In the coming days, Vice President Kamala Harris, will ostensibly be involved in top-tier discussions concerning the ongoing conflict in Gaza. Her advisers, however, suggest that she will maintain her major focus on the campaign trail. Her purported empathy for Palestinians, according to her advisers, does not equate to any inclination to deviate from established U.S. foreign policy toward Israel in her potential presidential run. Despite the narrative of empathy, it seems Harris intends to toe the party line.
Several months ago, Vice President Harris attended a climate conference in Dubai. During this event, she met with representatives from three Arab nations to exercise diplomatic discretion concerning Israel’s struggle against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. At the time, the conflict was in its early stages, stemming from a horrific terrorist attack with a devastating toll on life and liberty in Israel.
As the war progressed, the perceived planning for the aftermath could be seen to clash with President Biden’s approach, who at that time was grappling intensively with rising domestic dissent over his alignment with Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister. The narrative is such that, while the president seemed to be in lockstep with Netanyahu even in the face of domestic disapproval, Harris was giving the impression of being ahead of the curve.
The conflict has surged beyond the year mark, the death of Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas, is being presented by both Biden and Harris as a potential turning point to possibly check the ongoing violence. Should Harris veer from her agreement with Biden’s strategy, her advisers assert that she will not succumb to political influences to shake up U.S. foreign policy, especially during this risky period and shortly before an election.
Harris seems to be pivoting back to her previous rhetoric, underscoring the notion that if Israelis are certain of their safety and hostages are freed, Gazans may soon get a chance to rebuild. This flip to tonal empathy can decieve some, however, the substance appears to be lacking in new direction or tangible solutions. Making it seem like Harris’s empathy is mere lip service without concrete actions or policy changes.
On a campaign stop at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Harris offered rhetoric on Palestinian rights, a haunting echo of the winter’s narrative. However, her words, ‘the suffering in Gaza ends and the Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity, security, freedom and self-determination’, are but a hint at a possible change in the status quo.
Despite this, Harris and her advisers maintain her active role in high-level deliberations but with her primary attention being on the campaign trail. Her itinerary included Michigan’s Oakland County, from where she is anticipated to continue voicing her desire for the conflict’s cessation without prodding Israel to unilaterally pull back — a demand critics of the administration want her to champion.
Interestingly, this strategy seems to be cracking open a door for former President Trump, who has begun to woo the disenchanted Muslim and Arab voters in Michigan. Trump’s allies are canvasing Michigan, painting the former president as the figurehead who could bring tranquility in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Adding to this momentum, the mayor of a small Michigan city, Hamtramck, governed by an all-Muslim City Council, endorsed Trump. Last week, during a campaign stop in Detroit, Senator JD Vance of Ohio, Trump’s running mate, reached out to Arab American and Muslim voters, promising meetings in the weeks to come.
In his speech, Vance acknowledged the differing views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict between Jewish Americans and Arab Americans, however, he stressed that peace was in the best interest for all parties. Curiously, he termed Trump as the ‘president of peace’. This certainly paints a contrast against the current administration’s perceived lack of progress in the conflict.
Trump has been selective in his comments on the Gaza war, other than suggesting that Israel needed to conclude its offensive as it was damaging its international reputation. He even went as far as possible to suggest that Gaza could potentially be restored ‘better than Monaco’, citing its natural resources.
On a recent occasion, Trump acclamation of Netanyahu for ‘doing a good job’ cast a shadow on Biden’s approach, suggesting that ‘Biden is trying to hold him back’. Regarding Sinwar’s death, Trump noted his personal opinion saying: ‘He was not a good person. That’s my reaction. That’s sometimes what happens.’. Trump’s candid responses continue to stir the narrative pot.
Ever the diplomat, Trump asserted his strong support for Israel, both at home and abroad. He claimed more has been done for the country than by any previous U.S. president, while casting aspersions about hypothetical scenarios without his ‘protection’. This charm offensive is a stark contrast to the ambiguity in the policy goals of the current administration.
In contrast, Harris’s office and campaign decline to provide specific details on what political approach toward Israel and the Gaza war would look like under a Harris administration. It suggests the volatility of the conflict precludes predicting the approach even just a few days ahead, not to mention months into the future. Thus, the uncertainty currently clouding the direction of U.S. foreign policy continues to prevail.