to start asking you if you have a sense about the Jewish vote, because there have been a number of different exit polls, which, I guess, not surprisingly, because exit polls are what they are, say vastly different things. There are some that say it's the biggest Jewish vote in support for a Democratic candidate ever, and then also the highest percentage ever for a Republican candidate. 

What do we know to be true? And what would you sort of be looking at in terms of, you know, as we're examining this moving forward, what are we looking for?

Ron Kampeas: 

So first of all, I know I've seen those very extreme assessments as well, and I know what they're based on, and even based on what they're based on, and we, I'll talk about that too, that's just not correct. So they're talking about a 79% turnout, according to a poll, the consortium of a number of organizations like CNN and the New York Times. And that poll is not reliable yet. 

It does show 79% and think 21%, in other words, an even split. Nobody seemed to have voted for, at least among the Jews, for third party candidates. And I'm not sure what number of Jews who were included in that poll were. I mean, it's a vast, vast poll. They do talk to a lot of people, but even they will say, and I think they put it on their things, that it's just preliminary.

The more reliable analysis is considered to be the one that came out of the Fox-AP analysis that showed 66%-67% for Harris, 32%-31% for Trump. And I think that's what the Trump people are talking about in terms of the highest for Republicans. It's just not the highest for a Republican. I think if you count in the margin of error, that's not even like recently the highest for a Republican. 

Nothing's changed in the last four years. I think what it is showing is that whereas Republicans, when I started at JTA in 2004 they were happy to get 25%. They've gone up from 19% with George W. Bush in 2020 to 25% with John Kerry a few years later. Now they can comfortably say they're getting about 30% of the Jewish community. People love to attach everything that happens to the very current politics of the day. So however you count it, nothing seems to have changed.

Julie Fishman Rayman: 

So interesting, because for I think a lot of Jews around America, we feel as though so much has changed. But when you go to the voting booth, Jews consistently aren't necessarily thinking just about either Israel or antisemitism.

AJC does a survey looking at American Jewish opinion, not every year, but almost every year. And we did it in June, and asked questions about political affiliation. Who are you going to vote for? And one of the things that we asked was, what drives your vote? And foreign policy is always low down on the list.

On election night, CNN asked that same question, of course, to all Americans, and I think 4% said that their vote was driven by foreign policy. Has there been a moment where the American Jewish vote is more focused on issues that feel perhaps a bit more parochial?

Ron Kampeas: 

No. Certainly within the Orthodox subset, and it's always difficult to tell, because the smaller the subset, the bigger the margin of error. But when there's consistency over time and survey after survey after survey, I think you can conclude that, yes, Orthodox Jews do attach more importance to the U.S.-Israel relationship and how it's manifesting, how they're perceiving it. 

The only time that a Democrat, at least since FDR, I think, a Democrat, didn't receive a majority of the Jewish vote was Jimmy Carter, who, in 1980 got a plurality of the Jewish vote, I think, about 45%.

People sort of conflate things in their head. In his post-presidency, Carter became very identified with being very critical of Israel. And it's true, in 1980 he'd had difficult relationships with Menachem Begin, but he brokered the most important peace treaty in Israeli history. He saved a lot of lives. So I don't think people were feeling bad about Carter in 1980 because of Israel. 

I like to tell people, Jews are like everybody else. You know it's true that a majority of us vote for Democrats, and there are other subsets where, a majority vote for Republican more majority for Democrats. But we vote for the same reasons as everybody else. Our votes will get more enthusiastic for a Democrat on one circumstance, just like everybody else's will, or might get less enthusiastic just like everybody else's will. We're susceptible to the same things.

Julie Fishman Rayman: 

It's really interesting. So at this moment, there's so much Monday morning quarterbacking happening, and I don't want to look too far in the rear view, but I do want to ask you for your take on this question of, would the result have been different had the Vice President selected Shapiro, Governor Shapiro from Pennsylvania, as her running mate?

Ron Kampeas: 

Maybe, it's hard to say. Vice presidents have had such a little impact on nominations. But on the other hand, Pennsylvania was close enough, and Shapiro is popular enough there that perhaps it might have made the difference. She might have had Pennsylvania, and then if she had Pennsylvania, I don't know, she would have gotten to 270. But you know, Nevada and Arizona are still being counted. They might still go in her column. 

