Should Harris be afraid of Palestine?
There is a growing feeling among US voters that the current administration could have handled the situation in Gaza more effectively. Especially after how the secretary of state Antony Blinken’s efforts in the Middle East to get a ceasefire and start diplomatic negotiations ended in a spectacular failure. And it was not just a minor failure – Blinken’s mission was perceived by many as an attempt by Joe Biden to score yet another page, after maintaining the independence of Ukraine, to his long-term legacy. Nevertheless, the complicity in genocide, or how others portray it, ineffectiveness in imposing the humanitarian standards may have an impact on their voting intentions in the upcoming elections.
A report by Foreign Policy and the Middle East Institute report shed light on the ways in which voting patterns in the US can shape foreign policy, outlining three key points about American voters.
It appears that the economy and immigration are the issues that tend to resonate most. Secondly, it is evident that the majority of Americans feel that the country is heading in a direction that is not entirely in line with their expectations. It would seem that foreign policy does not often feature among their primary concerns.
A Gallup poll conducted in March indicates that approximately one-third of Americans are satisfied with the nation’s global standing, while nearly two-thirds express dissatisfaction, according to Foreign Policy. When it comes to the first one, the main results say that: “Sixty-five percent of Americans prefer the U.S. to take the leading (20%) or a major role (45%) in world affairs. This is down from 69% in 2019 and 72% as recently as 2017. The current figure is one percentage point below the prior low from 2011. In almost all years since Gallup first asked in 2001, more than seven in 10 Americans have favored a leading or major role for the U.S., including a high of 79% in February 2003”.
Moreover, in a notable shift in opinion, a majority of Americans now express reservations about the deployment of U.S. troops to defend Israel in the event of an attack by neighbouring countries, according to a recent Washington Post report.
The findings, based on the results of a nationwide survey, suggest a change in sentiment compared to previous polls conducted over the past decade.
The results of the poll, conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs think tank, indicate that 55 percent of Americans are reluctant to send armed forces to Israel in the event of a potential conflict with Arab countries. Such a solution was endorsed by 41 percent of respondents.
Responses varied according to the voting preferences of survey participants. Republican supporters were particularly supportive of this course of action, with 55 percent indicating their backing for the deployment of troops. However, only 35 percent of Democratic partisans and independent voters responded positively to the idea.
This discrepancy is further highlighted by the visible presence of pro-Palestine demonstrators outside the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, calling for an end to US support for “Israel”. It is worth noting that these demonstrators were not present on the official platform inside.
Biden has faced some criticism from progressives, young voters and Arab Americans due to his support for Israel amid the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Despite the new leadership of the Democratic ticket with Vice President Kamala Harris, there is still a sense that there is room for improvement.
Michigan, a state of great importance in the electoral process, is home to a significant Arab American community. It may well turn out to be a pivotal element in the closely contested race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Harris. In the Democratic primary in Michigan, over 100,000 voters cast “non-committal” ballots, which could be interpreted as a form of protest against Biden’s “Israel” policy. While the number of votes cast was insufficient to alter the result of the primaries, given the lack of competition, their impact was significant, and the party was therefore compelled to consider them.
Harris’ problems
The local community expressed their concerns as a result of an initiative by two local Democratic Party activists, Abbas Alawieh and Layly Elabed. They encouraged party activists to consider casting invalid votes in a primary in which only President Joe Biden was running. The movement, known as No Commitment, rapidly gained traction across multiple states, becoming a significant intra-party movement with national implications.
The founders of the No Commitment movement say they want to help Kamala Harris win the presidency by mobilising the Arab-American community. This, however, depends on her attitude to the Palestinian cause. And according to them, calling for the signing of a ceasefire, which Harris has been involved in for a long time, is insufficient. They postulate threatening Israel with an arms and ammunition embargo, which they believe would reduce the suffering of Palestinian civilians.
