Kamala Harris’ Can Still Get It Right on Gaza | Opinion

In November 2016, perhaps no one was more surprised than Donald Trump at his victory or Hillary Clinton in losing. That was then. Another sound trouncing of the Democratic ticket appeared inevitable until July when President Joe Biden finally stepped back. Vice President Kamala Harris’ candidacy was like a breath of fresh air, and initially it seemed that she could do no wrong.
That was until someone in her camp thought a Gen X candidate should use the Boomer playbook and, Gen Z would be onboard with it.
If Clinton lost states like Michigan, despite winning the popular vote, it was because she took for granted those who were truly disaffected. It may be Groundhog Day for Harris, and her Achilles heel is the Middle East crisis. The Arab and Muslim vote in Michigan is immensely disenchanted with the stance of the Democratic ticket on issues like the war in Gaza.
The lukewarm lip service to the Palestinian cause versus the unconditional declaration of support and arms supply to Israel has severely antagonized the Arab-Muslim bloc. The Harris-Walz campaign strategy in Michigan is clumsy and tone deaf. The ‘For Israel’ come hell or high water stance may be well past its sell-by date. Playing it safe by not antagonizing the Jewish bloc and relying on an Arab-Muslim aversion to former President Donald Trump, is a fraught strategy. Harris could have borrowed a page from the Jewish voters who protested against the Gaza atrocities and vociferously demanded a ceasefire.
Rather than choosing on the basis of religion (Jews versus Muslims), she could have considered making a moral choice. Such a choice may have seen her speak up against the flouting of international law by Israel in Gaza, where civilians in the tens of thousands have been killed and civilian infrastructure has been decimated. It would have seen her confront Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s intransigence and call out his actions for what they are: an unpopular prime minister’s machinations to stay in power, no matter what the price. Such a choice would not place her firmly in one camp or the other, but above both. It would have put her in position to engage in resolving the longstanding problem were she to become the president.
She may have found herself pleasantly surprised to discover that the costs of such a choice were not as prohibitive as her campaign imagined. If she is aspiring to the presidency Harris should lead boldly, pointing out a new pathway rather than meekly following well-trodden paths. Harris will not lose much were she to threaten Netanyahu with cessation of arms supply, until the safety of civilians was meaningfully addressed. Why the hesitation in calling out someone who appears to be in cahoots with her opponent and conniving toward her loss?
“Get over yourself. Those are the two choices,” was Hillary Clinton’s response when she heard of voters’ apprehensions about then-candidate Biden in 2024. That statement hints at a rather arrogant perspective, where the Democratic Party takes certain voting factions for granted. There is a third choice. It is the choice that likely cost Clinton the presidency. It may do the same to Harris.
Contrary to the assertions of the Democrats, those voting for a third-party candidate such as Dr. Jill Stein do not consider it a wasted vote. The aggrieved bloc does not see much daylight between Trump and Harris when it comes to Palestine-Israel—and now Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Yemen, with more (perhaps) to come—crisis. They are looking beyond 2024 to 2028. Whether democratic ticket wins or loses, the en masse dissent will ensure the bloc is not taken for granted again.
Late as it is, there is still time for Harris to right her ship. It will however require boldness and stepping away from the road well-travelled.
The author is a neurosurgeon practicing in Michigan, who politically identifies herself as an independent. She has written for national and international newspapers and blogs as well as, in the field of her medical expertise.
The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this column misstated when Hillary Clinton pointed out that the choice between candidates was binary. It has been corrected.