I admit that I did not stay up until 4 a.m. last Friday to listen to the Biden-Trump presidential debate in real time, but I did wake up an hour later (when my morning paper is dropped by my front door) and listened to its latter part before going back to sleep.
There were no surprises. Joe Biden’s performance was rather pathetic, mostly due to the visible effects of his age (81) – his weak, at times almost mumbling voice, with an occasional stutter and seconds of confusion – which couldn’t but cause embarrassment to those of us who are grateful to the man for all he has done for Israel and malicious joy to those who wish to see Donald Trump return to the White House next January.
Anyone who has followed Biden’s public performances since he was elected president in 2020 was not surprised by his poor performance, but rather by the fact that the professional team surrounding him apparently believed that he could cross the Rubicon safely. Nevertheless, I have a feeling that if one were to read what Biden had said rather than listen to it, one would find that on the whole, he recited all the messages he had planned to convey quite coherently.
Trump was his usual arrogant, nasty self, even though he was prevented from breaking into Biden’s words when he spoke (as he had done during the debates before the 2020 election) simply because the microphones of each of the two candidates were switched off whenever the other spoke. However, Trump’s facial expressions said it all: his contempt for Biden and for his current term as president.
Biden at least tried to answer most of the questions he was asked, fairly and squarely. Trump, on numerous occasions, tried to shirk giving straight answers to “tricky” questions, such as whether, unlike the previous election, he would accept the results of next November’s, no matter what the outcome. Though Trump, 78, also falters in his speech occasionally and spouts out lies and fake news like a fountain, his appearance conveyed self-confidence. If there was a winner in this debate, it was undoubtedly Trump.
Neither candidate is worthy of the presidency
My main conclusion from the debate was not that one of the two candidates is more worthy than the other to be president of the US in the years 2025-2028, but that neither is. My yardstick is not who of the two will serve Israeli interests better than the other (though it is certainly legitimate for Israelis to prefer a president who is more partial to our point of view and interests), but which of the two will better serve the people of the United States and the world order as designed under American leadership after the US entered World War II.
Today, 24 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, this world order appears to be in growing disarray. At this point, my conclusion, with or without last week’s debate, is that neither presidential candidate is truly competent to deal with the crisis, though Biden has a more coherent policy on most issues, while Trump has a record of acting impulsively, both on domestic and international issues.
At the moment, there is still a vague possibility that Trump will be prevented from running again due to his various legal travails, even though the US Constitution does not disqualify an indicted or convicted person from running for president. In recent years, Trump has been issued four indictments; in one of these cases, on May 30, 2024, the Manhattan Criminal Court found him guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records (the case of the hush money paid to porn actress Stormy Daniels)
In Biden’s case, since last Thursday, there have been some serious thoughts within the Democratic leadership as to whether he ought to be replaced as their party’s presidential candidate.
Against this background, one cannot help but wonder how a properly functioning democratic system has ended up with such candidates in the first place and whether liberal democracies, such as the United States, ought to have a better system to protect themselves from problematic candidates. In the US, the only way to achieve this is by amending the Constitution, which today includes only three qualifications required for running for president: one must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years old, and have been a resident of the US for 14 years.
In Israel, the president of the state may approach any MK after elections to try forming a government as prime minister. According to article 6(a) of Basic-Law: The Knesset, every Israeli citizen, who on the day of the submission of a list of candidates, which includes his/her name, is 21 years old and over, is entitled to be elected to the Knesset. A court of law may deprive a potential candidate of this right by virtue of the law, or if he/she has been sentenced, in a final verdict, to actual imprisonment for a period of over three months, and on the day of the submission of the list of candidates seven years have not lapsed from the day on which he/she finished serving the actual imprisonment.
A candidate may also be deprived of his//her right to run if he/she was convicted of a serious terror or other security offense, as prescribed by law, and was sentenced, in a final verdict, to an actual prison sentence for a period of over seven years imprisonment, and on the day of the submission of the list of candidates, 14 years have not lapsed from the day that he ended serving the actual imprisonment. In such a case, the chairperson of the Central Elections Committee may determine that the offense for which he/she was sentenced did not involve turpitude, and allow him/her to run.
In the case of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, after he was indicted on November 21, 2019, on criminal charges, the High Court of Justice ruled on May 6, 2020, that an MK, who has been indicted but not yet sentenced on criminal charges may form a government, even though such an MK cannot serve in a government formed by someone else.
BUT BACK to last week’s debate. Was Israel given any sort of indication during the debate which of the two candidates is likely to serve Israel’s interests best? While Biden defended his record of support for Israel’s security since October 7, Trump accused Biden of not allowing Israel to defeat Hamas in the Gaza Strip and of acting like a Palestinian, despite Hamas considering him to be a very bad Palestinian (whatever that may mean). He also claimed that if he were president last October, Hamas would never have invaded Israel. (He also said that under his presidency, Russia would not have invaded Ukraine.) In fact, based on the debate, Israel cannot conclude which of the two presidential candidates would serve Israel’s interests and needs better in the next four years.
Based on the records of the two presidents, I believe that Biden has been more generous and dependable. Nevertheless, a recent opinion poll showed that around 50 percent of the Israelis support Trump’s election as the next president of the US.
The writer worked in the Knesset for many years as a researcher and has published extensively both journalistic and academic articles on current affairs and Israeli politics. Her most recent book, Israel’s Knesset Members - A Comparative Study of an Undefined Job, was published by Routledge.