“That demand is a tall order, since pro-Israel groups are also a major force in Democratic politics. Calling for an arms embargo would spark outrage and dramatically change longstanding American policy toward Israel.” — Stockman stressed in her essay on the movement.
Nevertheless, some Democratic Party politicians would prefer not to hear about the Palestinian issue at all during the election campaign, and this could have implications for the Democrats in the general election.
It would be fair to say that Harris has not yet had the opportunity to discuss her foreign policy positions in a major media interview, having only recently become the presumptive nominee. This silence could potentially contribute to a sense of uncertainty among voters who may be inclined to abstain or vote without commitment.
In such a context, foreign policy, especially regarding Gaza and Israel, has the potential to serve as an indicator of a candidate’s character and competence. This could influence voters who are closely monitoring these issues, as highlighted by Ronald Linden, a researcher at the University of Pittsburgh.
In a somewhat contradictory move, while continuing to provide military aid to Israel, Biden said on the first day of the DNC that the pro-Palestinian protesters outside the DNC in Chicago “have a point,” adding that “a lot of innocent people are being killed on both sides” and that the time has come to “end this war.”
This is another example of the US President making statements that appear to be at odds with the actions of the administration concerning “Israel”. Some observers have expressed concern that this may indicate a continued complicity in the ongoing conflict.
The New Republican Party stands with Israel
At the same time, Republican voters are seemingly largely unfazed by the genocide perpetrated in Palestine. Before and after the 7 October, most of them were and remain loyal to the US’ cause of protecting Israel. That is so, even if in the surveys, as we have seen, data might suggest something else, there is no action confirming the impact of Israeli-American relations on their electoral choices — in contrast to what is currently happening in the Democratic electorate.
Nevertheless, it is worthy pointing out some cracks in the facade. In the Republican Party, or, as some want to dub it — under Trump’s reign — the New Republican Party allegedly there has been a debate on Israel. One that did not make the headlines, even though for some there were external signs of it.
It appears that an infamous journalist, Tucker Carlson, has tried to change the narrative around Israel. In April, he published an interview with a Palestinian Christian, Reverend Munther Isaac of the Evangelical Lutheran Christian Church. The Pastor criticised Christian leaders in the United States for failing to oppose the destruction in Gaza, which, he claimed, threatens Christians in Palestine, at the same time providing proof of the Israeli brutal approach towards them.
Before that in February in Lex Friedman’s interview with Carlson, the latter expressed that the US’ security guarantees are not helping Israel in the long term, and underlined that the best possible outcome would be given by trade and normal relations in the region, even if “John Bolton doesn’t like it” — forceful words for someone who’s one of the main conservative pundits in American public debate. What’s more he strongly attacked the US’ foreign policy in the Middle East, saying that it lacks wisdom and is short-sighted.
According to the Zionist magazine Mosaic, the whole debate was limited to a battle of influence between evangelical supporters of Israel and nationalists and anti-Semites, with Carlson being the latter. However, it is difficult to assess what impact this debate has had on the party’s actions or the views of its voters, At this point, however, it can be said that the issue is potentially evolving, but that it may only take some time, possibly many years, for it to take its mature form — an open and comprehensive critique of Israel and US Middle East policy.
For the moment, the New Republican Party stands firm in its position of supporting Israel.
Where are we heading?
Experts at the US think tank Middle East Institute (MEI) say it is difficult to forecast US Middle East policy after next year’s White House transition. Donald Trump has so far avoided making clear statements on the Palestinian-Israeli issue, while Kamala Harris is merely following up on the Joe Biden administration. According to MEI experts, the official agenda of the Republican Party gives few clues about US foreign policy in the Middle East, beyond slogans of restoring peace in the region and supporting Israel.
Nonetheless, the actions of the years of his 2017-2021 presidency may provide a clue to the future steps of a possible Trump administration. A characteristic feature of these actions was to put pressure on Iran and its allies through economic sanctions, strong diplomatic rhetoric, but also through spotty military actions; an example of the latter is the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in 2020.
