Gaza, the Democratic Party, and strategy

Friends and allies have recently given me a hard time for saying that Candidate Harris has been wise to avoid a strong position against Israel's attack on Gaza. This is not because I support Israel, or am willing to sacrifice Palestinains in service of the political fortunes of the Democratic Party. So why?

What is right

A week after 10/7 it was clear that Israel’s attack on Gaza was genocidal. Had I been President, by November of last year I would have made every move I could to both pressure Israel and to end US complicity, including blocking weapons and other aid, freezing Israeli assets, and any other move the State Department could come up with. I can respect the President moving slower, either because he did not register how bad things were so quickly, or because he was trying some backroom pressure first — both of which I think apply to Biden — but by January at the latest the President had a moral obligation to act.

I want to examine the strategic headwinds against that.

Biden’s early situation

I believe that a moral stand was the only thing the President could achieve.

Had he made the moves he should have, he would have been drawn into an ugly and politically expensive Congressional fight over the limits of Presidential authority, which he would have lost. Even had the US completely cut off Israel, it would not have changed their course. Netanyahu is committed, able to prosecute the attack into the near future without US support, and rightly confident that Israel can find other sponsors. Imagine Putin seizing the opportunity to move a major US ally into his column.

Consider this this observation about the domestic dynamics deterring Biden from making a hard move:

If you are a ‘why can’t Dems do an immediate arms embargo of Israel’, I’d like you to think about how much you credited Biden for ending the war in Afghanistan. And if the answer isn’t ‘so much that I defended him loudly on every issue after that’ you have your answer. [⋯] The reason people support the status quo is that breaking from the status quo comes at a huge political cost. Biden wasn’t rewarded for ending a war. Obama wasn’t rewarded for getting us healthcare.

Biden is not the kind of pol to take a stand for strictly moral reasons. And it is obvious that his moral reasoning is too sympathetic toward Israel, as an old man stuck on the memory of Israel as weak and embattled, as a creature of Washington’s longstanding alliance with Israel for a constellation of mostly ugly reasons.

Biden’s current situation

Pragmatic deterrents to action have only stacked up over time.

Having dithered for so long, taking an entirely moral stand would be weak and incoherent. What, Israel is only in the wrong now? At this point the President must focus on what could be effective.

Even if Biden cares not at all about Palestinian lives, he does have every reason to want a lasting ceasefire at least through Election Day. It would make him, Dems, and by extension Harris look effective. Even Americans who think Israel has been entirely in the right want an end to the fighting. And more importantly, it would get the issue off the table so Biden can do other things in his last few months in office, with securing a Harris win at or near the top of the list.

But the US can only cut off Israel once. If one admits any pragmatism at all, the President must keep our powder dry for when the US has the most leverage, whether just grasping for political advantage or actually trying to protect Palestinian lives. Plausible windows of opportunity include:

• A moment when Netanyahu faces a major domestic challenge to his power
• Immediately after the Israelis finally ditch Netanyahu, when the next leader is hungry for US support
• Immediately after a President Harris takes office, to say “there is a new sheriff in town”

We still should not wait, but given those conditions, we will.

Candidate Harris’ situation

Frankly I doubt that a President Harris will do the right thing and take the opportunity to present an immediate hard line against Israel. But I love that I don’t know, because Candidate Harris is wisely keeping away from the issue as much as she can. Whatever stance a President Harris would take on Gaza:

• From the position of a candidate, she cannot affect Israel’s actions
• It would be hopelessly awkward for Candidate-and-also-VP Harris to run directly against Biden on any issue, much less foreign policy, much less Gaza
• Gaza is a wedge issue for Democratic Party voters, so no stance can increase her strength, and despite progressives feeling like “everyone” sees Gaza as a nightmare, most Dems in the base remain at least somewhat sympathetic to Israel

So I hope that Harris will continue to steer clear, and expect that she will.

Implications for advocates of Palestinian liberation

Maddeningly, this leaves nothing to gain and much to lose by pressuring Candidate Harris. Nothing addressed to her candidacy can impact Biden’s policy while he is President. Any movement critical of Candidate Harris will alienate Dems enthusiastic about her candidacy, which the movement to protect Gaza cannot afford. Anyone who fails at an attempt to move her as a candidate will look weak. Most importantly, linking the issue of Gaza to Harris hurts her in the election, and pessimistic as I am about what President Harris’ Israel policy will turn out to be, I am 100% certain that Trump’s would be worse, so even if you share my pessimism and care only about Palestinian liberation, supporting a Harris win is vital.

So galling as has been to see the Dems dodge the issue at the Convention, the best place for the movement to stand is — and will continue to be — outside the Presidential race. We face a grisly interval during which the genocide will continue while US opponents of Israel’s attack on Gaza cannot plausibly do anything to compel the US government to act.

I don’t pretend to have any standing in the movement for Palestinian liberation, but for what it’s worth I see things implied in these dynamics which both the movement and I can do to prepare for whatever turn comes after that. If we propagandize inattentive Americans with the case for ending Israel’s attack on Gaza and for American support for Palestinian sovereignty in the longer term, Dems will follow them. Cultivating visible, broad movement strength & public support gives it political power. Convincing Harris that she can work with the movement increases the degree to which she will.

