827
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/news@lemmy.world

More than 100 Arizona Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, and progressive Democrats and community leaders have signed a letter making the case for those reluctant to support Kamala Harris against Donald Trump.

“We know that many in our communities are resistant to vote for Kamala Harris because of the Biden administration’s complicity in the genocide,” the letter, published Thursday night, reads.

“Some of us have lost many family members in Gaza and Lebanon. We respect those who feel they simply can’t vote for a member of the administration that sent the bombs that may have killed their loved ones,” the letter continued. “As we consider the full situation carefully, however, we conclude that voting for Kamala Harris is the best option for the Palestinian cause and all of our communities.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 48 points 21 hours ago

Man, I hope this changes some minds, but it might be too little too late. She's had a lot of opportunities to turn things around with the Arab community, and she's flat out ignored all of them. I'm really worried this will be her version of Hillary's, "I don't need to campaign in the Rust Belt," decision.

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 0 points 6 hours ago

Fact is that no matter what position Kamala takes on this, she'll lose votes somewhere and win votes somewhere. Most Jewish people vote for Democrats. Trump just straight up does not care about Palestine. That's a much more simplistic take.

[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

Well, first of all, I would be very careful equating Jewish people with support for Israel and their attacks on Gaza. Not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists support Netanyahu. I don't know the numbers for sure, but I would bet that Evangelicals and military hawks make up a larger base of pro-Israel voters than the Jewish population.

The thing is, Biden's policy, from a material position, is essentially, "There is almost nothing Israel could do that would limit our military support," while Trump's position is, "There is absolutely nothing Israel could do that would limit our military support." If you're the kind of voter that would be put off by any criticism of Israel, you're probably voting for Trump no matter what.

Like, sure, I'd Harris started chanting, "From the river to the sea!" and demanding the immediate decolonization of the Israel, yeah, she'd lose a lot of voters. But if she had taken a position like, "Israel has a right to defend itself, but the bloodshed in Gaza has gone on long enough, and we must acknowledge that the Netanyahu administration has been a major obstacle in ceasefire negotiations," she would have been massively more appealing to Palestinian supporters, and she would have only risked hard-liners who, again, almost certainly have gone for Trump anyway. Instead, she told Netanyahu that she would, "not be silent," on Palestinian suffering, and since then, has been mostly silent on Palestinian suffering. It's like she was trying to appeal to no one on this issue.

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 2 points 1 hour ago

if she had taken a position like, "Israel has a right to defend itself, but the bloodshed in Gaza has gone on long enough, and we must acknowledge that the Netanyahu administration has been a major obstacle in ceasefire negotiations," she would have been massively more appealing to Palestinian supporters

Thing is that she doesn't really have to. She's already massively more attractive to Palestinian supporters than Trump or not voting. That's the problem with a two-party system with only two real choices.

[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Polling does not back that up; she's two points behind Trump with Arab Americans and in serious danger of losing Michigan. There is a very real chance that the her position on Gaza will cost her this election.

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 23 points 19 hours ago

It's a major complication / fault with running a candidate who is in office already. They cannot deviate from the official position, tone, language, admission of guilt, etc.

I'm not saying I have secret info and Harris would 180 on Israel if she won, just saying she can't even build breathing room from Biden while being the sitting vp.

This is not an excuse for the administration's stance, just a reflection on the challenges of running while in office.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

They cannot deviate from the official position, tone, language, admission of guilt, etc.

Why not? She's not the Secretary of State, and she's not running the administration like Cheney. She can differ from Biden. After all, she moved to his right when she said she would appoint a Republican to her cabinet.

[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 11 points 18 hours ago

Yeah, when she first started running, I figured she was trying not to undermine Biden's ceasefire negotiations, but I assumed she would find some way to reach out to the Arab communities she needs for Michigan and Wisconsin. Now It's the 11th hour, and she hasn't done anything. I just don't understand why they're completely ignoring this demographic.

[-] HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world -4 points 19 hours ago

They cannot deviate from the official position, tone, language, admission of guilt, etc.

Just have her hug an Arab child or something.

Why are they so bad at this?

