Hello, and welcome back to The Best & The Brightest, your Tuesday foreign policy edition. I’m Julia Ioffe. There is much to cover today, so let’s get to it.

But first… I want to address the strange social media controversy surrounding Joe Biden’s remarks at last night’s White House Hanukkah party. “Were there no Israel, there wouldn’t be a Jew in the world that is safe,” Biden said. The outrage, mostly from progressives as well as anti-Zionist Jews, was swift: Was the U.S. president abdicating responsibility for protecting American Jews? Was he saying that Jews who are American citizens are only safe in a foreign country? And if so, wasn’t that horrible?

The consternation seemed completely unaware of the fact that this is a Jewish debate as old as Zionism, itself: Can Jews fully rely on any government that is not their own to keep them safe from antisemitic discrimination and violence? The Holocaust seemed to answer that question pretty definitively. After all, Jews who had been full-fledged citizens of Germany and France, who fought and suffered wounds for their countries, were rounded up and murdered without most any of their fellow citizens or governments doing anything to protect them. In fact, they were active participants. In the Soviet Union, leftist Jews who had eagerly and early jumped on the bandwagon of communist egalitarianism soon discovered that this egalitarianism didn’t apply to them. Same with the Jews of North Africa and the Middle East.

This reality made many in these communities into Zionists because that is, in essence, the raison d’être of Zionism, as well as its core argument: Things may be good and safe, but, given the long and painful history of the Jews as guests in other people’s countries, that safety and comfort will always and inevitably evaporate. When it does, we need our own country to protect us because, given everything we know, we can’t really trust anyone else to do it. Agree with it or not, it is a lesson and an argument born of deep trauma that has been repeated, constantly, for millennia. The feeling that genocide is just around the corner is ingrained in so many Jewish people that just the whiff of antisemitism sends them, us, into a tailspin.

Of course, there has never been unanimity on this issue within the Jewish community. Jews in Israel certainly don’t seem very safe right now and haven’t for a while, and many American Jews feel that they are far safer living in pluralistic, democratic America. And they probably are, though Jews in France and Russia, for example, certainly don’t feel that way, which is why tens of thousands of them have been immigrating to Israel over the last decade. It’s the only place they believe they, as Jews, can go and feel safe.

That said, there is a deep sense among many American Jews, even liberal and progressive ones, that things could get bad in America, too. It is, after all, a tiny and extremely recent blip on the bloody, thousands-year timeline of Jewish history. Whatever the controversy, for many of them, the existence of Israel, with its elite and ultra-lethal army, is a kind of mental backstop and escape hatch, especially when Donald Trump praises the people who chant “Jews will not replace us!” and actively encourages antisemites on the far right, or when the far left excuses or dismisses the events of October 7 and actively legitimizes the genocidal agenda of Hamas as a struggle for liberation.

Biden, who once again repeated the line that one doesn’t have to be Jewish to be a Zionist during his remarks, seems to understand this ongoing, historical debate among Jews all over the world. The bad-faith criticism, which acts as if this quote appeared in a vacuum rather than as a deliberate acknowledgement of this Jewish conversation, does not.

There is a lot of anger, both at Foggy Bottom and places adjacent to it, that the current acting No. 2, Victoria Nuland, was passed over for the job. Toria, as she is universally known in Washington, is, unlike Campbell, a career foreign service officer and commands a lot of loyalty in the building. “Toria shows a leadership that people appreciate,” said former assistant secretary Ambassador Daniel Fried. “She’s loyal down. She’s fun. She knows the building. She’s a foreign service officer who rose to those heights and still has a personality and an edge—and I say that as a compliment. She’s tough, but so what? Toughness is needed. Toria scares people. That’s a good thing.” Nuland, who is a Europeanist and democracy promoter, is also a bogeyman in Russia and despised by the Kremlin. It’s something Nuland wears as a badge of honor, and which makes people revere her even more. “There’s a reason the Russians can’t stand her,” Fried said. “She knows them and she doesn’t tolerate their bullshit.”

Then there’s the fact that she is being replaced by a man even though she has already been doing the job for six months. It’s not a great look, especially when there are already lots and lots of white men at the top of the State Department org chart. “We were hoping there would be some diversity in the top ranks,” said one Senate Foreign Relations Committee aide. As one State Department insider put it, “Toria is, on paper and in reality, so much more qualified for the job, and the fact that you’re replacing a woman with another white man who is perceived to be part of a very bro-y N.S.C. that has not always had a good relationship with the department, is sort of the cherry on top.”