If, as I hope, President Harris proves even a bit better than Biden, progress on those fronts will give her cover to act. If, as I expect, President Harris is no more interested in protecting Palestinians than Biden has been, these same things will make pressuring her more effective. If, as I dread, we face a President Trump, these same things will enable a coalition with Democrats and others resisting the many horrors.

The situation is awful. Let’s do what we can, prepare for future opportunities, and not make things worse.

An earlier version of this case

Responding to the crafty three-minute “Freedom” ad for the Harris campaign, a Twitter acquaintance I respect commented:

Now do this juxtaposed with the horror the US is funding in the #GazaGenocide 🤢

As long as the US remains unwilling to admit faults, this won’t mean shit

There’s a reason it’s a pride flag. Not the inclusive pride flag also celebrating trans rights

#hypocrites

In the course of discussion starting there, I said some things worth capturing.

The clip is propagandizing for a national public interest in inclusivity in terms intended to motivate Americans uncertain whether that is desirable.

That is short of the profound inclusivity we need, but in the face of fascism I will take it as a valuable instrument.

Understand that I think the Biden administration and Democratic Party are wrong to not take a much harder line against Israel. I believe there are strong moves the US can make which could force Israel to end the horrors. And even if ineffective, we have a moral obligation.

But.

It is legitimate to think that Biden does not have better moves available.

There are good reasons to expect that Netanyahu will shrug off any pressure Biden could possibly apply, making it wise for the US to keep our powder dry for a better opportunity. There are good reasons to think that if Biden tried to block the exercise of prior US commitments to Israel, he would lose the resulting fight in Congress, wasting the last leg of his Presidency to no benefit.

And support for Israel is a wedge issue among Dems. Given that the Dems are in a close race against fascists who would support Israel’s attack more, a reasonable person could consider avoiding it the least worst option, even just in terms of protecting Palestinians.

Again, I think it is wrong to conclude that this is Least Worst. But that is a legitimate position. It explains why Dem leaders who want the US to work harder to end to Israel’s attack on Gaza have not forcefully raised the issue at the convention.

I offer no moral defense of Biden or the Democratic Party here.

If I were POTUS I would exercise every lever I could to end Israel’s attack on Gaza and American complicity in supporting it, including a total trade embargo, freezing Israeli assets, et cetera. Biden has failed in his moral obligation to stand against the horrors Israel is enacting in Gaza, and he has been far too credulous and rhetorically supportive about Israel’s propaganda.

I do believe that Biden has made what he believes is the best possible effort to move Israel to a lasting ceasefire — not out of any compassion for Palestinians, but out of craven desire to neutralize the issue in our politics — but he has bungled it.

I do credit Biden with having played a pretty good hand in deterring escalation to a regional conflict. Reasonable people may read that as sacrificing Palestinians in Gaza. Reasonable people may also call that sacrifice the Least Worst option. I disagree with both reads.

But I do not fault the Harris / Walz campaign for trying to dodge the question. It would be both foolish and irresponsible for them to run explicitly against Biden on anything, much less foreign policy questions, much less Gaza.

I cannot fault the Democratic Party for not arguing against the majority of Dem voters’ support for Israel during a three-minute propaganda video produced to make their case to voters who pay precious little attention to politics but may watch a bit of the convention.

If I were in Harris’ shoes I would not criticize protestors against the attack on Gaza as she has, but I would otherwise avoid the question of Gaza as much as I possibly could during the campaign, just as she is doing. There is no upside to the Harris / Walz campaign standing up for Gaza even if the only thing that matters to you is Gaza. There is no version of that which actually deters Israel or helps Gaza. There is no version of that which does not hurt the Harris’ chances in the election, which risks an array of nightmarish results from a Trump presidency, including greater support for horrors in Gaza.

I confidently expect that Harris will not do as she should and stand up for Gaza on Wednesday 6 November. But I will save that criticism for when the day comes.

I hate the neoliberal Democratic party establishment as much as you do. I could spend all day on the faults of the Biden administration and the current state of the Democratic Party. They have brushed aside progressives who knew better. But do not misread the moment.

The Biden administration has delivered the strongest progressive policy package since LBJ despite weakness in Congress. The Harris campaign has already delivered the strongest progressive message of that same era. It’s not nearly good enough. But it is not nothing.

The neolib strain in the Party remains strong. Harris has been one of them for a long time. It seems all too likely that they will knife progressives again in 2025. But that hasn’t happened yet. This is the least punching left I have seen from the Party in decades.

Yes, capitalist liberalism has a long history of foolhardy alliances with fascism against the left. That is much too evident in our current condition. But at the moment, the Democratic Party is mostly joining hands with progressives rather than making that mistake right now. There are countless things wrong with the Party’s response to Israel’s attack on Gaza and to the crisis of democracy in the US. The Harris campaign avoiding the wedge issue of Gaza is not one of them.