Harris' position on the Middle East problems

[hntnhole]

Has anyone heard what her positions are on the various troubles in the Israel/Palestine issue?

Obviously, she's not yet President, and just as obviously she's been Biden's Veep for these past 3+ years, so is it reasonable to assume that she'll be as ... well ... forgiving of Netanyahu's disinclination to move forward on the issues as Biden has been?

It seems that the fires of war are burning even hotter these past several days, with US aircraft carriers, troop-carriers, etc heading (or probably there by now) for Israel.  If she's made any foreign policy statements, I've managed to miss them.  

Sometimes, when even I get tired of all the brou-ha-ha regarding US politics, I watch CNN International* for a while, and it seems like the area is about to explode.  With all the carryings-on domestically, news reports from around the world (like the Ukrainian counterattack - go Ukrainians !!!) is getting really shorted lately, 

Obviously, she'd have to limit her commentary to reflect current US policies, since she's still Veep, but I haven't heard much at all about how she might alter those policies when she's President.

*regular CNN, with a decent dose of foreign affairs.  btw - there's an excellent publication by that same name - "Foreign Affairs' - that I've subscribed to for years.  Material from renown authors world-wide as well as Stateside, responsible journalism, and opposing viewpoints.  It's not cheap, but then neither are the contents.  

Anyone heard anything lately?

[PozBearWI]

My understanding is that our position has for quite awhile now been to strongly encourage Netanyahu and Hamas to come to a peace agreement.  

We aren't IN the war.  We sell stuff to them and largely the good stuff.  A whole lot of people are truly distressed that the Palestinians in Gaza are getting majorly fucked, and not in the fun way here on BZ.  

Israel is a long standing ally on most world matters.  So a lot of cooperation, to some degree even reliance exists between USA and Israel.  We can't diplomatically just sever ties.  Nor should that be considered advisable.  Rather we need to continue to speak our distressing observations with our ally and strongly encourage them to stop the destruction of another nation just to get your hidden enemy.  

Biden has been at this particular condition for months now.  It isn't like he is doing nothing.  But in this "fuck it let's divorce" world many have stopped thinking, if they ever even considered, that the best allies are the ones we can not always agree on and still keep the alliance going; trusting over time it will resolve.  Only a dumb ass like Trump would just go off and break an agreement or dump an ally.  Who can trust us after that?  And why should they when our word is on wet tissue paper?  

It would be utterly foolish for her to even discuss this except for when the Orange Clown asks such a dumb ass question.  I'm sure she will be prepared to answer in a manner consistent with the vapid whims exist that particular day - when we get to that day.  

[BootmanLA]

I honestly don't know what Harris' position on Israel v. Hamas is, though I assume she's at least nominally in favor of a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, whomever ends up being their leader.

That said, I don't think Netanyahu has any intention of allowing a two-state solution - he won't come out and say "Never" or "Over my dead body", but that's essentially his position given the way he keeps expanding settlements in the West Bank and further cordoning off Palestinian towns and cities from one another.

But I do know this: If allowed to return to office, Trump will gladly allow Netanyahu to take whatever steps he wants in Palestine, and will exercise the US's veto on the Security Council to ensure that Israel pays no price for it. For a movement with a huge antisemitic and anti-globalist base, his party sure seems indebted to people like Miriam Adelson and other prominent supporters of Israel, including many who support giving the entirety of historical Israel in the region over to the Israeli state.

Harris cannot be worse than that. And in a binary choice, while I might push her harder once elected to limit our support of what's becoming a genocidal state, I'd still vote for her.

[nanana]

Great points BootmanLA

[tallslenderguy]

A good question me thinks, did a search and found this interesting article... i kind of like that it's from Aljazeera ... perspective wise.  Here's an excerpt and link:

"Looking towards the Middle East, Harris’s selection of Tim Walz as her running mate locks in the missing piece on her ticket and provides further insight into what her administration could mean for the region. A sparse record on foreign policy makes it difficult to ascertain Harris and Walz’s exact stances on various critical issues. Still, we have enough clues to paint a picture of their future Middle East policy which, despite some nuances, looks like it would mirror that of President Biden.

