Kamala Harris, the current Vice President, is purportedly going to be involved in high-level talks about the raging Gaza conflict in the imminent future, according to sources enduringly close to her. Ostensibly, her aides claim this shouldn’t be misconstrued as a shift away from the established US foreign policy agenda towards Israel, as it seems her performance as Vice President may be jarringly distinct from how she might conduct herself as a presidential nominee. Let’s be clear: this is a ploy to extend a message of empathy towards Palestinians which may bear no real mission of peace.
Remember last December? Kamala Harris was seen jet-setting to a climate conference in Dubai where she had secret discussions with the bosses of three unidentified Arab nations about the Israeli war against Hamas in the presently volatile Gaza Strip. The conflict had barely begun to escalate, initially sparked by an unprovoked militant outbreak in which approximately 1,200 innocent Israelis were brutally murdered, and countless others were held hostage by said militants. The political manoeuvring began when she seemed to moderately break away from President Biden’s narrative – which, by the way, was already struggling due to mounting domestic pressure.
Despite opposition, President Biden stuck by the increasingly controversial Benjamin Netanyahu’s side, effectively legitimizing the Israeli leader’s decisions regarding the conflict. The prolonged war has now reached over a year, culminating in the termination of Yahya Sinwar, known for his leadership role in Hamas. Strangely, both Harris and Biden have labelled this as an ‘opportunity’ to cease fire, painting a rather bizarre silver lining to a tragic event.
Circling back to the current state of affairs, despite Harris’ attempts to align herself with Biden’s strategies, it is obvious that she wouldn’t dare defy the established political dogma, especially not at such a precarious juncture in the conflict, and certainly not before the upcoming election. Instead, she reverts to her original blank rhetoric, insisting on a narrative of Gaza’s potential reconstruction, conditional on Israel’s safety and the return of their abductees.
Harris, during a visit to the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, has tried to paint a rosy picture insinuating an end to Gaza’s sufferings. She catapults an almost surreal image, envisioning Palestinians realizing their rights to dignity, security, freedom and self-determination. Her hope for a ‘Hamas-free’ day sounds too good to be true, doesn’t it? Just glossy words with no substantial policy alterations or clear insights about the way forward.
In the upcoming high-stakes meetings, Harris will allegedly be present, but her principled efforts will most likely be diverted towards her campaign activities. Initiating this with a stopover in Michigan’s Oakland County, Harris is projected to persistently promote the cessation of the conflict. Expectedly, she will not dare to urge Israel to unilaterally withdraw, a suggestion radical critics are demanding.
Delving a bit into the corresponding political landscape, it appears that Harris’s actions have unwittingly created a favorable circumstance for her infamous opponent, Mr. Donald Trump. Trump has shrewdly begun to woo the discontented Muslim and Arab voters in the strategically significant state of Michigan. Running a compelling campaign for the former president’s dream of a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, his surrogates are already spreading his message around the state.
A considerable victory of sorts came to the Trump camp when he received endorsement from the mayor of a petite Michigan locale, Hamtramck, notably administered by an all-Muslim City Council. Upcoming campaign promises entail meeting with Arab American and Muslim voters in forthcoming weeks, outlined by Trump’s running mate, Senator JD Vance of Ohio, during a heated campaign stop last week in Detroit.
While Vance acknowledges distinct viewpoints of the Arab and Jewish constituents regarding the Israel-Palestine issue, he emphasizes a converged interest between both these demographics – the longing for peace. He attributes this peacekeeping mantle to Trump, dubbing him ‘the president of peace.’
In a stark contrast to his usual rhetoric, former president Trump has maintained a conspicuous silence about the Gaza war, except for a solitary statement urging Israel to conclude its offensive due to its tarnishing international reputation. Can one, however, simply ignore Trump’s allusion to reconstructing Gaza as ‘better than Monaco’, owing to its abundant natural resources? A vague suggestion, at best, to mitigate the harsh reality endured by the Gazans.
One fundamental question remains: Has Trump really been a friend to Israel? Historically, Trump has allied himself with Netanyahu and was lauded by the right-wing Israelis when the US Embassy was relocated to Jerusalem during his tenure. His campaign trail has been rife with promises of protecting Israel and surprisingly blaming Jewish voters partially for his potential election loss. Unfounded claims – a trademark of Trump’s rhetoric.
Interestingly enough, former Trump advisers have expressed their doubts on his commitments regarding Israel. Harris’ office, on the other hand, has refrained from revealing any concrete information regarding her administration’s potential policy towards Israel and the Gaza conflict. Their explanation: the conflict’s extremely volatile nature.
If Harris were to win the upcoming election and, hypothetically, if the war should persist, one highly placard senior US official anticipates no shift in her policy. A glaring example of a political standstill, fuelled by uncertainty, pompous claims, and hidden political agendas.