If they do go in her column, although I don't think they will, I think it looks like they're going to go into Trump's column. If Nevada and Arizona go into her column and she missed out on Pennsylvania, you could say that her decision to go with Tim Walz instead of Josh Shapiro was fateful.

On the other hand, everybody's a cynic. Nobody actually believes anything anybody says. But I try to get away from that. I try not to be too much of a cynic. And when Josh Shapiro said afterwards that he had second thoughts about taking on VP, because he's like a hugely successful governor so far in Pennsylvania is this is two years into his first term. You know, if I'm Josh Shapiro, I'm thinking about my legacy, and I'm thinking about running for president in the future and two years, just, yeah, I'm not going to make an impact in Pennsylvania in just two years. 

If I'm the 60% governor who can get Republicans to vote for me in the middle of the state, I'm thinking two terms will make me like, well, you know, get me a statue in some building at one point. There's this whole narrative that there was an antisemitic pushback. It was an antisemitic pushback against Shapiro. It was anti-Israel at times. I really believe it did cross over antisemitism.

I'm not sure that that had the effect on the Harris campaign in terms of its decision making. She clicked with Tim Walz. Shapiro wasn't so eager. Shapiro was going to be a co-president. Walz wanted to be a vice president. He made that very clear. He had no intentions of ever running for the presidency. So if you're a Harris, do you want to have a Dan Quayle, or do you want to have a Dick Cheney kind of thing? You know as somebody who's prone to take over, or somebody who's prone to do what needs to be done to be vice president. And obviously she preferred the latter.

Julie Fishman Rayman: 

It's a great analogy. Can we talk for a minute about sort of Jewish representation in Congress where Israel was on the ballot? What are your perceptions there?

Ron Kampeas: 

I think that it might have made a difference in NY-17th, where Mike Lawler defeated Mondair Jones. Mondair Jones was perceived when he first ran into 2020, and he was elected. He was perceived initially as somebody who would be very different from Nita Lowey, who he was replacing because she's a very solid, long time pro-Israel.

Julie Fishman Rayman: 

And an AJC board member.

Ron Kampeas: 

And an AJC board member. He actually declared before she retired, so he was a little bit confrontational with her, which happens, obviously. I don't know if Israel came up in that equation, though. Young progressive people thought he'd be a squadder, but he wasn't. In his two years in Congress, he wasn't a member of the squad, and he went out of his way to align with the pro-Israel community, and this because it was so important in his district. 

But Lawler, he's been, he's a freshman, but he's been out front. He's been very good at cultivating the Jewish people in his district. And he's not just led on a number of Israel issues, but he's always made sure to do it in a bipartisan way, partnering with Jared Moskowitz in Florida, or Josh got him or in New Jersey, and you know, that might have helped him in the district. It was a close race. He won by a close margin. So I think maybe that was definitely a factor there. 

I think that one of the group's decision desk that declares winners just declared for Jackie Rosen in Nevada. She's been reelected, according to them, but we'll wait. We'll see if and when AP calls it. But again, a state with a substantial Jewish population, she is, like, one of the premier Democrats. She's Jewish, but she also is very, very upfront about Israel. She co-chairs an Antisemitism Task Force. She has a bill that would designate a domestic antisemitism coordinator. 

So in such a close race or such close margins with the Jewish community, that's actually much larger than the margin that might have helped put her over the top. On the other side, you know, you have Michigan, which might have also, like we looked at Pennsylvania and Josh Shapiro. 

Michigan also might have cost Kamala Harris the presidency because of her support for Israel, because, you know, President Trump managed to peel away Muslim American and Arab American voters in in Michigan, in a kind of a weird slight of hand, because he said that he would be more pro their issue than Kamala Harris was, even though he's more pro-Netanyahu, definitely than Kamala Harris is. But also, there were third party voters, people who voted for Jill Stein.

Julie Fishman Rayman: 

Pretty significant numbers for Jill Stein, from Michigan.

