DNC 2024 : Tens of thousands were anticipated to march on the Democratic National Convention to protest the loss of lives in Gaza. However, by early Monday afternoon, only a small crowd had gathered. The speakers were energetic, but the park felt sparsely populated; a pile of signs reading “Killer Kamala” and “Genocide Joe” — complete with eerie laser beams for eyes — remained untouched in a corner. It was far from the tumult of 1968.Frank Chapman, an 81-year-old Marxist and veteran protest organizer from Chicago, admitted that Kamala Harris’s rise to the top of the ticket might have deflated some of the protest’s momentum. The Gaza demonstrations have waned somewhat since the switch from President Biden.
Nevertheless, the Democratic Party continues to grapple with a significant ethical dilemma: how to reconcile its claims of championing freedom, equality, and racial justice with its almost unwavering support for a right-wing Israeli government accused of severe civilian casualties in Gaza since Hamas’s brutal attack on October 7.At the convention, some delegates are pushing for a cease-fire and an end to the unconditional arms supply to Israel. However, these delegates are receiving minimal attention. The party did schedule a human rights panel for Monday afternoon to address Palestinian suffering, but it was not given prominent placement, unlike the expected slots for families of Israeli hostages.
Dr. Tanya Haj-Hassan, a pediatric intensive care physician who recently worked in Gaza, spoke on the panel. She urged the audience not to view her participation as a victory but to focus on policy changes, like conditioning military aid, to save lives. She shared that many children she treated had lost their entire families, coining the term W.C.W.N.S.F. — wounded children with no surviving family.For decades, Palestinians have struggled for recognition of their full humanity by American politicians, including those in the Democratic Party. Jim Zogby, a founder of the Arab American Institute, has been advocating for this recognition since the 1980s. Candidates from both parties have traditionally avoided aligning with Arab American groups to avoid alienating pro-Israel factions.
Jesse Jackson was among the first to include Arab Americans in his Rainbow Coalition, leading to a surprising victory in the 1988 Michigan caucuses. His delegate count at that year’s convention in Atlanta forced a debate on U.S. policy in the Middle East. Zogby pushed for the Democratic platform to include language on “mutual recognition, territorial compromise, and self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians.” Chuck Schumer of New York strongly opposed this, and the proposed changes were never voted on. Nonetheless, simply mentioning the word “Palestinian” on the convention floor was a significant moment, according to Zogby.
Remarkably, the landscape of U.S. foreign policy regarding Israel and Palestine has seen little transformation since 1988. Despite efforts to address shifting sentiments, the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign, while accommodating some of Senator Bernie Sanders’s positions—such as advocating for a higher minimum wage and supporting the legalization of marijuana—remained staunchly conservative on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Notably, the campaign refused to incorporate the term “occupation” when referring to the Palestinian territories in the Democratic Party platform, as highlighted by Matt Duss, a Middle East specialist who later served on Sanders’s team.
Duss expressed frustration with the stagnant rhetoric on Israel, criticizing it as a relic of outdated perspectives that no longer reflect the current Democratic electorate’s views. He argued that the conventional arguments about Israel have not evolved in line with the shifting sentiments among Democratic voters.
A Gallup poll conducted in March 2023 revealed a significant shift in Democratic attitudes: for the first time, a majority of Democrats expressed greater sympathy for the Palestinians over the Israelis. This change, emerging over the past decade, might partly explain Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s unprecedented call for a leadership change in Israel earlier this year. However, this evolving stance among voters has yet to be fully reflected in the positions of many elected officials, who continue to adhere to traditional pro-Israel viewpoints.
In response to this dissonance, a determined faction within the Democratic Party, known as the “Uncommitted National Movement,” has been striving to induce change from within. These delegates argue that their calls for a cease-fire and an arms embargo align closely with the Democratic base’s preferences, framing the issue not merely as a foreign policy matter but as a crucial aspect of a broader social justice agenda.
Joe Biden delivers final DNC speech, gets rousing ovation
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1368f/1368fccbc993bddae9e3a871bb54a2858abc85cb" alt="DNC"
Layla Elabed, a co-founder of the movement, emphasized their mission as a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. This movement involves Democrats who are committed to the system but are disillusioned by the party’s failure to adapt its stance on key issues. They aim to influence the party’s direction without resorting to supporting candidates like Donald Trump, who has been outspokenly hostile towards Palestinian interests and has even hinted at endorsing the annexation of the West Bank
Abbas Alawieh, another founding member of the Uncommitted National Movement, underscored the importance of holding figures like Vice President Kamala Harris accountable. While acknowledging Harris’s current role as vice president—thus not in control of foreign policy—Alawieh stresses the need for her to publicly address concerns about U.S. arms sales contributing to civilian casualties. Despite no clear indication from Harris that she will make such a statement, Alawieh and others maintain hope that incremental change is possible.
The recent human rights panel discussion, which was notably well-attended and included some of Harris’s advisors, has bolstered optimism among advocates like Mr. Zogby. He saw the event as a significant step, noting that such discussions were unprecedented and reflective of a potential turning point. While acknowledging that change may not be immediate, Zogby and others are encouraged by the creation of a platform for these critical conversations.
The persistence of activists like Rebecca Abou Chedid, who has long been involved in advocacy through organizations like the Arab American Institute, underscores a profound commitment to the system. As she pointed out, continually striving for change despite repeated disappointments embodies a deep-seated belief in the potential for reform. The alternative—to surrender to disillusionment—would be to forgo the possibility of progress, no matter how elusive it may seem.