Versione Italiana – Translation by Paul Rosenberg
The lights at the Democratic Convention have just gone out, marking the start of the most crucial campaign of Kamala Harris’ career. However, as the vice president prepares for this challenge, she also faces growing pressure from pro-Palestine activists. The Uncommitted Movement, which gathered thousands of votes during the Democratic primaries in protest against the Biden administration’s policy towards Israel, expressed its frustration at not being represented on the convention stage, despite attempts at dialogue with Harris’ team.
During the Democratic primary in Michigan in February, the Uncommitted Movement issued a clear warning to President Joe Biden: “Impose an arms embargo on Israel, or we won’t vote for you.” This warning could have jeopardized Biden’s victory in key Midwestern states in the upcoming November elections. In the months that followed, dissent from Arab Americans, students and other anti-war Democrats negatively impacted the president’s poll numbers, casting doubt on his success in the “Blue Wall” states.
As discontent among some segments of Democratic voters grew, national public opinion increasingly split over the Israeli-Palestinian issue. A recent Gallup poll found that a majority of Americans oppose Israel’s action in Gaza, despite an increase in support for Israel in recent months, from 36 to 42 percent. However, 48 percent of those interviewed remain highly critical. This divide is particularly stark between Democratic and Republican voters: 76 percent of Republicans approve of Israel’s actions, compared to 23 percent of Democrats and 34 percent of independents. The divide is also evident at a generational level, with most older people in favor of Israel, while those under 35 are largely against it.
The Biden administration has maintained a policy of strong support for Israel, including military assistance and defending Israel’s right to protect itself. However, there has been greater emphasis on the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip compared to the past, with timid attempts to mitigate the impact of Israeli operations in the area. Pro-Palestine activists had hoped for a different position from Kamala Harris, especially regarding an arms embargo on Israel. This hope was based on what the vice president said during a speech in Selma on the occasion of the anniversary of the Selma to Montgomery Marches, when Harris highlighted the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, describing devastating scenes of families reduced to eating leaves, malnourished newborns and children dying of hunger and dehydration.
What we see every day in Gaza is devastating,
she said, adding that the Israeli government needed to do more to ensure the flow of humanitarian aid, without excuses.
Despite these strong words, Harris reiterated the United States’ unconditional support for Israel, declaring that Israel’s right to defend itself is indisputable, as is the Biden administration’s commitment to Israeli security.
Hamas cannot control Gaza and the threat it poses to Israel must be eliminated,
the vice president underlined, calling Hamas a brutal terrorist organization.
While Harris did not openly criticize Biden or Israel’s choices in Gaza, she emphasized the severity of human suffering among Palestinians, saying that a two-state solution must guarantee Palestinians the right to freedom, dignity and self-determination.
This line was reiterated on the evening of the Convention, when Harris declared that “I will always support Israel’s right to defend itself and I will always ensure that Israel has the ability to do so,” while recognizing the rights and suffering of the Palestinians.
However, the activists’ hopes had already been dashed a few days earlier when the Harris campaign reiterated its position on the embargo through a statement by national security advisor Philip Gordon, a key figure in the dynamics of foreign policy of the Biden administration.
This stance was a bitter pill for many activists which confirmed that, despite the pressure, Harris’ line will not deviate from the traditional Democratic Party position, at least for now.
But who is Philip Gordon?
Vice President Kamala Harris at Selma
Philip Gordon is currently Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor to Vice President Kamala Harris, a role similar to that held by Jake Sullivan and Antony Blinken for then-Vice President Biden during the Obama administration, the two of whom are now respectively National Security Advisor and Secretary of State.
Gordon is a veteran of American diplomacy with a distinguished career in foreign policy. A longtime Democrat, he has held important positions including Director for European Affairs at the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, and Special Assistant to the President for the Middle East during Barack Obama’s administration.
While serving in these positions, he helped shape U.S. policy in the Middle East, particularly the nuclear deal with Iran and the handling of the Syrian civil war. Gordon also has extensive experience in Middle Eastern politics, having worked at prestigious institutions such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institution.
