House minority whip also says he thinks Hillary Clinton would be more constructively ‘assertive’ on Israel than President Obama
WASHINGTON — Veteran congressman Steny Hoyer thinks it would be perilous for Israel if Donald Trump were to become America’s next commander in chief.
“I think he would be dangerous,” Hoyer said, when asked in a phone interview with The Times of Israel what he thought a Trump presidency would mean for the Jewish state. “I mean, he thinks unpredictability is a virtue. Very frankly, I think unpredictability in the Middle East is not a virtue. He would undermine our relationship with all of our allies who he has demeaned and diminished over the course of this campaign.”
Throughout the conversation, the House minority whip made clear his belief that there’s a sharp contrast between former secretary of state Hillary Clinton and the real estate mogul when it comes to Israel’s security.
Hoyer is noted for promoting Israel as a bipartisan cause. In recent years, he has spoken at the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee’s annual confab alongside his Republican counterpart — in the past Eric Cantor, now Kevin McCarthy — listing their many areas of disagreement before eventually arriving on an issue of consensus: Israel.
While he acknowledged that, as a longtime Democratic faithful, he is obviously inclined to support his party’s nominee, Hoyer asserted that the difference between the two major candidates when it comes to the Jewish state has never been more pronounced.
“Trump, I think, presents a dangerous lack of stability, thoughtfulness and policy, and lack of support for our historical alliances,” he said. “And [then there’s] his pretense that every nation will simply bow to America’s will.”
On the other hand, Clinton is prepared for the job and would be more dependable as a president who would not signal daylight or distance between the US and Israel, according to Hoyer.
“Hillary Clinton is the mere opposite of Trump, in the sense that she is very thoughtful, very consistent, analytical, and has demonstrated from Israel’s standpoint a consistent — without exception — strong support of Israel and a recognition of how important it is for America’s security to have a very close [relationship],” he said. “I think Hillary Clinton would make it very clear to Israel’s enemies that she would be fully prepared as commander in chief to respond in a decisive way to threats upon Israel’s safety, security and sovereignty.”
Hoyer, who has been a pro-Israel voice on Capitol Hill since he came to office in 1981, chastised Trump’s call in February to be neutral between Israelis and Palestinians.
“When Trump, at one point in time, responds, ‘I’m going to be neutral,’ meaning from his standpoint, he’s going to try to play an arbiter’s game, [he’s opposing] support for the principles that America has stood for since 1948, and the proposition that America will stand by Israel’s safety and integrity as a nation.” Hoyer said.
This posture derives from “Trump’s lack of knowledge, lack of experience and lack of thought, frankly, with respect to the relationship between the United States and Israel,” he argued.
While the Republican nominee indicated a pullback from his neutrality pledge at AIPAC’s 2016 policy conference, he hasn’t explicitly said he would execute policy differently, and his website maintains he intends to be an unaligned mediator on the conflict.
“When the United States stands with Israel, the chances of peace really rise and rises exponentially,” Trump said in front of AIPAC in March. “That’s what will happen when Donald Trump is president of the United States.”
In a video on his website, however, Trump says, “I want to remain as neutral as possible because, if you’re not somewhat neutral, the other side is never going to do it. But just remember, Israel, I love you. We’re going to see if we can get something done. It has to be done for both sides. It cannot continue to be the way it is.”
Hoyer went on to say that Trump’s foreign policy prescriptions, along with his temperament, should be of concern to Israelis, and he cited the 50 GOP senior national security officials who wrote a joint letter recently warning that the former reality television star “would be the most reckless president in American history.”
“Donald Trump is unqualified by dint of personality, experience, knowledge, thoughtfulness and good judgment to president,” Hoyer said. “And that’s what those 50 signatories were saying, many of whom worked in Republican administrations, and I think they have much greater faith, as I do, in Hillary Clinton.”
Hillary vs. Obama
When asked if he thought there would be a difference on Israel between Clinton and President Barack Obama, Hoyer said he thought Clinton would be “a more assertive voice” than her former boss.
“I think Obama’s been a thoughtful voice,” he said. “But I think Hillary Clinton will be somewhat more assertive on foreign policy issues and will view things from a historical perspective of her past actions in support of Israel. From that standpoint, I think she will be more assertive.”
The Democratic House whip’s own support for the Iran deal notwithstanding, Hoyer said Clinton would be more vigilant against Tehran’s quest to possess nuclear weapons capability.
“President Obama would say he’s been strong,” Hoyer said, “but I was personally hoping that we would have … a much stronger JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — the formal name of the accord] than openly was adopted in terms of nuclear but also non-nuclear activities that Iran participates in to destabilize the Middle East and make it more dangerous.”
Hoyer added: “I voted for the JCPOA because I thought the alternative would not be an improvement as some people thought, and I thought we frankly have accomplished some objectives by the JCPOA. But I urged a much stronger [agreement].”
Hoyer further said that Clinton would seek a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but would pursue such an outcome by mediating direct negotiations between the parties.
“She completely understands — very, very clearly — if there is to be a two-state solution in the Middle East, between the Israelis and Palestinians, that needs to be based solely on an agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians,” he said. “There cannot be one enforced, as Trump so often says he’s going to do [in other areas], whether it’s having Mexico build a wall or having allies pay more dues.”
“[Clinton] understands there needs to be a mutual understanding and working together with our allies and friends, not simply a ‘you-do-this’ attitude,” he added.
As reported by The Times of Israel