The fact that Campbell is deeply connected in the world of Democratic foreign policy only adds to this resentment. He is close friends with Tony Blinken. Campbell’s wife, Lael Brainard, is the head of Biden’s National Economic Council and close friends with Blinken’s wife, Evan Ryan, who also works in the White House. There are even rumors that Campbell is the godfather to Blinken and Ryan’s children. (That said, this is a small and incestuous world where everyone has known everyone for decades: Nuland is said to have introduced Jake Sullivan to his wife, Maggie Goodlander, who works for Merrick Garland in the D.O.J., while Jake Sullivan’s brother, Tom Sullivan, is deputy chief of staff to Blinken.) “This just feeds the suspicion that career people are not part of the team,” a former senior State Department official told me. “And then it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. If people can’t move up, they leave.”

The N.S.C.-State rivalry is a traditional one, and the fact that an N.S.C. person is replacing one of their own doesn’t help the mood at State. “Toria is highly respected and eminently qualified, so the fact that she’s been acting in the role for so long and is being passed over feels like an insult to her and also to the career ranks,” said the State Department insider. “I can’t underscore enough the frustration with the N.S.C. for having usurped State’s role, which just adds to the rancor at State.” The former senior State Department official, who has worked with both Nuland and Campbell, told me that this was, essentially, a middle finger to career foreign service officers. “What I would say is that passing over the senior-most career foreign service officer in the building was taken badly,” the former official said. Campbell “worked at State before. I think there are people who feel he doesn’t particularly care about or take care of the career people. Toria knows the building and how it works. Kurt has no clue and doesn’t really care.”

This particular conflict is also seasoned with some bad blood. Nuland and Campbell have quite a fraught and complicated relationship and, after Nuland resigned from State because she refused to serve in the Trump administration, she was appointed C.E.O. of CNAS, the Center for a New American Security, which Campbell helped found and where he continued to serve as chairman of the board. A year after her appointment, Nuland was pushed out, and many Nuland loyalists suspect Campbell had a lot to do with that.

Regardless, I’ve heard from numerous people close to Nuland that she plans to resign from State, some say as soon as Campbell is confirmed. That could happen as early as this week. “She’s not going to work for Kurt,” one of Nuland’s friends told me. When she does retire, there will be less than a year left of the Biden administration and Staties, not without a bit of schadenfreude, say it’s hard to imagine how they will confirm anyone for the role in the current environment. “If they pick a political person to be undersecretary”—Nuland’s old job—“instead of a career person,” said the former State official, “people are really going to be angry and unhappy.” (A State Department spokesman declined to comment on the record.)

And now, on to the subject of the day, the fallout of the Israel-Hamas war for Biden. But first, here’s Abby Livingston from the Hill…

• New York’s Etch-A-Sketch: Perhaps the most welcome news of the cycle so far for the D.C.C.C. is that New York’s Court of Appeals is tossing out the current congressional district lines—a much-sought legal victory for Democrats in the Empire State. New maps must be drawn, but this win could very well offset the gains that Republicans are likely to pick up in North Carolina’s redraw. The new lines will not affect the coming special election in Long Island to replace Cameo star George Santos, but I’m hearing from more and more Democrats that they expect to pick up this seat in February’s special election, now that ex-Rep. Tom Suozzi has sewn up the party nomination.

• The Zelensky Stiff-Arm: President Volodymyr Zelensky’s state visit to the Capitol solidified a Hemingway-level sense of fatalism now that it’s all-but-certain that Congress will leave for the holidays without approving more aid. Things will not get easier for the Hill’s hawks on this issue given the political chaos slated for January: a probable impeachment inquiry, a nasty presidential campaign, more retirements, members’ primary season, a possible government shutdown, and political fights over the Israel-Hamas war, to name a few distractions. But one topic that hasn’t quite been fully contemplated is the influence of the potentially horrific images coming out of Ukraine should its army collapse from lack of U.S. support.

• Beginner’s Luck?: House Republicans raised big money in November: The N.R.C.C. was out this morning boasting of their $9 million November haul in Mike Johnson’s first full month as party leader. Democrats, for their part, have yet to release their fundraising numbers, but have generally outpaced House Republicans this cycle. At least one Democratic lobbyist was impressed with the G.O.P. results but cautioned against sweeping conclusions regarding Johnson’s nascent fundraising skills. With so much low-hanging donor fruit to be gathered, this person suggested, F.E.C. reports in February and March might be more revealing.