These actions would be accompanied by deprioritising human rights and democracy promotion in relations with countries in the region, while putting economic issues in the centre of attention. The Trump administration easily worked with Egypt’s dictatorial President Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, but also with the leaders of Saudi Arabia and other non-democratic Gulf States. This could could result in a return to efforts to normalise Israeli-Saudi relations in a formula similar to the 2020 Abraham Accords, which saw the settlement of Israel’s relations with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain under US auspices, followed by Morocco and Sudan.
According to experts, we could also see the return of a ban on immigration from Muslim-majority countries, but also a reduction in the US military presence in the region, which would focus on relying on allies or long-range equipment such as drones.
As for Harris’ presidency, MEI experts point out that she has had few opportunities to gain foreign policy experience since 2021. However, it is highly likely that she will maintain the general diplomatic direction outlined by President Biden.
One of the most prominent features of her eventual presidency would be a reliance on not so much bilateral but multilateral relations involving broader regional or global cooperation. According to MEI experts, “Harris is a staunch advocate of international cooperation, willing to work with US allies to limit the influence of adversaries such as Russia, China, and Iran”.
On the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Harris would focus on diplomatic solutions. Speaking at COP28 in Dubai in December 2023, she stressed that reconstruction, security, and governance are key to the future Gaza issue. Stating that all these responsibilities should fall to the Palestinian Authority, run by Fatah and Mahmoud Abbas. She argued for a revival of the PA’s governance so that it can manage both the West Bank and Gaza, nevertheless it sounds at least like a pretty wishful thinking, not supported by any political means and tactics. The question of how to achieve this goal has never been answered by Kamal so far. Today, Harris continues to assert the White House’s full support for a ceasefire and prisoner exchange by both sides.
Trump often describes himself as “the best friend Israel has ever had”. In May 2018, his administration moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and the following March also recognised the annexation of the Golan Heights.
Moreover, his 2020 peace proposal was “a complete departure from the Oslo Accords and recognised the possible annexation of the West Bank. [A part of] Palestinians would be forced to live in reservation cities. This would have been a tragedy for the Palestinian people and the final elimination of their dream of their own statehood” — an expert on Middle East affairs, Wojciech Szewko, tells me.
The status quo?
The authors of the MEI report observe that there appears to be a divergence of opinion regarding US foreign policy. It would seem that, at this time, the Middle East is not a prominent feature in domestic political discourse, and that Middle East policy issues do not appear to be a significant factor influencing the outcome of the US presidential election. It would seem that the economy, abortion, immigration, climate change and concerns about the state of democracy in America are currently receiving more attention than foreign policy issues, including those relating to China or Russia’s war against Ukraine. At the same time, it would be fair to say that world leaders are keeping a close eye on what the US presidential candidates say about foreign policy, as any statement could potentially lead to action with significant global implications.
Nevertheless, the latest developments, as well as the change of perception among American voters during the ongoing birth of new global polarisation will leave a mark on the upcoming elections. Is it going to somehow shape the policies of certain candidates? That is yet to be seen, however most of the experts would say “no”. Even if we see any seemingly groundbreaking statements or assurances the American involvement in the Middle East will stay as it is. The only open question right now is whether the Trump’s administration will reduce American presence in Europe, and Ukraine, to engage troops in East Asia.
Despite the unhinged American establishment, however, we can count on the change in public sentiment to have a significant impact on the election, the vote and, ultimately, on who resides in the White House — the question is not if, but rather to what extent.
Cover photo: pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli demonstration in the US (Photo by Ted Eytan, Creative Commons)
Subscribe to Cross-border Talks’ YouTube channel! Follow the project’s Facebook and Twitter page! And here are the podcast’s Telegram channel and its Substack newsletter!
Like our work? Donate to Cross-Border Talks or buy us a coffee!
About The Author
