Presidential debates in the United States should not only illuminate and clarify the issues of the day. They should also be on a cordial level. Regrettably, the televised debate on September 10 between Vice President Kamala Harris and the former president of the United States, Donald Trump, fell short of that standard.
With less than two months to go before Americans cast their ballots in the presidential election, the Democratic and Republican candidates turned in less than stellar performances and attacked each other relentlessly. It all seemed like a verbal wrestling match rather than a reasoned debate focusing on pressing issues.
Harris, who replaced President Joe Biden as the party’s nominee following his disastrous debate performance on June 27 and his reluctant decision to step down as its standard-bearer, got the better of Trump as a debater. Yet neither candidate answered questions put to them by the moderators and fell back on predictable “talking points” or, in Trump’s case, juvenile rants.
This was not a debate in the strictest sense of the word.
Unfairly enough, the moderators fact-checked Trump, but not Harris, leaving the impression that they were biased.
Their relatively brief exchange on the current Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip exemplified the superficiality of the debate.
When Harris was asked how she would secure a hostage-ceasefire agreement, she avoided a direct answer. “Let’s understand how we got here,” she replied. “On October 7, Hamas, a terrorist organization, slaughtered 1,200 Israelis, many of them young people who were simply attending a concert where women were horribly raped. And so, absolutely … Israel has a right to defend itself. We would.”
Then, in keeping with Biden administration policy, she held Israel to an impossibly high standard insofar as its military operations in Gaza are concerned. “And how (Israel) does so matters, because it is also true that far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed, children, mothers. What we know is that this war must end, it must end immediately, and the way it will end is we need a ceasefire deal and we need the hostages out. So we will continue to work around the clock on that.”
Harris did not explain how Israel should conduct itself in an urban warfare landscape where its cruel enemy, Hamas, callously uses the civilian population as human shields. Nor did bother addressing the issue whether a truce will result in the release of all the hostages and whether it will allow Hamas, Iran’s proxy, to survive the war and rule Gaza.
In accordance with her party’s platform, she called for a two-solution, which, she noted, should ensure security for Israelis and Palestinians “in equal measure.” The devil is always in the details, but she stopped short of fleshing them out, even in minimal fashion.
Portraying herself as a friend and lifelong supporter of the Jewish state, she said, “The one thing I will assure you always: I will always give Israel the ability to defend itself, in particular as it relates to Iran and any threat that Iran and its proxies pose to Israel. But we must have a two-state solution, where we can rebuild Gaza, where the Palestinians have security, self-determination and the dignity they so rightly deserve.”
As for Trump, he was less than forthcoming. Asked how he would free the hostages and prevent the death of “more innocent civilians in Gaza,” Trump retreated into a tired old cliche, claiming yet again that the war would never have erupted had he been the president. It will be recalled that he made a similar claim after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.
What gives him to right to make such sweeping and unfounded assertions? Does he really think that Russia and Hamas would have been on their best behavior had he been the occupant of the Oval Office? Being self-deluded, Trump has utterly convinced himself that his flimsy hypothesis must be true.
Criticizing Harris for not having attended Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to the U.S. Congress this past July, Trump ascribed her absence to anti-Israel hatred. “She refused to be there because she was at a sorority party of hers,” he said in a reference to her previously-arranged speaking engagement in Indiana for Zeta Phi Beta, an African American sorority founded at her alma mater, Howard University.
Explaining her rationale for skipping Netanyahu’s speech, he said, “She hates Israel. If she is president I believe Israel will not exist within two years from now. I’ve been pretty good at predictions, but I hope I’m wrong on that one.”
Even if one factors Trump’s stream-of consciousness style into the mix, his ill-conceived comments regarding Harris’attitude toward Israel and Israel’s future are extreme and cannot be taken seriously.
This much should be clear. Harris is critical of some aspects of Israeli policy with respect to the Palestinians, as she should be, but she is most definitely not one of Israel’s enemies.
And what makes Trump believe that Israel’s days are numbered? Israel is surrounded by vile enemies that seek its destruction, but thankfully, Israel is a strong and resilient nation and can defend itself.
Viewers who watched this unedifying debate came away with precious little. Whether it was actually a waste of time remains to be seen.