Subtle differences on Gaza

Harris’s carefully crafted “As Israel defends itself, it matters how” approach to Israel’s war on Gaza since October 7 and her recent declaration of “I will not be silent [on suffering in Gaza]” in the wake of Netanyahu’s Washington, DC, visit have created some distance between her views on the conflict versus those of Biden in the eyes of American voters. Reports that the National Security Council had to “tone down” her language during a speech delivered in March, in which she referred to the conditions in Gaza as “inhumane” and directed Israel to increase the flow of aid, further highlighted this distinction.

Although Harris has drawn a contrast with Biden through her slightly tougher rhetoric towards Israel on the growing death toll in Gaza and even did not preside over Netanyahu’s address to Congress on July 24, these choices do not hint at a deviation from ongoing, mainstream Democratic policy. After all, despite skipping his speech at Congress, Harris had a one-on-one meeting with the Israeli prime minister the next day, and publicly reaffirmed her ongoing support for Israel. In a campaign rally this week, Harris was interrupted by individuals protesting the war in Gaza, which she deflected from and said, “if you want Donald Trump to win then say that. Otherwise I’m speaking”. Her response was telling, and may indicate how she does not want the Gaza war to be one of the core issues of the campaign."

[think before following links] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/8/8/biden-vs-harris-on-the-middle-east-same-dance-different-steps

[tallslenderguy]

17 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

For a movement with a huge antisemitic and anti-globalist base, his party sure seems indebted to people like Miriam Adelson and other prominent supporters of Israel, including many who support giving the entirety of historical Israel in the region over to the Israeli state.

 

Trump is really good at bringing disparate groups together by sticking to three word sentences that mean different things to each group. One of his strengths is in his lack of specificity that would end up dividing the anti semites from the evangelical christians. It's really wild to realize how Trump has managed to capture both fanatical groups to support him.  This  is from Pew Research:

"While most White Christian voters say they would vote for Trump over Biden if the election were held today, there are some differences by religious tradition. Trump draws support from:  

81% of White evangelical Protestant voters...Among Christians, support for Trump is somewhat higher among regular church attenders than non-churchgoers. Overall, 62% of Christian voters who say they go to church at least once or twice a month support Trump over Biden. Among Christians who go to church less often, 55% would vote for Trump if the election were today."

[think before following links] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/30/voters-views-of-trump-and-biden-differ-sharply-by-religion/

If one has never been part of Evangelical Christian culture, it might be harder to fathom their stance on Israel.  Here's an informative piece on Evangelicals and Israel:

 

"Since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war, American evangelicals have been especially vocal in backing Israel. Last week, 90 prominent pastors and other leaders issued “An Evangelical Statement in Support for Israel.” Citing “just war” tradition, the statement affirmed “Israel’s right and duty to defend itself against further attack.” Evangelical leaders around the country have expressed sympathy, as The New York Times reported, “for a country to which many of them feel intense spiritual, cultural and political connections.”

But evangelicals’ support isn’t simply driven by a theology that compels them to love the Holy Land, detached from its convulsive domestic and global political implications. For many “Christians Zionists,” and particularly for popular evangelists with significant clout within the Republican Party, their support for Israel is rooted in its role in the supposed end times: Jesus’ return to Earth, a bloody final battle at Armageddon, and Jesus ruling the world from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. In this scenario, war is not something to be avoided, but something inevitable, desired by God, and celebratory.

At the heart of Christian Zionism is not a love for Israel but rather Christian nationalism. 

What happens to the Jews and Palestinians is, to put it very mildly, collateral damage. Christian Zionists are anticipating, and hoping for a war to end all wars, and a resulting Christian world that they claim will vanquish evil and bring peace. Only those who accept Jesus as their savior will benefit from these events that Christian Zionists claim the Bible predicts will happen. Nonbelievers — including Jews and Muslims — will not survive them"

[think before following links] https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/truth-many-evangelical-christians-support-israel-rcna121481

 

[NEDenver]

3 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

I honestly don't know what Harris' position on Israel v. Hamas is, though I assume she's at least nominally in favor of a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, whomever ends up being their leader.

That said, I don't think Netanyahu has any intention of allowing a two-state solution - he won't come out and say "Never" or "Over my dead body", but that's essentially his position given the way he keeps expanding settlements in the West Bank and further cordoning off Palestinian towns and cities from one another.

