Can Kamala Harris Navigate the Complex Israel Question?

Kamala Harris has her eyes set on the presidency and is willing to adjust her stance to secure that goal. In key swing states, she often adopts poll-tested positions, even if they contradict her personal beliefs. When a favorable stance in one region threatens her standing elsewhere or risks alienating major donors, she shifts tactics.

The Israel-Palestine conflict presents Harris with such a challenge. While she personally leans towards supporting the Palestinians and Iran’s proxies, Iran’s direct assaults on Israel and President Biden’s decision to deploy U.S. military support for Israel complicate her attempts to navigate this issue. This creates further confusion around her otherwise firm stance that Israel has her “unwavering” support—except when it doesn’t.

Historically, both major U.S. political parties and the American public have supported Israel, praising its democratic values, its collaboration with the U.S. on intelligence and global goals, and its leadership in fields like technology and finance. After Israel’s establishment in 1948, President Harry Truman recognized the state just minutes after its founding. Up until Hamas’s October 7 attacks on Israel, President Biden, too, was steadfast in his commitment to Israel’s security, though he has since come under pressure from progressive voices within his base.

For progressive leaders like Harris, the issue is complex. Progressive ideology frames global conflicts as battles between oppressors and the oppressed. Within this framework, the U.S., Israel, and certain groups, including Jews and whites, are cast as oppressors, while Palestinians and other marginalized groups are considered the oppressed.

Progressives criticize Israel for displacing Palestinians and restricting them to the Gaza Strip and West Bank, often calling Israel an apartheid state, despite the equal rights enjoyed by its Arab citizens. This stance gained prominence under President Obama and continued with the Biden-Harris administration, which has distanced itself from Israel in favor of improved relations with Iran. This shift led to billions in funds freed up for Iran and its proxies, often used against Israel, and a reluctance to consistently back Israel in the U.N.

While Democratic support for Israel has waned, evangelical Christians—who support Israel based on shared democratic and moral values—have led the Republican Party in strengthening its backing of the Jewish state. According to the Jewish Virtual Library, from 1948 to today, about 68% of Jewish voters typically supported the Democratic presidential nominee, while 25% voted Republican. By 2020, this shifted slightly, with Trump gaining around 30% of the Jewish vote.

Harris now faces a dilemma that no Democratic candidate has previously encountered. Despite her lack of strong personal support for Israel, she cannot afford to reveal her true stance on the Middle East without alienating Biden and jeopardizing the Democratic hold on key states like Pennsylvania. Conversely, she cannot afford to fully align with Biden if she hopes to win in states like Michigan and Minnesota, where Muslim voters, who often sympathize with Palestinian causes, may decide the outcome.

To navigate this difficult terrain, Harris has mostly remained silent on the surge of anti-Semitism. She has appointed far-left advisers who oppose Israel’s military actions in Gaza, and notably skipped Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, opting instead for a private meeting where she later emerged emphasizing the importance of addressing Palestinian suffering. “Israel has a right to defend itself, and how it does so matters,” she said. “What has happened in Gaza over the past nine months is devastating.”

Since then, Harris has subtly suggested that Israel is responsible for the high number of Palestinian casualties. She has supported Biden’s decision to withhold certain military aid from Israel, criticized Israel’s successful operations like the Rafah offensive, and reiterated her support for a two-state solution. In one ambiguous statement, she even endorsed Biden’s defense of Israel against Iranian attacks while adding little else of substance.

Raised in progressive academic circles and having spent much of her political life in left-leaning San Francisco, Harris’s far-left progressive stance is unlikely to change as she approaches 60. Iran and its allies are aware of her tendencies, and her nuanced positions seem to offer them the green light to continue their aggression.

Ultimately, Harris seems less concerned with how Israel would handle a nuclear Iran or its surrounding proxies. Were it not for the risk of losing evangelical and Jewish support, Harris might fully embrace the progressive stance of abandoning Israel altogether.