Gordon is well known to Israeli officials. In 2016, he co-authored a bipartisan report on how to repair relations between Israel and the United States, after years of tensions that had led to significant differences of opinion on numerous key policies.
The diplomat is also a prolific author of articles and essays that have outlined many of the guidelines of American foreign policy. In their book The Obamaians. The Struggle Inside the White House to Redefine American Power (2012), journalists James Mann and Jim Mann describe Gordon and a whole generation of Democrats as eager to demonstrate that their party was not a refuge for pacifists, but fully understood national security issues and was willing to use American force when necessary.
On the front of NATO and relations with Russia, Gordon has moved along with the Democratic mainstream. In the early 2000s, he supported the idea of integrating Russia into the international order, promoting dialogue on issues such as counter-terrorism and arms control. During the Obama administration, he supported the “reset” of relations with Russia, believing in the possibility of cooperation on crucial issues such as nuclear disarmament and Afghanistan.
However, over time Gordon took a more skeptical stance, especially after Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and intervention in eastern Ukraine. In January 2018, he co-authored a Council on Foreign Relations report with Republican Robert Blackwill calling on Washington to “impose real costs on Moscow” and strengthen defenses against future threats, arguing that the geopolitical challenge posed to the United States from Russia was growing.
Gordon criticized the Trump administration’s aggressive approach towards China, at the same time expressing concern about Beijing’s growing nationalism. In an article published in 2020, Gordon outlined a more balanced strategy, suggesting that the United States should focus on four key pillars: rebuilding domestic economic strength, strengthening regional alliances, competing with China strategically and economically, and at the same time cooperating on topics of common interest, such as global economic growth and the prevention of military conflicts. Gordon emphasizes that while it is necessary to contain Chinese expansionism and curb Beijing’s market-distorting practices, the United States must also seek pragmatic cooperation with China to advance common goals and maintain global stability.
Gordon’s strategic approach to foreign policy, which is evident in his positions on China, reflects a broader skepticism about the effectiveness of military interventions. This point of view also clearly emerges in his writings, where he criticizes the interventionist policies of the United States, particularly in the Middle East.
Gordon offers a clear and critical vision of US foreign policy in two of his most significant books: Winning the Right War: The Path to Security for America and the World (2007) and Losing the Long Game: The False Promise of Regime Change in the Middle East (2020).
In Winning the Right War, Gordon proposes a paradigm shift in American foreign policy that redirects attention from the “war on terrorism” to a more nuanced approach that encompasses diplomacy, development and the rule of law. He criticizes the militaristic approach adopted after 9/11, emphasizing how it has produced negative effects, including the erosion of civil liberties, the alienation of allies, and widespread anti-American sentiment.
Gordon argues that treating terrorism as a war against an indistinct enemy rather than as a specific security problem led to strategic mistakes, such as the invasion of Iraq, that diverted resources from more pressing issues. His view is that the United States should adopt a more targeted response to terrorism which leverages intelligence, diplomacy and root problem solving, rather than global military actions. His strategy suggests a balance between security and protection of civil liberties, warning that sacrificing fundamental values could strengthen extremists.
In his book Losing the Long Game, Gordon critically analyzes the United States’ policy of regime change in the Middle East, highlighting its failures and unintended consequences. Through a historical review of interventions in countries such as Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, Gordon demonstrates how these attempts have often led to instability, civil wars and the growth of extremist groups. Rather than establishing stable and democratic governments, the removal of authoritarian regimes has frequently generated power vacuums and sectarian conflicts. Gordon thus criticizes the bipartisan illusion that removing a dictator, without adequately planning for the consequences, automatically leads to positive outcomes.
He concludes by urging a more cautious American foreign policy, suggesting that diplomacy, economic commitment and support for local actors be prioritized rather than military intervention, recognizing the limits of American power and the complexity of the context in the Middle East.
L’articolo Philip Gordon. A First Look at Harris’ Foreign Policy proviene da ytali..