In the course of her celebrated CNN interview this past Thursday night, Vice President and presidential candidate Kamala Harris caused considerable concern about her position on the issue of attaching conditions on U.S. military aid to Israel in order to force Israel to reduce its military activity in Gaza and thereby, supposedly reduce civilian casualties. Previously, her longtime position seemed to be that she was not in favor of any conditions and agreed with President Biden on this. But then came the waffling which came into sharper focus in the CNN interview.
It will be recalled that several weeks ago, we noted here that The New York Times reported that a pro-Palestinian group that was very actively involved in Michigan Democratic politics was claiming that Ms. Harris had personally agreed to meet with them to meet about their complaint about continued U.S. military supplies to Israel and to discuss an arms embargo. When her agreement to meet was touted by the group as indicating that she was open to the idea of an embargo the Harris camp said no, she was merely reiterating her general intention to engage with all communities.
According to The New York Times, Vice President Harris’s national security adviser, Phil 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.”
On Thursday night, however, as reported by The New York Post, troublingly, Ms. Harris glossed over the situation. Asked by the host if she would withhold U.S. weapons shipments to Israel in its war with Hamas, she carefully dodged and refused to answer the question.
Thus, when asked whether she would do “anything differently” than President Biden as it relates to Israel’s war against Hamas – including implementing an arms embargo against the Jewish state, she didn’t explicitly rule it out: “Let me be clear . I am unequivocal and unwavering in my commitment to Israel’s defense and its ability to defend itself and that’s not going to change. [But] How it does so matters. Far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed, and we have got to get a deal done.”
These were hardly encouraging words. Given Ms. Harris’s notorious penchant for freely abandoning long-held progressive positions in her effort to attract voters, with respect, even non-ambiguous commitments would be suspect. All the more so when we are given calculated ambiguities.