Ron Kampeas: 

Pretty significant numbers for Jill Stein. But Elissa Slotkin got over the top. Very pro-Israel, centrist Democrat, Jewish. Very much a foreign policy, you know, specialist. She came out of the CIA and the Defense Department. Also very partisan. She was meeting with red constituents, like veterans, and she was doing a good job of it. She had that appeal. And I think that's why she ran for Senate. I think that's where Democrats are excited to have her run for Senate. And then October 7 happened, and she had to navigate a very difficult situation in her state, which has a substantial Jewish community, has an even bigger Muslim American and Arab American community. She had meetings with both leaders. She put out sensitive statements after the meetings.

I think one of the most interesting sort of developments with her is that Rashida Tlaib, the Palestinian American Congresswoman attacked Dana Nessel for prosecuting people who were violent, were allegedly violent at protests. She put out a statement that, without saying it was because Dana Nessel was Jewish, she was said that Dana Nessel had other sort of considerations when she brought these prosecutions. Dana Nessel outright accused her of antisemitism, and then Rashida Tlaib was the subject of a lot of Islamophobic, anti-Palestinian vitriol.

And it was interesting because there were two letters that went out at the time from Congress members. One condemning anything that insinuated that Dana Nessel had dual loyalties, or anything like that, and one condemning the anti-Islamic rhetoric that Rashida Tlaib faced, and the only person who signed both letters was Alyssa Slotkin. I thought that was interesting.

Julie Fishman Rayman: 

I want to turn a little bit if we can, to the expectations for the next administration, even for the next Congress. When we last spoke, right after the Republican National Convention, JD Vance had been selected as the running mate, and you and I, we talked about what that means for a Trump foreign policy in the next administration. Will it go in a more isolationist direction, more aligning with JD Vance's worldview? What do you think now and what might we expect?

Ron Kampeas: 

That’s still a potential for sure, there are names being rooted about for Secretary of State. One of them is Rick Grinnell, who's completely a Trumpist, who will do what he wants, his former Acting CIA director. And the other is Marco Rubio, gave one of the best speeches at the convention, I thought, and who is very close to the pro-Israel community, who's an internationalist, but who has tailored his rhetoric to be more, to make sure he doesn't antagonize Donald Trump. He was, you know, he came close to being the vice presidential pick himself. 

I mean, if Marco Rubio becomes Secretary of State, I think that's a good sign for internationalists. I mean, you know, Israel has kind of a buffer, because the Republican Party is very pro-Israel. And there are people like JD Vance who say, you know, Israel is the exception when it comes to what I think about pulling the United States back from the world, even though he says it's not so much the exception. 

And then there are people like Marco Rubio who are internationalists. Does Marco Rubio get to run an independent foreign policy? That would be very good news, I think, for internationalists, if Donald Trump doesn't get in his way. But I don't know if that that happens.

 

There's a view of pro-Israelism that says internationalism is necessary. I always like to say when a AIPAC used to have its policy conferences, and it's a shame it doesn't any more, they would have a little brief talk before on Tuesday morning, before going up to the Hill, they would have, like, some prominent Senator come out and give a rah rah speech. And then like, three officials would come out on the stage, Howard Core, the late Richard Fishman, and Esther Kurz. And Esther Kurz had handled congressional relations, and they would talk about the three items they were bringing up the Hill, usually two laws in a letter or a resolution or something like that. 

And she would always say, and this was like the one moment like they would sort of reveal this. They'd be very candid about this. You have to push not for assistance for Israel, but foreign assistance generally, because there is no such thing as sort of singling out Israel and saying, Okay, we're going to take care of Israel, but nobody else in the world. That it's all interconnected.

And it's such a true thing now, because you can say, you know, let's just cut off Ukraine. But if you're cut off Ukraine, you're bolstering Putin. If you're bolstering Putin, you're bolstering somebody who has a substantial and military alliance with Iran. If you're bolstering Iran, that is not good for Israel. And it's kind of circuitous to get there, but it's also a very substantive point. I think those are the things the pro-Israel community is going to be looking at with genuine concern.

Julie Fishman Rayman: 

Indeed, it's all about sort of the strength of the American global leadership regime. And when you start to whittle away at one, the overall package ends up being weaker. Speaking of Israel, I can't speak to you this week and not ask you about the news out of Israel, about Netanyahu firing the Defense Secretary Gallant and what that means. 