• Biden’s Poll Reckoning: Biden’s dreadful polling slide this fall is top-of-mind for members and staffers heading into the holiday recess. It’s my understanding that the possibility of a potential Trump administration is becoming so tangible that some longtime Capitol Hill stalwarts are factoring the possibility into their retirement decisions—trying to decide whether it’s better to get out rather than risk serving amid the chaos of a second Trump administration.

The remarks were frank, and searing. He laid into Netanyahu’s government, which he called “the most conservative government in Israel’s history.” “I’ve known every, every, every single head of state in Israel since Golda Meir,” Biden said. “And I’ve known them because I’ve spent time with them many times. And this is a different group. Ben-Gvir and company and the new folks, they don’t want anything remotely approaching a two-state solution. They not only want to have retribution, which they should for what… Hamas did, but against all Palestinians. They don’t want a two-state solution. They don’t want anything having to do with the Palestinians.”

He warned that Netanyahu had to change his government and strengthen the Palestinian Authority so that it could govern Gaza when this war is over. He said that Israel was losing the world’s support as it pursues a scorched-earth war in Gaza and that it must do more to protect Palestinian life. Finally, the president warned, “You cannot say there’s no Palestinian state at all in the future.”

Netanyahu took all that in and shot back at Israel’s sole defender at the U.N. Security Council, and its main provider of military aid. He acknowledged “disagreement” with Biden about what happens the “day after Hamas” but added that, “After the great sacrifice of our civilians and our soldiers, I will not allow the entry into Gaza of those who educate for terrorism, support terrorism, and finance terrorism. Gaza will be neither Hamastan nor Fatahstan,” referring to Fatah, the political party that runs the Palestinian-controlled areas of the West Bank.

Bibi then attempted to hang the war, which has claimed the lives of thousands and thousands of Palestinian civilians (the exact number is hard to pin down because casualty figures provided by the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry include Hamas combatants), squarely around Biden’s neck. “Following an intensive dialogue with President Biden and his team, we received full backing for the ground incursion and blocking the international pressure to stop the war,” Netanyahu said.

This was a hell of a thing to do to Biden as the president heads into his reelection campaign, his party and administration riven by generational disagreements about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Behind the scenes, people both inside and close to the administration have told me that there is growing frustration with Netanyahu and how the Israeli government is continuing to wage this war. On one hand, they tout the concessions Israel has made at Washington’s urging: allowing fuel into Gaza, allowing in more and more aid, a temporary ceasefire. On the other, there’s a wish that Netanyahu were more responsive to the administration’s asks, and a growing recognition that, while it is possible to decapitate and degrade Hamas, dismantling it completely is not possible. “It is militarily achievable to take out the leadership of Hamas,” a senior administration official told me. “You can take out the leadership, the second tier—all of those things are achievable. But it’s a well-known counter-terrorism idea that you can’t take out an ideology.”

There’s also a sense that, while the president will not change his staunchly pro-Israel views, this war has to end sooner rather than later. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said on Tuesday that the “timetable for this war will certainly be on my agenda” when he visits Israel later this week. “I think we have basically told the [Israeli] war cabinet they have till the end of the year to do what they need to do,” a source in the Biden campaign told me. “Either explicitly or implicitly or both.” Kamala Harris’s comments in Dubai (no forced relocation of Palestinians, no reoccupation of Gaza) were greenlit by the White House in no small part because of Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s warning that Israel risked a tactical win and a strategic defeat had cleared the way. The defense secretary, in other words, was not freelancing.

Sources also say that Arab allies in the region are tired of the war and the pressure it creates from their streets. They are also done with Hamas, which they all loathe. There’s an awareness, as one source told me, that Hamas—as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood— could easily come for these autocratic rulers next. These countries are eager to have this war over, and the underlying Israeli-Palestinian issue resolved, so they can get back to business. But in the Biden administration, there’s a sense that Bibi’s government hasn’t budged on the issue, politically. If anything, they fear his stance on a resolution to the conflict has only hardened. Said the senior administration official, “Let me put it this way: Do you think Bibi got more in favor of a two-state solution since October 7?”

And yet, as the war goes on, these fears seem to be fading. There is a sense, both in the White House and the Biden campaign, as well as among party insiders, that Biden’s staunch support for Israel won’t hurt him in November 2024. I asked a (different) senior administration official if the White House is worried about these progressive protests adversely affecting Biden’s chances of reelection. “Not really,” they shrugged. “We’re a year out from the election, and foreign policy doesn’t drive elections.”