But I do know this: If allowed to return to office, Trump will gladly allow Netanyahu to take whatever steps he wants in Palestine, and will exercise the US's veto on the Security Council to ensure that Israel pays no price for it. For a movement with a huge antisemitic and anti-globalist base, his party sure seems indebted to people like Miriam Adelson and other prominent supporters of Israel, including many who support giving the entirety of historical Israel in the region over to the Israeli state.

Harris cannot be worse than that. And in a binary choice, while I might push her harder once elected to limit our support of what's becoming a genocidal state, I'd still vote for her.

Like, more than that, Trump has always been hostile to American Muslims, and is fond of talking about kicking out all refugees.  The thought that Trump could in any way not be worse on basically every issue requires massive doses of hallucigenics.  But the damage he would either overtly inflict, or ignore while the brown shirts move in would be horrific.

Meanwhile, the, “Cut all military aid,” crowd don’t realize that means a massive increase in US deployments to the are to defend Israel’s territory once we remove their self-defense capability.  About all anyone can really do is hope Netanyahu is removed from office some way.

[DallasPozzible]

7 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

In a campaign rally this week, Harris was interrupted by individuals protesting the war in Gaza, which she deflected from and said, “if you want Donald Trump to win then say that. Otherwise I’m speaking”. Her response was telling, and may indicate how she does not want the Gaza war to be one of the core issues of the campaign."

She responded to protesters differently at the Arizona rally on Friday.

The Democratic presidential nominee was not far into her address before thousands of vocal supporters when she was interrupted by some spectators yelling above the vice president. Harris' rally in Arizona was reportedly her largest since entering the 2024 race, with an estimated crowd of more than 15,000.

"We are all in here together ... because we love our country," Harris said, gesturing toward the protesters. "We're here to fight for our democracy, which includes respecting the voices that I think that we are hearing from. And let me just say this on the topic of what I think I am hearing over there. Let me just speak to that for a moment, and then I'm going to get back to the business at hand."

"Let me say, I have been clear," the vice president continued. "Now is the time to get a ceasefire deal and get the hostage deal done."

[think before following links] https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-pauses-glendale-arizona-rally-talk-protesters-ceasefire-1937336

[hntnhole]

23 hours ago, PozBearWI said:

We sell stuff to them and largely the good stuff. 

Wellllll .... not exactly. 

According to U.S. Trade with Israel 2021 - Bureau of Industry and Security (updated 2024)

"How does Israel use the aid? Most of the aid—approximately $3.3 billion a year—is provided as grants under the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program, funds that Israel must use to purchase U.S. military equipment and services. May 31, 2024"

In other words, the US gives them dough, which they are required to spend buying US military goods.  There is a wide array of other items, not just military, but those purchases are not included in the military purchases.   

23 hours ago, PozBearWI said:

Rather we need to continue to speak our distressing observations with our all

Unfortunately, speaking of our distressing observations doesn't seem to be getting the job done.  I understand that Netanyahu and Biden have been friends for decades, and if that's ok with the two of them, it's ok with me.  What's not ok is, the destruction being wrought upon the Palestinians these past 10 months, with only louder/harder beating of the war drums currently.  The talk between old friends has produced precious little in modifying behavior (to be fair, on either side). 

I realize Harris is hampered by her current status as Biden's Veep, in that she must not begin making premature statements about policy she cannot make -as of yet.  After all, it won's be until January that she even has the power to alter things.  Maybe that's why she's been so quiet, other than calling the situation deplorable.  I'm aware of what Biden's done, and is doing (as much as the major media is, anyway), and his guidance seems to be falling on totally deaf ears in the War Cabinet.  I'm not sure it's a good idea to allow a foreign PM to lead American foreign policy, no matter who it is.  When Israel blows up hospitals, places where homeless, hungry civilians who've already lost everything, I think it's incumbent upon a candidate for the Presidency to address that horror.  

Thanks for your reply !!

[hntnhole]

22 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

I honestly don't know what Harris' position on Israel v. Hamas is, though I assume she's at least nominally in favor of a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, whomever ends up being their leader

I'm certain that's the case, but I haven't heard any clips in the major media to that effect.  She still has to support the President's plan, and until January, but it's so serious an issue we could be at war with Iran (and all her proxies) in short order.  I wish she'd make some kind of statement, instead of vague murmurings of support for the devasted folks with absolutely nothing.  It's an unfolding catastrophe, and will only get worse  If she indicates she's harboring X or Y views, it might at least nudge Nettie into something productive.  

