Will Kamala Harris squander support from Palestine advocates?

Last Thursday, US Vice President Kamala Harris delivered a significant speech in Chicago as she accepted the Democratic Party's nomination for the upcoming presidential election. The speech, intended to solidify her leadership credentials and unify American society, has sparked widespread debate, particularly regarding her stance on the ongoing war in Gaza.

Harris’s speech was a crucial moment in her journey to the White House, and she attempted to present herself as a leader capable of addressing both domestic and international controversies. However, her brief and somewhat evasive comments on the war in Gaza have raised concerns among advocates for Palestine, many of whom feel that her stance mirrors the status quo rather than offering the courageous leadership they seek.

In the lead-up to Harris’s speech, protests were organised by opponents of the ongoing conflict in Gaza, particularly by members of the large Palestinian community in Chicago. These protesters called for an end to US arms exports to Israel and demanded that the US take a firmer stance against the Israeli government's actions in Gaza. Despite their efforts, the demonstrators were met with restrictive measures, including being confined to specific areas away from the conference venue and facing a heavy police presence.

Inside the conference, the atmosphere was equally disheartening for Palestine supporters. Reports indicate that Palestinian-Americans were not allowed to speak at the event, leading some to stage a sit-in in protest. Harris’s remarks during the speech, in which she reaffirmed her support for Israel's right to defend itself while making only brief mentions of a ceasefire, did little to reassure those hoping for a shift in US policy toward Gaza.

Harris's adherence to the Biden administration's pro-Israel stance has led many Palestine advocates to question whether she can truly represent their interests. For many, Harris missed an opportunity to win over key voters in battleground states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Arizona. What is needed now is courageous leadership that breaks with the current approach, a call that Harris has so far failed to answer. In “Little Palestine”, a Chicago suburb with a significant Palestinian population, many residents were shocked by Harris's speech, which they felt did not differ enough from the Biden administration's policies.

Kamala Harris’s stance on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is largely seen as an extension of the Biden administration's policies. In her recent Chicago speech, Harris reaffirmed her unwavering support for Israel, echoing Biden’s rhetoric of Israel’s right to defend itself. While she mentioned the need for a ceasefire and humanitarian considerations in Gaza, her remarks were brief and cautious, likely aimed at balancing the interests of her base with the broader Democratic platform.

Harris’s approach reflects a desire to maintain the status quo, avoiding any significant deviation from current US foreign policy. This includes continued military aid to Israel and diplomatic protection in international forums. Her stance is likely driven by a strategic calculation to avoid alienating pro-Israel voters and influential lobbying groups, while also attempting to placate the growing number of Democrats who are increasingly critical of Israel’s actions.

However, this middle-ground approach has led to dissatisfaction among many Palestine advocates, who feel that Harris is not offering the bold leadership needed to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Her reluctance to take a firmer stance against Israel’s actions suggests that under a Harris administration, US policy towards the Palestinian-Israeli conflict may remain largely unchanged, focusing on maintaining strong ties with Israel while offering only limited concessions to the Palestinian cause.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, has taken a more explicit and unyielding approach to supporting Israel. During his presidency, Trump made several controversial moves that significantly altered the landscape of US-Israel relations, including recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moving the US embassy there. His administration also brokered the Abraham Accords, normalising relations between Israel and several Arab nations, which was hailed as a diplomatic success by his supporters but criticised by others for sidelining the Palestinian issue.

Trump’s platform, as articulated by the Republican Party, pledges to stand firmly with Israel, with little regard for Palestinian grievances. His rhetoric often dismisses concerns about Israeli military actions, framing them as necessary measures in the fight against terrorism. This has endeared him to pro-Israel voters and the evangelical Christian base, both of whom are key components of his support network.

Trump’s approach is characterized by a disregard for the two-state solution, which has been a cornerstone of US foreign policy for decades. Instead, his policies have leaned toward unconditional support for Israel, often at the expense of Palestinian rights and aspirations. If reelected, it is expected that Trump would continue to champion Israel’s interests, likely at the cost of further marginalising the Palestinian cause on the international stage.

The primary difference between Harris and Trump lies in their tone and approach. Harris’s more measured rhetoric reflects an attempt to navigate the complex dynamics of her party, which includes both staunch supporters of Israel and a growing contingent of pro-Palestinian voices. Trump, in contrast, has embraced a more unapologetic and unilateral stance, prioritising Israel’s security and strategic interests above all else.

While both candidates are unlikely to make dramatic shifts in US policy towards Israel, Harris’s approach suggests a continuation of the Biden administration's policies, which offer limited engagement with Palestinian concerns. Trump’s approach, however, is likely to further entrench US support for Israel, potentially exacerbating tensions in the region and diminishing the prospects for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

For voters who prioritise the Palestinian-Israeli issue, the choice between Harris and Trump may come down to whether they prefer the stability and predictability of Harris’s continuity with Biden, or Trump’s more aggressive and unabashed support for Israel. Neither candidate, however, appears poised to significantly alter the current trajectory of US involvement in the conflict, leaving advocates for Palestine with limited options for change.

The ongoing conflict in Gaza has become a contentious issue in the US presidential race, with both Democratic and Republican candidates wary of addressing it directly due to the potential political fallout. Neither Harris nor her Republican opponent, Donald Trump, offers a clear choice for those seeking a change in US policy towards Israel and Palestine. While the Republican platform explicitly supports Israel, the Democratic stance, though slightly more nuanced, still largely aligns with Israel’s interests.

The reliance on either party to adopt a firm stance against Israel appears increasingly futile, especially given the significant influence of the Jewish and Zionist lobbies in the US. However, this does not mean that advocates for Palestine should give up hope. Recent opinion polls suggest that public support for Palestine in the US is growing, with a majority of Americans opposing the continued supply of weapons to Israel.

Despite the challenges, the movement for Palestinian rights in the US remains strong. As the election approaches, the question remains whether Kamala Harris will heed these voices or continue to align with the established pro-Israel policies that have long dominated American politics. The answer could determine not only the outcome of the election but also the future of US foreign policy in the Middle East.