Hamas invades Israel on October 7, raping and massacring hundreds of civilians and taking hundreds of hostages. Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen begin raining fire on the Israelis when Israel fights the war that Hamas started. Iran launches a massive and direct attack when the Israelis take out IRGC commanders supporting Hezbollah and Hamas.
And the US should impose an arms embargo on ... our ally under attack?
Kamala Harris met with two Arab Americans leading the Uncommitted National Movement, who asked her to consider an arms embargo on Israel, at a campaign stop in Michigan, the New York Times reported.
Just before her rally, Harris met with Abbas Alawieh and Layla Elabed, who, according to the report, "wanted to support her but... wanted her to consider an arms embargo." In response, Harris indicated she was "open to it" and introduced the two community leaders to her staff.
The Harris campaign said in a statement that only "in this brief engagement" did Harris "reaffirm that her campaign will continue to engage with those communities," NYT reported.
Does everyone remember "Uncommitted"? The group formed to pressure Joe Biden into this very policy before the Michigan presidential primary in February. The threat was that the pro-Palestinian vote in Michigan was strong enough to deny Biden the presidency, and perhaps even show up strongly enough to embarrass him in the primaries. It turned out to be an empty threat -- the Uncommitted vote was about the same as in other non-competitive Democrat primaries in the past -- but Biden took that threat seriously enough to keep pandering to the hard Left on Israel.
Biden did at least try to walk a narrow path, one that still largely infuriated the Dearborn faction. He didn't even consider an arms embargo, however, although he did hold up transfer of specific weapons that Biden claimed were not properly used for urban combat. To my recollection, Biden didn't meet with Uncommitted or any other pro-Palestinian activist group pushing that demand either.
So if Harris met with Uncommitted to discuss that proposal at all, it says two things about the Democrat nominee. First, Harris is worried about losing Michigan, even after supposedly shoring up the rural vote by picking Tim Walz as a running mate. Second, Harris is signaling that she push American foreign policy farther to the Left as president, perhaps far enough to sever the mutual defense/intelligence alliance with Israel.
The pushback to these conclusions will be that Harris didn't take them seriously. So why meet with them at all? Did Harris just meet with Uncommitted to pre-empt any disruptions at her campaign? If so, that turned out to be a bad decision.
From the NYT:
Before Vice President Kamala Harris confronted pro-Palestinian and anti-Gaza-war protesters on Wednesday at a campaign rally in Detroit, she faced demands from the leaders of a group that has mobilized voters to protest the U.S. government’s support for Israel. ...In addition to an arms embargo on Israel, the Uncommitted leaders have asked for convention speaking roles for a representative of their group and a Palestinian pediatrician.
Even after meeting with Harris, however, the group organized disruptions to Harris' speech. Harris tried being supportive of "democracy in action" at first, but then snapped that this was her speech and event, and not theirs. The crowd roared their approval and both media and supporters (but I repeat myself) hailed it as a leadership moment. But that leadership moment actually came before the rally when Harris tried and failed to mollify the radicals.
As far as whether Harris took it seriously, Jewish Insider's report on competing requests for organizing at the Democrat convention sheds some light. It looks like Uncommitted and its allies will get their convention wishes. Jewish supporters of Israel haven't been as fortunate:
The Israeli American Council, a nonprofit organization representing Israeli-Americans that seeks to strengthen ties between the U.S. and Israel, filed two applications with Chicago’s Department of Transportation at the beginning of July, according to Aya Schechter, the group’s chief programming officer.But with just under two weeks remaining until the convention, the IAC has yet to receive an answer from the city, despite following up via phone and email. ...“It seems like we don’t have equitable access to whatever the other group was approved for,” she said in an interview with Jewish Insider earlier this week, voicing frustration with the city’s delay. “We didn’t get any offer to do a march, not even in an alternative location.”Last month, a coalition of pro-Palestinian activists planning a so-called “March on the DNC” gained permission for a protest route near the convention — an offer meant to settle a lawsuit accusing the city of First Amendment violations. The coalition, which predicts more than 25,000 participants who could disrupt the convention, has continued to challenge the contours of the proposed route in court, where a judge’s decision is expected to come next week.
If Uncommitted gets a speaking slot at the Democratic convention, that's a clear signal that Harris will turn American policy sharply against Israel. Barack Obama and Joe Biden certainly turned American policy in the direction of Iran, but didn't cut Israel off from arms sales even during previous wars against Hamas in 2014 and 2021. Harris hints at a more radically Leftward foreign policy if she wins the election, and any more concessions to Uncommitted and the other pro-Palestinian factions will only deepen that impression.
Foreign policy is not usually the basis of voting decisions in presidential elections, although it should be. And perhaps that's especially true in this case when we ask ourselves what else will Harris do to turn American government sharply Leftward? If she's willing to abandon a liberal-democracy ally to fascist Islamist terrorists to pander to radicals at home, what other values and commitments would a President Harris abandon for the same reasons?
Harris flack Phil Gordon tried to claim that Harris has been clear about her opposition to an arms embargo, which is flat-out false. Harris hasn't been clear on anything since becoming the nominee, especially on this point, and she's not exactly volunteering herself for clarifying questions either.
