What does a Harris candidacy mean for US-Israel relations?
After President Biden’s late July decision to end his presidential bid and endorse Vice President Kamala Harris, speculation over the presumptive Democratic nominee’s policy platform and possible differences with the sitting president arose almost immediately. Many political commentators have predicted that Harris’ foreign policy will not diverge much from Biden’s foreign policy platform, continuing support for Ukraine and challenging China’s rise on the global stage. Likewise, the vice president’s approach to Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip will probably look, at least substantively, much the same as Biden’s strategy. However, Harris’ more critical track record on Israel differs from Biden’s approach in a few key aspects that bear monitoring amid the continuing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and growing tensions between Israel and Hezbollah.
A Moderate Voice for Humanitarian Concerns
As the Biden administration has faced increasing criticism over the mounting crisis in Gaza—Gazan health officials estimate the conflict’s death toll exceeds 39,000—Vice President Harris has taken notable steps in criticizing Israel’s actions. During a speech in March on the issue, Harris made headlines as the most senior official in the Biden administration to call for an “immediate ceasefire,” stating that “too many innocent Palestinians have been killed.”
In addition to the criticism, Harris’ intent behind the speech seemed to go deeper than the words she delivered. The speech’s location in front of Edmund Pettus Bridge had an added weight for US viewers, as the site witnessed a brutal police response against peaceful civil rights demonstrators in 1965. By choosing this location, Harris leaned into left-wing narratives relating the treatment of Palestinians to the United States’ own struggle with racial oppression. Subsequent NBC reporting on the speech also claimed that Harris’ rebuke of Israel over the “humanitarian catastrophe” had been softened by officials in the Biden administration’s National Security Council, indicating the politician’s initial desire to take an even stronger stance.
The vice president’s criticisms continued the following day when Harris met with Benny Gantz, at the time a member of Israel’s war cabinet, during his unauthorized visit to the United States. According to a readout from the White House, Harris urged Israel “to increase the flow of humanitarian assistance into Gaza,” establishing herself as a consistent voice in the administration willing to raise concerns, if only rhetorically, over Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.
Harris backed these calls later that month with indirect threats toward the Israeli government. In an interview with ABC News, Harris was one the first officials in the Biden administration to clarify US plans to respond with “consequences” were the Israeli government to move forward with a planned Rafah invasion.
And most recently, after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in late July, Harris provided a further rebuke to the Israeli war effort, saying she “will not be silent” in the face of the “dire humanitarian situation” in Gaza.
Biden’s Status Quo
As encouraging as momentary breaks with the Biden administration’s rhetoric may appear for pro-Palestinian advocates, Harris still ultimately falls in line with the administration’s stance. Most immediately, Harris has continuously endorsed the current approach to securing a ceasefire deal. After calling for an “immediate ceasefire” in March, Harris reaffirmed the Biden administration’s handling of the negotiation process, and during her meeting with Gantz, she placed responsibility for stalled ceasefire negotiations squarely on Hamas, calling on the organization “to accept the terms on the table whereby the release of hostages would result in an immediate six-week ceasefire.”
Beyond Israel’s war on Gaza, a broader policy shift on the US relationship with Israel also appears unlikely. In a conversation with The Times of Israel, a US official emphasized a consistent policy position between Harris and Biden, stressing their shared “support for an ironclad US commitment to Israel’s security coupled with a commitment to advancing a two-state solution.”
Indeed, this ironclad commitment and Israel’s “right to defend itself,” in Harris’ words, has often taken precedence over the vice president’s humanitarian concerns. Harris’ threats of “consequences” for a Rafah invasion stand as a telling example. While the Biden administration did initially withhold an arms shipment to Israel after the country began evacuating Rafah in preparation for operations in the densely populated area, the United States nevertheless advanced $1 billion in arms within a week of the decision. Of course, Harris would not have been responsible for the decision, but the vice president’s public silence on the matter stands as implicit acquiescence after posturing herself as the administration’s advocate for human rights in the conflict.
Signaling Change
Harris’ comments on Israel have not resulted in any meaningful modification to Biden administration policies. But a lack of policy reform does not necessarily signify adherence to the status quo. Although the vice president has not fundamentally altered US relations with Israel, her critical statements of the country and public support for Gaza inherently signal a distinct change in Democratic politics and will likely impact the race for president.
Indeed, Harris’ moderation on the issue has not occurred in isolation. Instead, the vice president is responding directly to grassroots opposition to unconditional support for Israel. According to Pew Research Center polling, a growing number of Americans, especially youth, disagree with the current administration’s approach to dealing with Israel. Reflecting this shift, Harris drew a stark contrast between herself and the president while discussing student protests. While Biden condemned the protests as “chaos,” Harris said, “They are showing exactly what the human emotion should be, as a response to Gaza.” While clarifying that she does not endorse everything the protestors have said, the vice president undoubtedly aimed to avoid alienating the key demographic in November.
In the same vein, Harris’ moderation also targets voters in swing states like Michigan. In 2020, President Biden won the state by around 150,000 votes, but in 2016, former President Donald Trump won the state by just under 11,000 votes. Given these close margins for victory, the state’s sizable Arab and Muslim populations have raised concerns over the administration’s stance on Israel.
Substantiating these fears, a grassroots campaign encouraging Michiganders to vote “uncommitted” in the state’s Democratic presidential primary garnered over 100,000 votes, spelling danger for Biden’s chances in Michigan’s general election. But with Harris ascending to the top of the ticket, Muslim community leaders have indicated openness to changing their position depending on her stances, shining greater light on Harris’ increasing criticism of Israel.
Still, substantive policy change to accompany the vice president’s rhetoric seems unlikely in the near future. But the presidential candidate’s openness to dissenting opinions on Israel reveals a deeper appetite within the Democratic Party and among young voters for such a change. In this way, Harris may not overturn decades of US support for Israel, but her candidacy does represent a step away from unequivocal support and stands as a warning against further escalation to conflict in the region.