This hinges heavily on the theory that we've got a bunch of single issue Anti-Genocide voters. And I've lived through too many American sponsored genocides to believe it.

However, three things poll really well in the United States

• Cutting Spending on Foreign Aid (to literally anywhere)
• Looking tough in front of foreign leaders
• Getting the TV/Radio to stop talking about genocide

I doubt she'd get a full 5% bump (unless she announces this the day before early voting starts), because there would inevitably be a bunch of spin and backlash, assuming media didn't just switch to New Thing and leave her position on Gaza in the rear view mirror. But it seems pretty clear that she'd get some noticeable benefit by siding with American voters on a broadly popular issue.

Harris would bolster her chances in key battleground states if she backed an arms embargo.

Lots of Muslim communities in these swing Midwestern states who are already marginally primed to vote for the Democrats. It definitely wouldn't hurt, given the Uncommitted Vote count in Michigan and Pennsylvania during the Dem primary were some of the highest in the country.

She might even benefit in states like Texas and Arizona, given how many Iranian, Lebanese, and Turkish ex-pats live there. De-escalation in the Middle East would personally mean a lot to a co-worker of mine who still has family living in Tehran, for instance.

But its also very possible that the risk of offending a NY/DC media that's heavily influenced by AIPAC is just too high. The Israeli Lobby is already biased towards the Republican Party and its Evangelical Anti-Muslim Base voters. Perhaps Harris is simply terrified of what a foreign government with a proven record of reshaping public opinion might do. If Russia can flip an election with a $46k Facebook ad buy, imagine what an irate AIPAC lobbyist could manage with tens of millions.