Forgive me, but a part of me feels for Kamala Harris. Taking as true her capacity to be as progressive as Republicans warn she is, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to make the observation that she can’t possibly like her answer on how to rein in the Israeli government. She, in fact, does not have an answer to that question. She instead has words on the subject. Speaking with the National Association of Black Journalists, Harris fielded the following questions from Tonya Mosley:
“Madam Vice President, I want to switch gears a little bit and talk about the war in Gaza. You’ve called for a ceasefire hostage deal and a two-state solution as an end to the war for many months now. And while you’ve expressed support for Israel to defend itself, a two-state solution and a ceasefire are at odds with what Benjamin Netanyahu has said is their right to defense. If it matters, as you say, how Israel defends itself, where do you see the line between aggression and defense, and our power as Israel’s ally to do something?”
When I heard this question, I thought, “Okay, the interviewer has made clear they know what you’ve said on this topic before, Kamala—and how Israel has already publicized its opposition to a ceasefire deal and a two-state solution. Skip over the rehearsed response and use the saved time to speak to those who want to hear you say something, anything, beyond what they heard in the debate.” Harris did not budge. Her response:
“Okay. A lot to unpack in what you just said. So let’s start with this. I absolutely believe that this war has to end. And it has to end as soon as possible. And the way that will be achieved is by getting a hostage deal and the ceasefire deal done. And we are working around the clock to achieve that end. Stepping back, October 7, 1,200 Israelis were slaughtered. And actually, some Americans, by the way, in that number. Slaughtered. Young people who are attending a concert. Women were horribly raped. And yes, I have said Israel has a right to defend itself. We would. And—”
Picking up on the fact that Harris had defaulted to her stock response, the interviewer tried again: “But Madam Vice President, I think my ask is the difference between aggression and defense.”
Harris continued.
Harris: “No, let me finish. It’s important to put it in context, which is what I’m doing, and I’ll get to that. And so how it does so matters. And far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed. Women and children. We have seen with horror the images coming out of Gaza. And we have to take that seriously. And we have to agree that not only must we end this war, but we have to have a goal of a two state solution because there must be stability and peace in that [region]. In as much as what we do in our goal is to ensure that Israelis have security. And Palestinians [in] equal measure, have security, have self-determination and dignity.”
Taking as true that Kamala is as progressive as conservatives say she is, Kamala must know that her selective memory couched as “context” doesn’t reflect her own views, but rather the views of the United States. Anyone truly interested in context could not honestly say that October 7 occurred in a vacuum as a spontaneous, unprovoked attack completely devoid of explanation. But the United States, as a matter of policy, is not truly interested in context outside of what suits its own policy goals. Harris’ response, from the perspective of what one, or at least I, would expect from a progressive Kamala, is not only at odds with the perception of radical left Kamala, it’s starkly incongruent. Taken from the perspective of a mouthpiece of the United States government, particularly of its foreign policy agenda, Harris’ response makes much more sense. The United States is, from the perspective of government, her client. *This is not in any way to suggest that either position of plaintiff/defendant is inherently, or even exclusively, adverse to condemnable context.
As a matter of foreign policy, the United States is content to stand back and stand by, by resorting to cold war style intervention: arm the proxies, contain or push back the proxy adversaries, and in so doing, drag out the economic and military resources of its enemies, both proxy and actual. The Israeli government has been fine with this arrangement, it seems to me. Its actions in Gaza, and increasingly Lebanon, suggest it is taking full advantage of its allyship with the United States. The Israeli government is keen to remind its funders, namely Congress, of the ironclad security commitments and friendship between the United States and Israel. It openly questions what it believes is the absurd suggestion that it stop bombing Gaza, or Lebanon, or Yemen, or Iran; and/or that it stop pursuing fighters or commanders of Hamas and Hezbollah, especially where they lead to civilians, doubly especially when those civilians are children. The Israeli government has to know that the more heads it’s able to mount on its wall of ex-terrorist combatants, the more difficult it will be for recalcitrant Republicans looking to cut spending to say anything. “Cut from Ukraine,” I can imagine the Israeli government thinking. “They’re not providing the deliverables that we are.”
Using the language of international relations, the United States is willing to pacify dissenting voices through the suggestion of its use of soft power. Its diplomatic efforts will be fully utilized, we are told, by speaking with all stakeholders. The ever-elusive ceasefire deal will be achieved by putting pen to paper. The plainly impossible two-state solution will be accomplished the same way. Rather than issue retaliatory strikes against Israel when it kills, inadvertently or not, American citizens—as would be the case against enemy nations—the United States instead firmly asks for an investigation, wags its finger, and eventually accepts whatever answer Israel provides as to the reason for, or the errors behind, the killing. Biden appeared to accept Israel’s explanation that the killing of Turkish-American activist Aysenur Ezgi Eygi was inadvertent.
