The story begins on a tense summer afternoon on Wednesday in Detroit, where Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, was making a campaign stop. The atmosphere was charged as she arrived at an airport hangar, where she was met not only by her supporters but also by the founders of the Uncommitted National Movement, Abbas Alawieh and Layla Elabed.
This extreme group had been mobilizing Arab American voters in Michigan to withhold their support for President Joe Biden due to his stance on Israel and Gaza. During this brief encounter, a tearful Elabed pleaded with Harris to consider an arms embargo on Israel, citing the devastating impact of Israeli military actions on her community in Gaza. Harris, attempting to show empathy and maintain political balance, assured the group that her campaign would continue to engage with their concerns. This ambiguous response left room for interpretation, leading to a media frenzy and heated debates about her proper stance on the issue.
Harris’s willingness to entertain an arms embargo, as suggested during her Detroit meeting, is not an isolated incident. Over the years, her actions and statements have consistently raised alarms about her commitment to Israel. In February 2019, when Rep. Ilhan Omar used antisemitic tropes by suggesting that American support for Israel was “all about the Benjamins” and accusing American Jews of having “allegiance to a foreign country,” Harris’s response was disturbingly tepid. Instead of unequivocally condemning Omar’s statements, Harris expressed concern that the criticism might endanger Omar, thus failing to denounce the antisemitic rhetoric within her party firmly.
Harris’s support for the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) is another contentious point. In 2015, she supported the agreement, which many critics argue empowers Iran, a significant threat to Israel. Rejoining the JCPOA aligns Harris with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which has increasingly taken a hostile stance toward Israel. This alignment is deeply troubling for those who believe that the deal does not sufficiently prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Harris inconsistent and counterproductive
Harris’s approach to diplomacy has often been inconsistent and counterproductive. During a visit to George Mason University in 2021, a student accused Israel of conducting an “ethnic genocide in Palestine.” Instead of refuting these baseless claims, Harris emphasized hearing the student’s perspective. At the Munich Security Conference in February 2023, Harris advocated for the establishment of a Palestinian state without adequately addressing the ongoing threat of terrorism from groups like Hamas.
Harris’s public comments have sometimes appeared to undermine Israel’s negotiating position. In March 2024, she called for “an immediate ceasefire” in Gaza, which would have effectively provided a lifeline to Hamas.
Harris’s stance on Israel has significant implications for the American Jewish community. Former US Ambassador David Friedman has warned that her candidacy could lead to a historic shift of Jewish voters to the Republican side, given her alignment with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and her insufficient support for Israel. Friedman noted that Harris’s record does not pass the “kishkes test” of genuinely supporting Israel, a sentiment that resonates deeply within the Jewish community.
Harris’s candidacy reflects a broader and concerning shift within the Democratic Party. The party’s progressive wing, including figures like Bernie Sanders and members of “the Squad,” has increasingly embraced anti-Israel rhetoric. Sanders has compared Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to Hamas leaders, calling Netanyahu a “war criminal” and questioning US support for Israel. This shift is not just rhetorical but also policy-driven. Progressive leaders have called for an end to US military aid to Israel and have pushed for policies that are hostile to Israeli interests. Harris’s alignment with these figures raises severe concerns about the direction of US foreign policy under her leadership.
Unlike President Joe Biden, who has been seen as a moderate within the Democratic Party and has a long history of solid support for Israel, Harris is more aligned with the progressive wing. Her alignment with this faction includes her support for policies like the Green New Deal and Medicare for All, which reflect the broader progressive agenda. This positioning makes her more susceptible to the influence of progressive leaders who have been critical of Israel and supportive of Palestinian causes. This alignment is deeply troubling for those who believe that unwavering support for Israel is crucial to US foreign policy.
Harris’s track record on Israel is fraught with troubling decisions and statements that raise serious concerns about her commitment to the US-Israel alliance. Her openness to discussing an arms embargo, her soft response to anti-Israel rhetoric, her support for the Iran nuclear deal, and her alignment with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party all suggest a potential shift in US policy that could jeopardize both Israeli and American security interests.
As Israel faces multiple threats, unwavering American support is more crucial than ever. Harris’s record indicates she will probably not provide the steadfast backing that Israel needs. This election is pivotal, and the stakes for Israel and the American Jewish community could not be higher. Voters must carefully consider the implications of a Harris presidency and its potential risks to one of America’s most important allies.
It is critical to remember the recent Iranian missile attack on Israel in April, which underscored the genuine threat Iran poses to Israel’s security. The attack, which targeted multiple locations within Israel, was a stark reminder of Iran’s capabilities and intentions. This assault resulted in significant damage and loss of life, further exacerbating the tensions in the region and highlighting the existential threat that Iran continues to pose to Israel. Iran’s aggressive actions, supported by its proxies in the region, demonstrated the necessity for a strong and unwavering alliance between the US and Israel.
Taking the necessary steps to counter the Iranian threat
The Iranian threat is not hypothetical; it is a clear and present danger that requires a firm and decisive response from the United States. Any wavering in support or indications of weakening resolve could embolden Iran and its allies, leading to further escalation and instability in the region. Harris’s track record, including her support for rejoining the JCPOA, raises concerns about whether she will take the necessary steps to counter this threat effectively.
Let’s add to the fact that earlier this week, Harris’s selection of Tim Walz over Josh Shapiro as her running mate sparked significant controversy and added to the concerns about her stance on Israel and antisemitism. According to JTA, critics have suggested that Harris’s decision to bypass Shapiro was influenced by progressive elements within the Democratic Party who opposed his strong pro-Israel stance, labeling him “Genocide Josh.” Republicans have used this decision to paint the Democrats as antisemitic. Despite the Harris campaign’s rejection of these accusations and her husband’s Jewish identity, which they argue negates such claims, the episode underscores the growing divide within the party and the increasing influence of anti-Israel sentiments.
Kamala Harris’s track record in Israel raises serious concerns about her potential presidency. Her willingness to entertain an arms embargo, her alignment with progressive critics of Israel, her support for the Iran nuclear deal, and her soft stance on anti-Israel rhetoric suggest a drastic shift in US policy that could jeopardize both Israeli and American security interests. Harris’s failure to unequivocally support a prominent Jewish candidate like Shapiro only adds to the fears that her presidency could further alienate American Jews and weaken US-Israel relations.
American Jews need to understand definitively that anti-Zionism is antisemitism, and the allies they thought they had within the Democratic Party aren’t as supportive as they once believed. If Jews care about the survival of Israel during this tumultuous period, they must recognize that voting for Harris is not an option.
This election is not just another political choice; it is a life or death decision that can literally affect the existence of the Jewish state. The stakes could not be higher. Harris’s presidency could lead to policies that embolden Israel’s enemies and weaken the US-Israel alliance, posing an existential threat to the Jewish state.
In stark contrast, while Donald Trump is unpredictable and controversial, his track record regarding Israel was consistently strong: he facilitated the Abraham Accords, acknowledged the Golan Heights as part of Israel, and moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. His actions have strengthened Israel’s position and security in the region.
Harris, by contrast, could be a disaster for Israel and the Jewish people. This is a pivotal moment in history, and the choice made at the ballot box will resonate far beyond American borders. Consider this carefully before casting your vote. The future of Israel and the safety of the Jewish people depend on it.