In popular parlance, the US President Joe Biden is already known as ‘Genocide Biden’ – a title that unmistakably highlights the role Biden has been playing, since October 2023, in facilitating Israel’s brutal war on Gaza. With Biden now all set to not contest in the upcoming presidential elections in the US in November this year, the question of whether the new president – Kamala Harris vs. Donald Trump – bring any change to the US policy towards Israel? Given Trump’s past as an extremely pro-Israel president, the real question is whether Kamala Harris, Biden’s replacement for the Democrats, will bring any change. Harris’ past statements show a somewhat different position than Biden’s, but given the depth of the US-Israel ties at the state level, a major shift is unlikely to happen.
The Harris Factor
In December 2023, when Harris addressed Arab leaders in Dubai, she expressed concerns about the safety of civilians being killed in Gaza by the Israeli military forces. She said, “The United States is unequivocal: International humanitarian law must be respected. Too many innocent Palestinians have been killed. Frankly, the scale of civilian suffering and the images and videos coming from Gaza are devastating.” In retrospect, she sounded radically different from Netanyahu’s recent claim – which he made in his speech to the US Congress – that hardly any civilians had been killed in Gaza since the start of the war. Regardless of absurd Israeli claims, she also reaffirmed the US position, saying that there will be “no forcible displacement, no reoccupation, no siege or blockade, no reduction in territory, and no use of Gaza as a platform for terrorism”. Again, this specific position sounds very different from not only the actual US policy, but also from what Israel has been doing since October.
Again, in March 2024, Harris called for an “immediate ceasefire”, adding that innocent people were suffering a “humanitarian catastrophe” at the hands of Israel. The US media described these comments as the “strongest” made by any US official towards Israel recently. Harris, therefore, appears to have a somewhat better, if not radically different, position vis-à-vis the people of Palestine, who have received little to no attention in Biden’s overall approach. The question, however, is: will she be able to make any actual change? A second question is: can she politically afford to even commit herself to a radical change during elections and after assuming power?
Political Imperatives
First of all, Harris wants to win elections. In this arena, she faces a formidable rival in Donald Trump, who has already called her a “radical left-liberal”. To face Trump’s ultra-populist narrative, Harris needs a political position that leaves minimum space for Trump to attack her. Trump called on Biden during the debate in June to let Israel “finish the job” without further restrictions from Washington, displaying few qualms about the way in which Israel prosecuted its war with Hamas. Given Trump’s position, can Harris afford a too-tough position on Israel, given how this may alienate the United States’ Jewish votes? Until recently, a majority of Jews in the US have maintained a pro-Biden (pro-Democrat) stance, endorsing his support for Israel. Losing this support will hurt her chances of defeating Trump. Therefore, expecting an actual radical shift from her, or a commitment thereof, might be unrealistic. After all, she cannot make any change whatsoever if she fails to win elections. Power game, therefore, logically trumps any principled political position.
Enter the Deep-state
However, even if Harris wins despite her commitment to a somewhat pro-Palestine policy, she faces a deeply entrenched pro-Israel deep-state in the US. Can she dislodge it? The deep state is already reacting. For example, before she made her speech in March calling for an immediate ceasefire, officials at the National Security Council significantly watered it down, taking away key parts hitting Israel. According to reports in the US media, the original draft was “harsher on Israel” and it “specifically called out Israel more directly about the need to immediately allow additional aid trucks in”.
While officials from the National Security Council confirmed this, Harris’ communication director, on the other hand, denied that her speech had been checkmated. Still, the controversy shows that the US deep state does not necessarily agree with the Vice President and that the former is unlikely to give her much leeway for any meaningful shift in policy either towards Israel or Palestine. The reason for this is simple.
Israel remains a key strategic ally for the US in the wider Middle East. Since the US “exit” i.e., partial withdrawal, from the Middle East, Israel’s importance has increased even further as Washington’s frontman carrying out the role the US had been playing for decades. This graduation to a new position was most clearly reflected in the Abraham Accords and subsequent normalization with Arab states. The fact that this process was started by the Trump administration but was also pursued, although unsuccessfully, by the Biden administration shows not merely bi-partisan support but mainly the influence of the ‘real’ policymakers in the US. Can Harris, if elected, beat them?
This is in addition to the fact that the deep state in the US is somewhat behind Biden’s replacement by Harris. The former does not want Trump to win because of a host of other issues, including his views on NATO and Russia. For the deep state, therefore, Harris is a much better option; hence, its pressure on Biden to withdraw. But the same actors are unlikely to allow Harris to commit to, or follow, a policy that might hurt US interests in the Middle East. A radical change, therefore, remains highly unlikely.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
