Tim Walz makes direct appeal to conflicted Muslim voters
Tim Walz makes direct appeal to conflicted Muslim voters
Democrats are stepping up their outreach to Muslim and Arab voters, who could be critical in battleground states like Michigan but are concerned about U.S. support for Israel.
You're viewing a single thread.
The most fundamentally disappointing aspect of Harris is that she's had all the room in the world for ambiguity and platitudes to sweep the problem under the rug. She doesn't need to even promise anything, just indicate she's concerned about the motivations of the far right Israeli government and will look at all options to promote a just and peaceful Middle East. Expressing the vague potential to confront a far-right Israeli government isn't going to lose her any Democratic votes, at least not in places as important as Michigan where not doing it is a potentially campaign defining choice.
It's like the centrist establishment has some inherent desire to force that "you have to vote for us" choice on disgruntled Democratic factions even though they could just solve the disagreement. If they start acknowledging the left side of the party as being worth listening to, even if doing so is trivially easy, then it sets a bad precedent.
"At the same time what has happened in Gaza in the past 10 months is devastating. So many innocent lives lost. The scale of suffering is heartbreaking,", "Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity, security, freedom and self determination."
https://www.npr.org/2024/08/23/g-s1-19232/kamala-harris-israel-gaza-dnc
So, she is saying that what is happening in Gaza is wrong(this was before the recent attacks in Lebanon) and is for a two state solution, which is about as far as you can go.
Harris said she told Netanyahu “it is time to get this deal done.”
https://www.npr.org/2024/07/25/nx-s1-5048285/harris-gaza-war
Hence direct claims to actually push for a ceasefire.
There are a few problems. First of all she is not president right now, so she can not stop Biden from sending bombs to Israel. Biden is about as bad as they get for Democrats. At the same time, her openly going against it is a big problem, as she is part of the administration. Secondly Trump already made a deal with Netanyahu, that they are not going to agree to a ceasefire until the election, to help Trump win. That alone should be a big endoresment of Harris.
That she's not president right now is the benefit. She can say whatever she wants and skeptical people have no way of testing her sincerity. The problem with your examples are that they're entirely content free wishes for a better world. Those statements don't imply she might do something to try to enact this ideal world where the heartbreaking thing doesn't happen or that she would even consider doing anything to incentivize Netanyahu to make a deal.
The key to my proposed ambiguity is that there is an explicit acknowledgement that Netanyahu's far right government might be not only an obstacle to peace, but an obstacle that she might confront. Current statements are just the same things Biden is already saying.
She uses passive language when talking about the devastation in Gaza but direct language when talking about october 7. Even her 'concerned' language avoids even the implication that part of the suffering in Gaza is a direct result in Israel's extreme response and reckless bombing campaigns, let alone any indication that the ceasefire talks are stalling because Israel refuses to make any commitments to lasting peace.
Hell, even the US has said that they have had no intention of diplomacy with Hamas, affirming Israel's desire to eliminate them completely. It doesn't take a genius to see why there's been no ceasefire deal when the US and Israel both have publicly stated their intention to eliminate their negotiation partner.
No, Harris doesn't earn credit for sending thoughts and prayers like it's some unavoidable weather disaster.
It worked for LBJ, however.
So a candidate that openly supports Israel expects people to take her on faith that she will support those her party has supported killing.
well, the worst people in israel are all gunning for trump. When there is no option for victory sometimes denying the most evil people on earth a win is the best we can do.
@Zaktor@sopuli.xyz and this is why ambiguity does not work in this case.
You don't need to please every skeptic, but most just want to remove the thing that makes them uncomfortable with the candidate they otherwise want to support and ambiguity with an acknowledgement about the role and power of the president and that an Israeli government might need confrontation does that.
Expressing the vague potential to confront a far-right Israeli government isn't going to lose her any Democratic votes
No, but it would cost her millions in donations and support from Zionist lobbies. It would also push those same lobbies to more heavily donate and support the GOP. Not to mention the millions that would be at stake from weapons manufacturing lobbies who would see any wavering on Israel support as potential to lose one of their biggest buyer. All that lost money would lead to a loss in votes.
The world is complicated and a tangled mess.
AIPAC is "only" responsible for around $20 million in fundraising this cycle, I think it's more that she needs the support of her actual elected party members who are pro-israel
Then they made their choice. They chose the lobbyists.
And money wins elections in the US.
I'm not nearly as confident about that as you are. Hillary had the money advantage. Elections are won in swing states, by voter turnout, and while money can encourage or discourage voting, it does so by highlighting (or lying about) policy. You're not coming out ahead if you just save them the effort of lying by sticking with a policy that turns away voters (or more realistically, is already being further enhancement by political spending).
You can talk about money equals votes all you want, but right now there's very direct evidence that her position is losing votes. No speculation on the power of ad campaigns or which wedge might be effective. There's an issue that's already losing votes and already being targeted by conservative money. And this whole premise of "do nothing, they'll come home" is based on everyone being able to recognize she's better for Palestinians except the Zionists. Because if they're not the lone idiots in this whole game, they already have reason to want her to lose. And the only reason they wouldn't already be putting all those resources against her is if THEY don't believe their money can win the election for Trump.
And even past all that, arguing "Democrats gotta do what the lobbyists want even if the party doesn't agree" is a position that itself is going to lose even more votes. It's feckless neoliberalism and "don't bother, the system is beyond the voters" all tied together with a nice little bow, presented as if that was supposed to motivate voters to knuckle-down and engage with a system you're claiming doesn't care about them and is incapable of acting in their interest. Because there's still going to be a weapons lobby and a Zionist lobby post election, and under this philosophy she's going to be beholden to them indefinitely because there's always going to be a next election for her or the party.