Those who follow the Israeli media in recent weeks may face a very clear view of what the U.S. elections are all about. A very simplified version of the U.S. political battle. More than 60% of Israelis would vote for Trump, reflecting the perception that he is the leading candidate on Israel-related affairs, especially when it comes to military and diplomatic events.
Yet, the reality is much more nuanced, and the implications are dramatic.
First, while Israelis vote mainly on security matters, even when it seems less relevant during quiet times, the Americans vote mainly on economic and employment issues. American references show a disproportional interest in Middle East events, including in Israel, but on elections day it is other things that impact the decision-making process of the American voter. While both candidates promise to end the Middle East wars to gain votes, the reality is that these factors play a limited role.
Second, the Israeli vote focuses on the US Federal government and system, while on the State level a lot is going on with significant impact on Israeli companies and investors. The U.S. market is the largest target market for Israeli investors, and many state policies are 'make or break' for such commercial decisions.
From elimination of renewable energy subsidies to tougher immigration rules, state policies can touch many Israeli commercial initiatives. American voters vote for dozens of city and state positions, from Governor to State Comptroller, who shape critical areas of life that Israelis are influenced by. Israelis, in general, tend to misunderstand the concept of Federalism and the Federal voting process.
Third, one of the strongest new trends in US elections in recent years is a 'split vote', i.e. voting for a Presidential candidate from one political party, while voting for candidates from the opposite political party for all other potential positions. This voting patten increases the chance of an ongoing conflict between the President and Congress, or inability of the President to pass key policies that require Congressional support. One example could be the potential Saudi-Israel Normalization Agreement that would be part of a broader security pact, or a Treaty, which requires 2/3 of Congress members. Any such agreement will require a legislative act beyond the Presidential policy and initiative.
Finally, as we have seen since October 7, the US personalities involved in any peace and cease-fire negotiations bring their personal style, individual history, and career ambitions to the table, beyond pure political affiliation. Most of these individuals require a Senate approval process to be nominated, which often can take significant time, sometimes even years. While current Middle East events require an immediate attention, the U.S. political system cannot pass or expediate the sometimes-grueling vetting process in order to approve any candidate for a significant position. The thinking that things can take off the day after Elections Day is often inaccurate.
While the world often provides a Red-Blue view of US politics, especially in Israel, the reality brings a lot of grey in between. We should all look a bit deeper.
