- cross-posted to:
- usa@midwest.social
- cross-posted to:
- usa@midwest.social
Outspoken advocates for Palestinian rights, including Representatives Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) and Cori Bush (D-Missouri), have said that bolstering the U.S.’s military presence in the region will only worsen an already catastrophic situation created by Israeli forces over the past year — and could increase the already strong threat of a regional war.
The lawmakers pointed out that only an arms embargo to Israel — as has been ordered by international and domestic law — can result in the de-escalation of tensions that the Biden administration has claimed that it supports.
“The Biden-Harris administration continues to allow Netanyahu and the Israeli government to operate with impunity as they carry out war crimes. After facing no red line in Gaza, in an attempt to remain in power, Netanyahu is now expanding his genocidal campaign to Lebanon, using the same tactics the Biden-Harris administration has endorsed,” Tlaib said in a fiery statement on Wednesday.
“Deploying more U.S. troops and sending more U.S. bombs will only lead to more suffering and carnage,” she said. “The Biden-Harris administration is capable of stopping the bloodshed. President Biden must implement an immediate arms embargo to end the slaughter and de-escalate the risk of a wider regional war.”
I’m working from the premise that I think everyone can agree with: a Trump presidency will be disastrous for Palestine and Lebanon. With that said, while polls from the IMEU suggest that Harris could gain support from progressives and Independents by endorsing an arms embargo on Israel, these findings largely reflect voters who are already inclined to support her. The polling indicates that those who already lean toward Harris would be even more motivated by such a stance, but it overlooks the potential backlash from other critical voter groups.
An arms embargo risks alienating moderate Democrats, segments of Jewish voters, and security-conscious Independents who see U.S.-Israel relations as crucial to national security. These groups could view Harris’s support for an embargo as undermining a long-standing alliance and weakening U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Furthermore, Republicans would likely capitalize on this policy shift, using it to energize their base and paint Harris as weak on national security.
In a national election, the net effect would likely be a loss of support in a race where she already has a roughly 50% chance of losing. The enthusiasm gained from progressives would likely be significantly outweighed by defections from moderates, the mobilization of well-funded, Israel-aligned PACs, and the energizing of conservative opposition.
The IMEU polling appears to oversample individuals who are already inclined to support an arms embargo on Israel, such as progressives and some Independents. This skews the results by amplifying the potential enthusiasm from voters who are already in Harris’s camp, while under-representing moderates, Jewish voters, and security-focused individuals who might defect if she adopts this position.
Unfortunately, the pool of voters who would vote for her only if she supports an arms embargo is much smaller than the larger, more diverse groups that could shift away from her if she takes this stance. But, it would be a calculated risk that maybe she should take. No one knows exactly how this would shake out in the election. Based on a broad examination of multiple polls, I’m inclined to believe this will lose her the election.
I think that the fact one element of Russian disinformation campaigns has been to amplify the question of Gaza in political discourse points to the fact that it’s a “loser” issue for Harris, where she loses if she doesn’t do anything and she loses if she does. But opinions and sentiment change, and maybe there has been enough of a shift in public sentiment that it won’t mortally wound her campaign anymore, but it’s a gamble anyway you slice it. If she takes the risk and loses the election, all of this is moot. Trump will arm and give full-throated support to Israel without regard for what they do.
This is not true, there is no polling to suggest this. In fact, multiple polls suggest otherwise. I don’t know where you are getting the evidence for this other than just vibes
I get being skeptical of any one poll, but when there is multiple, it becomes evident what the stance of voters are
I’m not basing it on vibes, I’m basing it on a plurality of polls that have been done around this issue over the last six months, which have consistently shown there is only downside risk for Harris for something like supporting an arms embargo. These recent polls are considered low-quality polls by low-rated pollsters.
That said, I do hope you and these recent polls are right, but I’m dubious about it until we get more data. My inclination is to trust the preponderance of polls heretofore until there is more confirming data. It’s ugly, but because I see the election of Trump as existential for Palestine, stability in the middle east, and because there are nuclear weapons at play, I’m very keen to think first about Harris’s ability to win at this point in the election cycle than immediate action against Israel.
I don’t like how it is at all, but I recognize that what is already an atrocity will get significantly worse if Trump wins. When the downside risk is four years of unmitigated disaster home and abroad, and with the election only weeks away, I think it’s reasonable to be cautious. I’ll also add, however, that public support of Israel has been consistently eroding for months now, so it’s quite possible sentiment has changed enough that it would have a negligible or positive impact on Harris’s campaign, but the consequences if the polling is wrong or fails to account for knock-on downsides are extreme.
Then link the polls, please