Harris’ response to the following question aligned with the presentation of soft power as the way, the exclusive way, to find some sort of end to the conflict in Gaza:
“A question for you on that though. What levers does the US have to support Palestinians in their right to self-determination? And is it even possible as Israel’s ally?”
Harris: “Well, absolutely. I will tell you, I have been actively involved in, for example, meeting not only with Israeli officials, but with Arab officials to talk about how we can construct a day after scenario, where we participate in ensuring those exact goals that I outlined, including as part of the principles that should be applied to those goals, that there be no reoccupation of Gaza. That there be no changing of the territorial lines in Gaza. That there be an ability to have security in the region for all concerned in a way that we create stability, and let us also recognize, in a way that ensures that Iran is not empowered in this whole scenario in terms of the peace and stability of the region. But absolutely, the United States of America absolutely has a role, which is why we have been active in particular with the Qataris and the Egyptians around attempting to get a deal done, and get it done as quickly as possible.”
Have meetings regarding, talk about, participate in, deals and agreements. Soft power, soft power, soft power. Sharp reporters pick up on responses that do not answer the question asked, or do not do so fully. The interviewer continued:
“Madam Vice President, just to follow up really quickly. Is there a specific policy change that you as President of the United States would say you would do that would help this along? Because you’ve gotten a lot of credit for emphasizing the humanity of Palestinians. But what I often hear from folks is that there’s no policy change that either you or President Biden have gone and said they would do. Is there a specific policy change as president that you would do in our helping of Israel?”
Harris: “We need to get this deal done. And we need to get it done immediately. And that is my position, and that is my policy. We need to get this deal done.”
Interviewer: “But in the way that we send weapons, and the way that we interact as their ally, are there specific policy changes?”
Harris: “Well, Eugene, for example, one of the things that we have done that I’m entirely supportive of is the pause that we’ve put on the 2000 pound bombs. And so there is some leverage that we have had and used. But ultimately, the thing that is going to unlock everything else in that region is getting this deal done. And I am not going to disclose private conversations. But I will tell you, I’ve had direct conversations with the Prime Minister, with the President of Israel, with Egyptian leaders and with our allies. And I think we’ve made ourselves very clear this deal needs to get done in the best interest of everyone in the region, including getting those hostages out who, I mean, we saw the latest example of what happened with the six most recently, one of whom was an American citizen.”
Interviewer: “But what do you say to those that say that’s not enough, that stopping the 2000 pound bombs, the one time wasn’t enough, that this administration, your possible administration has to do more?”
Harris: “Well, we are doing the work of putting the pressure on all parties involved to get the deal done. But let me be very clear also. I support Israel’s ability to defend itself. And I support the need for Palestinians to have dignity, self-determination and security as we move forward and get a two-state deal done. But right now, the thing we need to get done is this hostage deal and this ceasefire deal. We need a ceasefire. We need the hostage deal.”
I would have asked, “What has stood in the way of reaching a ceasefire deal, Madam Vice President, since we’ve already seen a number of them come and go?” But that’s neither here nor there. What is clear is that the United States will let the Israeli government be because the optics of standing against it will be worse than standing with it—no one is perfect after all, I suppose. The United States needs a foothold in the region, and Israel seems to be realizing that, actually, it can step on the feet of the United States—again, Americans are among the dead the IDF can lay claim to, including still-living hostages. What this suggests is that the United States has found in Israel an entity to do its dirty work, for dirt cheap—and Israel is all too happy to comply. American lives aren’t endangered because troops aren’t deployed en masse to deal with Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis—whatever proxies the United States has long viewed as inimical to “peace in the region”, and which mouthpieces of the government have expressed no hesitation in wiping out (recall Ted Cruz’s jubilantly musing whether “sand can glow in the dark.”).
“We need a ceasefire.” Netanyahu has expressly said there can be no ceasefire because there can be no pause because Hamas cannot be allowed to rebuild or regroup. The interviewer had already made this point.
“We need a hostage deal.” Netanyahu has suggested, if not said, that a hostage deal cannot happen because it’ll be tied to a ceasefire, and the reasons why a ceasefire can’t happen are already well known.
“We need a two-state deal done.” Netanyahu has expressly said this cannot happen—I’m still shocked he was so blatant in shooting down that possibility. Call me whatever, but to have a head of state outright come out against what everyone thought was the plan, and drop the pretense, is not something you see every day.
