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.”

  • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 days 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days 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.

          • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 days ago

            There has been a lot of talk to pressure Democrats on the Arab issue, including during the primaries. At the end of the day, the Democratic agenda is much more friendly toward Palestine than the Republican agenda. Most Arab-Americans are fully aware of that and it will probably show on election day. But they may as well try to get as many concessions as possible before the election by threatening to withhold their vote. Makes sense.

            • pjwestin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              I get what you’re saying, but that’s just an assumption. You’re assuming that they’ll show up for Harris, just like Hillary assumed she didn’t need to campaign in the Rust Belt. You may be right, but I wouldn’t gamble the Presidency on it again.