Moreover, the source explained, the polls that show young people’s negativity toward Biden are more venting than voting. And the campaign hasn’t even really started. “We’re not focused on mobilizing our constituencies yet,” the source said. “We’ll focus on that next year. What’s on the ballot is the preservation of American democracy, reproductive rights, wages have gone up. Among the youth, when presented with the choice [of Trump versus Biden], Biden still wins.” As one source close to the Biden administration put it, “Their bet is that people will come home. After a year of ads, a year of reminding everyone how terrible Trump is, they believe Democrats will come home.”

A senior Democratic source echoed that sentiment: The election is a year away, and Americans don’t vote on foreign policy issues. (Or, as a Biden campaign source put it, “I think this will feel distant in 11 months.”) “Joe Biden did what every American president would have done: He rushed to support Israel in its hour of need,” the senior Democratic source said. “Because that’s what the American government has done for as long as I can remember. Bush, Obama, Reagan, H.W. Bush, Trump, they all would have done everything the same to this point—except for Trump. He would’ve sent the never-ending supply of weapons to Israel but would not have pushed Netanyahu to allow humanitarian relief the way Biden has. The pause in the conflict, the increase in available gas, the significant boost in aid for the citizens in Gaza—those are all Joe Biden productions. It’s a shame he’s taken a lot of shit on this from nobody congressmen and trust-fund activists who tweet their frustration from their daddy’s Park Avenue penthouse.”

The source added, “It is horrific that so many children are losing their lives in Gaza, but that’s a Netanyahu issue, not a Biden issue. The unfortunate truth is that any American president would have facilitated that unnecessary tragedy.”

As for the oft-cited polls that Biden is losing Democrats, especially young ones, on Israel, the Democratic source said, “We really should ignore polling on that right now because people are emotional, nonsensical, and have no information about it. In times like these, you have to lead and ignore the polls.”

That said, I dug into some of the polls, which paint a far more complex picture than the write-ups about them in the media would have you think. For example, this weekend, a new CBS-YouGov poll was released with the following headline: “Most Americans disapprove of Biden’s handling of Israel-Hamas war.” The graphics made a compelling case. Sixty-one percent of Americans polled said they disapproved of Biden’s handling of the war, up from 56 percent in October.

But if you look more closely at the numbers in this poll, they show that discontent with Biden’s handling of the war is actually driven by conservatives, rather than progressives or young people. Fifty percent of Americans under 30 approve of the job Biden is doing when it comes to Israel and Hamas, whereas over 60 percent of people over 45 disapprove. Self-described liberals mostly approve (55 percent of those polled do, at least), whereas 77 percent of conservatives disapprove, as do half of moderates. Sixty-three percent of Democrats approve of Biden’s handling of the war, while 65 percent of independents and 78 percent of Republicans disapprove. Add that up, and you get the figure that CBS led with: 61 percent of Americans disapprove. Then again, that’s basically the percentage of Americans who disapprove of Biden’s job in general. (“Americans are like a disgruntled spouse,” the Democratic insider groused, adding that there seemed to be no pleasing them.)

Adding to the impression that discontent with Biden’s handling of the war isn’t driven by pro-Palestinian progressives is this number: 69 percent of Americans polled think Biden is providing either the right amount of aid to Israel or not sending enough. Only 31 percent think Biden is supporting Israel too much. Don’t believe me? Drill down further. In this CBS poll, 60 percent of Americans under 30 think Biden is either providing the right amount of aid or not enough aid. Fifty-three percent of liberal Americans think Biden is doing either the right amount or not enough for Israel. Likewise, 67 percent of Black Americans think the administration is providing just the right amount of aid or not enough of it, as do 72 percent of Hispanics. In fact, for all the stories about Biden losing voters of color on this issue, it is mostly white voters that, at least according to this poll, disapprove: 63 percent of white versus 48 percent of Black voters.

Again, this is only one poll, but other polls show similar patterns if you look into the numbers and not just at the “disapprove” column. Often, the columns of “handling it right” and “not doing enough” add up to more than “doing too much.” For example, this Gallup poll from late last month showed the same thing: 67 percent of Americans think America is sending either the right amount of aid to Israel or not enough of it. And broadly, Americans still support Israel, even as the war drags on and even though most of them also want the U.S. to send aid to Palestinians.

Then again, the election is 11 months away, and, according to the CBS poll, only 4 percent of those polled said they think the Israel-Hamas war is the most important issue facing the U.S. Leading the list? Inflation, immigration, the state of democracy, and gun violence.

Julia