It’s the kind of brisk Washington morning where the air feels heavy with history, the sort of day when policy decisions made behind closed doors ripple out to every corner of the globe. In one of those polished offices, Ilan Goldenberg, a man with a formidable resume and set of opinions, steps into his new role as Kamala Harris’s Jewish community liaison.
To those who don’t follow Middle East policy closely, his name might not ring any bells. But for those of us who do, his appointment is a warning – a sign that the Biden administration might be ready to gamble with the security of Israel and, by extension, the stability of the entire region.
As specified at depth and length by The Jerusalem Post’s diaspora correspondent Michael Starr on Friday, Goldenberg’s career has been built on a specific ideological foundation: a deep, almost dogmatic, belief in the power of diplomacy, even with the most duplicitous of regimes, and a marked skepticism toward any show of strength by Israel. He’s the kind of man who, when faced with a roaring fire, would argue for a drop of water rather than a fire hose, fearing that the latter might cause too much of a splash.
Take, for instance, his unwavering defense of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as the Iran nuclear deal. To Goldenberg, this agreement was a masterpiece of diplomacy – a carefully crafted shield against the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran. “The deal would deter Iran from ever pursuing a bomb because it knows that if it started to dash, it would be caught quickly and attacked,” he once argued with the confidence of someone who has never had to face the terrifying consequences of being wrong.
But the reality is far less rosy. The JCPOA did not dismantle Iran’s nuclear capabilities; it merely pressed pause on them. Worse, it unfroze billions of dollars that Iran swiftly funneled to its network of proxies – terrorist groups that have spilled Israeli blood and sown chaos across the Middle East. Goldenberg’s belief that the deal was the “best of bad options” reveals a fatal flaw in his thinking: he is willing to settle for a temporary Band-Aid rather than pursue a more complex, but ultimately more effective, cure.
For Israel, surrounded by enemies who dream of its destruction, such half-measures are not just inadequate – they’re dangerous. The October 7 massacre occurred as a result of Iran becoming almost untouchable by the West, and the country’s support of its proxies on all fronts. Let’s face it: the JCPOA failed.
Goldenberg’s ideology doesn’t stop at his misguided approach to Iran. Starr also highlighted how he has been a relentless critic of Israeli settlement activity, viewing this as the primary obstacle to peace in the region. In Goldenberg’s world, the construction of homes in Judea and Samaria is a sin so grave that it warrants “strong measures” from the United States to deter Israel from continuing.
Never mind that these settlements are often used as a convenient scapegoat by Palestinian leaders to avoid promoting a long-lasting peace agreement, as they have no genuine interest in negotiating peace. Because the real issue isn’t a few apartment buildings, but rather the refusal of these same leaders to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
Goldberg’s criticism extends to some of the most significant decisions in recent US-Israel relations
Goldenberg’s criticism extends to some of the boldest and most symbolically significant decisions in recent US-Israel relations. He opposed former president Trump’s bipartisan decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, arguing that it “threatened to stir the pot by not acknowledging Palestinian claims and inciting religious tensions.” In saying this, Goldenberg revealed a troubling tendency to prioritize the feelings of Israel’s adversaries over the rights and realities of the Jewish people.
Jerusalem is, and always has been, the heart of Jewish identity. Recognizing it as Israel’s capital was not only the right thing to do; it was a necessary correction of a longstanding wrong. So many presidential candidates from both parties have promised to move the US embassy, only that it so happened that the president who did, came from Goldenberg’s opposing party.
But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Goldenberg’s ideology is his defense of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the face of overwhelming evidence that it continues to fund terrorism. He was a vocal critic of the Taylor Force Act, legislation designed to stop US economic aid to the PA until it ceased paying stipends to terrorists. Goldenberg likened the act to a “sledgehammer” and argued that it would destabilize the PA, pushing it toward collapse. But let’s be clear: the PA has long used American taxpayer dollars to reward those who murder Israeli civilians. If the PA’s survival depends on its ability to continue this “abominable practice,” as Starr underlined, then perhaps it’s time to question whether it deserves to survive at all.
Goldenberg’s broader vision for the Middle East is no less flawed. Starr quoted his views, which called for a decreased American footprint in the region and which argued that the US can achieve its goals without relying on military force. This might sound appealing to those weary of endless wars, but it’s dangerously naive. The Middle East is not a region where power vacuums remain empty for long. If the US steps back, Iran, Russia, and extremist groups will rush in with catastrophic consequences for Israel and American interests alike.
In the aftermath of the October 7 massacre, it’s clear that the Middle East is more volatile than ever. The rise of Iran-backed militias, the resurgence of Hamas, and the ongoing civil wars in Syria and Yemen all point to a region teetering on the edge of chaos. In this context, Goldenberg’s ideology is not only irrelevant but dangerously out of touch with reality. His calls for a return to the JCPOA, his criticism of Israeli policies, and his advocacy for a reduced US presence in the region all reflect a worldview that is divorced from the current threats facing Israel and the Middle East.
Just a few months ago in April, the US along with the UK, shot down hundreds of Iranian missiles and UAVs together with Israel’s Air Force. How can we, the US, leave the region while its closest ally is on the brink of an existential threat?
Harris’s selection of Goldenberg as her Jewish community liaison is not just a one-off misstep – it’s part of a broader pattern that should alarm anyone who cares about Israel and the Jewish community. This isn’t the first time Harris has chosen someone with deeply contentious views to play a crucial role in her campaign. Take Nasrina Bargzie, who was appointed her Muslim outreach leader earlier this week. Bargzie has a track record that raises serious concerns: she’s dismissed Jewish students’ fears of antisemitism as “organized legal bullying” and has gone out of her way to defend extreme pro-Palestinian activism on college campuses.
She argued that even calls for the destruction of Israel are simply expressions of political speech, not hate. This kind of rhetoric, which brushes aside the real threats facing Jewish students and Israel, mirrors Goldenberg’s dangerous downplaying of the Iranian threat and the actions of the Palestinian Authority.
Moreover, these appointments aren’t coincidental – they’re a clear indication of a troubling trend within Harris’s campaign. By aligning herself with individuals who hold extreme, out-of-touch views, Harris is signaling that she’s more interested in appeasing the far left than standing up for America’s most reliable ally in the Middle East. Goldenberg’s push for a return to the flawed Iran deal, coupled with Bargzie’s defense of radical campus activism, paints a picture of a campaign drifting dangerously away from the principles that have long guided US policy in the region.
If these are the kinds of voices Harris is elevating, we have every reason to be deeply concerned about what this means for the future of US-Israel relations – and the security of the Jewish people worldwide.
Comments are closed.