Why were Democrats afraid to hear a Palestinian?
Why were Democrats afraid to hear a Palestinian?
Inside the Uncommitted movement’s push for a speaker at the Democratic National Convention.
Near midnight last week, Democratic delegates with the Uncommitted movement sat in protest outside Chicago’s United Center. Elected by hundreds of thousands of primary voters who oppose President Joe Biden’s response to the war in Gaza, the delegates were sent to the DNC “uncommitted”—not pledged to support any candidate at the convention. Earlier in the week, the group did what they were elected to do by calling for a permanent ceasefire and immediate arms embargo. They also continued a simpler request they’d started making before the convention: a spot for a speaker on the main stage to talk about Palestine.
On Wednesday evening, the DNC and Harris campaign finally told them that no Palestinian American would be allowed to speak from the main stage of the convention. Here was their last ditch effort. They hoped a sit-in—and the Civil Rights history it evoked—would push party leaders to change their minds.
Despite being a group of staunch Democrats working to affect change from within the party, the Harris campaign—and many Democrats—mostly treated Uncommitted and their allies as outsiders ruining a party at the DNC. And, often, it seemed without even understanding what they were saying or where agreement could be had. The result was a four-day convention that managed to find space for seemingly everyone on the main stage except those willing to speak personally about what is happening in Palestine.
The bitter truth for Palestine is that Israel/Palestine is not a security issue for USA.
What happens there will not have any influence on Americans in general.
Although Gaza is an obvious humanitarian problem, USA has obligated itself to protect Israel by law many years ago, when the exact same humanitarian issue was the case but with Israel as the victim.AFAIK favorability for helping Palestine is about as high as for helping Israel, so this is not about which standpoint has the most votes, it's simply not an important issue for the American election.
Ukraine is not mentioned much either, and that is an actual security issue for USA, and especially for its NATO allies, and has way higher support (AFAIK) than Palestine.
So it's not because Democrats are afraid, it's just not something they choose to become an important issue for the election. As heartbreaking as it may be, other issues are considered more important for Americans.
That said, I have no doubt that Harris will put way harder pressure on Israel, I think she recognizes the hardship of an oppressed minority.
You're right that most Americans don't care about this and, to the extent they do the pro-Israel group has more resources and have it as a higher political priority. On the other hand the pentagon and state dept definitely see it as a security issue. They see a highly militarized Israel as an asset as a detterent and an insurance policy if things pop off in the ME. This is the conventional wisdom, but it's far from controversial if it's the best policy given that Arab forces refuse to fight on the same side as the Israelis, and modern US war stategy calls for using local indigenous forces they prop up. Overall the US will never except not having a strong military presence in the ME (atleast until oil demand drops in the coming decades when renewables become very cheap) and Israel is one of the ways they achieve this.
Edit: for some reason I said far from controversial, but I meant it is controversial.
This stems back to the whole "unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Middle East" rhetoric from back in the 60s. It's frankly outdated in the modern day, when the US has military bases of its own sprinkled throughout Iraq and Syria, as well as strong alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia.
Israel did not even participate in the fight against ISIS. The idea they're some useful weapon in the ME is just inaccurate.
I think that Israel’s habit of constantly fucking with its neighbors makes it more of a liability to the interests of the US. It leads to more local hostility towards US troops in other regions in the area and attacks on US people and interests both abroad and at home (9/11).
A better approach would be to ally with indigenous democracies and help them maintain stability. First, our allies should be at least mostly compatible with our own national values (not theocracies, monarchies, apartheid states, etc). Secondly, allying with an indigenous nation instead of a bunch of settler colonists is less likely to draw the ire of every common person in the region.
I think this is pretty accurate. It would also be understandable if the US wantt a very active partner in the very obvious crimes against humanity. The overall colonial land appropriation that Israel is built on, and the general apartheid system Palestinians are subjected to is one thing. The emergency transfer of munitions which will be used to commit war crimes within days is way more acute. It's tough to watch.
My theory is that they didn't want to give the Trump campaign any additional ammunition to run ads in swing states that claim the dems stand with hamas. Unfortunately, a modest number of Americans just don't seem to realize the difference between hamas and innocent Palestinians, so this is a potentially damaging line of attack in places where the election is close.
Best I can figure anyway.
Because they're complacent in genocide and would rather ignore the topic so it doesn't hurt their election chances.
In other words because they're trading Palestinian lives for votes.
So you think it's more important that they perform empty virtue signaling and lose. To a group that has stated they'll make the Palestinian deaths worse. Than to actually do what it takes to get elected. And reduce Palestinian deaths.