In the lead-up to the 2024 U.S. presidential election, Vice President Kamala Harris’s stance on Israel is drawing parallels to Barack Obama’s position on traditional marriage during his 2008 campaign. Both positions, while ostensibly supportive of their respective causes, raise questions about the depth and sincerity of their commitments.
The Obama Parallel
In 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama publicly supported traditional marriage, stating that “marriage is the union between a man and a woman.” This stance was crucial in securing the support of certain voter demographics, particularly in the African American church. However, years later, it was revealed by his political advisor, David Axelrod, that Obama had supported gay marriage all along but chose to hide his true position to avoid alienating key voters. This calculated political maneuvering allowed him to gain the presidency without jeopardizing his broader progressive agenda.
Kamala Harris on Israel
Kamala Harris’s position on Israel appears to follow a similar pattern. Publicly, Harris has expressed strong support for Israel’s right to defend itself. In a speech earlier this year, she reiterated this stance, saying, “I have said repeatedly since Oct. 7, Israel has a right to defend itself.” This statement seems designed to reassure Jewish voters, a traditionally strong Democratic voting bloc, that she stands with Israel during its conflict with Hamas.
Jewish voters are an important demographic, particularly in swing states like Pennsylvania and Nevada. In the 2020 election, they overwhelmingly supported Joe Biden, and Harris needs this support to maintain a winning coalition. The stakes are high, as the U.S.-Israel relationship is a key issue for many Jewish Americans, especially in the context of rising antisemitism and ongoing conflicts in the Middle East.
Under the Surface
Despite her public declarations, there are signs that Harris’s support for Israel may not be as strong as it appears. Critics point to instances where her actions and statements have seemingly validated narratives that are critical of Israel, particularly those coming from Hamas, a terrorist organization that frequently uses civilian areas to shield its military activities.
For example, after an Israeli airstrike targeted and killed 31 terrorists in a compound that included a school and mosque, Hamas claimed that Israel had killed over 90 people, including civilians. Despite Israel’s assertions that it had carefully targeted the strike to avoid civilian casualties, Harris responded by emphasizing the need for Israel to avoid civilian casualties, rather than directly addressing Hamas’s tactics of using human shields.
This nuanced criticism places Israel in a difficult position, where its legitimate self-defense efforts are under constant scrutiny and moral pressure, even from its supposed allies. Such rhetoric, while seemingly balanced, often plays into the hands of those who seek to delegitimize Israel’s right to self-defense.
A Deeper Discontent?
Further concerns about Harris’s commitment to Israel emerge from her broader political engagements. In July, she boycotted a congressional speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a move that was seen by some as a symbolic distancing from one of America’s closest allies. Moreover, Harris’s recent meetings with left-wing activists in Michigan, who advocate for an arms embargo on Israel, further fuel speculation about her true stance on the U.S.-Israel relationship.
Adding to the unease is the appointment of Ilan Goldenberg as her Jewish liaison. Goldenberg has a history of advocating for sanctions against Israel, raising questions about the direction of Harris’s policy towards the Jewish state.
The Domestic Dimension
Harris’s approach to domestic issues related to Israel and antisemitism also raises eyebrows. Despite her husband, Doug Emhoff, being Jewish, she has been criticized for not taking a stronger stand against antisemitism within her own party. For instance, when faced with pressure from pro-Hamas groups to avoid selecting Jewish politicians like Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro as a running mate, Harris instead chose Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. Walz has been criticized for his connections to figures who have made antisemitic remarks, further complicating Harris’s image as a strong ally of the Jewish community.
Harris’s response to antisemitic protests and actions on U.S. soil has also been cautious. When pro-Hamas protesters vandalized monuments and burned American flags during Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, D.C., Harris waited until the following day to issue a condemnation, a delay that did not go unnoticed by critics.
Conclusion
As Kamala Harris navigates the complex landscape of U.S. electoral politics, her stance on Israel may well be a carefully calibrated position designed to maintain support without fully committing to a robust pro-Israel agenda. Much like Barack Obama’s 2008 position on traditional marriage, Harris’s support for Israel might be more about political expediency than a deep-seated conviction. As the election approaches, voters will be watching closely to see whether Harris’s words align with her actions, both in the U.S. and on the international stage.