Democratic voters are clear: they want an arms embargo on Israel, not more rhetoric
Progressive candidates won Democratic primaries by
centering Palestine. Now, advocates warn that without a firm demand like an
arms embargo, politicians can co-opt 'pro-Palestine' rhetoric without real
accountability.
By Michael Arria
September 11, 2026
Over the past few months, we’ve watched progressives
notch victories in Democratic primaries across the country. Some wins
were expected, while others were improbable.
In many of these contests, Israel emerged as a
flashpoint issue. Candidates gained momentum by centering the human rights of
Palestinians, highlighting the genocide in Gaza, decrying AIPAC spending, and
calling for an end to arms sales.
This electoral momentum has inevitably been met with
backlash, as many have downplayed the wins and launched broad attacks on left
politics, with a specific focus on the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA),
who backed a number of the victorious campaigns.
These attacks have come not only from the GOP but also
from centrist members of the Democratic Party. In recent weeks, a number of
Democratic lawmakers have spent their energy targeting left-wing Twitch
streamer Hasan Piker, who campaigned with Michigan’s Democratic Senate nominee
Abdul El-Sayed.
As Queens College professor Walter Lucken pointed out
in Mondoweiss earlier this year, the debate around Piker has a lot to do
with his firm anti-Zionist politics.
“The insistence that no Democrat associate with Hasan
Piker on the part of the liberal political and media establishment is, in fact,
a tacit acknowledgment of two basic facts: First, the debate about Palestine in
progressive politics is over. Second, figures like Piker in fact derive their
moral authority from their willingness to break the taboos imposed by a
political elite that has lost its credibility in the face of genocide in Gaza,”
wrote Lucken.
“Piker, in the end, is merely a symbol of the
ascendant left populist consensus which places Palestine at the center of its
politics as a global beacon for social justice and resistance to oppression,”
he continued. “Indeed, these currents may very well reshape American democracy
in the decades to come.”
He’s right, but we’ve also seen the ascendant
left-populist consensus quashed and/or co-opted over the years. In fact, we’ve
already seen some candidates (including El-Sayed) shift their rhetoric in response to pro-Israel
backlash.
So, how can advocates for Palestine ensure that, if
elected, progressive candidates will remain committed to the issue?
Organizer and writer James Ray told Mondoweiss
that there’s a specific litmus test that can be applied to politicians.
“Over the next years, as Palestine continues to be a
defining political issue, and as public opinion continues to erode for the
Israeli project, we are likely to see more political actors attempting to stake
out positions that seem ‘pro-Palestine’ without having to commit to real
material changes that might undermine the Israeli project itself,” said Ray.
“An arms embargo helps cut through a lot of the half measures and non-solution ‘solutions’
and instead directly holds the Israelis accountable in a way that degrades
their ability to not just commit genocide in Gaza, but commit to violent
military acts regionally.”
“An arms embargo therefore must be the standard, as it
forces elected officials to clarify that they are willing to undermine the
project materially for the sake of the millions being harmed by the occupation
and it’s military forces,” he continued. “A state or colony committing genocide
should not be able to purchase a single bomb or bullet from the U.S., and any
political actor who is claiming to stand with Palestinians must be held to a
standard the ensures that the weapons shipments stop.”
Iman Abid, the Political Director
of USCPR Action, said organizations like his were specifically
created to hold lawmakers accountable to the people they represent, and also
cited an arms embargo as a central requirement.
“After the U.S. political establishment has ignored
and dehumanized Palestinian lives for eons, Palestine is now one of the biggest
voting issues of this midterm election,” explained Abid. “At a moment like
this, we’re very aware that politicians can be tempted to capitulate on the
promises they’ve made once they’re in power…If they want our support, they need
to keep fighting for our movement’s demands like a full arms embargo now.”
These sentiments aren’t specific to a small number of
activists. Polling shows they’re shared by the vast majority of Democrats and
will be at the forefront of voters’ minds when they head to the polls to elect
a 2028 presidential nominee.
A recent IMEU Policy Project survey of voters in the first states to hold primaries for
the 2028 election found that a majority of respondents want the U.S. to stop
sending Israel weapons and place sanctions on the country.
“These things, when they’re discussed, it’s often as
‘This is something that is out of the mainstream’, but they’re overwhelmingly
supported by the voters who are probably going to be pretty decisive in
deciding the next nominee for president in the Democratic Party,” IMEU
spokesperson Hamid Bendaas told Al Jazeera.
“When that happens, when you have a new leader who
takes a new position, that really does help parties shift more rapidly,” he
added. “Unfortunately, the current leadership as it stands in the Democratic
Party has been people who have a very status quo view about the US-Israel
relationship. And so, what ultimately needs to happen is the party just needs a
new leader who actually reflects its voters.”
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario