As the 2020 Democratic National Convention unfolded, US Vice President Kamala Harris delivered a speech accepting the party’s presidential nomination, attempting to navigate the treacherous terrain of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The war in Gaza, sparked by Hamas’s October 7 attacks, had been a thorn in the side of the Democratic Party, with some calling for a shift in US policy towards Israel. Harris’s speech aimed to address these divisions, acknowledging the gravity of the situation. She reaffirmed her commitment to Israel’s right to defend itself, stating that she would “always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself.”
This stance mirrored her previous positions on arms sales to Israel, which she opposes restricting. However, she also acknowledged the devastating impact of the conflict on Gaza, highlighting the “many innocent lives lost” and the “desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety, over and over again.” Harris emphasized her efforts to work with President Joe Biden to secure a ceasefire deal that would release hostages held by Hamas and ultimately help Palestinians achieve their right to dignity, security, freedom, and self-determination. This push came despite the elusiveness of a ceasefire, with no concrete results despite White House pressure. Her words, while intended to alleviate party divisions, risk disappointing activists demanding more decisive action, such as a halt to arms sales and support for Palestinian resistance.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu2 (Image via Getty)
The Vice President’s address echoed her statements last month, following her meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, where she emphasized the need to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza without presenting any significant policy shifts. Her words, while intended to alleviate party divisions, may have inadvertently reignited controversy, stirring dissatisfaction among those looking for more decisive action. Despite concerns that protests would disrupt the convention, the event unfolded without major disruptions. Uncommitted delegates, representing Democratic voters who did not back a candidate over the war, staged a protest outside the United Centre, calling for a Palestinian American speaker on stage. They pointed out that the parents of an American hostage were allowed to speak, highlighting the perceived inequalities. Harris’s efforts to balance the competing factions within the Democratic Party were underscored by her speech, which acknowledged the complexity of the conflict without explicitly deviating from established policy.
As she continues to navigate the delicate terrain of political alliances and constituent expectations, Harris’s words will be scrutinized for any signs of change or clarity on the issue. The complex dynamics between the Democratic Party, Israel, and Palestine continue to pose a significant challenge for policymakers, requiring a nuanced approach that balances competing interests and demands. Harris’s speech, while intended to address party divisions, may have inadvertently exposed the ongoing tensions and divisions within the party, underscoring the difficulty of going these treacherous waters.