22 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

But I do know this: If allowed to return to office, Trump will gladly allow Netanyahu to take whatever steps he wants in Palestine

Of course.  As far as I know, Palestine isn't a source of Big Macs, orange face-paint, hair dye, or gold-colored radiator paint*.  Therefore, he couldn't care less.  

I would cut off my hand before I'd fill in the little oval on the ballot for that p.o.s.  

*"radiator-paint" is a type of paint unethical antique dealers use to make plain old shit look like it's actually gold-plated.  Commonly used on portrait frames, furniture (and elevators in Turd Tower in NYC)

Thanks for your reply.

---------------------------------------------------------

To tallsplendidguy's reply:

The whole lift from Al Jazeera wasn't appropriate, (couldn't quote just one line), so here's the line I'm replying to:

"her response was telling and may indicate how she does not want the Gaza issue to be one of the core issues of the campaign"

Clearly, she doesn't, and since she's still Biden's VP, it wouldn't be appropriate for her to voice any substantive deviation from his position.  I suppose it's trying to read tea-leaves, which is about as good as praying to Whatever, but I believe that most Americans of good will want something to change for the better in the region (meaning the Israeli Government).   I too heard that retort to the demonstrators hollering at her rally, and her response seemed a bit terse.  Speculating, I doubt she'd continue the Administration's apparent policy of keeping mum, so I can't fault her for not speaking out more forcefully.  She definitely sent Nettie a message veiled though.  But nothing will happen (for her) until January at the earliest.  Thousands and thousands of innocents could die before then.  

To what the Evangelicals have to say, I don't believe in magic, and certainly not when it relates to the ancient enemy, Organized Religion.  Maybe I should pay a tiny bit of attention to that crowd, but it's just too dependent on ancient bullshit to interest me.  It's nothing but anti-reason as far as I'm concerned.  Depending on nonsense won't help anything.  

Thanks for your reply.

18 hours ago, NEDenver said:

But the damage he would either overtly inflict, or ignore while the brown shirts move in would be horrific.

Agreed.  He's already done tremendous harm (in the name of "vengeance"), which in his own religion's words:  "Vengeance is mine alone"* (God's words, according to the Old Testament.  Since I don't see some colors very well, I didn't know that the Israeli uniforms were brown - surely the most unfortunate choice of color, considering recent history.  If we "cut all military aid", that would mean taking US forces out of the theatre, since we have forces stationed in numerous neighboring countries.  Not "armies", more like "garrisons", but they're all in danger if a general war breaks out.  I'll bet "retraction" teams are already in situ over there, just in case.  

*Deuteronomy, 32:35

 

18 hours ago, NEDenver said:

About all anyone can really do is hope Netanyahu is removed from office some way

<polite cough>

I sure you didn't mean it the way I read it ... but "in some way" is a bit leading .... 😁

Thanks for your reply.

14 hours ago, DallasPozzible said:

"Let me say, I have been clear," the vice president continued. "Now is the time to get a ceasefire deal and get the hostage deal done."

I too thought that response the first time - "now I am speaking" - or words to that effect was a bit over the top.  The second time the protesters interrupted her she handled it much better.  Unfortunately, the folks who hold more urgent views have to shout over her (or any candidate) to be heard.  It would be much more productive to allow protesters to choose a spokesperson, and include some time for that person to ask the candidate some questions.   It's happened twice recently, so maybe the campaign will figure out a better way to handle it.  Maybe carve out some time at the end of the speech for opportunities to ask candidates for their ideas on individual issues.  

She can't be seen to be at variance with her boss - the President - until she's sworn in in January.  That said, she's able to thread this particular needle - but the sooner the better.  

Thanks for your reply.

Edited August 10 by hntnhole
spacing

[hntnhole]

On 8/9/2024 at 7:20 PM, tallslenderguy said:

Reports that the National Security Council had to “tone down” her language during a speech delivered in March

I took that event as a push-back on the part of the President's advisors/policy of fairly gentle public statements, vs his private discussions with Israeli officials, and probably generated at the President's insistence.  Up until January, it will be Biden's agenda, and while we see kind old Joe in public, there may well be a more blunt guy sitting in the Oval.  Diminished now, perhaps, but still the The Guy.  Once she's President, I think she'll feel able to be far more blunt in her remarks (and, maybe actions).  