You may have noticed I use Kamala in some parts of this writing and Harris in others. This is intentional. The only way I can rationalize how “Comrade Kamala” coexists with Vice President Harris is by drawing on the Jekyll and Hyde analogy. Kamala “support[s] the need for Palestinians to have dignity, self-determination and security as we move forward and get a two-state deal done.” This would seem to give the thumbs up for pro-Palestine protesters to carry on their activities and exert soft power of their own. Kamala gets credit for humanizing the Palestinian struggle.
Vice President Harris, however, is perhaps restrained by her position and limited by the influence of her office to exert whatever power she can—which is also soft power. If this is true—the Vice President is not, after all, the Commander-in-Chief—then it would have to be the hope of those who want to see the destruction in Palestine stop, that Harris’ private conversations with stakeholders intimated that things may be as they are now, and she’ll report to the boss, but that they may not continue when she becomes the boss herself.
Kamala hasn’t given that answer. Neither has Harris. Kamala Harris’ answers on Gaza are, on their face, words glued together and divorced from fatal rebuttals, from Netanyahu himself. This is not to suggest that the United States is not, in fact, working to achieve what Harris says are the goals, but rather to acknowledge the possibility that whatever it’s doing is also actively being shoveled into the pit that is Netanyahu’s dismissal, with no check on those dismissals. And that bears further thinking not reflected here.
This conversation bears mentioning the protesters whose acts of protest have taken the form of self-immolation. I admit to seeing only two stories in the media, and I’m curious as to the other three that have supposedly taken place, as comments to news stories of the latest act of self-immolation were quick to point out (unhelpfully without supporting links). Not that I need to know all five instances of self-immolation, to the extent they’re true, to know why they’ve done it. As according to Matt Nelson, which echoed the earlier instance I’m aware of:
“My name is Matt Nelson, and I’m about to engage in an extreme act of protest. We are all culpable in the ongoing genocide in Gaza. We call ourselves the greatest nation in history, yet we spend more on weapons of war than we do on educating our children, helping the homeless, ensuring all Americans have equal rights and protecting the environment combined. We are slaves to capitalism and the military-industrial complex. Most of us are too apathetic to care. The protest I’m about to engage in is a call to our government to stop supplying Israel with the money and weapons it uses to imprison and murder innocent Palestinians, to pressure Israel to end the genocide in Gaza and to support the ICC indictment of Benjamin Netanyahu and other members of the Israeli government.”
I can’t say I disagree with any of the above. If I don’t disagree, I’d have to concede, based on Mr. Nelson’s observations and action, that I am apathetic as compared to him—after all, I am in no rush to self-immolate. Seems to me that Mr. Nelson considered all the ways one could protest the genocide in Gaza, and concluded all were woefully inadequate. Is any protest short of this extreme woefully inadequate? I would say no, but then I’d be forced to argue how whatever I did, or do, was or is more impactful than what Mr. Nelson did. I’d then have to argue about what “impactful” means. Morally, I think those who self-immolate have the upper hand in the better-than-thou argument, but the practical effect of Mr. Nelson’s action has been, regrettably, unimpactful as far as immediate changes in policy are concerned. It seems he’s still alive.
It’s this pre-occupation with the practical that I’ve been wrestling with this election cycle. I don’t claim Harris is a great choice. Given the options, it is my opinion that she is the only reasonable choice—under unreasonable circumstances—and the best choice for pro-Palestinian voices within the confines of how American Democracy works. I say this while also noting the very real possibility that “the best choice” could be marginally effective.
But there are people who are deeply dissatisfied with this country, on the right and left extremes. Though their reasons vary, their conclusion is the same: the US, as it is, is not worth saving.
On the left, this argument butts heads with the subsequent argument that, actually, rather than vote for Harris, one should vote for Stein, or anyone else—in other words, even though elections are corrupt and actually limiting of democratic will, the third party vote does something to signal dissatisfaction. I don’t see why anyone who holds the belief that this country is irredeemable would participate at all in its elections, since the argument relies upon guilt by association not just with a party, but the country itself.
On the right, this argument has to contend with the fact that the impetus for the whole “overthrow the government” sentiment arose as a response to the deeply undemocratic actions and words of a man who clearly doesn’t benefit from said democracy.
America’s logical end for both extremes is anything but present America—on the Left, I’d think you have to give the whole land back and that’s the end of that. On the right, you’d have a Handmaid’s Tale scenario, maybe not as overtly religiously horrible, but comparable in the rise of Gilead.
I admire what Mr. Nelson did. I don’t criticize his method of protest. I hope whatever is real of the soul doesn’t hurt as badly as he now physically does—but, of course it’s worse.
