• Kamala Harris faces growing backlash for not addressing concerns over the Gaza genocide
• Pro-Palestine activists intensify protests, disrupting Harris’s rallies across key states
As Kamala Harris campaigns for the U.S. presidency, her stance on the Gaza genocide has become a lightning rod for both internal and external criticism. This issue has sparked protests, led to public confrontations, and intensified deep-seated divisions within the Democratic Party. Despite growing scrutiny on both Harris and her running mate, Governor Tim Walz, the campaign continues to resist addressing the concerns raised by Palestinian activists.
On Thursday, Kamala Harris’s national security advisor, Phil Gordon, clarified her position regarding a potential arms embargo on Israel, explicitly stating that Harris “does not support an arms embargo on Israel.” This public statement was prompted by claims from the Uncommitted national movement, a group advocating for changes in the Democratic Party’s approach to Israel, which suggested that Harris was open to discussing the regulation of U.S. military aid to Israel.
The activists behind the movement, Layla Elabed and Abbas Alawieh, had earlier indicated that Harris showed a willingness to meet and discuss the possibility of an arms embargo during a brief interaction. However, Harris’s campaign quickly rebutted this, reaffirming her commitment to Israel’s security and its right to defend itself against threats, particularly those posed by Iran and affiliated groups.
The tension between Harris’s public stance and the activists’ claims came to a head during a campaign stop in Detroit, Michigan, a city with a significant Arab and Muslim American population. During her speech, pro-Palestinian demonstrators disrupted the event, accusing Harris of supporting policies that contribute to the suffering of Palestinians. The protesters began chanting, “Kamala, Kamala, you can’t hide! We won’t vote for genocide.”
In response, Harris addressed the crowd, stating, “You know what? If you want Donald Trump to win, then say that. Otherwise, I’m speaking.” This confrontation quickly went viral on social media, fueling further debate over Harris’s handling of the situation and her broader position on Israel. Despite her attempts to quell the dissent, many progressive voices within the party continued to push for a reassessment of U.S. policy towards Israel, particularly in the context of the ongoing war in Gaza.
Before the rally, the Uncommitted campaign expressed both disappointment and cautious optimism following Harris’s public disavowal of an arms embargo. They emphasized the importance of continued dialogue, noting their belief that Harris might still be persuaded to reconsider her stance on military aid to Israel. ‘We found hope in Vice President Harris expressing an openness to meeting about an arms embargo,’ the campaign stated, urging her to engage further on the issue as the humanitarian crisis in Gaza deepens.
This ongoing friction reflects a broader struggle within the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, where activists feel that their calls for a more compassionate U.S. policy towards Gaza are being sidelined. Despite reassurances from Harris’s team, these activists remain determined to press for changes that they believe are essential to ending the violence and ensuring justice for Palestinian civilians.
Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota, Harris’s vice-presidential pick, was initially seen as a figure who could appeal to progressives. However, his record on issues related to Palestine has become a point of contention. Walz has faced criticism for his refusal to meet with Palestinian families from Minnesota who have been directly affected by Israel’s genocidal campaign. Despite his earlier statements expressing concern over the situation in Gaza, Walz’s actions—or lack thereof—have left many activists feeling frustrated and ignored.
Groups like American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have repeatedly tried to engage Walz in discussions about an arms embargo and divestment from Israel, but their efforts have consistently been rejected. A meeting scheduled for July 9 was abruptly canceled, further straining relations between Walz and the Palestinian community in Minnesota. Activists, including Sana Wazwaz of AMP, have criticized Walz for what they see as a performative approach to the issue, accusing him of seeking sympathy without addressing their substantive policy demands.
The protests against Harris are not isolated incidents. Activists have continued to disrupt her rallies across the country, including a recent event in Arizona, to draw attention to what they see as her complicity in Israel’s actions in Gaza. These disruptions are part of a broader strategy by pro-Palestinian groups to hold Harris accountable for her policies and to demand a shift in U.S. support for Israel.
Eaman Ali, one of the activists involved in these disruptions, emphasized the importance of ensuring that Harris is repeatedly confronted with the reality of the situation in Gaza. “She does not get to ignore the suffering in Gaza while campaigning on other issues,” Ali stated, reflecting a sentiment shared by many within the activist community.
As the Harris campaign continues its tour of key battleground states, it repeatedly refuses to address the concerns of pro-Palestine activists, focusing instead on presenting its already established foreign policy platform. The ongoing unrest among progressives reveals the campaign’s unwillingness to engage meaningfully with these concerns, risking further division within its base.
The Harris campaign’s stance on Israel and Palestine is increasingly at odds with public opinion, particularly among Democratic voters. A recent poll conducted by Data for Progress found that a significant majority of likely voters, including a large portion of Democrats, support a U.S. call for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and the suspension of arms sales to Israel as long as humanitarian aid is blocked.
These findings point to a significant divide between Harris’s campaign rhetoric and the broader electorate’s views. If the campaign fails to address this gap, it could face significant challenges in mobilizing key voter blocs, particularly among progressives and younger voters who are increasingly disillusioned with the Democratic Party’s approach to foreign policy.
