I’m a little confused what the delegates are asking for. Early in the article it says “Activists say they don’t expect a full-throated embrace of their platform — for the U.S. to stop selling arms to Israel — but say she must give them some indication that in a Harris presidency, U.S. foreign policy would shift.” Which could mean that they want a ceasefire or that they want Harris to say that she will stop sending arms if they cross a line. Harris already supports a ceasefire and talks about the humanitarian crisis actively going on and how that needs to stop, two things biden has been much more coy about. Is that not a sign that policy would shift some under a Harris presidency?
Then later in the article they say “We’re just asking that the nominee of the Democratic Party espouse a foreign policy agenda that isn’t hellbent on killing people we love,” said Abbas Alawieh, a Democratic strategist from Dearborn who led the campaign. “It’s actually a pretty reasonable ask, to stop killing my family.”" Which, again, could mean a ceasefire, which Harris is already supporting, or could mean to stop supporting Israel, full stop.
I’m not trying to be obtuse, Harris supports a ceasefire. She has also said she supports Israel and their right to defend themselves and exist at all. I just want to know what the delegates fully want. What actual policy change could convince them to vote for Harris. Cause she’s already showing more support for a ceasefire than biden did. This could be a failing of the article, or it could be the delegates not actually having a thing they will be satisfied with. Probably the article.
Based on the quotes my guess is they want the end result and don’t actually know what action they want to get there or don’t want to box themselves in by stating something too specific.
I feel like she literally did exactly that yesterday. She had an entirely separate meeting with Bibi, and shortly afterward her public statement had the very strong implication that her policy was very much not going to be the carte blanche that Biden seems ok with. She specifically mentioned Palestinian casualties and refugees. She’s not disregarding Israeli civilian welfare either. I’m not sure what else could be asked for, in this context - a context where you must be a bit cautious of pissing off AIPAC because you don’t want them to open the floodgates of their very deep pockets against you.
I thought so, too. I’d be interested in seeing what these exact people think now that she’s said all that. Will that be enough for them? Or will they still refuse to vote for her. The article was written before she said what she said, so I imagine we will find out eventually. There’s also people who vote for Republicans actively trying to sew discontent in democratic voters about it. A month or so back, I read another article that was similar to this one where one of the campaigners for the uncommitted movement was a republican strategist. In that article, as well as this one, there’s the quote that they won’t be convinced to be scared of a Muslim ban when their families are actively being killed right now. Some even saying that Trump could just randomly decide not to support the genocide because he’s unpredictable. And that, if they have to choose between a ban and a genocide, they’ll take the ban. Which, I get the thought process, but it’s still short-sighted not to realize that their families will have a harder time surviving under a Trump presidency. Feels like a bad faith argument.
This topic is genuinely frustrating and could very well decide the election. People willing to throw away decades of progress because they don’t want to compromise. Some viewing it as themselves “remaining pure”. Incredibly frustrating.
I’m a little confused what the delegates are asking for. Early in the article it says “Activists say they don’t expect a full-throated embrace of their platform — for the U.S. to stop selling arms to Israel — but say she must give them some indication that in a Harris presidency, U.S. foreign policy would shift.” Which could mean that they want a ceasefire or that they want Harris to say that she will stop sending arms if they cross a line. Harris already supports a ceasefire and talks about the humanitarian crisis actively going on and how that needs to stop, two things biden has been much more coy about. Is that not a sign that policy would shift some under a Harris presidency?
Then later in the article they say “We’re just asking that the nominee of the Democratic Party espouse a foreign policy agenda that isn’t hellbent on killing people we love,” said Abbas Alawieh, a Democratic strategist from Dearborn who led the campaign. “It’s actually a pretty reasonable ask, to stop killing my family.”" Which, again, could mean a ceasefire, which Harris is already supporting, or could mean to stop supporting Israel, full stop.
I’m not trying to be obtuse, Harris supports a ceasefire. She has also said she supports Israel and their right to defend themselves and exist at all. I just want to know what the delegates fully want. What actual policy change could convince them to vote for Harris. Cause she’s already showing more support for a ceasefire than biden did. This could be a failing of the article, or it could be the delegates not actually having a thing they will be satisfied with. Probably the article.
Based on the quotes my guess is they want the end result and don’t actually know what action they want to get there or don’t want to box themselves in by stating something too specific.
I feel like she literally did exactly that yesterday. She had an entirely separate meeting with Bibi, and shortly afterward her public statement had the very strong implication that her policy was very much not going to be the carte blanche that Biden seems ok with. She specifically mentioned Palestinian casualties and refugees. She’s not disregarding Israeli civilian welfare either. I’m not sure what else could be asked for, in this context - a context where you must be a bit cautious of pissing off AIPAC because you don’t want them to open the floodgates of their very deep pockets against you.
I thought so, too. I’d be interested in seeing what these exact people think now that she’s said all that. Will that be enough for them? Or will they still refuse to vote for her. The article was written before she said what she said, so I imagine we will find out eventually. There’s also people who vote for Republicans actively trying to sew discontent in democratic voters about it. A month or so back, I read another article that was similar to this one where one of the campaigners for the uncommitted movement was a republican strategist. In that article, as well as this one, there’s the quote that they won’t be convinced to be scared of a Muslim ban when their families are actively being killed right now. Some even saying that Trump could just randomly decide not to support the genocide because he’s unpredictable. And that, if they have to choose between a ban and a genocide, they’ll take the ban. Which, I get the thought process, but it’s still short-sighted not to realize that their families will have a harder time surviving under a Trump presidency. Feels like a bad faith argument.
This topic is genuinely frustrating and could very well decide the election. People willing to throw away decades of progress because they don’t want to compromise. Some viewing it as themselves “remaining pure”. Incredibly frustrating.