Skip to main content

Clarity in this chaotic news cycle

There’s an overwhelming amount of news, but not enough context. At Vox, we do things differently. We’re not focused on being the first to break stories — we’re focused on helping you understand what actually matters. We report urgently on the most important issues shaping our world, and dedicate time to the issues that the rest of the media often neglects. But we can’t do it alone.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join today

The moment when Kamala Harris’s speech came alive

The Democratic nominee got foreign policy — and especially Israel-Palestine — right.

Day Four Of The 2024 Democratic National Convention
Day Four Of The 2024 Democratic National Convention
US Vice President Kamala Harris speaks during the Democratic National Convention (DNC) at the United Center in Chicago, Illinois, US, on August 22, 2024.
Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Zack Beauchamp
Zack Beauchamp is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he covers ideology and challenges to democracy, both at home and abroad. His book on democracy, The Reactionary Spirit, was published 0n July 16. You can purchase it here.

Vice President Kamala Harris’s acceptance speech started slow, getting bogged down in a familiar recitation of her biography. But it got stronger over time, really hitting its stride when she got around to a topic that’s often dry: foreign policy. There, she showed a facility with policy and an aptitude for navigating deeply divisive issues like Israel-Palestine that did wonders for her commander-in-chief credibility.

Part of what worked was Harris’s palpably emotional delivery. But there was also a real crispness to the speech’s arguments. Here’s what she said, for example, in discussing Trump’s affinity for dictators:

I will not cozy up to tyrants and dictators like Kim Jong Un who are rooting for Trump. Who are rooting for Trump because they know he is easy to manipulate with flattery and favors. They know Trump won’t hold autocrats accountable because he wants to be an autocrat himself.

In just three lines, she presented an entire cogent theory of what’s wrong with Trump — that he is a selfish, unserious man whose entire approach to politics is anathema to American democracy — and illustrated it with a compelling, easily graspable example. As a writer, it’s hard not to admire the craft here.

She also applied that in her discussion of Israel-Palestine, where she delivered one of the deftest handlings of the issue I’ve ever seen from a politician, one that displayed empathy for both sides while also implicitly distancing herself from Biden’s unbalanced pro-Israel approach:

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 a terrorist organization called Hamas caused on October 7, including unspeakable sexual violence and the massacre of young people at a music festival.

At the same time, what has happened in Gaza over the past 10 months is devastating. So many innocent lives lost, desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety over and over again. The scale of suffering is heartbreaking. 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.

Harris’s framing not only recognized the strongest points in both the Israeli and Palestinian narratives of the current conflict, it took them seriously.

She did not mince words or dance around the horror of October 7. She acknowledged why the attack was such an unforgivable assault on Israeli lives and reiterated her commitment to preventing it from ever happening again. At the same time, she went much further than even most Democrats are willing to in recognizing the immense and ongoing suffering of Palestinians. More than that, actually: She acknowledged that Palestinians have legitimate rights — rights that demand even more than an end to this war, but a future where Palestinians truly rule themselves.

Too often, people discussing this topic feel the need to only recognize one of these narratives — and in American politics, that’s most often the Israeli one. Yet Harris placed them on truly equal footing, taking the moral ideas implicit in a two-state solution to the conflict and bringing them to the fore. The result was a discussion that anyone who cares about both Israeli and Palestinian lives could appreciate, and one that felt genuine in the delivery rather than just pro forma.

Now, to be clear: President Joe Biden has said similar-sounding things about Palestinian dignity, and his policy has still been overwhelmingly tilted in Israel’s direction.

But this speech felt meaningfully different in two respects.

First, its rhetorical structure: Presenting Palestinian aspirations for self-determination as the moral climax of her discussion of the issue, the apex concern, felt like a meaningful shift away from a biased status quo. Second, and more importantly, it’s consistent: In public and reportedly in private, Harris has demonstrated far more concern with the suffering of Palestinian civilians.

Harris “would certainly show more pragmatism and flexibility than Biden has, and in her public commentary has also demonstrated a far more humanizing approach to the Palestinians in the past year,” Josh Paul, a former State Department official who resigned over Biden’s approach to Gaza told the New York Times in July.

I don’t want to read too much into mere words; no one should be confident that Harris would govern perfectly on Israel-Palestine or any other foreign policy issue. But a speech that good at least earned her the benefit of the doubt.

More in Politics

I work in global health. Trump ditching the World Health Organization might be the wake-up call it needs.I work in global health. Trump ditching the World Health Organization might be the wake-up call it needs.
Future Perfect

Here’s what Trump gets right — and wrong — about the WHO.

By Jess Craig
The attack on USAID portends a war on the welfare stateThe attack on USAID portends a war on the welfare state
Policy

The effort to dismantle USAID tells us a lot about what programs Republicans tend to think of as “wasteful spending.”

By Abdallah Fayyad
The roots of Donald Trump’s fixation with South AfricaThe roots of Donald Trump’s fixation with South Africa
Politics

How South Africa’s effort to address apartheid’s legacy riled up Donald Trump and Elon Musk.

By Avishay Artsy and Noel King
The Justice Department’s alleged quid pro quo with Eric Adams, explainedThe Justice Department’s alleged quid pro quo with Eric Adams, explained
Politics

Did DOJ just use charges against New York’s mayor to leverage his cooperation on immigration?

By patrick.reis
Trump’s petty revenge on the artsTrump’s petty revenge on the arts
Culture

The theater world powerfully criticized the president’s first term. Now, he’s striking back.

By Constance Grady
How Democrats should respond to Trump’s war on DEIHow Democrats should respond to Trump’s war on DEI
Politics

Some DEI programs aren’t worth defending.

By Eric Levitz