Since she emerged as the Democratic presidential nominee after Joe Biden dropped out of the race, Kamala Harris has expressed more sympathy for Palestinians than the president she is hoping to replace. But so far, Harris has made clear that she won’t deviate from Biden’s core policy on the Gaza war: unconditional US support for Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, no matter what he does to block a ceasefire and prolong the conflict.
“I’m unequivocal and unwavering in my commitment to Israel’s defense and its ability to defend itself,” Harris told CNN on 29 August, in her first major TV interview since securing the nomination. She added: “Far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed.” These comments reinforced her acceptance speech at the Democratic national convention a week earlier, where she pledged to “always stand up for Israel” and also called for Palestinian “freedom and self-determination”.
Harris doubled down on Biden’s months-long effort to broker a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas. But, like Biden, Harris is refusing to use the most effective US leverage over Netanyahu: withholding billions of dollars in weapons that Washington has rushed to Israel since the 7 October attack by Hamas. For months, Biden and his aides have been spinning their wheels and getting outmaneuvered by Netanyahu, who continues to sabotage ceasefire negotiations by adding new conditions.
While Harris insists that she wants a ceasefire, she has gotten bogged down in a semantic debate about whether she would support an arms embargo against Israel. Harris has made clear she won’t break with the Biden administration’s policy on supplying Israel with weapons without any conditions. But Harris doesn’t need to impose a full-scale embargo on Israel.
There’s a simpler path for Harris to reverse the past 11 months of US complicity in Israel’s brutal war on Gaza: declare that she will suspend arms shipments to Israel because American law requires the US to halt weapons transfers to militaries that are committing human rights violations. Biden has refused to enforce these regulations since Israel launched its assault on Gaza, killing more than 40,000 Palestinians, displacing nearly 90% of the territory’s population at least once and instigating a widespread famine.
Harris could make clear that she would enforce existing US laws – and the Biden administration’s own policies. That will probably enrage Republicans and pro-Israel lobby groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), which will complain that Harris is “abandoning” America’s most important ally in the Middle East.
But a majority of Americans have told public opinion polls that they are opposed to arming Israel indefinitely, as Biden is doing. In June, a CBS News poll found that 61% of Americans oppose sending weapons to Israel. (That included 77% of Democrats, and 62% of those who identify as independents.) Another poll conducted by YouGov last month found that Democrats and independent voters in three swing states – Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania – would be more willing to vote for Harris if she supported cutting off US armaments.
Harris would have a moral and pragmatic argument – as well as public opinion – behind her, and she could finally exert real US influence over Netanyahu. The Israeli premier continues to resist pressure to agree to a ceasefire with Hamas that would lead to the release of dozens of hostages still being held in Gaza. Last weekend, Israeli officials announced that they had discovered the bodies of six hostages who had been killed by their Hamas captors. That led tens of thousands of Israelis to protest against Netanyahu’s handling of the war and his refusal to accept a truce.
Even after widespread protests and a general strike on Monday, Netanyahu insists on preserving Israeli military control over an area known as the Philadelphi Corridor, along Gaza’s southern border with Egypt. Netanyahu directed Israeli negotiators to add that demand in late July, one of a series of new conditions designed to torpedo a deal that had taken shape after Hamas accepted a draft US agreement earlier that month.
Instead of calling out Netanyahu for his obstinacy and prolonging of the war – as many Israeli security officials, including the defense minister, have done – Biden continues to cover for Netanyahu and to blame Hamas for rejecting a deal. In the same way, Biden squandered any influence he could have exerted over the Israeli leader by refusing to uphold US laws and his own administration’s policies on weapons transfers.
In February, Biden issued a new national security memo which required his administration to certify to Congress that recipients of US arms are abiding by international law and allowing the transport of humanitarian aid during active conflicts. The administration can suspend shipments to countries that fail to meet these requirements, especially if it suspects that a foreign military will use US weapons to carry out violations of international law.
Biden’s policy did not set new rules for weapons transfers, but instead it reinforced existing US laws under the Foreign Assistance Act, which was passed in 1961. Biden also used the policy as a way to blunt criticism from some Democrats in Congress over his unconditional support for Israel. In May, the Biden administration sent its report to Congress and declared that it would take Israeli officials at their word, when they pledged to use US arms in compliance with international humanitarian law.
The 46-page report showed how deeply the Biden administration is committed to protecting Israel, using bureaucratic double-speak to flout US laws. The report avoided concluding that the Israeli military had violated international laws while using US weapons, or had intentionally obstructed humanitarian aid: those findings would have required Biden to suspend or restrict most arms shipments to Israel under various US laws.
For months before the report’s release, UN agencies and human rights groups documented that Israel was using starvation as a weapon of war in Gaza – a violation of international law – and blocking the delivery of food and other aid into the besieged territory.
Instead of enforcing the arms transfer policy Biden had laid out in February, the US administration tried to convince the world not to believe what most people could see, often in real time on social media: Israel intentionally preventing aid from reaching Palestinians. The Israeli military also targeted convoys carrying aid workers and made it difficult for the UN and international relief groups to distribute the little assistance that entered Gaza. The Biden administration took extraordinary measures to get around Israeli hurdles, including airdrops of supplies and building a floating pier off the coast of Gaza that turned into a $230m boondoggle.
For 11 months, Biden and his aides have contorted themselves to avoid holding Netanyahu’s government responsible for its actions. They had multiple opportunities to suspend weapons shipments by triggering the Foreign Assistance Act. Biden consistently refused to use the powers at his disposal.
Today, Harris faces a choice: she’s not president but she can pledge to suspend weapons shipments to Israel if elected – and explain that she would simply be enforcing existing US laws and Biden’s own policies. Perhaps that would finally shame Biden into upholding the law and using the leverage he’s always had over Netanyahu.
Mohamad Bazzi is director of the Hagop Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies, and a journalism professor at New York University. He is also a non-resident fellow at Democracy for the Arab World Now (Dawn)