I think Harris is avoiding making any decisive remarks about the issue, since it's simply not her call until she's seated as President.  

On 8/9/2024 at 7:43 PM, tallslenderguy said:

81% of White evangelical Protestant voters...Among Christians, support for Trump is somewhat higher among regular church attenders than non-churchgoers. Overall, 62% of Christian voters who say they go to church at least once or twice a month support Trump over Biden

The crux of this issue, as far as I can figure, is that what used to be called "Christianity" in the US has been re-branded as White Supremacy Excused by a Faith Tradition.  These folks who claim to follow the message (the truly ancient one, obviously)* have jettisoned any tie to the New Covenant, relying instead of the same magical, supernatural-based belief systems that other Traditions follow - with the exception that they are "the anointed" ones, while very, very similar and ancient faith traditions are declared to be "wrong".  There is simply no truthful introspection behind this mental bias. 

The above-mentioned percentage exists because their self-centered hatreds are being catered to by charlatans, raking in truckloads of money, and have been doing so for centuries.  Institutionalized Religion is the bane of humanity, with zero redeeming qualities.  Humans are born into this world with these negative characteristics completely absent.  These self-centered (and thus, "other-centered" hatreds) are products of our culture, whoever happens to be "the other".  It's only after humans begin to be "culturalized" by the institutions they're raised in, that these people begin to turn off their mental capacities, in favor of the false fervor inculcated as children.  Thus we wind up with a Speaker whose goal is "helping bring about 'the end times'.  Reportedly, all the "believers" swept up to Heaven, and all the non-believers thrown down into Hell.  How's bathing in blood for scaring little kids?  

On 8/9/2024 at 7:43 PM, tallslenderguy said:

At the heart of Christian Zionism is not a love for Israel but rather Christian nationalism

Isn't the paradox perversely interesting?  I remember in one of the creeds I heard as a kid the phrase "the conversion of the Jews".  Now I can't say I thought much about it at the time, other than if they (the Jews) are able to jettison their ancient traditions/beliefs, why aren't we non-Christians able to do that too?  Why aren't we (Christians) supposed to recognize the bullshit that we're taught relative to "communion".  I don't think any kid relishes the notion of the actual flesh of Jesus, or his blood in our mouths as very appetizing; yet that's the kind of bullshit we were taught.  Christian Nationalism - if it triumphs - will be the ruin not only of the US, but the whole damn rest too.  Then, the handful of survivors will start the whole process all over again.

 

On 8/9/2024 at 7:43 PM, tallslenderguy said:

war to end all wars

Yeah, because no one will still be alive.  Then, the cycle of humanity will begin all over again, via the handful of survivors.   If/when nuclear war actually does happen, it'll be back to the caves for the remnants of humanity.  Maybe in 10,000 years, we'll all come back again too .... 

Rant exhausted .... thanks for your always interesting input.  

*referring to the "New Covenant"

 

[hntnhole]

(and thanks, tallslenderguy, for your always thoughtful reply)

[viking8x6]

1 hour ago, hntnhole said:

I think Harris is avoiding making any decisive remarks about the issue, since it's simply not her call until she's seated as President.

I rather suspect she also sees the Middle East conflict as a losing issue for Democrats and is deliberately choosing to focus on other topics - and fortunately (at least from the standpoint of politics) she has many other crises from which to choose.

[hntnhole]

I concur, in that she's not in any position to make this or that policy happen, and won't be until January (assuming she wins).  That whole situation seems to always be in a state of flux, if not outright conflict; all kinds of mistakes can happen long before then. The issue of US trying to influence policy in the area is, and has been, questionable a lot longer than any 4our year term in office. 

Fortunately, she's not running for President of the World; running for President of the US is a huge enough challenge for any politician.  Sure, she should condemn the violence, the ongoing killing, but she's simply in no position to make much in the way of concrete proposals.  There's plenty on her plate as it is, only one of which is formulating an appropriate commentary on current foreign events. 

So far, my impression of Harris is a lady with a big heart, but it's presently encased in a shell of steel.  We'll see more depth in January.    

[NEDenver]

“Hey guys, we can embargo Israel and stop giving them weapons, but it will mean US troop presence in the Middle East not seen since Reagan retreated.”  

That’s not a message that will go over well.  But unless you want to replace “Palestinian genocide” with “Israeli genocide”, it’s what needs to happen.