And also, if we can extrapolate, if we can prognosticate what might happen vis a vis Israel in this lame duck session, while we still have Biden as president, but moving through the transition towards a future Trump administration.

Ron Kampeas: 

Yeah, you know, there a lot of Israelis are actually worried about that. Like, Oh, Biden's gonna take his frustrations out on Bibi in the lame duck. Doesn't have anything stopping him. I don't think that's going to happen. 

I think what's interesting is, like, you had a couple of instances in American history where a lame duck president used the fact that he didn't care, you know, what anybody thought of him, to push something through. In 1988 Ronald Reagan recognized the PLO because it's something George H. W. Bush wanted him to do. George H. W. Bush wanted to push like more Israel Palestinian peace. 

He did with the Madrid Conference, but he didn't want to be the one to invite the PLO into the room, so he got Ronald Reagan to do it in his last two months in office. In 2016 Barack Obama allowed through a Security Council resolution that condemned the settlements. The United States didn't vote for it, but it also didn't veto it. That really kind of shook Israel up. But what was interesting. I've done the reporting on this. When he was taking advice, Should I, should we vote for the resolution? Should we veto it, or should we just allow it through? There were people voicing opinions on all sides. 

Joe Biden and Jack Lew, who was then the Treasury Secretary, is now the ambassador to Israel, both said, veto it. Don't let it through. Don't let it through because, partly because it's going to really upset our Jewish supporters, if you let it through. You're not going to be president anymore, but somebody in the room is going to probably try and be president. I think that Joe Biden still has that sense of responsibility. I could be wrong. 

You know, four years or a year of like, from his perspective, being very strongly supportive of Israel and not getting anything back from Bibi, from his perspective, might have changed his mind. Something might occur now. 

But the question is, like, you can tell Israel if they hit anything, but if they hit anything, if they elevate it at all, they're going to need US assistance. And Trump hasn't said he's going to give that. Biden has. Biden's proven he's going to give it. So you've got two months of a president who will, who will back up Israel with American might, and then you have a president who has isolationist tendencies and who doesn't want to get involved with wars for another four years.

Julie Fishman Rayman: 

Is there anything else that you're hearing, perhaps, from the Israeli perspective, about Gallant’s departure, and what that signals?

Ron Kampeas: 

I think that Netanyahu, you know, he's just trying to keep his government intact. Gallant is very vocal in opposing or in supporting drafting the ultra orthodox, the Haredi orthodox. Netanyahu’s government relies on Haredi orthodox parties. So there's that. 

He's also facing a kind of spy scandal from his own circle. Just a weird, weird story. Somebody who's in his circle is alleged to have tried to help Netanyahu politically by leaking highly classified documents and altering them as well to foreign news outlets. The allegation is that whatever the guy's motivation was, he's actually put Israel at risk.

So Netanyahu is suddenly in a position of facing allegations that he put Israel at risk. Now, he's faced a lot of scandals in his time. Israelis have a high level of tolerance for people who are alleged to have skimmed off the top, alleged to have helped themselves, and that's what the scandals are about. 

They have no tolerance for anybody who puts Israel's security at risk. So if this comes back to Netanyahu, that could be more damage than than any other scandal that he's endured so far. And so notably, I think, you know, when he was firing Gallant, he said he accused Gallant of leaking information. Although, I mean, what he seemed to be referring to was Gallant didn't leak anything. Gallant openly said that he disagreed with Netanyahu on certain tactics, and that, you know Netanyahu is casting is putting Israel at risk.

Which is not to say that Netanyahu is necessarily going to be implicated by the scandal, but it's certainly not of a piece with leaking, actually classified documents that reveal methods and sources that can put Israel's intelligence gathering methods at risk.

Julie Fishman Rayman: 

As always, there's so much more to the story, right?

Ron Kampeas: 

Yeah, yeah. There always is.

Julie Fishman Rayman: 

Ron, we could probably talk for a very long time about the American elections and what's going on in Israel and the degrees of various scandals and how populations will take them, and what the future of our country in the region looks like. 

But I know that you're very busy, especially this week, and I just want to say how grateful we are that you always make time for AJC and for People of the Pod.

Ron Kampeas: 

Of course.