Follow us on social

google cta
'I'm speaking now': Harris rebukes Gaza protesters

'I'm speaking now': Harris rebukes Gaza protesters

This and a key advisor’s tweet this morning suggest her differences with Biden on Israel may be more style than substance

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

This week, Vice President Kamala Harris has missed important opportunities to distinguish herself from President Biden’s disastrous approach on Gaza — renewing serious concerns about how she might handle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if elected in November.

At a campaign rally in Detroit last night, Harris was met with protests of the Biden administration’s unconditional support for Israel’s war in Gaza, which has killed at least 40,000 Palestinians (and likely many more). “Kamala, Kamala, you can’t hide, we won’t vote for genocide,” the protesters chanted — echoing the disgust with America’s role in the slaughter in Gaza that led more than 100,000 primary voters in Michigan to cast a ballot for “uncommitted” during the state’s democratic primary.

After first responding cordially — “I’m here because we believe in democracy. Everyone’s voice matters. But I am speaking now” — Harris shifted to dismissiveness when the protesters continued chanting, telling them, “You know what? If you want Donald Trump to win, then say that. Otherwise, I’m speaking.”

Since assuming the Democratic nomination, Harris’ approach to the U.S.-backed war in Gaza has differed somewhat in style from Biden. This was evident in her campaign’s decision to invite leaders from Michigan’s “Uncommitted” campaign to a rope line at yesterday’s rally, where they reportedly aired their concerns with Vice President Harris and her ticketmate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. But her dismissal of the protesters from the podium, along with a tweet this morning from Harris’ key foreign policy advisor, Phil Gordon, suggests that those of us hoping that her different style might portend substantive policy change shouldn’t hold our breath.

Vice President Harris, Gordon writes, “has been clear: she will always ensure Israel is able to defend itself against Iran and Iran-backed terrorist groups. She does not support an arms embargo on Israel. She will continue to work to protect civilians in Gaza and to uphold international humanitarian law.”

I resigned from the State Department in March because America’s unconditional support for Israel’s war in Gaza made protecting civilians in Gaza and upholding international humanitarian law impossible. In July alone, Israel has bombed 17 United Nations Relief and Works Agency schools serving as temporary shelters — another Israeli violation of international humanitarian law, likely committed with American bombs.

Refusing to withhold U.S. weapons from Israel as it conducts what the ICJ has ruled is plausibly a genocide is wholly incompatible with Harris’ purported humanitarian goals. And now, as the Middle East awaits a worrying escalation in violence between Israel and its opponents, there is an extraordinary risk that the U.S. will be boxed into entering a regional war for Israel — an outcome that would not only put U.S. service members in the line of fire and spell far more needless death and destruction in the region, but also deal a perhaps fatal blow to Harris’ presidential ambitions.

Vice President Harris needn’t risk her campaign and U.S. lives to satisfy Netanyahu, who hopes to prolong his political viability by putting Israel in a state of semi-permanent war. America has massive leverage to prevent further Israeli aggression in the region — it’s time to use it. If Harris and the Democrats want to win in November, they must work diligently now to avert a regional war by convincing Biden to withhold all further security aid until Netanyahu agrees to a full cease-fire in Gaza.

Israel needs to know that America won’t fight this war for them. Pairing more weapons shipments with increased displays of empathy for Palestinians and rope line greetings will do nothing to avert an escalation that could have catastrophic consequences for Harris’ campaign, America, the region, and the world.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

Kamala Harris addresses protesters in the crowd at Detroit, Michigan, rally, Aug. 7. (Screenshot/You Tube)

google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Gaza tent city
Top photo credit: Palestinian Mohammed Abu Halima, 43, sits in front of his tent with his children in a camp for displaced Palestinians in Gaza City, Gaza, on December 11, 2025. Matrix Images / Mohammed Qita

Four major dynamics in Gaza War that will impact 2026

Middle East

Just ahead of the New Year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to visit President Donald Trump in Florida today, no doubt with a wish list for 2026. Already there have been reports that he will ask Trump to help attack Iran’s nuclear program, again.

Meanwhile, despite the media narrative, the war in Gaza is not over, and more specifically, it has not ended in a clear victory for Netanyahu’s IDF forces. Nor has the New Year brought solace to the Palestinians — at least 71,000 have been killed since October 2023. But there have been a number of important dynamics and developments in 2025 that will affect not only Netanyahu’s “asks” but the future of security in Israel and the region.

keep readingShow less
Sokoto Nigeria
Top photo credit: Map of Nigeria (Shutterstock/Juan Alejandro Bernal)

Trump's Christmas Day strikes on Nigeria beg question: Why Sokoto?

Africa

For the first time since President Trump publicly excoriated Nigeria’s government for allegedly condoning a Christian genocide, Washington made good on its threat of military action on Christmas Day when U.S. forces conducted airstrikes against two alleged major positions of the Islamic State (IS-Sahel) in northwestern Sokoto state.

According to several sources familiar with the operation, the airstrike involved at least 16 GPS-guided munitions launched from the Navy destroyer, USS Paul Ignatius, stationed in the Gulf of Guinea. Debris from unexpended munition consistent with Tomahawk cruise missile components have been recovered in the village of Jabo, Sokoto state, as well nearly 600 miles away in Offa in Kwara state.

keep readingShow less
What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?
Top image credit: Voodison328 via shutterstock.com

What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?

Global Crises

Earlier this month in Geneva, delegates to the Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty’s 22nd Meeting of States Parties confronted the most severe crisis in the convention’s nearly three-decade history. That crisis was driven by an unprecedented convergence of coordinated withdrawals by five European states and Ukraine’s attempt to “suspend” its treaty obligations amid an ongoing armed conflict.

What unfolded was not only a test of the resilience of one of the world’s most successful humanitarian disarmament treaties, but also a critical moment for the broader system of international norms designed to protect civilians during and after war. Against a background of heightened tensions resulting from the war in Ukraine and unusual divisions among the traditional convention champions, the countries involved made decisions that will have long-term implications.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.