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 11 points 19 hours ago

Imo the Arab/Palestinian community would see that for the pandering that it is

[-] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 hours ago

Yeah it's really a no-win scenario. Probably why she's just avoiding the subject altogether.

[-] HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Yeah, probably. She should still do it.

Her problem isn’t just with the Palestinian community.

There was a surge of enthusiasm among Democrats when Kamala was first elected because people thought she might take action on Gaza. That enthusiasm soon evaporated when it became apparent that she wouldn’t.

People are desperate for anything and she’s giving them nothing.

[-] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca -1 points 4 hours ago

It's a complicated issue and explaining it to people who have been spending the last year consuming Iranian propaganda isn't going to get her anywhere. People want her to say "Israel is evil" and anything other than that will have them screaming "genocide Kamala" in the same way they scream "genocide Joe."

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

It’s a complicated issue

"We should condition weapons sales to Israel" is not complicated. Centrists love to pretend that anything they don't want to do is too complicated for feeble progressive minds to understand.

[-] Chapelgentry@lemmynsfw.com 11 points 19 hours ago

Yeah let's downplay EVERYTHING ELSE she's campaigned on and redefine democratic excitement to be focused solely on Palestine, and yeah you're right.

[-] HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago

and redefine democratic excitement to be focused solely on Palestine

I’m not redefining anything. I’m telling you: Democrats are not excited about Harris.

“Sure, she supports genocide, but logically you should still vote for her for these other reasons” is not how you win an election.

If people aren’t excited to vote for your candidate, they stay home.

[-] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat -1 points 5 hours ago

A: Defines Kamala Harris purely in terms of the war Netanyahu started, from an American client state for the last 40 years, which Biden then supported.

B: Points out that Democrats are hugely supportive of Harris, although her failure to break away from all of that and condemn the war in Gaza is a huge black mark, yes.

A: Defines Harris purely in terms of the war et cetera, but this time adding "I'm telling you."

Sterling.

[-] HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

"Excited: Having great enthusiasm, passion and energy."

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/excited

If Democrats don't know what "excited" means, that would explain a lot.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 15 points 19 hours ago

She's had a lot of opportunities to turn things around with the Arab community, and

You DO realize that she can't campaign on that, right?

I know it's a little subtle for an American political scene that no longer uses such terms as waffler and carpet-bagger, but these used to be campaign-wrecking slurs.

She'd be labeled a waffler in seconds. And not only would we like her to change her position, but so would the gqp for the political damage. She can't change until she's achieved a 4-year contract.

[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 20 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

No one is saying she has to do a 180 on Gaza, but she could have let a Palestinian speak at the DNC, or met with the Uncommitted leadership last month. It would take very little effort to make herself look more appealing to Arab Americans than Biden and Trump, but she just didn't do it.

[-] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 9 points 17 hours ago

It's the lawyer effect, they overanalyze everything and make "safe" bets. Trump is going out there and waving his bare ass around while the Dems sit above wringing their hands about what each micro group might think. They're too worried about stroking "group leaders" egos than actually addressing real people's needs.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

It’s the lawyer effect, they overanalyze everything and make “safe” bets. Trump is going out there and waving his bare ass around while the Dems sit above wringing their hands about what each micro group might think.

Except progressives and Muslims.

[-] pyrflie@lemm.ee 4 points 16 hours ago

In that case she sided with a foreign power over Americans and that's a worse look politically.

[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago

Yeah, that seems right. I also wonder if they're chasing the wrong numbers. There was a WSJ article last month that said swing state voters were more confident in Trump's handling of Gaza than Harris'. It didn't necessarily mean that they would vote for Trump, and honestly, a lot of the impression that Trump is, "stronger," on military issues is probably just misogyny, but I could see an overreacting campaign look at and say, "we can't soften our position on Gaza at all, we need to close that gap!"

[-] Nastybutler@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago

It's simple math: Jewish voting block > Muslim voting block

[-] HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago

I don’t think that’s it. Jews tend to live in New York or California, which she has no chance of losing.

[-] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca -1 points 4 hours ago

A lot of people have grandparents that fought against an antisemitic regime tho.

this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
827 points (96.5% liked)

News

23252 readers
3369 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS