News reports about what Vice President Harris said to leaders of the Uncommitted National Movement last week in response to their question as to whether she was open to meet with them to discuss a U.S. arms embargo on Israel last week created an outburst of controversy. However, her efforts to clarify raised more questions than it answered.
According to the New York Times, the group helped mobilize more than 100,000 people to cast “uncommitted” protest votes against President Biden in this years’ primary election in Michigan over his support for Israel. The group’s co-founders said in an interview that they expressed their unease with how the U.S. has continued to supply weapons to Israel, and that they asked Ms. Harris to meet with them to discuss their group’s demand for an arms embargo. They said she indicated that she was open to meeting with the group.
When this was taken by many to indicate she was open to the idea of an arms embargo, Harris’s campaign said “no way.” She was merely reiterating her general intention to engage with all communities.
This did not sit too well with the aforementioned NMU leaders who doubled down the day after the Harris “reiteration” hit. They said that she had “shared her sympathies and expressed an openness to meeting with Uncommitted leaders to discuss an arms embargo.” They said they had specifically asked for a meeting to discuss their demand for an arms embargo on Israel, “and in both cases, Vice President Harris expressed an interest in following up.”
However, it wasn’t the “he said-she said “ exchanges that were most troubling, although we think Ms. Harris was more forthcoming on the embargo issue than she is now willing to let on. It was the comment of Vice President Kamala Harris’s national security adviser, Phil Gordon that rang the most bells.
According to the New York Times, Gordon said that Ms. Harris would “always ensure Israel is able to defend itself against Iran and Iran-based terrorist groups. He added “She does not support an arms embargo on Israel. She will continue to work to protect civilians in Gaza and to uphold international humanitarian law.”
However, helping Israel to “defend” itself leaves open the question of whether she would support Israel’s taking the fight to the enemy’s homeland – which is often key to an effective defense – or limit help to driving back the enemy?
He also seems to be saying that right now she doesn’t support an embargo. But would she entertain imposing one if she were to become president?
And was there a gratuitous, backhanded criticism of Israel’s efforts to protect Gazan civilians? It sure seems like it. And will she rely on the manifestly corrupt UN, International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court to decide what is or is not compliance with international humanitarian law?
It seems to us that Ms. Harris had an opportunity to be more definitive on these critical issues but opted for calculated ambiguity instead. Unfortunately, her responses in this go-around plainly constituted a subtly aimed political message which was intended to hoodwink some and to be understood by a particular group. And that is the classic definition of a “dog whistle.”
