As delegates assembled in Chicago for the start of the Democratic National Convention on August 19, something surreal was happening 6,000 miles away in Israel. In Tel Aviv, the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, declared that Israel had accepted a “bridging proposal” to move towards a ceasefire. He insisted that it was now up to Gaza’s Hamas leadership to say yes.
Yet even as he spoke, officials from both the Israeli government and Hamas said there had been no movement in the peace talks in Qatar.
This is far from surprising, given that just three weeks before, Hamas’s chief negotiator and political leader, Ismail Haniyeh, had been assassinated in Tehran, almost certainly by Israel. Then, when Israel’s negotiators told their prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, on August 18 that they needed some room to manoeuvre – and that after months of negotiations, a deal based on his positions could not be agreed – he reportedly refused to budge.
So, as Blinken made his statement that a deal was within reach, Netanyahu was telling the families of hostages held by Hamas that he was “not sure there will be a deal”. The Hostage Families Forum commented that: “The prime minister’s remarks are effectively a torpedoing of the hostage deal. Netanyahu won’t face [the fact] that abandoning the hostages leads to their being murdered in captivity.”
Meanwhile, 6,000 miles away outside the United Center in Chicago, a group of pro-Palestine protesters called for an end to the Israeli offensive, cursing the man they call “Genocide Joe” Biden. Inside, Democratic attendees were honouring the outgoing US president. As he accepted his party’s plaudits, Biden made a declaration which has proved to be illusory: “A few days ago, I put forward a proposal that brought us closer to that goal [of peace] than we’ve been since October 7th.”
Biden has presided over a deeply divided Democratic Party on the issue of the conflict in Gaza. But he has long been a solid supporter of Israel, and raced to Tel Aviv soon after the October 7 attacks to show solidarity with Netanyahu, whom he bear-hugged, pledging: “As long as the United States stands – and we will stand forever – we will not let you ever be alone.”
Overcoming Gaza
Biden’s successor at the top of the Democratic ticket, Kamala Harris, has taken a different approach to Gaza and the future of Israel and Palestine, including being more overt in her demands for a ceasefire. It remains to be seen how she will approach the divisions in her party on the issue as she campaigns for the White House between now and November.
Before Biden stepped out of the race in July, the conventional wisdom among many analysts was that Israel-Gaza could cost the Democrats the election. In the key swing state of Michigan, there are officially 211,405 Arab Americans – with some estimates of up to 500,000. That group’s votes could be decisive, given the margin in favour of Trump of less than 11,000 in the 2016 election, and just over 150,000 in favour of Biden in 2020.
But then Harris replaced Biden on July 21. Within days, a deficit of between three and seven percentage points in polling in Michigan turned into an advantage of between three and four points. This turnaround has shown no signs of reversing itself.
Beyond Michigan, Harris has been galvanising young voters who had previously been alienated by Biden’s position on the Middle East. Some of this may be due to the difference of Harris on the issue. This spring, while not making a clear break from the administration’s support of Israel, she began emphasising the welfare of Gaza’s civilians, who – she said – must be protected both from Israel’s attacks and the humanitarian crisis they have caused.
Read more: Kamala Harris has a different view on Gaza to Joe Biden – it could win her votes in November
In early April, Harris put down a marker when she commented on a phone call between Biden and Netanyahu:
We will make sure Israel is never left without an ability to defend itself. At the same time, if there are not changes to their approach, it’s very likely we’re going to change our approach.
Campaigning in Arizona on August 9, Harris responded to protesters chanting “free Palestine” by stopping her speech and directly addressing their concerns. “I have been clear,” she told them. “Now is the time to get a ceasefire deal and get the hostage deal done.”
Competing realities
Harris’s line is not enough for some pro-Palestine activists – but the wider context for the Democratic Party’s campaign is that most prospective voters in the presidential election will have priorities other than Gaza. And the pro-Palestinian protestors have been no more than a ripple against the wave of unity inside the United Center, with the acclamation of Biden and the enthusastic ovation for Harris.
So, if the tide is turning, it does not appear to be because of Gaza. To the contrary, Harris and her popular vice-presidential pick, Tim Walz, have not only clawed back small leads in the five “swing states” previously thought to be pivotal to the race, but also other states which appeared lost to Trump on Biden’s watch are now in play.
Harris has reversed deficits of up to eight points to take leads in Arizona and North Carolina. She has erased Trump’s advantage in Nevada, and closed to within one or two points in Georgia.
At the Democratic convention, Harris fired up the crowd: “This November, we will come together and declare with one voice, as one people: we are moving forward.” She led them in a call and response: “When we fight, we win.”
The next day, in Gaza, an Israeli airstrike on a school serving as a shelter for civilians killed 12 people.
Amid the illusion of the “ceasefire”, there are three realities: Netanyahu – facing an early election and a possible trial on bribery charges if the war ends – cannot afford one. Harris can win whether or not one is agreed. And Gaza’s civilians will continue to die without one.
Scott Lucas does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
