"If the withdrawal from Gaza goes badly, obviously, that will set us back"
About this Quote
A masterclass in Washington hedging, Jane Harman's line turns a volatile geopolitical gamble into a tidy, almost managerial contingency. "If" does the heavy lifting: it preloads failure as one plausible outcome while avoiding any ownership over the decision itself. The adverb "obviously" is the tell. It's a soft weapon politicians use to launder a judgment into common sense, implying that any reasonable observer already agrees with her premise. In other words, don't argue with me; reality will do that for you.
The phrase "goes badly" is conspicuously bloodless. In the context of Gaza, "badly" can mean rockets, reprisals, political collapse, civilian deaths, regional destabilization - but the euphemism keeps those images offstage. It's a rhetorical safety rail, allowing her to acknowledge danger without triggering the moral accounting that specifics would demand. Then comes the most revealing vagueness: "set us back". Back from what? Peace, security, U.S. credibility, Israel's strategic position, Palestinian statehood, the broader "roadmap" era optimism - she leaves the referent undefined so multiple audiences can project their own stakes onto it.
Harman, a Democrat known for hawkish instincts and deep engagement with national security, is speaking from the post-9/11 posture where Middle East policy is narrated as progress vs. rollback. The sentence performs caution without dissent: it signals seriousness, positions her as soberly pragmatic, and keeps her insulated from the charge of undermining an ally. It's less a prediction than a permission structure - for skepticism, for blame, and, if necessary, for a harder line later.
The phrase "goes badly" is conspicuously bloodless. In the context of Gaza, "badly" can mean rockets, reprisals, political collapse, civilian deaths, regional destabilization - but the euphemism keeps those images offstage. It's a rhetorical safety rail, allowing her to acknowledge danger without triggering the moral accounting that specifics would demand. Then comes the most revealing vagueness: "set us back". Back from what? Peace, security, U.S. credibility, Israel's strategic position, Palestinian statehood, the broader "roadmap" era optimism - she leaves the referent undefined so multiple audiences can project their own stakes onto it.
Harman, a Democrat known for hawkish instincts and deep engagement with national security, is speaking from the post-9/11 posture where Middle East policy is narrated as progress vs. rollback. The sentence performs caution without dissent: it signals seriousness, positions her as soberly pragmatic, and keeps her insulated from the charge of undermining an ally. It's less a prediction than a permission structure - for skepticism, for blame, and, if necessary, for a harder line later.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Jane
Add to List

