Despite it not being newsy enough to make the cut at the New York Times, or result in criminal charges for assaulting cops that lasted a day, the presumptive successor, Kamala Harris, found it worthy of a statement.

Read my full statement on the protests in Washington, D.C. yesterday. pic.twitter.com/zJpZvdQDt9

— Vice President Kamala Harris (@VP) July 25, 2024

It is a good statement, for sure. But still, it’s only a statement, which could mean something or, well, not. But after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister (and MIT alum) Bibi Netanyahu. she had more to say.

From the pro-Israeli perspective, there was much to applaud in there.

Kamala slams Hamas

– Says the war was started by Hamas
– Israel has the right to self-defense
– Hamas slaughtered 1200 innocents
– Hamas killed 44 Americans
– Hamas uses sexual violence
– Reads the names of US hostages

For those seeking Harris’ condemnation of Israel as the “colonial apartheid state engaged in genocide,” this was not what they desired to hear from their great woke hope.

Mohammed told Axios the uncommitted delegates would withhold their endorsement unless Harris committed to ending military aid to Israel.

And yet, Harris ended her brief speech with a call for a permanent ceasefire and the release of hostages.

It is time for this war to end, and end in a way that Israel is secure, all the hostages are released and the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza end, and the Palestinian people can exercise their right to freedom, dignity and self-determination.

Sounds great, but how is that supposed to happen? Harris says she just told Bibi “it’s time to get this deal done.” But like any tango, it takes two, and not only isn’t Hamas on the dance floor, but after it has refused to dance over and over, what makes Harris believe that if Israel withdrew entirely from Gaza, and did its end of the deal, Hamas would release the hostages, relinquish control of Gaza and end its sworn mission of destroying Israel and murdering Jews?

There was nothing in Harris’ otherwise “perfectly fine” words that suggests she possesses any actual thoughts as to how to address the situation, the hostilities, and the reality that Hamas doesn’t give a damn what she has to say or whether any “permanent ceasefire” applicable to Israel has anything to do with them. Is Hamas’ leader Yahya Sinwar worried that the International Court of Justice will call him a war criminal? Is he concerned that the Gazans he used as human shields and propaganda tools will die? Does he fear Kamala Harris will call him a liar for terror bombing Israel the day after Israel ceases fire?

As a first test of the new Democratic candidate for the presidency, Kamala Harris used many of the right words to assuage certain portions of her constituency, with the knowledge that her sex and race, plus not being Trump, will likely suffice to the fringe chanting “Genocide Joe” but not “Killer Kamala.”

But as a potential president, more than platitudes designed to soothe the fearful is expected. There is nothing wrong, per se, with the outcomes she says she seeks. But how to make it happen has always been the problem. Telling Netanyahu “it’s time for this war to end” isn’t a plan. If she’s got more, then perhaps now would be a good time to say so, as what she did say, regardless of whether it’s interpreted as sufficiently good or bad to create the pretense of a viable stand, lacks the depth and substance needed of a president.