Kamala Harris is continuing her high-wire, tight-rope walking attempt to appear to support our allies in Israel while doing her best to appease the pro-Hamas, anti-Israel wing of her own party. To say the least, it's not going well. Following the IDF's attack on militants hiding in the Tabeen school complex in Gaza City, it was obvious that Kamala would have to make some sort of comment, so she did. She made several of them, in fact. But she was clearly tailoring her message to the audience she was addressing. In public, she halfheartedly attempted to say the right thing, claiming that Israel has "a right to go after Hamas." But she immediately turned around and declared that "far too many civilians have been killed yet again.” What she reportedly said in private to a distinctly pro-Hamas group was even worse. (NY Post)

Vice President Kamala Harris condemned the increasing civilian casualties in Gaza — saying there are “too many” following Israel’s latest airstrike against a school building housing Hamas operatives and refugees.

Speaking at a campaign event in Phoenix on Saturday, Harris stressed that the Israel Defense Forces had “an important responsibility” to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza as the Hamas-run health ministry estimates that the death toll is approaching 40,000.

“Far too many civilians have been killed yet again,” Harris said following the IDF’s airstrike on the Gaza City school.

As I wrote on Saturday, the events at the Tabeen school complex were tragic, but it was unfortunately a necessary tragedy. Hamas could avoid such civilian losses if they stopped embedding their militants with civilians seeking shelter, including women and children. But they already know all of this, and they simply don't care. It's easy enough for someone like Kamala Harris to sit on the sidelines and declare that "far too many civilians have died." But nobody is firing rockets into her home the way Hezbollah did to Israel over the weekend. 

Far more disturbing was a call that Harris reportedly had with the Uncommitted National Movement. That's the group that mobilized tens of thousands of Democratic voters, particularly in Michigan, to withhold their votes from Joe Biden over his support for Israel. A spokesperson for the group told reporters that Kamala Harris had “expressed an openness to meeting with them to discuss a possible arms embargo against the Jewish state."

One representative of the Uncommitted Movement was quick to post a statement saying that Harris was not "agreeing to an arms embargo." She was simply agreeing to "discuss an arms embargo and discuss a policy that will save lives now in Gaza." That tepid defense of Harris' position came with an unsubtle warning, however. It included the phrase, "Get us to a point where we can put our support behind VP Harris.” In other words, the group has not yet decided to support Harris any more than they were supporting Biden, which was "not at all."

This doesn't require a universal translator to interpret. The members of the Uncommitted Movement are still Democrats, so they aren't going to support Trump and they don't want to appear as if they are intentionally torpedoing Kamala. But at the same time, they are keeping their focus on the ultimate goal of an arms embargo against Israel. Where is the middle ground in that debate? Are they going to be satisfied if Harris agrees to send "fewer" weapons to Israel so that "fewer" schools or civilian facilities are hit? That seems unlikely in the extreme. They have a lot of supporters in Michigan and simply by staying on the sidelines, they could put the state out of Kamala's reach. I would have far more respect for Harris if she simply picked a side and stuck to it. At least we would know where we stand and Israel could plan accordingly in the (God help us) event that she wins the election.