Kamala Harris is walking a tightrope on the conflict in Gaza. She can’t afford to lose votes

Posted on: 16 August 2024

“The whole world is watching.” So chanted anti-war demonstrators in the summer of 1968 as they were brutalised by Chicago police outside the Democratic convention. The party was torn apart and lost the presidency. You’d think Democrats would never want to hold their convention in Chicago again. But next week they are. The whole world will again be watching, this time to see if Kamala Harris can maintain the momentum and party unity she’ll need to defeat Donald Trumpthis November.

1968 is the only time when a president decided not to seek re-election after his party’s primaries had already begun. Then, it was Lyndon Johnson; today, it’s Joe Biden. Then, vice-president Humphrey ran instead; today, it’s vice-president Harris. The main issue in 1968 was the Vietnam War. Anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy’s surprising strong performance in the New Hampshire primary precipitated Johnson’s decision to withdraw. Then, Robert Kennedy entered the race, pledging to de-escalate the war in Vietnam and to do more to address poverty and racial injustice.

Richard Daley, the Irish-American mayor of Chicago, had promised anti-war protesters a hostile response. And he delivered. It was, as a later investigation called it, a “police riot”. Police viciously beat anti-war protesters, most of whom were nonviolent. They even attacked bystanders and journalists. The normally mild-mannered senator George McGovern, who was running in place of the recently assassinated Kennedy, shouted obscenities at the police from the window of his hotel room. The violence on the streets of the Chicago brought the conflict within the convention hall into the open. Jewish senator Abraham Ribicoff accused Daley of “Gestapo tactics”. Daley replied with a string of anti-Semitic expletives.

Violence and division at this year’s Democratic convention are unlikely to reach 1968 levels. Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson is no Richard Daley. He promises to protect protesters, not attack them. And Gaza is not Vietnam. This is a war being fought by a foreign ally of the US, not by American troops. Yet many coming to Chicago care deeply about the war in Gaza. Pro-Palestinian activists plan large demonstrations outside the convention. They will protest the Biden administration’s continued backing of Israeli ethnic cleansing and war crimes. They will be joined by some within the convention hall. Some delegates were elected on “uncommitted” ballots (ie, not pledge to any candidate) specifically to protest Biden’s policies on the war. Also, a growing number of Democratic politicians have also become vocal critics of Biden. Expect contentious debate within the party that would be exacerbated by any violence in the streets.

The convention is the next big test for Harris. Her campaign could hardly have gone better since she took over from Biden a few weeks ago. She has brought tremendous energy to the race. She is now leading polls against Trump in key battleground states. Her savvy choice of Tim Walz as her vice-presidential candidate showed that she understands the need to rally the party behind her. Her other options would have alienated the party’s progressive wing.

But Harris is walking a tightrope when it comes to the ongoing horrific Israeli war on Gaza. Harris signalled that she has a different attitude toward it than Biden. After meeting with Binyamin Netanyahu last month, she said she “will not be silent” about Palestinian suffering. But such sentiments are unlikely to satisfy pro-Palestinian protesters. And nor should they. The US is providing Israel with the weapons it is using to fight this war. When you are providing the instruments of suffering, saying you won’t be silent doesn’t suffice.

Harris can meet the concerns of pro-Palestinian critics by doing three things. First, she can reiterate the need for an immediate ceasefire. The Biden administration has in fact shifted on this issue; its initial enthusiasm for the war has dampened. Second, Harris can acknowledge that pro-Palestinian activists have a right to protest. Finally, she can signal a future willingness to change American policy of unqualified military support for Israel.

Harris’s best argument is this: the alternative to her is Trump, who would be worse on this issue as on so many others. But to prevail against Trump, Harris needs her party united behind her. She cannot afford to lose any votes over Gaza in an election that stands on the razor’s edge. What happens next week in Chicago may determine whether or not Harris wins in November. In 1968, Humphrey lost a close election to Nixon at least partly because anti-war voters abstained. Let us hope history does not repeat itself.

This article was first published in The Irish Times. Read the original article on the Irish Times website.

• Tags:
• Research
• Society