John Clarke says that as Harris takes over from ‘Genocide Joe’ as Democratic party presidential candidate the question of the Middle East remains central

When the Democratic Party establishment still hoped that the fading Joe Biden could be propped up and run as a presidential candidate, his monstrous role in arming and enabling the ongoing genocide in Gaza was an albatross around his neck. His brief period on the campaign trail was marked by disruptive protests that challenged him as the president who will be widely remembered as ‘Genocide Joe.’

This readiness to confront Biden’s re-election bid grew out of a sustained Palestine solidarity mobilisation in the US that included a considerable number of powerful encampments at universities throughout the country that, though they were vilified and faced very serious police repression, created a crisis for those in power and won some concrete concessions.

Crisis of legitimacy

Large scale protest actions against Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza created a particular crisis of legitimacy for the Democratic Party at the worst possible time. In order to hold off the threat of a second Trump presidency, it would be necessary to convince the party’s political base that its candidate was a ‘progressive’ option. The hasty switch to Kamala Harris raised the question of whether a vice-president implicated in the horrors unfolding in Gaza could succeed in this task, where the hapless Biden was clearly failing.

In this regard, Harris faced her first major test with the Democratic National Convention, which was held in Chicago this past week. It was clear that there would be substantial protests against the genocide in Gaza but the question was whether Harris could emerge from the convention as a presidential candidate with sufficient credibility to mount an effective electoral bid.

There was no doubt that Harris would have some problems to overcome, in terms of her track record. Politico suggested that ‘Democrats worried that President Joe Biden’s strong backing of Israel’s war in Gaza could cost him the election feel like they’ve been thrown a lifeline with Kamala Harris. That lifeline might be thinner than they think.’

Clearly, Harris ‘has to run for president while remaining a loyal vice president to Biden, making it hard to distance herself from his perceived policies. It is, after all, the Biden-Harris administration, as they like to say.’ The article warned, moreover, that ‘in most ways, her policy toward the Israelis and Palestinians isn’t necessarily going to differ that much from Biden’s.’ She may take more care to express concern about Israel’s brutality and to deplore Palestinian suffering a little more forcefully than Biden but ‘(s)he and President Biden are in lockstep when it comes to Israel. There is no daylight between them to be found.’

Harris’ running mate, Tim Walz, is facing similar problems, however strenuously he is working to promote his own progressive credentials. An article in Mondoweiss concludes that ‘he can be fairly characterized as a reliable pro-Israel Democrat who has consistently voted for and taken positions in support of Israel. In fact, it is this very history that has led Israel lobby groups within the Democratic Party to celebrate Harris’s choice, which should give us all pause.’

As Harris and Walz worked to generate a perception that they would approach the question of Palestine differently but not too differently, Antony Blinken was off on yet another trip to the Middle East, pretending to be an honest broker of peace. Yet, as The Intercept has put it, ‘(f)or anyone paying attention, it is now abundantly clear that the U.S.-led Gaza ceasefire talks have become a tool for the perpetuation of Israel’s genocidal war…The so-called ceasefire negotiations are a form of camouflage that is being deployed by Biden and Harris to distract from the reality of their support for Israel’s mass atrocities in Gaza.’ Harris is working to carry on this deception but hopes to do it more effectively than her predecessor.

The corporate media has been very ready to suggest that the Palestine solidarity protests directed at the convention ‘fizzled’ and that Harris was responsible for subduing them. This is to significantly overstate the situation. There were large scale actions that had an effect and the shadow of the Gaza genocide was cast over the gathering. Still, there is no denying that Harris and the Democratic establishment enjoyed some measure of success in fostering false hopes and convincing many to wait and see.

This operation involved something of a balancing act. The message of increased impatience with Israel and greater sympathy for Palestinian suffering was matched by a determined effort to prevent the Palestinian case from being put forward at the convention. The uncommitted movement, which has challenged Biden’s complicity in genocide, put forward a demand for a Palestinian speaker on the main stage. This call was rebuffed and ‘Ruwa Romman, a Georgia state representative who wrote a speech for the convention to consider, read her prepared remarks to a crowd gathered outside, instead.’

With these cynical tactics and carefully crafted image making, ‘Harris has avoided what could have been a major interruption to her coronation that would have exposed deep fissures within the party…For now, Harris is navigating the political tightrope and largely keeping her party unified, a critical task ahead of November.’ It must be said, however, that the situation in the Middle East is utterly explosive and her ability to stay on that tightrope shouldn’t be assumed.

Though it unfolded in a climate of considerable tension, the convention was able to follow the script that the party establishment had prepared. Biden came to the stage to bask in ill-deserved glory, with tributes from all quarters, including one from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who showered thanks upon him. Biden’s performance, followed by an array of leading Democrats, set the stage for Harris’s major speech at the end of the convention.

‘She looked presidential’

The liberal US media was in raptures over Harris’s ‘Thursday night acceptance speech (that) was always intended as its grand finale.’ The Los Angeles Times gushed that ‘Harris commanded the stage with a purpose and passion that eluded her the last time she ran, aimlessly and unsuccessfully, for the White House’ and that ‘she looked presidential — which was the whole point.’

On the key question of the attack on Gaza, Harris spared no effort to present herself as a dogged ally of Israel but one with a compassionate eye to the needs of the Palestinians. She asserted that,

“I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself, and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself. Because the people of Israel must never again face the horror that the terrorist organisation Hamas caused on October 7…At the same time, what has happened in Gaza over the past 10 months is devastating. President Biden and I are working to end this war such that Israel is secure, the hostages are released, the suffering in Gaza ends and the Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity, security, freedom and self-determination.”

This ‘balanced’ approach got the Democrats through their convention largely unscathed but, as I have suggested, the terrible events in Gaza, made possible with weapons supplied by an administration that Harris is part of, are not so easily pushed aside. As Netanyahu works to undermine another ceasefire initiative, Palestinians move from one devastated and unsafe location to another in an effort to survive.

In a report that seems horribly routine, Al Jazeera informs us this week that ‘(t)housands of Palestinians have fled parts of Deir el-Balah in the Gaza Strip as the Israeli military issued new evacuation orders and its forces advanced deeper into the overcrowded central city. The area was previously designated by Israel as a so-called ‘humanitarian safe zone’ for civilians, but the Israeli army ordered residents, many of them displaced multiple times already, to leave before a new military operation there.’  

With such terrible crimes underway and the risk of a catastrophic regional conflict growing ever more serious, the image that Kamala Harris has developed is a very fragile construction indeed. In the face of her direct responsibility for such horrors, her ability to present herself as a progressive alternative to Trump or even a ‘lesser evil’ will face serious challenges. Her effort to contain the movement of Palestine solidarity is far from assured and her road to the White House may well be a rocky one.