Whatever Harris did as a prosecutor seems reasonable given both the context of the time she during which was a prosecutor, and her overall political alignment. I would rather have a progressive presidential candidate like Bernie (too late), or AOC (maybe 2028 or later). But choosing Harris means that the overall “liberal” agenda stays on the table
Some highlights from the article
Harris, as part of her previous presidential campaign, also released a criminal justice reform plan that seeks to scale back incarceration, end the death penalty and solitary confinement, ban private prisons, and get rid of cash bail. Biden also backs a fairly aggressive criminal justice reform plan, despite his own mixed record on criminal justice issues.
A close examination of Harris’s record shows it’s filled with contradictions. She pushed for programs that helped people find jobs instead of putting them in prison, but also fought to keep people in prison even after they were proved innocent. She refused to pursue the death penalty against a man who killed a police officer, but also defended California’s death penalty system in court. She implemented training programs to address police officers’ racial biases, but also resisted calls to get her office to investigate certain police shootings.
But what seem like contradictions may reflect a balancing act. Harris’s parents worked on civil rights causes, and she came from a background well aware of the excesses of the criminal justice system — but in office, she played the role of a prosecutor and California’s lawyer. She started in an era when “tough on crime” politics were popular across party lines — but she rose to national prominence as criminal justice reform started to take off nationally. She had an eye on higher political office as support for criminal justice reform became de rigueur for Democrats — but she still had to work as California’s top law enforcement official.
Harris also pushed for more systemic reforms. Her most successful program as district attorney, “Back on Track,” allowed first-time drug offenders, including drug dealers, to get a high school diploma and a job instead of prison time. Adams, Harris’s previous spokesperson, noted that the program started in 2005, “when most prosecutors were using a ‘tough on crime’ approach.”
Unless you have recent examples that hard counter any of the below any reasonable person should see isn’t going to suddenly change. When the uncommitted movement had over 100k votes in a Michigan (a swing state) that’s just shooting yourself in the foot if you’re trying to beat trump.
She has clear a history of pushing against any international organization trying to hold Israel accountable on any level. Unless she comes out and clearly distances herself from Biden’s actions why should we think she’ll be any different?
Harris set a tone for her posture on Israel as a senator when she co-sponsored legislation in 2017 condemning former President Barack Obama’s decision to abstain from vetoing a UN Security Council Resolution critical of Israel. The resolution, which was adopted in December 2016, stated that “the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.”
During the 2020 presidential race, the New York Times asked Harris if she thought Israel meets international standards of human rights. “Overall, yes,” she replied.
In Harris’s first call with Netanyahu after becoming vice president, on March 3, 2021, she told the Israeli leader that the U.S. was opposed to the International Criminal Court investigating alleged Israeli war crimes against the Palestinians. Harris and Netanyahu “noted their respective governments’ opposition to the International Criminal Court’s attempts to exercise its jurisdiction over Israeli personnel,” according to a White House readout of the call.
Again, all you're doing is saying 'she supported an ally way back in the past before it started doing warcrimes' and not supporting your argument that she would continue supplying aid to Israel despite warcrimes.
Also one of her jobs as VP is to support the President's decisions.
Israel has been doing it for decades, the illegal occupation has been happening since 1967. They’ve been “mowing the lawn” every couple years and arbitrarily detaining Palestinians the entire time. The only thing that’s recent is the speed at which they’re killing the Palestinians.
My issue is that they’re considered an ally of the US at all, that policy stance was terrible the entire time, just because some people only started paying attention recently doesn’t mean it’s a recent development.
Edit:
Amnesty international had a report way back in ‘09 about the use of white phosphorus and human shields by the Israelis.
Good luck finding a politician who will support abandoning the Israeli alliance that would have a chance.