The ambiguity surrounding Vice President Kamala Harris’s stance on Israel’s position is hilarious. Not only has she cleverly eluded giving clear-cut statements on the matter, but she has also managed to impress her media cohorts who applaud her for holding off-the-record briefings, a nuanced irony. The lack of transparency makes it even more challenging for Americans who must resort to political inferences to understand her position.
One cannot help but notice how Harris is trying to play both sides of the coin, a classic political maneuver. She hesitates to clearly state whether the U.S.’s longstanding alliance with Israel is still important or if the U.S. would continue defending Israel, an act that would disrupt the status quo of the current administration and those before. At the same time, she is attempting to appease the left wing of her party, suggesting a diluted support for Israel, painting it as the colonial oppressor of Gaza.
In their pursuit to interpret Harris’s position on the matter, activists have made some noteworthy remarks. Wa’el Alzayat, the CEO of Emgage, shared with Politico: ‘Through her statements and leaked conversations, she does radiate a different vibe,’ which quite humorously implies Harris might be keeping her true feelings under wraps.
Before a rally in Dearborn, Michigan, both Harris and Vice presidential nominee Tim Walz met with representatives of the Uncommitted National Movement. A peculiar interaction was documented in interviews given by Layla Elabed, a campaign manager with the mentioned group, and Abbas Alawieh, a co-founder of the same. They described their meeting with Harris and her vague interest in an arms embargo discussion.
The intimation of Harris’s potential willingness to sit down for an arms embargo talk shrouds the whole issue under more ambiguity. The activists did maintain their statements had room for interpretation while describing the meeting, attributing phrases like ‘something to the effect of’. Despite their bias, their insiders’ view seems to bring a certain degree of credibility to the discussion.
However, the amusement increased as inconsistency crept in. A day after the meeting, a campaign aide reportedly announced that Harris had not agreed to discuss imposing an arms embargo on Israel contrary to what Elabed and Alawieh claimed they heard during their exchange with her. The contradiction doesn’t quite strike as a shock, considering Harris’s track record of vacillating standpoints.
Deceit and vagueness have often been the tools preferred by politicians when it comes to the Middle East, and Harris appears to be no different. Maneuvering through the complex dynamics of political sentiments, Harris seems caught between the necessity to pander to both critical Israel supporting groups, like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the pro-Palestinian voters of Michigan whose disapproval could hamper her campaign’s success.
In an interesting twist, groups supporting Israel have proven quite successful in ousting their opponents in political offices, such as New York Rep. Jamaal Bowman and Missouri’s Rep. Cori Bush. Thus, the last thing Harris needs is having such influential groups rallying behind Republicans instead of supporting her campaign.
What is most telling is the absence of any concrete solutions from Harris, for either her campaign or the issue of the Middle East. The people caught between the conflict are subjected to a constant state of fear and destruction. Meanwhile, Harris’s indecisiveness only serves to further complicate the crisis, leaving them with no choice but to hold on to rapidly hardening positions on both sides.
It’s curious to note that Biden’s consistent support for Israel was never a question, widely recognized even in the Middle East. His disagreement with the Israeli Prime Minister’s tactics during the Gaza conflicts was contextual. No one could doubt that Biden believed in Israel’s right to exist and defend itself. However, Harris’s lack of history in the area makes her leanings a subject of intense debate on both sides of the conflict.
While some Middle East observers argue that Harris might find discussing an arms embargo appealing, it clearly does not qualify as an act of alliance. Not to mention, for those within pro-Palestinian groups who avidly wish for the downfall of Israel’s current leadership, such a stance could be fueled with ulterior motives.
As a president, Harris will have the freedom to chart her own course for the Middle East. But before she attains that power, Americans are entitled to a clear understanding of her perspective, and the voters deserve to know the stand she will take on the Middle East issue.
Readers and Americans alike must now wonder when the Vice President will rise from her throne of ambiguity and answer direct questions on this matter, along with the host of other insecurity inducing concerns that have been left pending. Or will she continue to dance around the issue, casting a denser cloud of confusion around her true stance?
Harris’s Hilarity: Uncertainty Clouds Stance on Israel appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
