In a recent interview with “60 Minutes,” Vice President Kamala Harris responded to a question about the U.S.-Israel alliance with what amounted to “more of a political answer than an answer of reality,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins.

Interviewer Bill Whitaker asked, “Do we have a real close ally in Prime Minister Netanyahu?” To this, Harris responded, “I think, with all due respect, the better question is do we have an important alliance between the American people and the Israeli people. And the answer to that question is yes.”

It shouldn’t be difficult for an American official running for president — not to mention one heartbeat away from the presidency — to affirm this country’s close relationship with both Israel and its leader, a relationship that every administration has respected since President Harry Truman recognized Israel’s independence in 1948. But, for Harris, encountering this question in a friendly media venue made her so uncomfortable that she had to rephrase the question into one she preferred to answer.

The roundabout nature of her reply led some commentators to interpret an implied negative to the first question. “That’s another way of saying no,” summarized National Review’s Jim Geraghty. “Heck of a way to mark the first anniversary of the October 7 massacre.”

“I never thought I would see someone running for president say something like this. This should automatically disqualify her from even running,” declared Rep. Mark Alford (R-Mo.) on “Washington Watch” Monday. “[It was a] tepid, disgusting answer that creates doubt and uncertainty between our relationship and Israel.”

“It does nothing but cast doubt on our relationship with the leadership of Israel,” Perkins agreed. “And if there is not a good relationship between the leadership of Israel and the United States, then there’s no good end.”

The fatal flaw in Harris’s reply is the natural connection between the people of Israel and their prime minister. In contrast to most countries in the Middle East, Israel maintains a parliamentary system where national leaders are popularly elected (with various coalition negotiations because no party holds a true majority in Israel’s multi-party parliament).

In effect, the people of Israel choose their prime minister at the ballot box. The Israeli prime minister then carries out constitutionally defined duties on behalf of the people, such as running the government and overseeing national defense. Harris’s insistence that the people of Israel are a close ally, but not their popularly elected head of government, is nonsense.

Harris appears to be running Biden’s playbook against Netanyahu. Throughout the year, Biden has conducted a whisper campaign against the Israeli prime minister, not-so-subtly suggesting that the White House would welcome a change of leadership in Israel to a government willing to countenance Biden’s failed strategy of Iranian appeasement and the fantastical ultimate aim of a two-state solution.

Distinguishing a nation’s regime from its people can be appropriate when a government is not popularly elected and its people are discontented with its governance. The Islamist regime in Tehran, which brutally suppresses its own people, comes quickly to mind as an example. But neither condition applies in Netanyahu’s case.

Not only has Netanyahu triumphed in election after election, but his policies are more popular now than perhaps at any other point in his long career. It turns out that the people of Israel liked his decision to strike Hezbollah hard and fast, even while the Biden-Harris administration was impotently blustering about a ceasefire. In fact, Israelis are so fed up with the Biden-Harris administration’s apparent determination to rob them of victory that 83% agreed with Netanyahu’s decision to inform Washington only after terrorist leaders were killed. If an Israeli election were held today, polling suggests that Netanyahu enjoys twice the support of each of his top two rivals, and these rivals would most likely prosecute the war in a similar way to Netanyahu.

The basic problem is not that Netanyahu is the prime minister of Israel, but that the Biden-Harris administration does not approve of the policies that are good for (and popular among) the Israeli people. “They would rather have the votes in Michigan and Minnesota from the people in the Islamic community,” suggested Alford. “They’re [so] afraid of losing congressional seats and possibly electoral votes, that they are willing to turn their back on Israel.”

There is a longstanding alliance between the U.S. and Israel — both their people and their respective governments. But a small and vocal minority hate Israel and deny its right to exist. The power of these voters is accentuated by the closeness of the election and their concentration in important swing states, but that doesn’t mean that they represent the opinions of most Americans, nor that they should be able to dictate the policy of the U.S. government.