Getting a “deal done” is not a foreign policy

I have strong opinions on many things, and know a little about a lot of things, but I am only really an expert on a few things. One of the things about which I know a lot is Israel and the Middle East. My expertise is based on a degree in International and Middle Eastern studies, some of which took place in Israel. That makes me more knowledgeable than the vast majority of people, even with their strong opinions. 

However, I also live in Israel. I see the intersection of international affairs and local politics in everything, and the actual impact and implications on the ground. I say that I live in my own Petrie dish. There may be others who are more knowledgeable with more degrees, but I know what I am talking about. 

And I know when others don’t. 

Sadly, one of the most egregious and dangerous examples of people not knowing what they are talking about is the Harris-Walz campaign. This is reflected in their own declarations and policies, and that of those feeding them the information (and polls) upon which they are based. 

Since her nomination as the Democratic Party candidate, when speaking of Israel and the Middle East in general, and the war against Hamas in Gaza in specific, Kamala Harris has repeated the need to “get a deal done.” 

There are many problems with this. First, it is passive. It is not a legitimate policy, or answer to questions about what she would do as president to end the war or release the hostages. It creates an obscene parallel between Israel and Hamas (Iran) that each is interested equally in a resolution. If Hamas were interested in peace, they could have released all the hostages and laid down their arms long ago. They are not, and even if they were to make a “deal” they would not honor it. The fact is that Israel cares more about preventing civilian casualties in Gaza than Hamas does. 

Hamas is interested in one thing: not two states but the destruction of the Jewish state. 

The foolish implication is not only that both sides are equally interested in the elusive “deal,” but can be dealt with equally. There’s been no shortage of clear pressure on Israel from the Biden-Harris administration to pressure Israel to accept any terms just to “get a deal done.” In parallel, the US has no direct influence on Hamas and cannot pressure it directly, because it doesn’t care. But what the Biden-Harris administration could have done from day one is provide Israel with all the intelligence it has on Hamas in Gaza and where the hostages are, with no restrictions. The Biden-Harris administration could have told Qatar on October 8 that if all the hostages (including many Americans) were not released unconditionally, Qatar would face sanctions and direct attacks on the Hamas leaders living in seven-star hotels under its protection. 

A “policy” to “get a deal done” is a hollow aspiration that is neither practical, based on reality, or will bring peace in any way that provides safety and security for Israel, or the Gazans. 

This is not partisan rhetoric, but based on reality. Hearing a candidate for the highest office of the most powerful country in the world repeat such nonsense is frightening. It is not a “policy” that will bring peace, but embolden the terrorists starting with the Iranian Islamic regime, and all its tentacle proxies. 

Many things point to Harris’ gross ignorance. Before Israel invaded the southern Gaza city and Hamas stronghold, Rafah, earlier this year, both she and Biden stopped short of everything but outright threatening Israel. Barely. 

In March, Biden said that a major Israeli operation in Rafah is a "red line." He suggested that such a move could lead to cutting off offensive weapons for Israel. At the same time, Harris said, "We have been clear in multiple conversations and in every way that any major military operation in Rafah would be a huge mistake. Let me tell you something, I have been studying the maps," not ruling out "consequences" on Israel.

After Israel entered Rafah, the mass casualties that the Biden-Harris administration projected never took place. Israel has operated strategically, rooting out terrorists and rescuing hostages. Since Israel’s rescue of a Bedouin Arab Israeli and recovery of six bodies of hostages who had just been executed, the Biden-Harris “policy” of threatening Israel was undermined. 

If she had “studied the maps”, Harris would have a sense that in addition to dozens of tunnels found under the Egyptian border, all these hostages were discovered in the tunnels under Rafah. By Biden-Harris pressuring Israel not to enter Rafah for months, threatening an arms embargo, they put the hostages’ lives in danger. 

Rather than threatening to withhold arms, the Biden-Harris administration should have provided Israel with every resource to crush Hamas from the very outset. Their “policy” endangers lives in Israel and Gaza, and emboldens the terrorists from Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. 

Harris’ declarations and threats are also dangerous for Americans. In her recent interview at the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ), Harris noted vaguely that on October 7, 2023, 1,200 Israelis and “some Americans” were killed.  She neglected to note that “some Americans” were taken hostage by Hamas, of whom one was just executed in cold blood, and seven remain in captivity by the terrorists. It’s widely known that October 7 was the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. But, after September 11, October 7 was the third largest massacre of Americans this century. 

Parroting the need to “get a deal done,” and the mantra of Hamas’ supporters in Congress and throughout the US for a “ceasefire” is not only bad policy, it’s not a policy at all. Hamas is not interested in a deal; they are interested in destroying Israel and slaughtering the Jews. Simply hitting the pause button to make a deal will put more Israelis, more Gazans, and even more Americans' lives at greater risk. 

Making a deal might be a good TV game show, but it is not a viable policy, and not a suitable answer to questions about what she would do as president. It certainly gives no confidence in understanding the issues, or helping to resolve the many actual threats and challenges.